Do you believe in God and why

[Tagged]

3 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Given everyone's experience of God is individual, describing it would be as complicated as trying to explain how one feels when they are "in love".

To come back to an old favourite of mine, I consider people that believe in "Romantic Love" to have a form of delusion, but I doubt many would agree with that, as most people seem to believe in it- certainly pop singers make a good living from singing about it, and Mills and Boon sell lots of books about it.

Love is a complex thing that is chemical to find the best gene base to mate with, and make sure both parents are willing to contribute to take responsibillity to make sure their offspring survives. Not so complex, but strong woman have a tendency to manage to find other men to bring up their offspring than the real father. 

 

All chemicals leading the way, same as some or maybe most spiritual experiences as well. But I know, already discussed and we tend to believe what we want to believe or see or feel. 

[thaibeachlovers]

1 hour ago, Tagged said:

Love is a complex thing that is chemical to find the best gene base to mate with, and make sure both parents are willing to contribute to take responsibillity to make sure their offspring survives. Not so complex, but strong woman have a tendency to manage to find other men to bring up their offspring than the real father. 

 

All chemicals leading the way, same as some or maybe most spiritual experiences as well. But I know, already discussed and we tend to believe what we want to believe or see or feel. 

You describe sexual attraction, rather than love. IMO "love" is non sexual ie mother love and love of country. IMO romantic love is a way to get men to buy women stuff- dinners, movies tickets, diamond rings etc.

 

strong woman have a tendency to manage to find other men to bring up their offspring than the real father. 

It's been understood for a long time that some women choose to mate with type A males and find a type B to bring them up. That's so the kid gets the survivor genes, and a man that won't abandon them. It's all genetic programming, apparently.

[Tagged]

4 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

You describe sexual attraction, rather than love. IMO "love" is non sexual ie mother love and love of country. IMO romantic love is a way to get men to buy women stuff- dinners, movies tickets, diamond rings etc.

 

strong woman have a tendency to manage to find other men to bring up their offspring than the real father. 

It's been understood for a long time that some women choose to mate with type A males and find a type B to bring them up. That's so the kid gets the survivor genes, and a man that won't abandon them. It's all genetic programming, apparently.

You can not deny chemicals involvment, as I can not prove there is not something else, so Im open for there could be something else influence our choices, but so far we know chemicals play a huge role when it comes to our decissions, feeling of religious, spiritualism and love. 

 

And the more we are thinking positiv about something, the more positive we become, and the more negativ we are thinking about something,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, as well the more positiv some groups or some people we trust talk about we will most likely feel, see and think more alike, but if we are not chemical grounded or bound together, opposite thinking, feelings, much more alike to happend. 

 

We know how much we can control our dreams as well, and if we really want to believe in something, and we struggle with it, we search for it, and we educate ourself, the more likely we will find the anwers we want. 

 

Our mind and brain is a fantastic tool we can manipulate, or mostly being manipulated by others. So who are we? The one who get manipulated, or the one who manipulate our self? 

 

I like to think I manipulate myself to the better for me and others, and I spent hell of alot time doing so, so I can survive in this world, and it works. 

 

From being oversensitive to manage to see the structure of how things work, and how things do not work. If I had continued my broken path that the whole world was a <deleted>hole, I would not been here today. It was a choice of survival, and my medicine is manipulating my chemical factory in my brain. 

 

World look much better now, but still see and understand whats going on, and how bad people are, or much better see and understand how igorant we are as a specie. Thats why I hope we as a specie would one day turn our search and find in to our homes, instead of looking places we will never find what we are looking for. Our god and mother is one, and that is our planet with all of its life on it. We are one with the nature, and thats basically all we need to know from beginning, not all this imaginary gods and forces that is out there in the light or in the dark. 

 

Nature is good and its bad, and its our home

[VincentRJ]

12 hours ago, mauGR1 said:

It would be interesting to hear the exact words by Buddha on this subject,  in the original language. 

