Do you believe in God and why

[Tagged]

Im more curious in who have inspired you or formed your belief most, or non belief? Doesnt need to be one only or one thing. 

 

I will start with my grandmother, a true believer in god in the good old fashion way. Her strong belief made me question and really search for the truth myself, and I had to dissagree alot with her, but she guided my curosity well, even I opposed to her belief. 

 

 

 

 

Edited November 6, 2020 by Tagged

[VincentRJ]

5 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Is it not also true that what present day primitive science decides is not true ( ie God ) may be later shown to be true, when the tools to detect such are developed?

To decide that God does not exist just because God can't be proven is a nonsense, IMO. In cosmic terms humans only just emerged from the cave, IMO, and we have no idea of what may be discovered in the future. Science is not settled.

The problem with your argument is the lack of a precise definition of 'God'. As you know, even people within the same faith, can violently disagree about the nature and description of the God they worship.

 

Science is about addressing specific issues and creating precise terms to describe the observed phenomena. The precision of terminology is necessary in order to create reliable explanations, or theories, which are consistent with the behaviour of the observed phenomena.

 

If you search for some fundamental quality which all Gods of every description appear to have, then that quality would be a 'higher or greater power or force' which is beyond the capability of humans to control, in my opinion.

 

According to that definition of God, science has already confirmed that God exists. We are surrounded by countless examples of 'Greater Powers' which are beyond our control, such as Earthquakes, Volcanic Eruptions, Tornadoes, Hurricanes, Gravity, and so on. We have no power to stop the Earth spinning on its axis or rotating around the sun.

 

I remember studying Newton's Laws of Gravity at school. It was later I discovered that Newton was quite religious, but in a heretical way during those times. There was an apparent flaw in his theory of gravity. If every object, and planet, and star in the universe, were exerting a gravitational force of attraction on each other, then the obvious result would be a universe which would be collapsing upon itself. Since there was no evidence that the universe was in the process of collapsing, the explanation provided by Newton was that God was preventing it from collapsing. 

 

In other words, there was a 'Higher Power' preventing the collapse. Even Albert Einstein accepted this. His first 'Theory of Relativity' showed that the universe was expanding, so he introduced a 'Cosmological Constant' into the equations, so that his theory would be consistent with the 'consensus' that the universe, as a whole, was static, or in a steady state. 

 

A few years later, when Edwin Hubble discovered evidence that the universe appeared to be expanding, Einstein revised his theory of relativity. The current explanation for the 'higher force' which is causing the expansion of the universe, is the Big Bang, yet again another confirmation of the existence of 'God', as defined by 'a higher or greater power'.

 

However, science has also confirmed that there is not one God, but many Gods. The 'God of the Big Bang' is not as powerful as we used to believe. The expansion of the universe should be slowing down as the forces of the great 'God of Gravity' take effect.
Recent observations reveal that the expansion of the universe is accelerating, which implies there is another 'Huge Force' or 'God' which is having a massive effect on the universe. In common language we describe this God as 'Dark Matter and Dark Energy', which scientist currently assess represents 95% (or more) of all the matter and energy in the universe.

 

Wow! That must be the greatest God of all. ????

[mauGR1]

9 minutes ago, Tagged said:

Im more curious in who have inspired you or formed your belief most, or non belief? Doesnt need to be one only or one thing. 

 

I will start with my grandmother, a true believer in god in the good old fashion way. Her strong belief mad me question and really search for the truth myself, and I had to dissagree alot with her, but she guided my curosity well, even I opposed to her belief. 

 

 

 

 

That's a very interesting search to do. According to some, nothing happens by chance, our lives follow a sort of pattern, and even people we meet, apparently by chance, and find pleasant or less pleasant, have informations which can help our spiritual growth.

[mauGR1]

5 minutes ago, VincentRJ said:

The problem with your argument is the lack of a precise definition of 'God'. As you know, even people within the same faith, can violently disagree about the nature and description of the God they worship.

