Do you believe in God and why

[Elad]

12 hours ago, pedro01 said:

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.

Science has never tried to explain "why" the universe came into existance, it only focuses on the "how".

Also, there is no scientific theory of the creation of the universe. The BB theory is a model of "how" the universe evolved, from a time after creation. All scientific models (ie. General Relativity) break down before this time.

[VincentRJ]

56 minutes ago, mauGR1 said:

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. 

 

If I missed your point, it was because you didn't express yourself clearly enough. ???? I was addressing your point that 'any belief will do'... to satisfy a practical need.

 

I don't disagree that everyone needs some kind of belief, but there is a major distinction to be made between beliefs that successfully satisfy a practical need and those that fail to satisfy a practical need. Beliefs that satisfy a practical need tend to result in security, happiness, peace of mind, and relative freedom from suffering, whereas beliefs that fail tend to result in misery, poverty, continual conflict, or even in advanced societies, obesity, stress, depression, and so on.

 

In other words, there are 'correct' beliefs and 'incorrect' beliefs. A few centuries ago, there was a very strong belief that the visible universe revolved around our planet, which was believed to be at the centre of the universe.
 

[mauGR1]

29 minutes ago, VincentRJ said:

If I missed your point, it was because you didn't express yourself clearly enough. ???? I was addressing your point that 'any belief will do'... to satisfy a practical need.

 

I don't disagree that everyone needs some kind of belief, but there is a major distinction to be made between beliefs that successfully satisfy a practical need and those that fail to satisfy a practical need. Beliefs that satisfy a practical need tend to result in security, happiness, peace of mind, and relative freedom from suffering, whereas beliefs that fail tend to result in misery, poverty, continual conflict, or even in advanced societies, obesity, stress, depression, and so on.

 

In other words, there are 'correct' beliefs and 'incorrect' beliefs. A few centuries ago, there was a very strong belief that the visible universe revolved around our planet, which was believed to be at the centre of the universe.
 

That's fair enough, there's not any disagreement here.

So, in fact we can shape our mind with a mix of  correct and incorrect beliefs, according to our individual choices and sympathies. 

In this scenario of belief system, thoughts get a life on their own, and shape the life of every individual..

.. giving the extraordinary complexity of every individual belief  system, dismissing it as "electrical impulses coming from the brain " is rather childish imho.

[Peter Denis]

28 minutes ago, mauGR1 said:

That's fair enough, there's not any disagreement here.

So, in fact we can shape our mind with a mix of  correct and incorrect beliefs, according to our individual choices and sympathies. 

In this scenario of belief system, thoughts get a life on their own, and shape the life of every individual..

.. giving the extraordinary complexity of every individual belief  system, dismissing it as "electrical impulses coming from the brain " is rather childish imho.

Real knowledge and your belief system are connected, but are not same.

Dethlefsen has written extensively about the difference (the marking in bold is mine).

From what he writes it is clear for me that I am 'just a believer', and only have a very small grain of real knowledge.

 

Science sets itself the aim of being accessible to all. Everyone sufficiently gifted can pick up a bit of science if he is willing to invest a bit of hard work in it.
Scientific knowledge is transferable. Inner knowledge, by contrast, is not. Unfortunately, we often confuse true inner knowledge with those disordered clusters of unimportant information that accumulate in our minds. The latter is transferable. Inner knowledge, however, is never the fruit of diligence but comes from a highly personal individual act of insight which is metaphysical in nature, and steers well clear of any mass demand for “knowledge for all”. Knowledge can only be the outcome of personal experience; it can neither be taken over nor transmitted.
Whatever I take over from others I can never know, but only believe. It does not matter whether or not I have good reasons to believe something. To believe is not to know. Not even calculations of probability can change that. Seen in this light science reveals itself as a large congregation of believers who devour the breadcrumbs of a few true men of knowledge and regurgitate them in a totally unrecognisable form.
In saying this I do not mean to devalue belief, since it is belief which is the most important prerequisite for obtaining knowledge. To believe is basically to consider possible; without considering something possible one can never experience it. Belief and knowledge are different steps. They affect each other and both have their justification, but one should not confuse them.