The sound of the words might be interesting but it's doubtful one could get any meaningful interpretation from them. During the times of the Buddha, in India, there were was no written script, and the Buddha very likely spoke in a dialect which no longer exists. The Pali language of the Pali Canon, written in the 1st century BC, might be similar to the dialect spoken by the Buddha, but the Buddha's teachings were passed down through memory for around 400 years before eventually being written in the Pali language in Sri Lanka.

 

"If "nothing " doesn't exist by definition,  how can we even talk about "nothing".. ? And even following you on this path of talking about nothing, could you provide some evidence that everything is impermanent, or perhaps you should better admit that we are not in a position to claim that "everything is impermanent ".
I would rather say that "everything " is permanent and impermanent at the same time... as what we call reality can be described as an "array of realities " with various degrees of truths, which can last different amounts of time."

 

Good point! That's an example of how important the context is in relation to the interpretation of words.
In one sense, 'Nothing', by definition, cannot exist. If it did exist, it would not be 'nothing'. Within that context, the statement 'Nothing is permanent', would have to mean, 'Nothing' must remain permanently 'nothing', because it's illogical to think that 'something' can be created from 'nothing'. ????

 

In the context of the Buddha's teachings, it would have been clearer if I'd written, "Everything is impermanent to some varying degree or extent", or perhaps 'No' 'thing' is permanent, in the sense, there is no existing 'thing' which is permanent."

 

Whatever description you prefer, this fundamental Buddhist principle is in agreement with our current scientific understanding. It's also obvious from our own, ordinary observations of our environment, that everything is in a state of change, especially all forms of life and plants. Certain inanimate objects change much more slowly, of course, and the change might not be noticeable in a human lifetime. For example, the subatomic particle called the 'Proton' has an estimated lifespan in the billions of years, which is an impressively long time, but is still not permanent. ????

[mauGR1]

7 hours ago, VincentRJ said:

In the context of the Buddha's teachings, it would have been clearer if I'd written, "Everything is impermanent to some varying degree or extent", or perhaps 'No' 'thing' is permanent, in the sense, there is no existing 'thing' which is permanent."

That sounds fair enough , yet it refers to our limited perception of the material world through our material senses.

Moreover, if we state that even maths and laws of physics are impermanent,  then saying "everything is impermanent to some varying degree or extent " falls in the same category of impermanent laws. 

So, to deny the possibility of the existence of something permanent remains a risky bet.

 

[Peter Denis]

3 hours ago, mauGR1 said:

That sounds fair enough , yet it refers to our limited perception of the material world through our material senses.

Moreover, if we state that even maths and laws of physics are impermanent,  then saying "everything is impermanent to some varying degree or extent " falls in the same category of impermanent laws. 

So, to deny the possibility of the existence of something permanent remains a risky bet.

The only thing permanent is impermanence...

and judging from some comments on the Forum also impertinence may fall in that category... ????

[thaibeachlovers]

3 hours ago, mauGR1 said:

That sounds fair enough , yet it refers to our limited perception of the material world through our material senses.

Moreover, if we state that even maths and laws of physics are impermanent,  then saying "everything is impermanent to some varying degree or extent " falls in the same category of impermanent laws. 

So, to deny the possibility of the existence of something permanent remains a risky bet.

 

Nothing made of physical matter is permanent- even the universe will die when the stars run out of fuel. However, God is not made of physical matter, so IMO is permanent.

[Peter Denis]

2 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Nothing made of physical matter is permanent- even the universe will die when the stars run out of fuel. However, God is not made of physical matter, so IMO is permanent.

When you define 'permanent' as 'being always there forever' then I agree that God is permanent.

When you define it as 'frozen, not evolving' I would disagree.

[thaibeachlovers]

1 minute ago, Peter Denis said:

When you define 'permanent' as 'being always there forever' then I agree that God is permanent.

When you define it as 'frozen, not evolving' I would disagree.

I define it as always being there. For all I know the matter in the universe will survive forever as dead frozen matter, but it certainly won't support life after the stars die. However, I also believe that black holes will suck all matter into a new big bang and the universe will repeat, over and over and over, forever. I suppose that could be regarded as a sort of permanence though.

[mauGR1]

49 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Nothing made of physical matter is permanent- even the universe will die when the stars run out of fuel. However, God is not made of physical matter, so IMO is permanent.