 

Science is about addressing specific issues and creating precise terms to describe the observed phenomena. The precision of terminology is necessary in order to create reliable explanations, or theories, which are consistent with the behaviour of the observed phenomena.

 

If you search for some fundamental quality which all Gods of every description appear to have, then that quality would be a 'higher or greater power or force' which is beyond the capability of humans to control, in my opinion.

 

According to that definition of God, science has already confirmed that God exists. We are surrounded by countless examples of 'Greater Powers' which are beyond our control, such as Earthquakes, Volcanic Eruptions, Tornadoes, Hurricanes, Gravity, and so on. We have no power to stop the Earth spinning on its axis or rotating around the sun.

 

I remember studying Newton's Laws of Gravity at school. It was later I discovered that Newton was quite religious, but in a heretical way during those times. There was an apparent flaw in his theory of gravity. If every object, and planet, and star in the universe, were exerting a gravitational force of attraction on each other, then the obvious result would be a universe which would be collapsing upon itself. Since there was no evidence that the universe was in the process of collapsing, the explanation provided by Newton was that God was preventing it from collapsing. 

 

In other words, there was a 'Higher Power' preventing the collapse. Even Albert Einstein accepted this. His first 'Theory of Relativity' showed that the universe was expanding, so he introduced a 'Cosmological Constant' into the equations, so that his theory would be consistent with the 'consensus' that the universe, as a whole, was static, or in a steady state. 

 

A few years later, when Edwin Hubble discovered evidence that the universe appeared to be expanding, Einstein revised his theory of relativity. The current explanation for the 'higher force' which is causing the expansion of the universe, is the Big Bang, yet again another confirmation of the existence of 'God', as defined by 'a higher or greater power'.

 

However, science has also confirmed that there is not one God, but many Gods. The 'God of the Big Bang' is not as powerful as we used to believe. The expansion of the universe should be slowing down as the forces of the great 'God of Gravity' take effect.
Recent observations reveal that the expansion of the universe is accelerating, which implies there is another 'Huge Force' or 'God' which is having a massive effect on the universe. In common language we describe this God as 'Dark Matter and Dark Energy', which scientist currently assess represents 95% (or more) of all the matter and energy in the universe.

 

Wow! That must be the greatest God of all. ????

In my humble opinion, this is your best post so far, including the touch of irony of the last sentence. Keep them coming ????

[Sunmaster]

58 minutes ago, Tagged said:

Im more curious in who have inspired you or formed your belief most, or non belief? Doesnt need to be one only or one thing. 

 

I will start with my grandmother, a true believer in god in the good old fashion way. Her strong belief made me question and really search for the truth myself, and I had to dissagree alot with her, but she guided my curosity well, even I opposed to her belief. 

 

 

 

 

For me it happened when I was 23. I considered myself atheist at that time, but after reading books by Carlos Castaneda and Aldous Huxley, was curious about mind altering substances, especially in the context of shamanism.
I then experienced a spontaneous release of what I later found out to be the "kundalini" energy. After this experience of having had a glimpse into what had been described (clumsily, because of the limitations of language) in spiritual texts, there was no doubt left for me that there was A LOT more to existence than what I thought until that point. I then spent many years, well....still doing it....researching and studying this from all possible angles. As you probably know by now, and also thanks to this thread, I have changed my focus from intellectual understanding to actual practice. 

And before the usual suspect chimes in..., no, it doesn't make me special in any way. What happened to me can happen to anyone, whether they believe or not. 
Why does it happen to some people and not to others then?
I paraphrase a nice analogy I read recently. It is as if one day the sun rises over a field of flowers. Some flowers will open to the sunlight and bloom, simply because it's their time. It doesn't make them any better than the other flowers and there is no judgement from the sun, for which all flowers are the same.
If there is judgment, it only comes from other flowers.

Edited November 6, 2020 by Sunmaster

[luckyluke]

3 minutes ago, Sunmaster said:

And before the usual suspect chimes in..., no, it doesn't make me special in any way.

