Do you believe in God and why

[mauGR1]

8 minutes ago, Peter Denis said:

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.

 

Yes ! And one realizes that describing "reality" is not such a simple task like some ignorant scientist would like us to believe. 

There is more than it meets the eye, so to speak.

[Fat is a type of crazy]

17 minutes ago, mauGR1 said:

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. 

I hope I am not repeating myself. Probably am.

If both you and ThaiBeachLovers  say 'I believe in God and I believe that one day it is likely to be provable but science isn't up to the job now' then, I think it is a fair position for a believer who has faith in a god. This is because you are accepting established science as valid, but just feel it needs new tools to do its job, and you personally consider that the benefits to you of belief, i.e. that step into faith,  is warranted. I might disagree with taking that leap of faith but I can understand why people do.

 

If you admonish scientists though for not accepting  ideas such as condensed thought, or of god, because you think they should accept the subjective opinions of one or more individuals 'knowledge', or some other non-scientific measure, as being scientific then for me that is more problematic. What can follow is that scientists are called corrupt or money hungry or arrogant simply because they stick to test based science that has stood the test of time.

 

[mauGR1]

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

I hope I am not repeating myself. Probably am.

If both you and ThaiBeachLovers  say 'I believe in God and I believe that one day it is likely to be provable but science isn't up to the job now' then, I think it is a fair position for a believer who has faith in a god. This is because you are accepting established science as valid, but just feel it needs new tools to do its job, and you personally consider that the benefits to you of belief, i.e. that step into faith,  is warranted. I might disagree with taking that leap of faith but I can understand why people do.

 

If you admonish scientists though for not accepting  ideas such as condensed thought, or of god, because you think they should accept the subjective opinions of one or more individuals 'knowledge', or some other non-scientific measure, as being scientific then for me that is more problematic. What can follow is that scientists are called corrupt or money hungry or arrogant simply because they stick to test based science that has stood the test of time.

 

Don't worry about repeating yourself, everyone else is doing it, and everyone is, or should be, free to believe anything. 

Yet, when science privileges the material side of things, without a moral code, then yes, I have a problem with it.

Greed is a powerful force, very few people are immune to it, and when science is manipulated by greed, is not doing a lot of good to the world.

 

[Peter Denis]

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

I hope I am not repeating myself. Probably am.

If both you and ThaiBeachLovers  say 'I believe in God and I believe that one day it is likely to be provable but science isn't up to the job now' then, I think it is a fair position for a believer who has faith in a god. This is because you are accepting established science as valid, but just feel it needs new tools to do its job, and you personally consider that the benefits to you of belief, i.e. that step into faith,  is warranted. I might disagree with taking that leap of faith but I can understand why people do.

 

If you admonish scientists though for not accepting  ideas such as condensed thought, or of god, because you think they should accept the subjective opinions of one or more individuals 'knowledge', or some other non-scientific measure, as being scientific then for me that is more problematic. What can follow is that scientists are called corrupt or money hungry or arrogant simply because they stick to test based science that has stood the test of time.

Fair comments.

I might add that just like we had endless discussions about religion vs spirituality, we can have equally endless discussions about the scientific doctrine.

[VincentRJ]

14 hours 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.

Wow! I didn't know that ESP has nothing to do with spirituality. As I understand every thing we know, experience, and believe, except God and spirituality, is related to our Sensory Perceptions of taste, touch, sight, smell, and  hearing. I didn't know that some people can actually smell or taste spirituality. ????

[Elad]

18 hours ago, mauGR1 said:

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

Just like "energy", what is energy?, you can't dissect it with a knife or examine it under a microscope. If you compress a spring with your hand, the kinetic energy from your muscles is transferred to the spring and stored within the spring as "potential energy", and if you weighed the compressed spring with very sensitive scales, it would weigh slightly more than when it wasn't compressed, and that is the mass/energy equivalence. Perhaps "thoughts" are just a form of energy.  