That's more or less what I meant to say, although it could be difficult to prove that the universe will die someday. 

[mauGR1]

1 hour ago, Peter Denis said:

The only thing permanent is impermanence...

and judging from some comments on the Forum also impertinence may fall in that category... ????

I would surely agree if you are referring to the physical world,  but i would not be so sure about other worlds, as for the impertinence, i know I'm guilty, hope the Lord will be merciful ????

[VincentRJ]

7 hours ago, mauGR1 said:

Moreover, if we state that even maths and laws of physics are impermanent,  then saying "everything is impermanent to some varying degree or extent " falls in the same category of impermanent laws. 

So, to deny the possibility of the existence of something permanent remains a risky bet.

 

I've had conversations with Buddhist monks, who, whilst accepting that everything is impermanent, make an exception with regard to the Dharma, that is, the teachings of Gautama Buddha. In other words, everything is impermanent except the Dharma.

 

I see this view as perhaps a necessary 'belief' that certain individuals need in order to get the motivation to continue on their path.

 

In my view, according to the evidence I've observed, this emotional need for a 'sense of permanence' is prevalent throughout all societies. It seems to be a major part of the need for a 'religion', the need for a belief in an eternal afterlife in Heaven, and a permanent soul, and so on.

 

Even atheists in our modern scientific societies can be influenced by this emotional need for a sense of permanence. An example is the current alarmism about human-caused climate change. The 'truth' that climate has always been changing throughout the history of the Earth, and that there's nothing unusual or unprecedented about the changes in climate that have occurred during the past 150 years or so, is denied.
Why the denial? Because it would be even more alarming if was promoted in the media that there is scientific research which shows that certain past changes in climate, even during the limited timespan of human civilization, have been much more severe and more rapid than any changes experienced since the industrial revolution. It's much more appealing to promote the idea that we can control the climate by reducing CO2 emissions, and stop it changing, and return it to the fictitiously calm benevolence of pre-industrial times. ????

 

"That sounds fair enough , yet it refers to our limited perception of the material world through our material senses."

 

We should make a distinction between matter and energy. Matter is something that has weight, mass and volume, which can be detected through the human senses of sight, hearing, smell and touch. However, those senses provide us with a very limited experience and knowledge of our surroundings, without the aid of sophisticated scientific devices.

 

For example, the light which is reflected from objects we look at, interacts with material in the brain producing the sensation of sight. However, that light is just a very narrow section of the Electromagnetic Spectrum, which ranges from very long Radio Waves to very short Gamma rays. All sections of the Electromagnetic Spectrum consist of weightless and massless Photons, which are therefore not 'matter'. In other words, the Electromagnetic Spectrum is a 'non-material' signal.

 

Radio waves are just as real as 'light waves', but we have no senses within our body to detect them. In fact, they pass straight through our body, undetected.
Do you not think it rather strange that certain individuals throughout human history have claimed to be able to detect a spiritual, non-material signal, which is still beyond the detection of modern science, yet such people were, and still are, unable to detect the common radio wave (without a radio)? ????
 

[mauGR1]

27 minutes ago, VincentRJ said:

according to the evidence I've observed, this emotional need for a 'sense of permanence' is prevalent throughout all societies. It seems to be a major part of the need for a 'religion', the need for a belief in an eternal afterlife in Heaven, and a permanent soul

Agree with that, although I would call it a "practical need" , as it seems that even the atheists and the agnostics need some kind of belief,  any kind of belief will do.

 

33 minutes ago, VincentRJ said:

Do you not think it rather strange that certain individuals throughout human history have claimed to be able to detect a spiritual, non-material signal, which is still beyond the detection of modern science, yet such people were, and still are, unable to detect the common radio wave (without a radio)? ????

Well, I heard about psychics, the famous Edgar Cayce comes to mind, being able to see past and future events, but it's not totally uncommon for people to have unexplainable perceptions, which i would be cautious to dismiss as hallucinations. 