 

As an usual suspect, I can only applaud this down to earth statement.

 

Many experience a "spontaneous release" in one way or another.

Some not yet, or even never will, even if they tried different paths.

 

You were lucky to find it in a particular way,

that's great for you.

[Sunmaster]

A friend just sent me an interesting diagram made by Maharishi Mahesh Yogi, the founder of TM (Transcendental Meditation). I'm not so keen on TM myself (mostly because of the organization, not the practice), but this seems to be worth sharing. 
Under "Consciousness" I would change transcendental meditation into any effective practice of self-enquiry.

[mauGR1]

7 minutes ago, Sunmaster said:

A friend just sent me an interesting diagram made by Maharishi Mahesh Yogi, the founder of TM (Transcendental Meditation). I'm not so keen on TM myself (mostly because of the organization, not the practice), but this seems to be worth sharing. 
Under "Consciousness" I would change transcendental meditation into any effective practice of self-enquiry.

X

I won't dare to comment on the 1st diagram, as I lack the specific education, but I fondly agree with the principle that through meditation one can get all the answers he needs.

Nonetheless, I've seen some people losing the plot with meditation practice, thus it can be useful to have a master, or alternatively some very solid moral principles.

[VincentRJ]

4 hours ago, mauGR1 said:

There are truths and truths, and unless you insist in believing that humans are the result of random evolution of cells, you should consider the fact that some truth may exist independently from the presence and the perception of humans.

I also find the "often quoted" philosophical riddle to be flawed, because one could say that there is no forest at all, as you are not there. No forest, no falling tree, and obviously no sound.

 

A truth that exists independent of the presence and the perceptions of humans cannot possibly be known, by definition. We can speculate endlessly on the existence of something we haven't yet perceived, and we have speculated endlessly throughout the history of mankind, especially on religious matters, and continue to do so.

 

However, the first glimmer of any truth or reality must begin with an observation or detection of some sort. That first glimmer of truth or reality might then be developed after further observations, feelings and thoughts. During this process, it is unavoidable that the reality or truth becomes enmeshed or entangled to some extent, with human characteristics, or the way the human brain processes information and all types of perceptions.

 

I've mention the following example before, in this thread, but I'll repeat it in case it wasn't fully understood. Most people would agree that leaves and grass, whilst in a growing state, are green. Most people would consider that a 'truth'. A leaf is green. However this is an illusion. A leaf has no color in the absence of human observation. All perceived colors are sensations within the human mind. Need I go on? ????

[mauGR1]

11 minutes ago, VincentRJ said:

 

A truth that exists independent of the presence and the perceptions of humans cannot possibly be known, by definition. We can speculate endlessly on the existence of something we haven't yet perceived, and we have speculated endlessly throughout the history of mankind, especially on religious matters, and continue to do so.

 

However, the first glimmer of any truth or reality must begin with an observation or detection of some sort. That first glimmer of truth or reality might then be developed after further observations, feelings and thoughts. During this process, it is unavoidable that the reality or truth becomes enmeshed or entangled to some extent, with human characteristics, or the way the human brain processes information and all types of perceptions.

 

I've mention the following example before, in this thread, but I'll repeat it in case it wasn't fully understood. Most people would agree that leaves and grass, whilst in a growing state, are green. Most people would consider that a 'truth'. A leaf is green. However this is an illusion. A leaf has no color in the absence of human observation. All perceived colors are sensations within the human mind. Need I go on? ????

Yes, you can go on, if you please.

2 plus 2 equals 4, do you think that's going to change in the absence of humans ?

[luckyluke]

1 minute ago, mauGR1 said:

 

2 plus 2 equals 4, do you think that's going to change in the absence of humans ?

Would there be a need to know how much is 2 + 2 in the absence of humans?

[mauGR1]

3 minutes ago, luckyluke said:

Would there be a need to know how much is 2 + 2 in the absence of humans?