[upu2]

Can any of the believers please explain the following as I cant understand it:

1. If god is perfect and never makes mistakes why did he throw Adam and Eve out of Eden? Surely they wouldnt have broke the rules if they were created perfectly.

2. If God is so forgiving why do we refer to God Fearing people? There is no need for fear if God is is all forgiving.

3. If man is made in the image of God then logically the combination of all people in the world would form God. Reasonable assumption?

Edited February 20, 2021 by upu2

[mauGR1]

50 minutes ago, Peter Denis said:

Real knowledge and your belief system are connected, but are not same.

Of course I would never confuse knowledge with belief system,  sorry if I gave that impression, although I could say that knowledge,  real or presumed real, is an important part of the belief system....which is a combination of many different "forces" which are too complex,  I'm afraid,  to be discussed at length on this thread. 

 

[VincentRJ]

2 hours ago, mauGR1 said:

That's fair enough, there's not any disagreement here.

So, in fact we can shape our mind with a mix of  correct and incorrect beliefs, according to our individual choices and sympathies. 

In this scenario of belief system, thoughts get a life on their own, and shape the life of every individual..

.. giving the extraordinary complexity of every individual belief  system, dismissing it as "electrical impulses coming from the brain " is rather childish imho.

I don't think it's reasonable to imply that Neuroscientists are children. Also, the true 'Methodology of Science' requires that any evidence that might be relevant to the inquiry should not be dismissed. As far as I'm aware, there is no evidence of the existence of mental activity which is independent of electrical impulses.

 

In fact, I would suggest that imagining one can have thoughts that are not dependent upon electrical impulses in the brain, is a much better example of childishness. ????

[Tagged]

1 hour ago, upu2 said:

Can any of the believers please explain the following as I cant understand it:

1. If god is perfect and never makes mistakes why did he throw Adam and Eve out of Eden? Surely they wouldnt have broke the rules if they were created perfectly.

God gave humans free will and a test

1 hour ago, upu2 said:

2. If God is so forgiving why do we refer to God Fearing people? There is no need for fear if God is is all forgiving.

God forgive, people do not, so it is more about the society than god fearing ???? a good example is the tragedy with some (seems to be infested with sexual perverts and abusive men) chatolic priests, they do not fear god, do they where they abuse boys, like classic music, good food, cheese, art, and fancy dresses, shoes and rituals. Crazy or what? 

1 hour ago, upu2 said:

3. If man is made in the image of God then logically the combination of all people in the world would form God. Reasonable assumption?

 

The same I believe we are all one

[VincentRJ]

2 hours ago, Peter Denis said:

Scientific knowledge is transferable. Inner knowledge, by contrast, is not.

In my view, what you've quoted is an opinion that defies common sense and logic. I've selected the parts of your quote which emphasize this illogicality, for the reasons I'll explain.

 

The arts, literature, music, and so on, are creations from inner knowledge. That inner knowledge is transmitted or transferred via novels, paintings, musical compositions, playwrights, actors, and so on. Beethoven was able to continue writing music even after he became deaf, and that inner experience was communicated to an audience who could hear.

 

"To believe is not to know. Not even calculations of probability can change that. Seen in this light science reveals itself as a large congregation of believers who devour the breadcrumbs of a few true men of knowledge and regurgitate them in a totally unrecognisable form."

 

Whilst it's correct that a belief can take the place of knowledge, as does the belief in a God, knowledge must include belief if one accepts that the knowledge is true. For example, I believe it is true that the moon is approximately 384,400 km from Earth, ranging from 363,104 km to 405,696 km because of its elliptical orbit. Such a belief would be particularly important for an astronaut travelling to the moon. Can you imagine someone agreeing to travel to the moon despite their lack of belief that we have a correct knowledge of the distance between the Moon and the Earth? ????
 