To be honest,  i am in awe at the potential of the human mind, and i think that the development of science, together with a more comfortable life, is not enhancing that potential... As a classic example, before the invention of the script, some people used to have a memory that we could define as extraordinary these days.

[Sunmaster]

2 hours ago, VincentRJ said:

Even atheists in our modern scientific societies can be influenced by this emotional need for a sense of permanence. An example is the current alarmism about human-caused climate change.

Or with those who endorse cryogenic preservation...????

 

2 hours ago, VincentRJ said:

Do you not think it rather strange that certain individuals throughout human history have claimed to be able to detect a spiritual, non-material signal, which is still beyond the detection of modern science, yet such people were, and still are, unable to detect the common radio wave (without a radio)? ????

What exactly is a spiritual, non-material signal??
You know, the precise definition of such words/concepts is very important.
 

[Sunmaster]

On 2/16/2021 at 7:49 PM, VincentRJ said:

and others can have an exaggerated sense of self confidence and insight, described as a Superiority Complex, which is sometimes so great that they believe they actually know 'God'.

You keep talking about these people. But who are they? 

[mauGR1]

32 minutes ago, Sunmaster said:

You keep talking about these people. But who are they? 

Perhaps he's rather subtly referring to some of us fellow posters ?

( I'm asking for a friend )

[Tagged]

Well, this suddenly came up in my feedline, and who is this guy, anyone followed him, and believe in him? He seems to be everywhere now on all the big shows. 

 

 

 

Edited February 19, 2021 by Tagged

[Sunmaster]

On 2/18/2021 at 4:18 AM, Fat is a type of crazy said:

I have bigger problems with those who say they have found god and have a certain smugness. Believers should be able to freely do their thing, of course,  but if they show smugness - i.e. you just haven't experienced what I have experienced type stuff  -  I like those people to really flesh out how they experience god and show why it is not likely to be a form of delusion. 

I heard this before and I don't blame you for thinking this way. You can't relate to that "experience", so you naturally distrust and doubt it.

I thought about an allegory that makes it much easier for all of us to relate to, because we all went through the same (or similar) experience. Amazingly, none of us now claims to be any more special than the rest. 
-----------------------------------
Little Bob was a 10 year old boy like all the others. All he thought about was playing and hanging out with his close friends Joe, Jack and Jason. They spent all their time playing sports, exploring abandoned places and generally getting into trouble. They were a very close-knit bunch of friends.

 

One day however, something strange happened to Bob. He was at the shopping mall, eating his well deserved ice-cream, when a lovely girl passed by him. In one instant, all his senses were on high alert: he felt the air, moved by her body, caressing his cheeks, he smelled her scent of vanilla and strawberries, his heart was beating like crazy. He had no idea what was going on. He's never been interested in girls before, ...quite the contrary. Bob and his friends used to make fun of those silly girls and wouldn't give them a second thought. Now, in just one small moment, all that changed. This girl that he didn't even know, had become the single most important thing in his life. 

In the following days, his friends noticed that something was different with Bob. He still played with them, but his mind was elsewhere. They asked him what was going on because they wanted their old friend back. They just wanted Bob to be the brother in arms they knew. Bob tried to explain what had happened, that he couldn't stop thinking about that girl, that he couldn't sleep at night, that he lost his appetite, that the whole world around him seemed to have shifted and that he felt there was no going back to the old ways. Joe, Jack and Jason couldn't really understand what Bob was talking about. For them, girls were still those silly creatures they're always been. No amount of explaining could change their minds. Joe started to resent Bob "Who does he think he is now? Is he too special to come out and play with us?". Jack chimed in "I think he's full of <deleted>. He just found some new friends and is too chicken to admit it". And Jason: "How could he like a girl?? He must be lying! Nobody can be that stupid!". 
After a while, Bob gave up trying to change their minds. He didn't blame them though...not long ago he would have said the same things if the roles had been inverted. He know there was no going back to the old ways and that the only way was forward into this strange new world. He also knew that he had to be true to himself, and he certainly wouldn't change his ways just to please his old friends.

It took the other guys a little longer, but eventually, they too went through the same experience. Now, Bob, Joe, Jack and Jason meet up again regularly, not to play but to talk about girls and their latest conquest.
-----------------------------------------
Does this make sense?
 

