Do you believe in God and why

[mauGR1]

27 minutes ago, VincentRJ said:

If you are going to discuss the existence of God, and question whether He/She/It's existence can be proved or disproved, you must first precisely define what you mean by the word 'God'..

 

Vague hand-waving, like, 'God is Everything', won't pass muster.
 

A precise definition of God ?

If you can teach my cat to drive a taxi, I'll gladly provide some definition. 

For the moment, it seems that "god is everything " despite being an easy concept, it's too difficult to understand. ????

[VincentRJ]

2 hours ago, Sunmaster said:

I've spent the last year doing just that. It's all written down in this thread. I'm surprised you've missed it.

 

 

Wow! I wonder why I missed it. Perhaps I thought all your so-called precise definitions of God were no more than Qualia. ????

 

Definition of Qualia:
1.  The phenomenal, conscious states or feelings specific to each emotion. The ineffable phenomenal states of anger, happiness, fear, sadness, and so on.
2. In philosophy and certain models of psychology, qualia are defined as individual instances of subjective, conscious experience.

 

"And why is such scrutiny reserved only for me? Why can others spout their unfounded claims and opinions disguised as facts, without any knowledge of the subject, be it objective or subjective knowledge? 
Do you ask them to supporting evidence for their claims as well? Do you also question them?"

 

It's not. It applies to everyone, including me. Perhaps I should have written: "If one is going to discuss the existence of God, and question whether He/She/It's existence can be proved or disproved, one must first precisely define what one means by the word 'God'."

[Sunmaster]

1 hour ago, VincentRJ said:

 

Wow! I wonder why I missed it. Perhaps I thought all your so-called precise definitions of God were no more than Qualia. ????

 

Definition of Qualia:
1.  The phenomenal, conscious states or feelings specific to each emotion. The ineffable phenomenal states of anger, happiness, fear, sadness, and so on.
2. In philosophy and certain models of psychology, qualia are defined as individual instances of subjective, conscious experience.

 

"And why is such scrutiny reserved only for me? Why can others spout their unfounded claims and opinions disguised as facts, without any knowledge of the subject, be it objective or subjective knowledge? 
Do you ask them to supporting evidence for their claims as well? Do you also question them?"

 

It's not. It applies to everyone, including me. Perhaps I should have written: "If one is going to discuss the existence of God, and question whether He/She/It's existence can be proved or disproved, one must first precisely define what one means by the word 'God'."

I'm not familiar with the word qualia. Not sure if you wanted to give it a negative spin, but seems to me that all spiritual (and not spiritual , if there is such a thing) experiences can be defined as qualia....subjective conscious experiences. ????????‍♂️

 

Yes, you should have written that, but I don't recall ever when you called out the outrageous claims made by other gentlemen here. Maybe those post, however poorly conceived and ill informed as they were, suited an agenda or reinforced a bias?

Materialists throw stones and hide their hands. When called out they fall silent and give you a cute emoji. Since they behave like children, it would be your moral duty as the adult among them, to call them out too. 

I did that with the fire and brimstone people when they prophesied eternal damnation for the unbelievers. ????

 

Truth, above all, should be the driving force and the ultimate goal. Nobody dies if you allow another perspective to enter your mind, linger around there a bit, perhaps grow and evolve. You won't be killed if your belief system expands to include previously unimaginable points of view. It's called evolution. We don't own our thoughts, nor should they own us. 

If one is not able to put the search for truth before the protection of his fragile ego, he can't be trusted, because all that will come out of his mouth will be self serving and skewed.

 

This of course, requires a certain mental openness and honest introspection. Arguments are not there to be won or lost. They are there as opportunities to make us grow.

 

It is for each one of us to decide on which level to continue the conversation. 

 

How about you?

Edited January 2, 2021 by Sunmaster

[VincentRJ]

2 hours ago, Sunmaster said:

Truth, above all, should be the driving force and the ultimate goal.

 

That's what 'science' with its numerous disciplines is all about; being objective, impartial and unbiased in order to seek the truth, and confirm whether opinions about the truth are correct, through the process of repeated experimentation and attempts at falsification.

 

Individual, subjective experiences, or qualia, might produce inspirational thoughts which might lead to interesting hypothetical ideas, but those alone are not sufficient for the validation of a truth.

[Sunmaster]

17 minutes ago, VincentRJ said:

 

That's what 'science' with its numerous disciplines is all about; being objective, impartial and unbiased in order to seek the truth, and confirm whether opinions about the truth are correct, through the process of repeated experimentation and attempts at falsification.