[Sunmaster]

Just to let you know that after about 3 months of trying, I had my first lucid dream. Actually, I first started to lucid dream 25 years ago, but since then nothing...until last night.

 

I was in the middle of a nice erotic dream with 2 girls when I realized that I was dreaming. It was short but very enjoyable, let me tell you. ????

 

You know what they say..."If it's too good to be true,...it's probably a dream" ????????

Edited March 4, 2021 by Sunmaster

[mauGR1]

5 hours ago, Elad said:

Just like "energy", what is energy?, you can't dissect it with a knife or examine it under a microscope. If you compress a spring with your hand, the kinetic energy from your muscles is transferred to the spring and stored within the spring as "potential energy", and if you weighed the compressed spring with very sensitive scales, it would weigh slightly more than when it wasn't compressed, and that is the mass/energy equivalence. Perhaps "thoughts" are just a form of energy.  

..."thoughts are "just" a form of energy."..

It sounds too generic to me.

I prefer to think that I am at least 3 bodies,  physical, mental and spiritual. 

That way, i can be able to know where a thought is coming from, and where it's going. 

And observe the relations and interactions among thoughts, etc.

[thaibeachlovers]

On 3/4/2021 at 2:57 PM, Fat is a type of crazy said:

I hope I am not repeating myself. Probably am.

If both you and ThaiBeachLovers  say 'I believe in God and I believe that one day it is likely to be provable but science isn't up to the job now' then, I think it is a fair position for a believer who has faith in a god. This is because you are accepting established science as valid, but just feel it needs new tools to do its job, and you personally consider that the benefits to you of belief, i.e. that step into faith,  is warranted. I might disagree with taking that leap of faith but I can understand why people do.

 

If you admonish scientists though for not accepting  ideas such as condensed thought, or of god, because you think they should accept the subjective opinions of one or more individuals 'knowledge', or some other non-scientific measure, as being scientific then for me that is more problematic. What can follow is that scientists are called corrupt or money hungry or arrogant simply because they stick to test based science that has stood the test of time.

 

I certainly don't "admonish" anyone for not accepting any ideas- I simply don't care whether they do or not, as it's none of my business, and I'm not trying to convert anyone. I'm attempting to answer the OP and pick up some ideas that I would not have considered on my own.

What does annoy me though, are posters that appear to be convinced that science already knows everything, when that is a nonsense. Obviously, science does not know everything, else they would have cured all ills and built a paradise on earth.

[Surelynot]

9 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

What does annoy me though, are posters that appear to be convinced that science already knows everything

Then they are a million miles from understanding true science......science has theories which have to be supported..."not proven"...by observations/data.....as soon as a new theory is proposed and it fits better with the current observations/data then it is out with old in with the new.......that is until the next theory comes along.......I doubt anyone who understands science would use the term proven in the sense that that is it, finish, no need to consider anything else.

 

Who would have thought Newton's Laws would not stand the test of time......then along comes some German who does no more than sit in his bedsit and 'think' about things and low and behold...Newton is out of the window....(not quite that simple).

Edited March 5, 2021 by Surelynot

[thaibeachlovers]

17 hours ago, VincentRJ said:

Wow! I didn't know that ESP has nothing to do with spirituality. As I understand every thing we know, experience, and believe, except God and spirituality, is related to our Sensory Perceptions of taste, touch, sight, smell, and  hearing. I didn't know that some people can actually smell or taste spirituality. ????

Can't taste, touch, see, smell, or hear God. Spirituality is outside human biological perception, and if one can't understand that, should one even be claiming to know about spirituality?

IMO spirituality isn't about something outside of us that can be detected, monitored and evaluated- it's something within us and only we can unlock our own spirituality by doing the work to unlock it. No one else can unlock our spirituality.

ESP may be a by product of spirituality, but IMO it certainly isn't spirituality per se.