[pedro01]

On 2/18/2021 at 4:18 AM, Fat is a type of crazy said:

I think you are a bit tough on Dawkins. He considers that belief in god is often caused by a form of delusion and it is fascinating to work through that argument as to why people may choose to believe in god .

I have seen him do lots of interviews and I don't see that he looks down on people or thinks he has all the answers beyond what he can take from science.

I have bigger problems with those who say they have found god and have a certain smugness. Believers should be able to freely do their thing, of course,  but if they show smugness - i.e. you just haven't experienced what I have experienced type stuff  -  I like those people to really flesh out how they experience god and show why it is not likely to be a form of delusion. 

 

No - I got Dawkins spot on.

 

To call someone 'delusional' is to look down on them.

 

The bottom line is that science has always sought and failed to explain why the universe came into existence. We still don't know. What we do know is that every now and again, the current scientific theory on how it happened gets replaced with a new one.

 

It seems to me that believing in the currently accepted scientific theory of the creation of the universe is no more a leap of faith that believing in a creator. Certainly, not worth looking down your nose at.

[mauGR1]

3 minutes ago, pedro01 said:

 

No - I got Dawkins spot on.

 

To call someone 'delusional' is to look down on them.

 

The bottom line is that science has always sought and failed to explain why the universe came into existence. We still don't know. What we do know is that every now and again, the current scientific theory on how it happened gets replaced with a new one.

 

It seems to me that believing in the currently accepted scientific theory of the creation of the universe is no more a leap of faith that believing in a creator. Certainly, not worth looking down your nose at.

What you say appears to be quite logical, but tragically there are billions who believe blindly whatever scientism, (which is not to be confused with science), says.

 

[Fat is a type of crazy]

34 minutes ago, Sunmaster said:

I heard this before and I don't blame you for thinking this way. You can't relate to that "experience", so you naturally distrust and doubt it.

I thought about an allegory that makes it much easier for all of us to relate to, because we all went through the same (or similar) experience. Amazingly, none of us now claims to be any more special than the rest. 
-----------------------------------
Little Bob was a 10 year old boy like all the others. All he thought about was playing and hanging out with his close friends Joe, Jack and Jason. They spent all their time playing sports, exploring abandoned places and generally getting into trouble. They were a very close-knit bunch of friends.

 

One day however, something strange happened to Bob. He was at the shopping mall, eating his well deserved ice-cream, when a lovely girl passed by him. In one instant, all his senses were on high alert: he felt the air, moved by her body, caressing his cheeks, he smelled her scent of vanilla and strawberries, his heart was beating like crazy. He had no idea what was going on. He's never been interested in girls before, ...quite the contrary. Bob and his friends used to make fun of those silly girls and wouldn't give them a second thought. Now, in just one small moment, all that changed. This girl that he didn't even know, had become the single most important thing in his life. 

In the following days, his friends noticed that something was different with Bob. He still played with them, but his mind was elsewhere. They asked him what was going on because they wanted their old friend back. They just wanted Bob to be the brother in arms they knew. Bob tried to explain what had happened, that he couldn't stop thinking about that girl, that he couldn't sleep at night, that he lost his appetite, that the whole world around him seemed to have shifted and that he felt there was no going back to the old ways. Joe, Jack and Jason couldn't really understand what Bob was talking about. For them, girls were still those silly creatures they're always been. No amount of explaining could change their minds. Joe started to resent Bob "Who does he think he is now? Is he too special to come out and play with us?". Jack chimed in "I think he's full of <deleted>. He just found some new friends and is too chicken to admit it". And Jason: "How could he like a girl?? He must be lying! Nobody can be that stupid!". 
After a while, Bob gave up trying to change their minds. He didn't blame them though...not long ago he would have said the same things if the roles had been inverted. He know there was no going back to the old ways and that the only way was forward into this strange new world. He also knew that he had to be true to himself, and he certainly wouldn't change his ways just to please his old friends.