 

Individual, subjective experiences, or qualia, might produce inspirational thoughts which might lead to interesting hypothetical ideas, but those alone are not sufficient for the validation of a truth.

If the subjective experience of an individual is also shared by many others who have such experiences, and if such an experience can also be replicated by following certain procedures, certainly they must have the right to be called truth as well. 

 

You again make the mistake to take science as the measuring staff by which you judge both objective and subjective realities. But as we said countless times, the scientific method has no method for measuring subjective experiences like an expanding consciousness. 

 

To deny the existence of spiritual truths based on the lack of objective scientific application, is far from the honest search for truth that you also value so much. It is in fact the complete opposite. 

 

 

 

[sirineou]

11 hours ago, Sunmaster said:

Respect is a two way road: it has to be given to be received. While I don't think anyone here is imposing their God views on others

This is a thread of "doo you believe in God and why" 

Right there you have a major problem because the query is undefined leading people to talk about different things, If the question was "do you believe in the Abrahamic God and why" then the discourse would be more defined  leading to less confusion. 

 As far as respect being a two way street, You are not suggesting that the disrespect religion has shown towards non believers is as a result of the disrespect non believers has shown towards   believers and if only we all showed some respect towards each other.  

For millennia and even as we speak in many countries non believers are not only treated with disrespect,, prosecution,and their lives compromised but are subjected to mortal danger. So please excuse as if we often disrespect our prosecutors. 

IMO and the opinion of many scholars, Christianity put an end to the Hellenistic times, depressed education and Science , and set western world back a Thousand years. 

11 hours ago, Sunmaster said:

it far too often happens that the atheist belief system is imposed onto the world and the thread here by blanket statements like "God doesn't exist". 
First off, this is an opinion and not a fact. A believer can't objectively prove there is God just like an atheist can't prove that there isn't.

  The above statement is fundamentally wrong. leading toward the basic mistake made by Believers towards understanding Atheists .  

Atheism is not a belief, it is in fact the opposite if a belief, it is the absence of a belief. It is not that we believe in something, it is that we dont believe in what you believe

I underlined these words because they are of paramount importance to the discussion we are having, if the above is not understood. nothing else can be also. 

You say "A believer can't objectively prove there is God just like an atheist can't prove that there isn't. " absolutely wrong!!  When someone believes in something, be it God, self levitation or the ability to suspend the laws of nature, the onus is upon them to prove that they indead can do these things, if they want me to invest in their belief. not on us to disprove that they can not.

  One can not with absolute certainty disprove the existence of something , one can only say, based on the available facts  I don't believe you

You can say that there is huge white rabbit that that talks to you, and I can say "no there isn't , I am looking at you and I don't see it", and you can say, "well he is not here now. he is elsewhere", and i can go look everywhere humans can go and look and  say "I looked everywhere but I don't see the white rabbit" and you will say " did you look in Mars?, you see where I am going with this?

Believers like to say, "Atheism is just another religion"   Atheism is a religion as much as abstinence is a sexual position LOL

  Please stop asking us to disprove what you believe when you know it is impossible, It's intellectually dishonest.

  

11 hours ago, Sunmaster said:

But if you make your experience of a Godless life the measuring staff for all other's experiences, you are denying the other person's view. That's imposing your worldview onto others.

Requiring facts to an underlying belief is  a fundamental prerequisite to  intellectual life. I don't care what you believe in,if it works for you , more power to you, but if you ask be to invest in your belief I want facts much as you do when you are asked to invest in other people's beliefs. After all, you don't believe in everything, you discound many beliefs because they are not supported by the facts.  

Edited January 2, 2021 by sirineou

[Surelynot]

Just now, Sunmaster said:

If the subjective experience of an individual is also shared by many others who have such experiences, and if such an experience can also be replicated by following certain procedures, certainly they must have the right to be called truth as well. 

NO....that is how you end up with freaky organizations like Scientology, Moonies and the Catholic Church

[Sunmaster]

37 minutes ago, VincentRJ said:

 

That's what 'science' with its numerous disciplines is all about; being objective, impartial and unbiased in order to seek the truth, and confirm whether opinions about the truth are correct, through the process of repeated experimentation and attempts at falsification.

 

Individual, subjective experiences, or qualia, might produce inspirational thoughts which might lead to interesting hypothetical ideas, but those alone are not sufficient for the validation of a truth.

Ideas and beliefs about spiritual teachings need to be inquired into to determine validity. Most information in the world about spirituality is misleading. To determine truth from falsehood, one can inquire into the usefulness of information learned. That which appears useful can be tested for verification. Accepting on faith is only recommended once the source of information has been proven valid through inquiry and application. As one grows and realization becomes clearer, what may have been valid in the past may no longer remain valid for the present. Remaining open to the evolution of one’s understanding is also essential.