[Peter Denis]

23 minutes ago, VincentRJ said:

"Scientific knowledge is transferable. Inner knowledge, by contrast, is not."

 

In my view, what you've quoted is an opinion that defies common sense and logic. I've selected the parts of your quote which emphasize this illogicality, for the reasons I'll explain.

 

The arts, literature, music, and so on, are creations from inner knowledge. That inner knowledge is transmitted or transferred via novels, paintings, musical compositions, playwrights, actors, and so on. Beethoven was able to continue writing music even after he became deaf, and that inner experience was communicated to an audience who could hear.

 

"To believe is not to know. Not even calculations of probability can change that. Seen in this light science reveals itself as a large congregation of believers who devour the breadcrumbs of a few true men of knowledge and regurgitate them in a totally unrecognisable form."

 

Whilst it's correct that a belief can take the place of knowledge, as does the belief in a God, knowledge must include belief if one accepts that the knowledge is true. For example, I believe it is true that the moon is approximately 384,400 km from Earth, ranging from 363,104 km to 405,696 km because of its elliptical orbit. Such a belief would be particularly important for an astronaut travelling to the moon. Can you imagine someone agreeing to travel to the moon despite their lack of belief that we have a correct knowledge of the distance between the Moon and the Earth? ????
 

 

You wrote > The arts, literature, music, and so on, are creations from inner knowledge.

Surely not ALL art (or what we call art) is created from inner knowledge, but that's a different topic.

The point - as made by Dethlefsen - was that inner knowledge itself is NOT transferable.

You are talking about the 'creations' from inner knowledge.  Anybody can listen to and to a larger or lesser degree appreciate the symphonies created by Bach, but the 'inner knowledge' that allowed Bach to create these masterpieces is not transferable as it is based on his personal experience.  Even years of dedicated study will not allow a person to create a musical piece of 'Bach calibre' when he does not have access to the same source that fueled Bach's experience.

[mauGR1]

2 hours ago, VincentRJ said:

I don't think it's reasonable to imply that Neuroscientists are children. Also, the true 'Methodology of Science' requires that any evidence that might be relevant to the inquiry should not be dismissed. As far as I'm aware, there is no evidence of the existence of mental activity which is independent of electrical impulses.

 

In fact, I would suggest that imagining one can have thoughts that are not dependent upon electrical impulses in the brain, is a much better example of childishness. ????

Yes, you are correct, I'll rest my case for a while.????

[Peter Denis]

22 minutes ago, mauGR1 said:

Yes, you are correct, I'll rest my case for a while.????

Learning from the masters...

 

[Fat is a type of crazy]

4 hours ago, Peter Denis said:

Knowledge can only be the outcome of personal experience; it can neither be taken over nor transmitted.
To believe is basically to consider possible; without considering something possible one can never experience it. 

Much of our individual knowledge comes from what we are taught. I haven't been to Africa but I have knowledge of it.

OK so you mean inner knowledge. I follow the logic of what you are saying but I have no idea what inner knowledge means. Knowledge of what...If you think there is a god then you may have a feeling, a sense, but does that come with actual knowledge. That knowledge may in your opinion take the form that god exists but what is it that allows you to call this knowledge.   What is metaphysical - something outside human perception. How then can a human have knowledge of something he cannot perceive.

The example of Bach is that he simply had a skill. Nothing metaphysical or god like about that in my opinion. 

 

You are right that I have an acceptance of scientific belief that is not based on my personal experience. Based on available information it is most likely to be correct. It is not faith - it is saying that is the best I have to work with at this time.

 

To believe is not to consider possible. I consider there might be a god or a yeti or space monsters or whatever. I don't have to believe it to consider it possible.

I might not consider it possible that a space monster exists. I'll certainly experience it if they come to my house.

Possibly you are talking inner consideration and experience. I might not consider that a god could exist. But if he comes to my house or touches me inside I'll be convinced otherwise. I can't see why an open mind is a prerequisite.