It took the other guys a little longer, but eventually, they too went through the same experience. Now, Bob, Joe, Jack and Jason meet up again regularly, not to play but to talk about girls and their latest conquest.
-----------------------------------------
Does this make sense?
 

Thanks.  It does make sense. I appreciate that you have got what I was saying in that, as far as we know, we are just our bodies and so I was after the sense of god in terms of the feelings and emotions and experiences of the body.  

There is a place for esoteric talk but it's not really for me because I've found at the end of the day it still requires a sort of a leap of faith as it doesn't have an actual personal experience.

 

So I guess I'm trying to get to why someone might feel a sense of god and the reason at some point they take that leap of faith.  

 

 

[Sunmaster]

2 minutes ago, Fat is a type of crazy said:

Thanks.  It does make sense. I appreciate that you have got what I was saying in that, as far as we know, we are just our bodies and so I was after the sense of god in terms of the feelings and emotions and experiences of the body.  

There is a place for esoteric talk but it's not really for me because I've found at the end of the day it still requires a sort of a leap of faith as it doesn't have an actual personal experience.

 

So I guess I'm trying to get to why someone might feel a sense of god and the reason at some point they take that leap of faith.  

 

 

Speaking for myself, I've never taken any leap of faith.

To stay in line with the allegory...I was quite happy playing with my 3 friends. That's all I knew at that point, my whole world. Then it just hit me, irrevocably, radically, without any doubt to its veracity, like falling in love for the first time (times a million). I didn't have to accept what others wrote about love, I didn't have to believe there was something called love out there to experience it.

No, love hit me square between the eyes when I didn't expect it and there was no denying it. 
What is there to do after that? What would you do?

[Fat is a type of crazy]

38 minutes ago, pedro01 said:

 

No - I got Dawkins spot on.

 

To call someone 'delusional' is to look down on them.

 

The bottom line is that science has always sought and failed to explain why the universe came into existence. We still don't know. What we do know is that every now and again, the current scientific theory on how it happened gets replaced with a new one.

 

It seems to me that believing in the currently accepted scientific theory of the creation of the universe is no more a leap of faith that believing in a creator. Certainly, not worth looking down your nose at.

I get what you are saying and that delusion is loaded word. I think we all delude ourselves in some way to live in the real world. I know I make assumptions about myself and the world just to get from A to B. To me saying believers may be deluded is not suggesting superiority. The issue is the degree of delusion.

My girlfriend can believe in Buddha, hindu gods, snake gods all at the same time -  I might consider the option that she has a  mild delusion.  I say mild as she is non judgemental,  lives a normal life, and she has a gentleness  and a serenity , and a certain fullness in her life,  that is so different to  non-religious Australians. So though she may in fact have some delusion in might open other parts of her such that there's something in that belief that is worthwhile. 

Then there are extreme  delusions  e.g. cults with narrow defined definitions of belief  that can be so bad for you.

I think you have to give science some credit that in such a short time they have got so far in explaining the very small and the very large. In terms of the creation of the universe they have come up with the Big Bang Theory which isn't shabby.

For what it's worth I would also say that theories change but they are rarely replaced by a separate new theory - they normally just are able to expand on the existing one. You make it sound that such theories are a bit willy nilly and can just be set aside and replaced a new.

Science by definition does not have a leap of faith. Richard Dawkins is not saying his book is a bible.

If you are theorising there is a god based on your life experience that is different of course to making the leap and believing in god. 

[Fat is a type of crazy]

16 minutes ago, Sunmaster said:

Speaking for myself, I've never taken any leap of faith.

To stay in line with the allegory...I was quite happy playing with my 3 friends. That's all I knew at that point, my whole world. Then it just hit me, irrevocably, radically, without any doubt to its veracity, like falling in love for the first time (times a million). I didn't have to accept what others wrote about love, I didn't have to believe there was something called love out there to experience it.

No, love hit me square between the eyes when I didn't expect it and there was no denying it. 
What is there to do after that? What would you do?