[Surelynot]

Just now, Sunmaster said:

Ideas and beliefs about spiritual teachings need to be inquired into to determine validity. Most information in the world about spirituality is misleading. To determine truth from falsehood, one can inquire into the usefulness of information learned. That which appears useful can be tested for verification. Accepting on faith is only recommended once the source of information has been proven valid through inquiry and application. As one grows and realization becomes clearer, what may have been valid in the past may no longer remain valid for the present. Remaining open to the evolution of one’s understanding is also essential.

Word salad....

[Sunmaster]

43 minutes ago, sirineou said:

This is a thread of "doo you believe in God and why" 

Right there you have a major problem because the query is undefined leading people to talk about different things, If the question was "do you believe in the Abrahamic God and why" then the discourse would be more defined  leading to less confusion. 

True. There are as many different kinds of believers as there are many kinds of non-believers.
If that would have been the title of this thread, I'm pretty sure it wouldn't have lasted this long. For sure, I wouldn't have been bothered.

 

43 minutes ago, sirineou said:

You are not suggesting that the disrespect religion has shown towards non believers is as a result of the disrespect non believers has shown towards   believers and if only we all showed some respect towards each other.  

No, I'm not suggesting that. There are far too many variables and dynamics to consider about what happened in the past to large groups of people. I'm talking about here and now, about this thread and its contributors in particular.

 

43 minutes ago, sirineou said:

When someone believes in something, be it God, self levitation or the ability to suspend the laws of nature, the onus is upon them to prove that they indead can do these things, if they want me to invest in their belief. not on be to disprove that they can not.

Fair enough. I have presented may times what are considered the best tools to prove to yourself if spiritual teachings are useful and true or not. Have you tried any of them? I gain absolutely nothing from you investing in my belief. There is no membership fee to pay to start on the spiritual path. The only one to gain anything would be you. 

 

43 minutes ago, sirineou said:

Please stop asking us to disprove what you believe when you know it is impossible, It's intellectually dishonest.

Again. I don't care if you believe or not. I care about the fact that your opinion of "I don't believe" becomes "God doesn't exist". 
Can you see the difference????? Talk about intellectual dishonesty!

 

43 minutes ago, sirineou said:

Requiring facts to an underlying belief is  a fundamental prerequisite to  intellectual life. I don't care what you believe in,if it works for you , more power to you, but if you ask be to invest in your belief I want facts much as you do when you are asked to invest in other people's beliefs. After all, you don't believe in everything, you discound many beliefs because they are not supported by the facts.  

Of course, and I'll post again what I said earlier:
 

Ideas and beliefs about spiritual teachings need to be inquired into to determine validity. Most information in the world about spirituality is misleading. To determine truth from falsehood, one can inquire into the usefulness of information learned. That which appears useful can be tested for verification. Accepting on faith is only recommended once the source of information has been proven valid through inquiry and application. As one grows and realization becomes clearer, what may have been valid in the past may no longer remain valid for the present. Remaining open to the evolution of one’s understanding is also essential.

Is it my fault if none of the deniers, scoffers, mockers and ignoramuses are willing to inquire into the usefulness of the information presented and prefer to follow the shortcuts of their minds?

 

Edited January 2, 2021 by Sunmaster

[Sunmaster]

14 minutes ago, Surelynot said:

Word salad....

If I had the time and patience I would translate it into child talk for you. Sadly I have neither one of them.

[Surelynot]

1 minute ago, Sunmaster said:

If I had the time and patience I would translate it into child talk for you. Sadly I have neither one of them.

Thank God (mine)

[Ladidaa]

[OmegaRacer]

54 minutes ago, Surelynot said:

Word salad....

That flew right over your head, didn't it? ????

[sirineou]

29 minutes ago, Sunmaster said:

Is it my fault if none of the deniers, scoffers, mockers and ignoramuses are willing to inquire into the usefulness of the information presented and prefer to follow the shortcuts of their minds?

First of all , not all believers or Unbelievers are intellectually honest. You can identify them in church as the ones seating up front and singing the loudest, or at parties wearing dark clothing , turtle necks,  and incorrectly quoting Nietzsche  LOL.  all trying to imply some undeserved quality. 

From what you write, I don't think you are a believer, I think you are an explorer, the only difference IMO is that where I am looking the lighting is better. but Hey who knows? 

Never stop looking.