 

If you think I am a fool not to be argued with I won't be offended.

 

[mauGR1]

45 minutes ago, Peter Denis said:

Learning from the masters...

 

Well,  I would like to make clear that I never thought @VincentRJ was a fool, and I'm sure nobody is thinking that.. actually it's a pleasure to discuss with him.

Nonetheless,  i find this post quite funny for some reason.

[VincentRJ]

1 hour ago, Peter Denis said:

 

The point - as made by Dethlefsen - was that inner knowledge itself is NOT transferable.

You are talking about the 'creations' from inner knowledge. 

Of course the direct, unadulterated, inner knowledge consists of patterns of neurons in the brain and the activity of those neurons, as do all experiences and sensations of all types, including all scientific knowledge.

 

The communication of such inner knowledge to others takes place all the time, but has to go through a conversion process, just like a radio or TV signal has to go through a conversion process in the radio or TV set before the message is communicated to the listener.

 

In order to transfer the inner knowledge directly, without conversion, one would have to transplant certain parts of the brain of one person into another person, as we replace a part of the body, such a liver or heart. However, this is currently beyond the capabilities of modern medical science, largely because of the reaction of the immune system. And, of course, if one transplants the whole brain to another body, which has been done with monkeys, according to the following Wikipedia article, there is then no distinction between 'a body with a different brain', and a 'brain with a different body', since all awareness, memory and knowledge is located in the brain.

 

 

From Wikipedia:
"A brain transplant or whole-body transplant is a procedure in which the brain of one organism is transplanted into the body of another organism. It is a procedure distinct from head transplantation, which involves transferring the entire head to a new body, as opposed to the brain only." 

 

"No human brain transplant has ever been conducted. Neurosurgeon Robert J. White has grafted the head of a monkey onto the headless body of another monkey. EEG readings showed the brain was later functioning normally. Initially, it was thought to prove that the brain was an immunologically privileged organ, as the host's immune system did not attack it at first, but immunorejection caused the monkey to die after nine days."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brain_transplant

[Peter Denis]

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

...

The example of Bach is that he simply had a skill. Nothing metaphysical or god like about that in my opinion.

Bach imo had 'the skill' to tap into the harmony of the spheres, and translate that experience into music, that is able to uplift audiences and have them experience a taste of that other world. It is of course no coincidence that Bach was deeply religious (i.e. spiritually inclined).

I could have also used the example of Mozart, who was already composing at the age of five.

And also in his life the spiritual played a large role (he was a free-mason).

Once again only my opinion, but such ultra-gifted individuals do not start from scratch, but are re-incarnated souls.

 

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

...

To believe is not to consider possible. I consider there might be a god or a yeti or space monsters or whatever. I don't have to believe it to consider it possible.

I might not consider it possible that a space monster exists. I'll certainly experience it if they come to my house.

Dethlefsen - which I quoted - wrote: To believe is basically to consider possible; without considering something possible one can never experience it.

You are turning it upside down by stating that you don't have to believe it to consider it possible.

And that's correct.  But it is like saying that a lion is an animal, but not all animals are lions.  Both statements are correct.

In other words considering something possible does not automatically imply that you believe it.

But in order to believe - and that is what Dethlefsen wrote - you have to consider it possible.

 

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

...

I can't see why an open mind is a prerequisite.

But that's exactly why Dethlefsen them wrote > without considering something possible one can never experience it.

When you are deeply convinced that something is not possible, you are not 'a believer' and are mentally blocking yourself from the possible experience.

Of course I am not talking about the physical impossible, but about metaphysical speculation, e.g. considering at least the possibility that God, re-incarnation, karma, etc... might be realities.

But the skepticism that denies anything that cannot be 'scientifically proven' will effectively become a self-fulfilling prophecy on your individual plane, and you will never experience that other reality because of you blocking the doors of perception.

 

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

..

If you think I am a fool not to be argued with I won't be offended.