I haven't felt that feeling that you describe. I am going to get a bit esoteric here. Let us say you are just a body - that the 'good feeling' if you like in the body is limited.   Let us say you hold yourself in a certain way as we all do. They way we walk. Our fears etc. We are all stressed in some way - tight necks, tight hips, whatever. Then let's say you change your life in some way. Parts of you that have been stressed relax giving you a rush of adrenaline and a new sense of freedom. Unbeknownst to you you are stressing other parts of you but you don't notice as you taken aback by the good feeling. You may be overwhelmed and look for an explanation beyond yourself. God.

Alternatively maybe god hit you with a thunderbolt of sorts, from outside your physical body,  and that is what lead to your belief.

I am not saying that either happened but I am saying that if you believe without leaving the option of other theories it still has to be a leap of faith. As you say in your case it might, on balance, seem reasonable and justified to you that you conclude that you have been touched by something outside yourself based on your experiences and feelings.

[Sunmaster]

32 minutes ago, Fat is a type of crazy said:

I haven't felt that feeling that you describe. I am going to get a bit esoteric here. Let us say you are just a body - that the 'good feeling' if you like in the body is limited.   Let us say you hold yourself in a certain way as we all do. They way we walk. Our fears etc. We are all stressed in some way - tight necks, tight hips, whatever. Then let's say you change your life in some way. Parts of you that have been stressed relax giving you a rush of adrenaline and a new sense of freedom. Unbeknownst to you you are stressing other parts of you but you don't notice as you taken aback by the good feeling. You may be overwhelmed and look for an explanation beyond yourself. God.

Alternatively maybe god hit you with a thunderbolt of sorts, from outside your physical body,  and that is what lead to your belief.

I am not saying that either happened but I am saying that if you believe without leaving the option of other theories it still has to be a leap of faith. As you say in your case it might, on balance, seem reasonable and justified to you that you conclude that you have been touched by something outside yourself based on your experiences and feelings.

When you wake up from a dream, are you usually fully aware to be back in the waking world, or do you still have doubts throughout the day whether you're still dreaming or not? 

If you encounter 1, 2, 5 people who all try to convince you you're still dreaming, do you believe them or do you instinctively know that you're awake?

I would bet that you just know it and don't need anyone to tell you otherwise. You may be confused in the dream state whether you're dreaming or not, but once you awake and can compare the 2 states, you then also know with a 100% certainty that you're now awake. Right?

 

All the experiences we have in life influence and define us. Lots of people claim that the most defining moment in their lives was the birth of their child. I've never experienced that, but I will take their word for it, because I believe they're saying that in good faith. And who am I to dispute it? 

The same goes for my experience. It may not be a common one, but it's not that rare either. Whether others believe me or not is inconsequential. All you need to know is that I reported it as best as I could and with no need to convince anyone. If you or others think that makes me smug, conceited or crazy, well I really don't care. To me it's as real and unmistakable as waking up from a dream.

 

Also, I don't believe there is anything that came from outside myself.

[Fat is a type of crazy]

8 minutes ago, Sunmaster said:

When you wake up from a dream, are you usually fully aware to be back in the waking world, or do you still have doubts throughout the day whether you're still dreaming or not? 

If you encounter 1, 2, 5 people who all try to convince you you're still dreaming, do you believe them or do you instinctively know that you're awake?

I would bet that you just know it and don't need anyone to tell you otherwise. You may be confused in the dream state whether you're dreaming or not, but once you awake and can compare the 2 states, you then also know with a 100% certainty that you're now awake. Right?

 

All the experiences we have in life influence and define us. Lots of people claim that the most defining moment in their lives was the birth of their child. I've never experienced that, but I will take their word for it, because I believe they're saying that in good faith. And who am I to dispute it? 

The same goes for my experience. It may not be a common one, but it's not that rare either. Whether others believe me or not is inconsequential. All you need to know is that I reported it as best as I could and with no need to convince anyone. If you or others think that makes me smug, conceited or crazy, well I really don't care. To me it's as real and unmistakable as waking up from a dream.

 

Also, I don't believe there is anything that came from outside myself.

There may be something about posting that makes me think inwards a bit about things I have seen in my past - that is the source of the examples I give. It isn't about people posting here. 

I don't think you are those things or that the examples I gave applied to you. 