I am not sure about that, and you ? But I am convinced that the laws which rule the universe exist independently from humans, and i regard arithmetic as the purest of the sciences. We can give different names to the numbers, and write them in different ways, but my logic is telling me that they existed before the humans, and they ll exist when humans are gone.

[luckyluke]

6 minutes ago, mauGR1 said:

I am not sure about that, and you ? But I am convinced that the laws which rule the universe exist independently from humans

Agree, they are there, but for no use (that we actually are aware of ),without the presence of humans.

Of course we can speculate in any forms about the unknown, without being proven wrong.

[mauGR1]

4 minutes ago, luckyluke said:

Agree, they are there, but for no use (that we actually are aware of ),without the presence of humans.

Of course we can speculate in any forms about the unknown, without being proven wrong.

Well, I believe that something good can come from speculating about the unknown.

At the very least, it prevents my brain from getting "rusty" too fast ????

[VincentRJ]

49 minutes ago, mauGR1 said:

Yes, you can go on, if you please.

2 plus 2 equals 4, do you think that's going to change in the absence of humans ?

2 what? plus 2 what? equals 4 what????  ???? 

Maths only has meaning when humans separate things into individual parts and forces. Maths is very useful, of course, but it is still a human construct requiring the unique human ability for abstract thought. In other words, 'no humans' equates to 'no Maths'.

[VincentRJ]

15 hours ago, Sunmaster said:

Ok, if you put it like this I must agree. I find it interesting how we are getting into a grey area intersecting science, philosophy and spirituality here and your examples nicely match those I made earlier regarding the ego. 

 

The ego divides everything into a subject (the observer) and objects (the observed). "I am looking at those trees". If you remove the ego (the observing subject), all objects cease to exist ("no sound" in your example). That's why Ramana Maharshi denies the existence of the world that we deem so real and calls it mere illusion. Having transcended the ego and become the Self (beyond subject-object), nothing can exist outside the Self, because the Self is all there is.

As I understand it, there are 2 ways to remove the ego: you either bite the dust or you make some effort while living. I'm too curious to just wait for the grim reaper. ????

 

Sunmaster,
That's an interesting perspective, but there might be a few problems relating to the definitions of certain words, specifically, the 'Self'. In Buddhism, the 'Self' includes the ego, vanity, greed, desire, and so on, and the purpose of Buddhist practice is to eventually understand that the self is an illusion, hence the concept of 'no self' or 'emptiness'.

 

I suppose Ramana Maharshi is substituting the terms 'no self' and 'emptiness' with 'true Self', which could be a bit confusing for some. Does Maharishi believe in a permanent Self? In Buddhism, nothing is permanent.

 

The following article delves into the Buddhist concept of 'Self'.
https://tricycle.org/magazine/no-self-or-true-self/

[mauGR1]

11 minutes ago, VincentRJ said:

2 what? plus 2 what? equals 4 what????  ???? 

Maths only has meaning when humans separate things into individual parts and forces. Maths is very useful, of course, but it is still a human construct requiring the unique human ability for abstract thought. In other words, 'no humans' equates to 'no Maths'.

Very bold statement, and you can't prove it by definition, yet there are scientific studies like the famous " Fibonacci's sequence" which regulates everything which grows on this planet. This mathematical formulas are part of the creation process, and exist independently from the fact that humans have discovered them.

[VincentRJ]

2 minutes ago, mauGR1 said:

Very bold statement, and you can't prove it by definition, yet there are scientific studies like the famous " Fibonacci's sequence" which regulates everything which grows on this planet. This mathematical formulas are part of the creation process, and exist independently from the fact that humans have discovered them.

 Maths by itself does absolutely nothing. It's an abstract tool that humans have developed over thousands of years and which has been essential in the development of the sophisticated modern products of technology, and has enabled 'human' descriptions of complex patterns in nature.

 

Whilst there's no doubt that Maths is an essential part of all scientific disciplines, isn't it obvious that without humans it would not exist, just as a motor car could not exist without the existence of humans, and just as a bird's nest would not exist without the presence of birds.