 

[thaibeachlovers]

Just now, Surelynot said:

Then they are a million miles from understanding true science......science has theories which have to be supported..."not proven"...by observations/data.....as soon as a new theory is proposed and it fits better with the current observations/data then it is out with old in with the new.......that is until the next theory comes along.......I doubt anyone who understands science would use the term proven in the sense that that is it, finish, no need to consider anything else.

 

Who would have thought Newton's Laws would not stand the test of time......then along comes some German who does no more sit in his bedsit and 'think' about things and low and behold...Newton is out of the window....(not quite that simple).

Why do you still try and say that science can understand, let alone prove or disprove spirituality? It's basically the same as saying religion is the same as spirituality, and I hope we have pointed out that that is erroneous. To repeat myself, spirituality may be used by religion, but religion has, IMO, nothing to do with spirituality. One can believe in God and read the Bible and attend church services, but it's not necessary to do either to believe in God.

Those that claim that spirituality can be measured by science are, to use an old saying, barking up the wrong tree, IMO.

[Surelynot]

2 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Why do you still try and say that science can understand, let alone prove or disprove spirituality?

Didn't realize I had???

 

I was only commenting on peoples misunderstanding of something being proven in a scientific context......religion and spirituality holds the same interest for me as ......chewing gum on the pavement.

[thaibeachlovers]

4 minutes ago, Surelynot said:

Didn't realize I had???

 

I was only commenting on peoples misunderstanding of something being proven in a scientific context......religion and spirituality holds the same interest for me as ......chewing gum on the pavement.

So why bring science up in a thread about God? IMO it's off topic.

 

If religion and spirituality holds the same interest for you as chewing gum on the pavement, I fail to understand why you are even commenting. The topic is about God, not science.

At least atheists were on topic.

Edited March 5, 2021 by thaibeachlovers

[Surelynot]

36 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

What does annoy me though, are posters that appear to be convinced that science already knows everything

Sorry....who brought up the subject of science??????

[thaibeachlovers]

11 minutes ago, Surelynot said:

Sorry....who brought up the subject of science??????

Not I. Perhaps the posters that mention science in their posts did. I've certainly responded to other posters that used science to try and prove God does not exist, but I wouldn't introduce science myself as I do not believe it has anything to do with God in any way at all.

Edited March 5, 2021 by thaibeachlovers

[Fat is a type of crazy]

25 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

So why bring science up in a thread about God? IMO it's off topic.

 

If religion and spirituality holds the same interest for you as chewing gum on the pavement, I fail to understand why you are even commenting. The topic is about God, not science.

At least atheists were on topic.

I think science is relevant because there is a constant interplay in our minds between accepting the known reality of what science tells us and believing in either a god, or some sort of spirituality, or that we are special in some way. I am not saying either is correct but belief, as against hope or an interest in the latter, does require the leap of faith away from science. 

I think everyone goes through that conflict through life of wanting to believe either they are special, or there is a god, be they atheist or a committed christian. It may even take the form of momentary hope that passes by as logic takes hold.

It's not easy or palatable to constantly believe you are a dying piece of meat that becomes dust which I guess is what current scientific theory tells us we are. 

[thaibeachlovers]

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

I think science is relevant because there is a constant interplay in our minds between accepting the known reality of what science tells us and believing in either a god, or some sort of spirituality, or that we are special in some way. I am not saying either is correct but belief, as against hope or an interest in the latter, does require the leap of faith away from science. 

I think everyone goes through that conflict through life of wanting to believe either they are special, or there is a god, be they atheist or a committed christian. It may even take the form of momentary hope that passes by as logic takes hold.

It's not easy or palatable to constantly believe you are a dying piece of meat that becomes dust which I guess is what current scientific theory tells us we are. 

Unfortunately science can't prove or disprove spirituality/ God, so while people may try and use it for such it's actually irrelevant, IMO.

 

The one thing that IMO links religion and spirituality is HOPE. Both give us hope that we don't just vanish into dust and everything we ever did is as nothing. To believe that is IMO to believe that we are pointless, and our lives mean nothing. It's no wonder IMO that as the western world loses any belief in God and an after life, our societies are become chaos and disaster, in which only money has any meaning, and in fact money is worshiped, as it is, IMO. Not for nothing does the Bible warn against greed and usery.