In some ways I am making the same boring point about the leap of faith. 

An interesting issue is if the experience of god is diminished if you keep an open mind that it may not be god. You seem to think it is so clear that it is a god that there is no leap. Is it possible you are in a sense being self deprecating and you are an intelligent sensitive person who just woke yourself up at a particular point. 

 

 

 

[VincentRJ]

5 hours ago, Sunmaster said:

Or with those who endorse cryogenic preservation...????

 

Or those who visit a doctor because they have a life-threatening health problem.

 

"What exactly is a spiritual, non-material signal??
You know, the precise definition of such words/concepts is very important."

 

I thought I'd already clearly explained that. To repeat, matter always has a weight (or mass) and a volume. Light, radio waves, X-rays, and the entire Electromagnetic Spectrum, are waves of Photons which do not have any mass or weight and are therefore not matter, but they are signals that can transport huge amounts of information, such as what you see and hear on your Television, computer screen or iPhone. A signal containing no matter is a non-material signal. Is that too difficult to understand?
 

[Peter Denis]

15 minutes ago, VincentRJ said:

...

A signal containing no matter is a non-material signal. Is that too difficult to understand?

 

It's mind over matter.

And to prolonge this nonsensical dialogue > If you don't mind, I won't matter... ????

 

Edited February 19, 2021 by Peter Denis

[VincentRJ]

7 hours ago, mauGR1 said:

Agree with that, although I would call it a "practical need" , as it seems that even the atheists and the agnostics need some kind of belief,  any kind of belief will do.

 

If 'belief' satisfies a practical need, then I don't think 'any kind of belief' will do. Surely the belief has to be tailored to suit particular problems. For example, in the case of Climate Change Alarmism due to CO2 emissions, there are important problems that are addressed, regardless of the truth of whether or not CO2 emissions are bad. These problems include the real pollutants from the burning of fossil fuels which can, and do, create awful smog in certain areas which results in serious health problems; the environmental destruction from the mining of coal and oil and the fracking of gas which can contaminate underground water supplies; and perhaps the more significant problem of eventually running out of fossil fuel reserves before we have successfully developed alternative energy supplies; a situation which could cause a collapse of the world economy.

 

In the example of the religious belief in a permanent soul and an everlasting life in Heaven, after death, for those have behaved well, or a horrible life in Hell for those who haven't behaved well, this is also a tailored belief to suit certain practical needs, such as reducing the amount of criminal behaviour and creating a more unified and harmonious society.

 

There is also the practical effect on those who are grieving because they've lost a friend, relative, family member or loved one, who has died. To believe that the 'loved one' who has died, will go to Heaven, and that you will meet him/her again in Heaven after you also die, must be very comforting. This is a comfort which many animal species probably do not have, when a family member dies, because they don't have the capacity for language and abstract thought that we humans have, and therefore cannot create an imaginary Heaven. ????

 

One might assume that animals do not grieve over the death of a member of their group, but scientific studies and general observations suggests this is not true. From the following Wikipedia article:

 

"Though grief in animals may seem questionable, evidence shows it is abundant. From chimpanzees to otters to sea lions, animals grieve just like humans do."
 

"In social groups, bereavement is a natural stress reaction in the event of the loss of a significant loved one through death. Like Humans, social animal species are affected by the loss of one of their own and can undergo psychological stress or trauma."
 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_grief#:~:text=Though grief in animals may,grieve just like humans do.&text=For example%2C zoo caretakers can,a chimpanzee mother is mourning.
 

[mauGR1]

7 hours ago, VincentRJ said:

If 'belief' satisfies a practical need, then I don't think 'any kind of belief' will do.

Well, almost every paragraph of your post would deserve to be discussed,  but I'm afraid you're missing the point.. 

.. I was just talking about the human mind in general terms, some people believe everything the bible says, others believe just in what the official "science" says, others believe just in themselves and so on.

Of course human beliefs are more complex than that, but I hope you get my point, which is  that we need to believe in something. 

I would compare the beliefs of a person to the center of a solar system,  and his thoughts to the orbiting planets,  so to speak.