Do you believe in God and why

[Peter Denis]

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

 

Sorry but just when I think I'll leave it there along comes something like this.

Not to believe in reincarnation is absurd. Why? He says that no one can point to a process in nature that ends abruptly in nothingness. Cemeteries suggest otherwise.  Possibly our sense of awareness or sense of being is somehow a thing separate from our bodies that must live on. Why? What is the evidence it is? The evidence is the opposite. 

But evidence is not necessary because he KNOWS it is true. 

He says death requires proof because we have no experience of it but reincarnation does not because we do. So if I know I have had an experience of reincarnation then it is by definition correct. 

But does he  know? Really? 

Philosophy is defined as the study of the fundamental nature of knowledge. He says he uses philosophical insight to know reincarnation is true. So knowledge of knowledge lead to knowledge that reincarnation is real?

 

He says knowledge comes from experience. Sounds OK as long as you take into account that your experience is limited and a subjective experience. He seems to say that the  experience he had is knowledge and no need for proof because I experienced something, I felt something that was so strong it makes it fact, and therefore I know it is correct. Why?

Further, he appears to say an individual's knowledge or feeling of knowledge is much more significant than objective proof. This might indicate that all religious people who have certainty in the knowledge of their faith are by definition correct. Why?  

 

If a scientist proves something by actual hard work and scientific testing he is telling everyone else they must believe him? No. That is not how science works. He is saying I think through my endeavours I have built a consistent argument that is borne out by the facts. He then welcomes others to attempt to prove him wrong. That proof requires more than someone saying I am certain I am correct and by that certainty alone  I have proven you wrong.

Sometimes some words on a page are poetic or have a nice feeling but if you take it bit by bit it there's nothing there except for: I think or feel with certainty that I know so it is fact. Reincarnation is real because I know it is and because I know it is reincarnation is real.  

This is the smugness I talk about - not in you but in the author - they feel they can just say stuff like that and in the end just smile and say - I just know. No. 

 

Hahaha, I could have chosen another insightful excerpt from Dethlefsen's writings on reincarnation but I knew this one would trigger outrage (which by the way does not make it less true).

Yes, I am a bit of a rascal... ????

[Neeranam]

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

Not to believe in reincarnation is absurd

However, many in the West still do in this modern age. 

[thaibeachlovers]

On 2/26/2021 at 3:48 PM, mauGR1 said:

The other day i came across Karl Popper's paradox... :

The paradox of tolerance states that if a society is tolerant without limit, its ability to be tolerant is eventually seized or destroyed by the intolerant. Karl Popper described it as the seemingly paradoxical idea that in order to maintain a tolerant society, the society must be intolerant of intolerance.

....For those who are interested in philosophy, this is imho a succinct explanation why every society, be it religious or scientific is doomed to become intolerant .

it follows that being tolerant is not always a good thing.

The problem is not easy to solve,  as the level of tolerance is subjective and different for everyone. 

That leads to a question I've been mulling over- why are there bad people? Are they born that way or made? Lots of poor people that grew up in bad situations are not bad people, and it is claimed that if a known group of bad people were locked up indefinitely, most crime would cease.

In my own experience, I've known very few "good" people. Perhaps I've just been very unlucky and there are many "good" people out there- just not where I live.

NB, I'm not referring to people that do nothing except work, watch tv, eat and sleep. They might not do anything wrong, but they are the ones that can be led to do bad things given the right cultural and political situation. I'm referring to exceptional people that would never do anything bad, even if it led to them being penalised eg conscientious objectors in war time.

[thaibeachlovers]

On 2/27/2021 at 3:55 PM, Fat is a type of crazy said:

I think you are still a little bit missing the point and we actually agree. If they are using scientific methodology no problem but as yet it just isn't sound science. Think of the method as a direction and sound science as a destination. Those who have proven that carbon is an element  have reached the destination of sound science. Could still be overturned but not likely. Most if not all spiritual theories just haven't reached the destination. Its not an opinion it is fact.

Sometimes though I take your last point - I feel sometimes like I am posting on a football fan website about how much I am not into football. Replace football with faith. Maybe best I leave it there.

 

No point trying to convince us of anything based on science. Anyone that claims science knows everything is IMO "mistaken".

 

There isn't much, if any money to be made from investigating spirituality, which would explain why scientists are not particularly interested in investigating it, IMO. It's all about the money IMO.