[Tagged]

6 minutes ago, VincentRJ said:

 Maths by itself does absolutely nothing. It's an abstract tool that humans have developed over thousands of years and which has been essential in the development of the sophisticated modern products of technology, and has enabled 'human' descriptions of complex patterns in nature.

 

Whilst there's no doubt that Maths is an essential part of all scientific disciplines, isn't it obvious that without humans it would not exist, just as a motor car could not exist without the existence of humans, and just as a bird's nest would not exist without the presence of birds.

But bird nests would exists without people ???? 

[Sunmaster]

40 minutes ago, VincentRJ said:

 

Sunmaster,
That's an interesting perspective, but there might be a few problems relating to the definitions of certain words, specifically, the 'Self'. In Buddhism, the 'Self' includes the ego, vanity, greed, desire, and so on, and the purpose of Buddhist practice is to eventually understand that the self is an illusion, hence the concept of 'no self' or 'emptiness'.

 

I suppose Ramana Maharshi is substituting the terms 'no self' and 'emptiness' with 'true Self', which could be a bit confusing for some. Does Maharishi believe in a permanent Self? In Buddhism, nothing is permanent.

 

The following article delves into the Buddhist concept of 'Self'.
https://tricycle.org/magazine/no-self-or-true-self/

You're right, I guess  "ego" is defined differently, whether you use psychology or spiritual teachings. I don't have much time now to research this deeper, but when I use the word "ego", I mean that construction of thoughts, feelings, memories and body-identification...we can also call "I". 
The "I" is that part that sees itself as separate. The Self is the ultimate reality where everything merges.

I'm not sure how Maharishi (Mahes Yogi) sees it ????  , but Maharshi (Ramana) didn't "believe" anything. To believe something one would need a mind that uses thoughts to produce the illusion of an "I". Ramana was permanently (in) the Self from the age of 16. 
But yes, nothing is permanent but the Self. Whatever is impermanent is illusion.

[mauGR1]

1 hour ago, VincentRJ said:

 Maths by itself does absolutely nothing. It's an abstract tool that humans have developed over thousands of years and which has been essential in the development of the sophisticated modern products of technology, and has enabled 'human' descriptions of complex patterns in nature.

 

Whilst there's no doubt that Maths is an essential part of all scientific disciplines, isn't it obvious that without humans it would not exist, just as a motor car could not exist without the existence of humans, and just as a bird's nest would not exist without the presence of birds

No, it's not obvious at all, and I guess that whoever createslife has a quite good knowledge of maths.

Comparing cars and bird nests to maths was funny though, thanks for the giggle.????

[thaibeachlovers]

6 hours ago, VincentRJ said:

The problem with your argument is the lack of a precise definition of 'God'. As you know, even people within the same faith, can violently disagree about the nature and description of the God they worship.

How can a human define God? To even assume that one can is the utmost arrogance, IMO.

Can an amoeba define philosophy?

I know that "God" created life the universe and everything, but I would never claim to know what God is or understand God.

As they say, "God moves in mysterious ways".

 

6 hours ago, VincentRJ said:

A few years later, when Edwin Hubble discovered evidence that the universe appeared to be expanding, Einstein revised his theory of relativity. The current explanation for the 'higher force' which is causing the expansion of the universe, is the Big Bang, yet again another confirmation of the existence of 'God', as defined by 'a higher or greater power'.

God created everything and the way the universe works does not have to conform to what our science claims.

Given my belief that everything ends, and the universe will end when the last star exhausts its fuel and dies, I believe that this universe is just one in an uncountable number that have been born and died. When God is infinite time is irrelevant.

 

[thaibeachlovers]

2 hours ago, Sunmaster said:

But yes, nothing is permanent but the Self.

Agree. Our bodies are just biological machines to curry "us" around. Self continues after the body dies

[thaibeachlovers]

2 hours ago, Tagged said:

But bird nests would exists without people ???? 