I like your closing remark.  The swollen ego of a dead-serious scientific believer would never be able to admit that he might be a fool. 

And being a fool is by no means a bad thing, as it means that you are open to question the world around you, and even more important question yourself and being brutally honest about it.

Edited February 20, 2021 by Peter Denis

[mauGR1]

1 hour ago, Peter Denis said:

Dethlefsen - which I quoted - wrote: To believe is basically to consider possible; without considering something possible one can never experience it.

This sentence i have to remember the next time i argue with some 'infidel ', it's very much spot on????

[Sunmaster]

20 hours ago, VincentRJ said:

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?
 

Ok, but what is a "spiritual" signal?
 

[VincentRJ]

15 hours ago, Sunmaster said:

Ok, but what is a "spiritual" signal?
 

In my view a 'spiritual signal' is an emotional experience or 'state of awareness' that results from a general lack of signals.

The usual 'state of mind' of the average person is like a busy city continuously bustling with numerous activities. The mind is usually full of continuous thoughts about numerous issues and concerns, some of which cause worry and anxiety, and some of which cause laughter and pleasure.

 

It should not be difficult to imagine that a 'still' state-of-mind, free of all thoughts, worries and pleasures, could result in a very calm and peaceful experience, and a sense of oneness and unity with everything, which could be even better than a good night's sleep. ????
 

[VincentRJ]

18 hours ago, Peter Denis said:

But the skepticism that denies anything that cannot be 'scientifically proven' will effectively become a self-fulfilling prophecy on your individual plane, and you will never experience that other reality because of you blocking the doors of perception.

 

One should not confuse skepticism with denialism. Within the field of scientific inquiry, skepticism doesn't deny the existence of that which cannot be scientifically proven. Skepticism is a process of questioning theories or explanations that don't meet the rigorous standards of the 'methodology of science', and as a result of such questioning skepticism can reveal the flaws and uncertainties in a particular theory which then requires amendment or modification, or even total scrapping. Without skepticism, science could not progress.

 

"Scientific skepticism advocates for testing beliefs for reliability, by subjecting them to systematic investigation using the scientific method, to discover empirical evidence for them."
 

[Peter Denis]

14 minutes ago, VincentRJ said:

In my view a 'spiritual signal' is an emotional experience or 'state of awareness' that results from a general lack of signals.

The usual 'state of mind' of the average person is like a busy city continuously bustling with numerous activities. The mind is usually full of continuous thoughts about numerous issues and concerns, some of which cause worry and anxiety, and some of which cause laughter and pleasure.

 

It should not be difficult to imagine that a 'still' state-of-mind, free of all thoughts, worries and pleasures, could result in a very calm and peaceful experience, and a sense of oneness and unity with everything, which could be even better than a good night's sleep. ????

Although I largely agree with what you wrote, I am missing the usual 'scientific evidence' and links to recent science-articles, that normally accompany your posts ...  ????

[Peter Denis]

15 minutes ago, VincentRJ said:

One should not confuse skepticism with denialism. Within the field of scientific inquiry, skepticism doesn't deny the existence of that which cannot be scientifically proven. Skepticism is a process of questioning theories or explanations that don't meet the rigorous standards of the 'methodology of science', and as a result of such questioning skepticism can reveal the flaws and uncertainties in a particular theory which then requires amendment or modification, or even total scrapping. Without skepticism, science could not progress.

 

"Scientific skepticism advocates for testing beliefs for reliability, by subjecting them to systematic investigation using the scientific method, to discover empirical evidence for them."
 

Fair comment. 

Imo it would be a matter of striking the right balance between an inquisitive mind and a not gullible outlook.  I used the words inquisitive and not gullible, as the terms belief and skepticism have a positive/negative connotation to it.

[mauGR1]

10 minutes ago, Peter Denis said:

Fair comment. 

Imo it would be a matter of striking the right balance between an inquisitive mind and a not gullible outlook.  I used the words inquisitive and not gullible, as the terms belief and skepticism have a positive/negative connotation to it.