[thaibeachlovers]

On 3/1/2021 at 2:37 AM, VincentRJ said:

I can understand that at the age of ten, such an experience would have had quite a profound effect and would have caused you to accept concepts of ESP as you grew up, and accept other experiences as confirmation of ESP, not realizing that such confirmations were examples of 'Confirmation Bias'.

My experience that led me to spirituality was in my 30s, so explain that as a result of "confirmation bias".

[mauGR1]

7 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

That leads to a question I've been mulling over- why are there bad people? Are they born that way or made? Lots of poor people that grew up in bad situations are not bad people, and it is claimed that if a known group of bad people were locked up indefinitely, most crime would cease.

In my own experience, I've known very few "good" people. Perhaps I've just been very unlucky and there are many "good" people out there- just not where I live.

NB, I'm not referring to people that do nothing except work, watch tv, eat and sleep. They might not do anything wrong, but they are the ones that can be led to do bad things given the right cultural and political situation. I'm referring to exceptional people that would never do anything bad, even if it led to them being penalised eg conscientious objectors in war time.

We could spend ages trying to answering that question.. personally I'm convinced that very rare are those who are entirely "bad", so are those who are entirely "good ".

As i believe in karma, i try not to do any bad things, but the human relationships can be extremely difficult sometimes.. even saying honestly what I really think, may offend the feelings of someone. 

Even Peter,  the favourite apostle of Jesus,  when facing persecution and death,  lied to save his own life.

No one is completely innocent and no one is completely guilty imho.

 

[VincentRJ]

9 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

No point trying to convince us of anything based on science. Anyone that claims science knows everything is IMO "mistaken".

What a strange statement. Science doesn't claim to know everything. It only claims to know what can be proved to be consistent after multiple experiments, and even then science accepts that there is at least a risk of some unknown variable that might reveal an inconsistency at some point in the future.

 

Anyone who claims that 'science knows everything' has no understanding of science.

 

"There isn't much, if any money to be made from investigating spirituality, which would explain why scientists are not particularly interested in investigating it, IMO. It's all about the money IMO."

 

Charles Darwin didn't investigate the Origin of Species and the Descent of Man in order to make money. He was interested in the subject, and self-funded. His theories, or perhaps more correctly 'hypotheses', infuriated the religious community, but scientist of the day, and still at present, continued to investigate the issue because the initial evidence appeared sound and made sense.

 

Many scientists have investigated the issue of 'Extra Sensory Perception', or ESP, or Mind Reading, but no evidence has been found that meets the basic requirements of the 'Methodology of Science', therefore it would be foolish to spend more money and resources on the issue. Got it? ????
 

[mauGR1]

12 minutes ago, VincentRJ said:

What a strange statement. Science doesn't claim to know everything. It only claims to know what can be proved to be consistent after multiple experiments, and even then science accepts that there is at least a risk of some unknown variable that might reveal an inconsistency at some point in the future.

 

Anyone who claims that 'science knows everything' has no understanding of science.

 

"There isn't much, if any money to be made from investigating spirituality, which would explain why scientists are not particularly interested in investigating it, IMO. It's all about the money IMO."

 

Charles Darwin didn't investigate the Origin of Species and the Descent of Man in order to make money. He was interested in the subject, and self-funded. His theories, or perhaps more correctly 'hypotheses', infuriated the religious community, but scientist of the day, and still at present, continued to investigate the issue because the initial evidence appeared sound and made sense.

 

Many scientists have investigated the issue of 'Extra Sensory Perception', or ESP, or Mind Reading, but no evidence has been found that meets the basic requirements of the 'Methodology of Science', therefore it would be foolish to spend more money and resources on the issue. Got it? ????
 

Imho you are confused about what science should be and what it is.

The religion of profit has reached heights which the religion of God could only dream of.

Stay tuned ????

[Sunmaster]

36 minutes ago, VincentRJ said:

Science doesn't claim to know everything.

Maybe not science, but a lot of Thaivisa scientists sure do. ????

[thaibeachlovers]

7 hours ago, VincentRJ said:

What a strange statement. Science doesn't claim to know everything. It only claims to know what can be proved to be consistent after multiple experiments, and even then science accepts that there is at least a risk of some unknown variable that might reveal an inconsistency at some point in the future.

 

Anyone who claims that 'science knows everything' has no understanding of science.

By that statement then, you would have to say that God could exist, because science doesn't know everything.