[Fat is a type of crazy]

1 hour ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Unfortunately science can't prove or disprove spirituality/ God, so while people may try and use it for such it's actually irrelevant, IMO.

 

The one thing that IMO links religion and spirituality is HOPE. Both give us hope that we don't just vanish into dust and everything we ever did is as nothing. To believe that is IMO to believe that we are pointless, and our lives mean nothing. It's no wonder IMO that as the western world loses any belief in God and an after life, our societies are become chaos and disaster, in which only money has any meaning, and in fact money is worshiped, as it is, IMO. Not for nothing does the Bible warn against greed and usery.

Apologies if my last post was a bit dire.

I had to look up ursery - charging an excessive interest - that's a bit obscure.

There is probably a bit more inequality in some western countries than say, 30 years ago, but in Asia and Africa things are much better. Once you go back further, into the world of a powerful church and royal families and a much more class based system, it just gets worse and worse. 

Some say to believe we turn to dust just emphasises the importance of living a full life and doing good if possible. I hope you didn't have to climb a mountain to escape the tsunami warning in New Zealand. Thankfully nothing came. 

Edited March 5, 2021 by Fat is a type of crazy

[mauGR1]

3 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

So why bring science up in a thread about God? IMO it's off topic.

 

If religion and spirituality holds the same interest for you as chewing gum on the pavement, I fail to understand why you are even commenting. The topic is about God, not science.

At least atheists were on topic.

Sorry to disagree, but science is not off topic imho, and neither is religion btw.

Science,  intended as desire and research for truth and knowledge,  is one of the highest peak of a human soul, 2nd perhaps only to unconditional love for all beings. 

Unfortunately, the name of science is used nowadays  by the materialists to ridicule the supernatural, and dismiss any spiritual research as superstitious nonsense.

 

[VincentRJ]

2 hours ago, mauGR1 said:

Sorry to disagree, but science is not off topic imho, and neither is religion btw.

Science,  intended as desire and research for truth and knowledge,  is one of the highest peak of a human soul, 2nd perhaps only to unconditional love for all beings. 

Unfortunately, the name of science is used nowadays  by the materialists to ridicule the supernatural, and dismiss any spiritual research as superstitious nonsense.

The 'name of science' might be used by many people with obvious biases, to ridicule any spiritual, or ESP, research as superstitious nonsense, but the science itself, in terms of its strict requirements of evidence and consistent results from experiments, just reports a lack of reliable evidence to support the hypotheses of the existence of the supernatural.

 

However, that does not mean that science ceases any further investigation into such matters. There are lots of issues that scientists admit they do not fully understand. One such issue is the 'Placebo' effect, which is very relevant to religious belief, or spiritual belief, or a belief in God.

 

The placebo effect is so strong that it can even have an effect when the recipient is informed they are being given a placebo.

https://www.health.harvard.edu/mental-health/the-power-of-the-placebo-effect
 

"Placebos often work because people don't know they are getting one. But what happens if you know you are getting a placebo?

 

A 2014 study led by Kaptchuk and published in Science Translational Medicine explored this by testing how people reacted to migraine pain medication. One group took a migraine drug labeled with the drug's name, another took a placebo labeled "placebo," and a third group took nothing. The researchers discovered that the placebo was 50% as effective as the real drug to reduce pain after a migraine attack.

 

The researchers speculated that a driving force beyond this reaction was the simple act of taking a pill. "People associate the ritual of taking medicine as a positive healing effect," says Kaptchuk. "Even if they know it's not medicine, the action itself can stimulate the brain into thinking the body is being healed."
"People associate the ritual of taking medicine as a positive healing effect." 

 

This is a clue to the beneficial effects of religious beliefs in a God. The placebo effects of Rituals. It's an interesting subject of scientific enquiry.