I was having some similar thoughts, perhaps faith and skepticism are at the opposite sides of a spectrum,  but it could be difficult to say where is the "right balance " .

That said, fanatics of faith and fanatics of skepticism leave me perplexed in the same way.

[Sunmaster]

4 hours ago, VincentRJ said:

In my view a 'spiritual signal' is an emotional experience or 'state of awareness' that results from a general lack of signals.

The usual 'state of mind' of the average person is like a busy city continuously bustling with numerous activities. The mind is usually full of continuous thoughts about numerous issues and concerns, some of which cause worry and anxiety, and some of which cause laughter and pleasure.

 

It should not be difficult to imagine that a 'still' state-of-mind, free of all thoughts, worries and pleasures, could result in a very calm and peaceful experience, and a sense of oneness and unity with everything, which could be even better than a good night's sleep. ????
 

Ok, now we're going somewhere...and without any snarky remarks, provocations and LMFHO emojis. 

Congratulations ????

[Tagged]

7 hours ago, Sunmaster said:

Ok, now we're going somewhere...and without any snarky remarks, provocations and LMFHO emojis. 

Congratulations ????

What do you think about this? 

 

https://web.facebook.com/ZDoggMD/videos/3239011792991723/?_rdc=1&_rdr

Edited February 21, 2021 by Tagged

[Sunmaster]

46 minutes ago, Tagged said:

What do you think about this? 

 

https://web.facebook.com/ZDoggMD/videos/3239011792991723/?_rdc=1&_rdr

I'm not sure what organism can take in all of reality and therefore go extinct, but I agree with this theory that we perceive only a small slice of reality. Think about the very narrow light and sound spectrum we can see and hear. We can also choose to shift and enlarge the spectrum by directly influencing our brain chemistry through psychedelic substances or meditation [the silencing of other signals to favour the emergence of a spiritual signal {credit to VincentRJ}].

A lot of what he's saying seems also strongly related to what the yogis have been saying for thousands of years. "The world is made of consciousness, and there are conscious agents within it (us)". 
I like when he says "It sounds like woo, but it's actually mathematical formulas". Well, I'm definitely glad the subject of consciousness is being explored more in depth by scientists. Eventually, they will realize that their new theories are nothing more than repackaged ancient wisdom. ???? 

Very interesting talk. ????

[upu2]

On 2/20/2021 at 3:40 AM, Tagged said:

God gave humans free will and a test

God forgive, people do not, so it is more about the society than god fearing ???? a good example is the tragedy with some (seems to be infested with sexual perverts and abusive men) chatolic priests, they do not fear god, do they where they abuse boys, like classic music, good food, cheese, art, and fancy dresses, shoes and rituals. Crazy or what? 

 

The same I believe we are all one

1 if he gave people free will then they should have stayed in t Garden of Eden. That was not the case which implies he messed up somwhere along the way.

2. If no one fears him then the phrase "God Fearing" is ridiculous. Probably mde by a poitician to control the people or those so called men of god the clergy.

3. If as you say we are all one then the combination of every person is god. Not much point in having places of worship if that is the case.

Brexit Registration.pdf

[thaibeachlovers]

On 2/19/2021 at 3:46 PM, mauGR1 said:

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

Unless new stars are being made eventually they die. The universe may still exist as a cold dark place, but I can't see how life would exist in it.

Of course God exists outside the universe, so life of some kind will continue.

[thaibeachlovers]

19 hours ago, VincentRJ said:

skepticism doesn't deny the existence of that which cannot be scientifically proven.

Are you saying that science can't deny the existence of God?

[mauGR1]

1 hour ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Unless new stars are being made eventually they die. The universe may still exist as a cold dark place, but I can't see how life would exist in it.

Of course God exists outside the universe, so life of some kind will continue.

Yes, everything is possible. 

I meant to say that it will be difficult for humans to prove anything,  if humans cease to exist.