[thaibeachlovers]

7 hours ago, VincentRJ said:

Many scientists have investigated the issue of 'Extra Sensory Perception', or ESP, or Mind Reading, but no evidence has been found that meets the basic requirements of the 'Methodology of Science', therefore it would be foolish to spend more money and resources on the issue. Got it? 

That only means that they don't have the instruments needed to prove it one way or the other. Got it?

 

I've experienced many episodes of things unprovable, but that doesn't mean they didn't happen.

[VincentRJ]

4 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

By that statement then, you would have to say that God could exist, because science doesn't know everything.

Didn't you praise Richard Dawkins for saying he was only 99% sure that God did not exist? Those who have at least a general understanding of the scientific process and the broad achievements of science so far, will appreciate that the combined sum of all the scientific knowledge in the numerous scientific disciplines, is only a very, very tiny fraction of what remains to be known.

 

To speculate that there might exist some 'super-intelligent' entity that has created the entire universe, is just speculation, and that's fine as long as one understands it is no more than speculation.

 

However, scientific research requires some initial evidence or observations which have at least some consistency and are at least convincing to a reasonable degree, before resources are diverted to fully investigate the issue.
 

[VincentRJ]

4 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

That only means that they don't have the instruments needed to prove it one way or the other. Got it?

 

I've experienced many episodes of things unprovable, but that doesn't mean they didn't happen.

That's only partially correct. The scientists do have the instruments, which are the minds of those who claim to be able to sense and communicate through Extra Sensory Processes. However, the scientific experiments that have been done so far, using those instruments or magical minds, have shown that the instruments are very unreliable and are unable to show any convincing results which even meet the the most basic requirements of the methodology of science. Got it? ????
 

[Peter Denis]

12 hours ago, VincentRJ said:

...

Many scientists have investigated the issue of 'Extra Sensory Perception', or ESP, or Mind Reading, but no evidence has been found that meets the basic requirements of the 'Methodology of Science', therefore it would be foolish to spend more money and resources on the issue. Got it? ????
 

Why this condescending snarky Got it? remark at the end???

Anyway, I do not 'get' that last statement (as well as many other you have been making in this thread) and imo is completely wrong as it is not the lack of evidence that prevents scientists from exploring these issues but rather their belief system (as well as the fear of ridicule by going against the stream of current 'scientific' dogma).

[mauGR1]

5 minutes ago, Peter Denis said:

fear of ridicule by going against the stream of current 'scientific' dogma).

True, just mentioning God in some circles can be lethal for one's reputation. 

[Sunmaster]

7 minutes ago, mauGR1 said:

True, just mentioning God in some circles can be lethal for one's reputation. 

You don't even have to use the feared "G" word....simply talking about consciousness makes their heads spin and cry for "pseudoscience". ????

Edited March 3, 2021 by Sunmaster

[Peter Denis]

6 minutes ago, VincentRJ said:

... The scientists do have the instruments, which are the minds of those who claim to be able to sense and communicate through Extra Sensory Processes. However, the scientific experiments that have been done so far, using those instruments or magical minds, have shown that the instruments are very unreliable and are unable to show any convincing results which even meet the the most basic requirements of the methodology of science. Got it? ????
 

There you go again...

Once again a totally incorrect statement < unable to show any convincing results which even meet the the most basic requirements of the methodology of science > being presented as an Unshakable Truth.

I suggest you read Sheldrake's correspondence with Skeptics dismissing his work, while he meticulously used the 'methodology of science' to eliminate any bias or subjectivity.  It is pathetic and sad to read how they keep on insisting for 'additional evidence that meets their conditions' and when provided, how they wiggle out by imposing once again other conditions in order to dismiss the results of Sheldrake's experiments.

This site might also invoke some fury > http://www.skepticalaboutskeptics.org/

 

[Fat is a type of crazy]

2 hours ago, Peter Denis said:

There you go again...

Once again a totally incorrect statement < unable to show any convincing results which even meet the the most basic requirements of the methodology of science > being presented as an Unshakable Truth.

I suggest you read Sheldrake's correspondence with Skeptics dismissing his work, while he meticulously used the 'methodology of science' to eliminate any bias or subjectivity.  It is pathetic and sad to read how they keep on insisting for 'additional evidence that meets their conditions' and when provided, how they wiggle out by imposing once again other conditions in order to dismiss the results of Sheldrake's experiments.

This site might also invoke some fury > http://www.skepticalaboutskeptics.org/

 

I'm furious. No that website looks good.

They say Richard Dawkins is a man with a mission – the eradication of religion and superstition and their total replacement with science and reason.