Have you not considered that perhaps nothing exists except what we as an individual create in our mind. Perhaps we live in a "matrix" and what we see is all there is. How can we prove that anything exists beyond us and what we see? In other words, this computer only exists because my mind made it, and all you posters out there are only constructs of my mind.

In that case, bird nests would only exist when my mind wanted to see one.

[Tagged]

7 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Have you not considered that perhaps nothing exists except what we as an individual create in our mind. Perhaps we live in a "matrix" and what we see is all there is. How can we prove that anything exists beyond us and what we see? In other words, this computer only exists because my mind made it, and all you posters out there are only constructs of my mind.

In that case, bird nests would only exist when my mind wanted to see one.

It might be, we do not know, simple as that. However then suffering should be easy to master, as well addiction and many other bad habits we have, right? Or is all that included in the matrix ? Whats the point of the matrix?

 

To be true, Im so busy with myself to keep me healthy and my life as good as it is, and making a plan for future to let it be so. Option A and B is essential, and if I have some extra I put it in box c for extra safety. 

 

I treat my brain as a muscle I have to train every day, and feed it with positive nutrition even I do not feel like it, and I take control, not the matrix if there was any. So Im quite confident we do not live in a matrix yet. 

[mauGR1]

1 hour ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Agree. Our bodies are just biological machines to curry "us" around. Self continues after the body dies

Despite having read this word "self" countless times, I've never been familiar to it.

So if "self" is eternal and infinite, it's the force that can create countless universes, it's the spirit, the source and it's the divine spark which is supposed to be in all of us and everything else etc

Would it be correct then to say that the self is God ?

Welcome to any explanation,  of course I am aware of the fact that our vocabulary is not always fit to describe spiritual realities.

[thaibeachlovers]

37 minutes ago, mauGR1 said:

Despite having read this word "self" countless times, I've never been familiar to it.

So if "self" is eternal and infinite, it's the force that can create countless universes, it's the spirit, the source and it's the divine spark which is supposed to be in all of us and everything else etc

Would it be correct then to say that the self is God ?

Welcome to any explanation,  of course I am aware of the fact that our vocabulary is not always fit to describe spiritual realities.

I don't think self IS God, but comes FROM God.

[Sunmaster]

29 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

I don't think self IS God, but comes FROM God.

I guess in this case we need a definition of God then. ???? 

Often, when we speak of God, we think of something external to us, not yet understood, not yet reached. Even when we believe God to be something within us, we still feel it to be distant, not yet realized...we just believe in its/our potential. This is were duality plays its tricks on us, positioning "us" VS "God" or the "God state/Enlightenment".

The "Self" as taught by Ramana Maharishi, is ever present, right here, right now and our true identity. According to him, there is no subject, no object, no enlightenment, no God...these are all products of the mind or the "I" as he calls it. Only the Self exists. His position is always a non-dualistic one.

In that sense, I would say it's the other way around. The Self is not a product of God (perhaps thaibeachlovers means the soul rather than the self?), but rather God (as the idea of a higher power produced by the mind) is an illusion within the Self.

Funnily enough, Sri Ramana would discourage all these conjectures and intellectual runarounds. He would simply ask "First find out WHO is asking these questions. Once you've found the root of your thoughts, all else will be revealed."

 

 

I don't know really. This is how I understand it anyway.

[VincentRJ]

5 hours ago, Tagged said:

But bird nests would exists without people ???? 

It is reasonable to assume that the entities which we name a bird and a nest would continue to exist if the human race became extinct, for example, but the terms 'bird' and 'nests' are human constructs. The shape and color of a bird and the structure of a nest is an impression in the human mind. If there are no humans, there are no human impressions, so what continues to exist would be quite different from what we recognize as a bird or a nest, or anything else.

 

Try to imagine what the impression an ant, or a snake, or a fox would have when observing a bird or its nest, or even a very advanced alien creature visiting the Earth. ????

[mauGR1]

7 minutes ago, VincentRJ said:

even a very advanced alien creature visiting the Earth. ????

Yes, I am here, trying to speak a language that you can understand ????