 

[Sunmaster]

13 minutes ago, sirineou said:

From what you write, I don't think you are a believer, I think you are an explorer, the only difference IMO is that where I am looking the lighting is better. but Hey who knows? 

Never stop looking.

You're right. I don't just believe and I don't take things on blind faith. I need proof and have found it for myself and I'm still searching and finding.

 

If you still can't see that there is a divine principle behind the material world, maybe the lighting is not strong enough. ???? 

Edited January 2, 2021 by Sunmaster

[Elad]

10 minutes ago, Sunmaster said:

You're right. I don't just believe and I don't take things on blind faith. I need proof and have found it for myself and I'm still searching and finding.

What proof have you found?

[Sunmaster]

17 minutes ago, Elad said:

What proof have you found?

That's a legitimate question, but I'm not sure I want to answer it tbh. Not because I can't, but because I don't think it will do you any good knowing what I have found or how I have found it. 

 

The question should rather be "What can I do to find proof?"

[sirineou]

10 hours ago, mauGR1 said:

A precise definition of God ?

If you can teach my cat to drive a taxi, I'll gladly provide some definition. 

For the moment, it seems that "god is everything " despite being an easy concept, it's too difficult to understand. ????

He did not ask you to define god, he ask you "precisely define what you mean by the word 'God" a fair question IMO since we all meant something different. 

You do know what you mean by God ? Right?

and let's leave your cat out of it, cats have 9 lives and as such they could have nine of more gods. 

 

Edited January 2, 2021 by sirineou

[VincentRJ]

8 hours ago, Sunmaster said:

If you still can't see that there is a divine principle behind the material world, maybe the lighting is not strong enough. ???? 

 

Or, to put it another way, if you can see that there is a divine principle behind the material world, then maybe the lighting was so strong that it blinded you. ????

 

Every perceived thing, or experience, is subject to interpretation.

[mauGR1]

6 hours ago, sirineou said:

He did not ask you to define god, he ask you "precisely define what you mean by the word 'God" a fair question IMO since we all meant something different. 

You do know what you mean by God ? Right?

and let's leave your cat out of it, cats have 9 lives and as such they could have nine of more gods. 

 

Lol, I find your trolling hilarious, and that's a compliment ????

[sirineou]

31 minutes ago, mauGR1 said:

Lol, I find your trolling hilarious, and that's a compliment ????

Why Trolling, Did I say anything untrue or incorrect? 

[mauGR1]

2 minutes ago, sirineou said:

Why Trolling, Did I say anything untrue or incorrect? 

Well,  you completely ignored my definition of God ( God is everything  )

.. and next you came out with some nonsense about the nine lives of cats.(have you tried that with your cat ?)

I would call it hilarious trolling, and I'm not completely against it. Cheers. 

[scammed]

it appear that life serve to increase entropy for the ultimate goal of

total death of everything

[mauGR1]

30 minutes ago, scammed said:

it appear that life serve to increase entropy for the ultimate goal of

total death of everything

That's  never going to happen.

If you said the opposite,  it could have made some sense. 

[scammed]

5 minutes ago, mauGR1 said:

That's  never going to happen.

If you said the opposite,  it could have made some sense. 

google the physics of life or entropy of life,

living organisms convert energy to low energy radiation,

so while we locally decrease entropy, the net overall effect is an increase in entropy, and ultimately the 2nd law of thermodynamics dictate we will end up in heat death,

everything uniformly dispersed and no energy can be extracted for anything, including life

 

Edited January 3, 2021 by scammed

[mauGR1]

12 minutes ago, scammed said:

google the physics of life or entropy of life,

living organisms convert energy to low energy radiation,

so while we locally decrease entropy, the net overall effect is an increase in entropy, and ultimately the 2nd law of thermodynamics dictate we will end up in heat death,

everything uniformly dispersed and no energy can be extracted for anything, including life

 

Google 555

Is Google your god?

[scammed]

Just now, mauGR1 said:

Google 555

Is Google your god?

no, but it could be argued physics is god, after all, god invented physics

[mauGR1]

1 minute ago, scammed said:

no, but it could be argued physics is god, after all, god invented physics

Agree with that, but I have the inner feeling that eternity exists.

Time is just an opinion. 

[scammed]

41 minutes ago, mauGR1 said:

Agree with that, but I have the inner feeling that eternity exists.

Time is just an opinion. 

time is more than an opinion, we have a memory of the past because we have a correlation with the past, we had interaction events in the past,

but we have no memory of future because we havnt interact with future events

 

eternity, well, that is what heat death looks like to me

Edited January 3, 2021 by scammed