My premise is that religion and reason should not be inconsistent if religion is true.

If someone says I believe it is true, but it just can't be tested by science at this stage, then fair enough and it can be left there. If they come up with some apparently clever but meaningless words that come back to the idea that something should be accepted by science because of their individual 'knowledge', when there is no objective evidence, then I think that's simply not correct.  

You see the difference. One accepts the validity of science but chooses to believe. The other says that science is failing simply because it does not accept subjective experience. 

I can see that the term atheist can seem arrogant.  But keep in mind it is someone who does not believe  - not someone who says it is not possible. If that is arrogant then surely someone's decision to believe is just as arrogant. 

Your premise about Sheldrake seems to be that he has the proof but scientists are either scared to look at it, as it affects their reputation, or too arrogant to look at it.  I think any scientist who has irrefutable evidence will get through those blockers fairly easier. It may not be easy but evidence is evidence. Doesn't mean a scientist checking his work has to go down a rabbit warren of iffy evidence that is not reliable and provable. Life's too short. Years later he hasn't been able to set up experiments that build a clear case so maybe he just has to do better testing to make his case. 

[Peter Denis]

1 hour ago, Fat is a type of crazy said:

...

Years later he hasn't been able to set up experiments that build a clear case so maybe he just has to do better testing to make his case. 

In a previous response of yours you mentioned that you only had heard of Sheldrake from his banned TED talk.  And that your comments were not based on an 'in depth assessment'.  

Imo your comment above is not even based on a superficial assessment.

Yes, I'm p1$$ed off when the great man (one of my heroes) and his groundbreaking work are disposed of like this by the Arrogant Ignorant, without even making the effort to look into the experiments he did set up and the data he gathered.  It's easy to google them, and when doing so, you would be surprised of how meticulously he used the 'scientific methodology' to avoid any bias or subjectivity in the experiments he did set up. 

It is true that Sheldrake is most interested in unexplained phenomena (or those where the 'explanation' of the phenomena is shallow).  And in the true spirit of REAL scientific enquiry, he does not just propose hypotheses ( VincentRJ's nothing more than a 'storyteller' assessment ) but does set-up experiments to find out whether real-world data supports his theories or not. 

Fascinating stuff for those that make the effort to look into it. 

Note: Attached a short (5 pages only) article from Sheldrake on the Extended Mind, which I posted already earlier.  In his books and studies, he provides both the set-up of the experiments he conducted as well as the data they generated, but the article gives already a flavor of his work-method.

The Extended Mind_Rupert Sheldrake.pdf.pdf

[Fat is a type of crazy]

1 hour ago, Peter Denis said:

In a previous response of yours you mentioned that you only had heard of Sheldrake from his banned TED talk.  And that your comments were not based on an 'in depth assessment'.  

Imo your comment above is not even based on a superficial assessment.

Yes, I'm p1$$ed off when the great man (one of my heroes) and his groundbreaking work are disposed of like this by the Arrogant Ignorant, without even making the effort to look into the experiments he did set up and the data he gathered.  It's easy to google them, and when doing so, you would be surprised of how meticulously he used the 'scientific methodology' to avoid any bias or subjectivity in the experiments he did set up. 

It is true that Sheldrake is most interested in unexplained phenomena (or those where the 'explanation' of the phenomena is shallow).  And in the true spirit of REAL scientific enquiry, he does not just propose hypotheses ( VincentRJ's nothing more than a 'storyteller' assessment ) but does set-up experiments to find out whether real-world data supports his theories or not. 

Fascinating stuff for those that make the effort to look into it. 

Note: Attached a short (5 pages only) article from Sheldrake on the Extended Mind, which I posted already earlier.  In his books and studies, he provides both the set-up of the experiments he conducted as well as the data they generated, but the article gives already a flavor of his work-method.

The Extended Mind_Rupert Sheldrake.pdf.pdf 3.28 MB · 0 downloads

That was an interesting read and I can say that I have had the experience that someone being stared at seems to be aware . 

 

The last 6 paragraphs of page 2 where he talks about the idea of two way vision - that he describes as intuitive - didn't do it for me. An example is I don't think that it is a difficult concept that the brain has evolved to interpret what we are seeing rather than us just having the feeling of a picture in our brain. 

 

The results of the testing he mentions, completed by the Institute of Noetic science,  has results that are a bit different to statistical chance. It seems that to prove that people are aware of being watched is super easy if factual and could  surely be reproduced time and time again by others outside a parapsychology research institute. 