[mauGR1]

23 minutes ago, VincentRJ said:

This is a clue to the beneficial effects of religious beliefs in a God. The placebo effects of Rituals. It's an interesting subject of scientific enquiry

Yep, faith works wonders, however,  I'm convinced that putting one's faith in the wrong place may backfire soon or later.

...Now don't ask me what is right and what is wrong, because that's subjective ????

[thaibeachlovers]

11 hours ago, mauGR1 said:

Sorry to disagree, but science is not off topic imho, and neither is religion btw.

Science,  intended as desire and research for truth and knowledge,  is one of the highest peak of a human soul, 2nd perhaps only to unconditional love for all beings. 

Unfortunately, the name of science is used nowadays  by the materialists to ridicule the supernatural, and dismiss any spiritual research as superstitious nonsense.

 

If I did say that religion is off topic I erred. Religion is certainly to do with God, but one doesn't have to believe in God to attend church for social reasons. Plenty of church goers that do not behave as one would if they believed.

 

Why is science on topic? God is spiritual and science is about things. I don't believe because science proved God exists ( it hasn't ), and if I believed in science as all knowing how could I believe in God?

[mauGR1]

1 hour ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Why is science on topic? God is spiritual and science is about things. I don't believe because science proved God exists ( it hasn't ), and if I believed in science as all knowing how could I believe in God?

I believe God is everything,  and the source of everything, including science and "things ".

I also think we should separate the concept of science, as research for knowledge,  from the arrogant,  brainwashed folks who claim that "science knows everything ".

If God wanted us to live the simple life of animals, we would not have such an inquisitive mind and such a powerful imagination. 

It's up to us to make good use of these gifts.

 

 

[VincentRJ]

10 hours ago, mauGR1 said:

Yep, faith works wonders....

But only 50% as wondrous as modern 'scientific' medicine, and that's probably 50% at best. It's probably closer to 30% most of the time. New drugs are approved only after 'scientific' experiments show they are significantly more wondrous than the placebos which are used in the trials. ????

[mauGR1]

11 minutes ago, VincentRJ said:

But only 50% as wondrous as modern 'scientific' medicine, and that's probably 50% at best. It's probably closer to 30% most of the time. New drugs are approved only after 'scientific' experiments show they are significantly more wondrous than the placebos which are used in the trials. ????

Of course you should consider that faith is subjective. So the placebo is working differently on different people. 

If i just look at myself,  i can see my beliefs being stronger,  or weaker, to many degrees according to the time or the situation...some day it might be hard to believe anything!

You can easily understand that there are infinite levels,  or degrees,  of faith (or beliefs).

 

I'm not going to talk about medicines, even if there would be a lot to argue there ????

 

[VincentRJ]

41 minutes ago, mauGR1 said:

You can easily understand that there are infinite levels,  or degrees,  of faith (or beliefs).

 

No matter how many levels and degrees of faith you might have, such faith cannot replace or exceed the achievements of science. No matter how strong your faith, you will not be able to run as fast as the average speed of an ordinary car, nor travel to the moon outside of a technologically advanced rocket. ????

[mauGR1]

36 minutes ago, VincentRJ said:

No matter how many levels and degrees of faith you might have, such faith cannot replace or exceed the achievements of science. No matter how strong your faith, you will not be able to run as fast as the average speed of an ordinary car, nor travel to the moon outside of a technologically advanced rocket. ????

I can see that you have faith in science,  and that's ok for me.

If faith (in science) is going to make you blind to all the other wonders,  that would be less good ????

[Sunmaster]

Although at opposite sides of the spectrum, so to speak, evangelical bible thumpers and pseudo sceptics/radical materialists have a lot of common traits. 

Fascinating 

[mauGR1]

2 minutes ago, Sunmaster said:

Although at opposite sides of the spectrum, so to speak, evangelical bible thumpers and pseudo sceptics/radical materialists have a lot of common traits. 

Fascinating 

Sure, amazing isn't it.

"Nothing new under the sun".