I am all for people testing these theories and we can all say we have had strange experiences - meeting people in strange circumstances as though brought together - coincidences that seem too bizarre to be by chance. But at the same time each of us have to be aware of the big picture - that coincidences do happen and that proof that it is not a coincidence should not be hard to find. 

He obviously has some merit given he had been picked for a Ted Talk. 

Come on Peter set up a test yourself with the local Thai community. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited March 3, 2021 by Fat is a type of crazy

[Peter Denis]

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

That was an interesting read and I can say that I have had the experience that someone being stared at seems to be aware . 

...

Come on Peter set up a test yourself with the local Thai community.

Yes, I had the strong feeling (almost KNOWING) that you would react to my post... ????

Spooky!

[thaibeachlovers]

20 hours ago, VincentRJ said:

Didn't you praise Richard Dawkins for saying he was only 99% sure that God did not exist?

Not in my recollection. Perhaps you can link to where I said that, or withdraw the claim.

[thaibeachlovers]

20 hours ago, VincentRJ said:

That's only partially correct. The scientists do have the instruments, which are the minds of those who claim to be able to sense and communicate through Extra Sensory Processes. However, the scientific experiments that have been done so far, using those instruments or magical minds, have shown that the instruments are very unreliable and are unable to show any convincing results which even meet the the most basic requirements of the methodology of science. Got it? ????
 

LOL. Spirituality isn't about ESP, so that a false equivalence. If you can't understand that, perhaps we are not talking about the same things at all.

[thaibeachlovers]

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

You see the difference. One accepts the validity of science but chooses to believe. The other says that science is failing simply because it does not accept subjective experience. 

You miss the third option- that science just isn't capable of proving or disproving the existence of God because it's too primitive.

[mauGR1]

30 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

LOL. Spirituality isn't about ESP, so that a false equivalence. If you can't understand that, perhaps we are not talking about the same things at all.

Agree. There has been a lot of posts about ESP recently,  which , although quite an interesting subject of discussion, is not a proof of the existence of God. 

[thaibeachlovers]

Just now, mauGR1 said:

Agree. There has been a lot of posts about ESP recently,  which , although quite an interesting subject of discussion, is not a proof of the existence of God. 

IMO it's absolutely NOTHING to do with the OP- Do we believe in God, and why.

 

A lot has been claimed about science on these pages, but far as I'm concerned, when scientists can create a universe, like ours, they can can rightfully claim they know about the existence of God. Till then, they can accept that they just don't know enough.

[Fat is a type of crazy]

46 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

You miss the third option- that science just isn't capable of proving or disproving the existence of God because it's too primitive.

I did include that option in that post in the following bit:

 

If someone says I believe it is true, but it just can't be tested by science at this stage, then fair enough and it can be left there.

[mauGR1]

30 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

IMO it's absolutely NOTHING to do with the OP- Do we believe in God, and why.

 

A lot has been claimed about science on these pages, but far as I'm concerned, when scientists can create a universe, like ours, they can can rightfully claim they know about the existence of God. Till then, they can accept that they just don't know enough.

Well, "God" is a very broad subject, and imho it's fair to discuss everything which concerns "god" , including religion.. (I know you don't agree very much there)

Man has created a lot of great tools, and many of those are wonderful miniature universes.

Are those tools happening by chance ?

Nope,  everything we see, hear and touch has been created somehow. 

To say that reason, purpose, creativity and so on...  belong just to us, little humans in the vast, and possibly infinite universe, goes against any logic.

We are not alone, imho, and i have to admit it makes me feel comfortable. 

[Peter Denis]

2 hours ago, mauGR1 said:

Agree. There has been a lot of posts about ESP recently,  which , although quite an interesting subject of discussion, is not a proof of the existence of God. 

That's true.  But when you personally experienced phenomena that are denied by Science Believers as being impossible or classified as illusions, hallucinations, fraud, etc... you are more inclined to embrace the idea of God (or universal consciousness) than a pure materialistic worldview.

 

[mauGR1]

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

I did include that option in that post in the following bit:

 

If someone says I believe it is true, but it just can't be tested by science at this stage, then fair enough and it can be left there.

Yes and no.

Science in the way you mean it, can test only material reality. 

The next stage is to realise that matter can be described, for a lack of better words, as "condensed thought ".

According to spiritual science,  "thought" is as real as matter, although "thought " cannot be dissected with a knife, or examined with a microscope.