Do you believe in God and why

[mauGR1]

12 hours ago, VincentRJ said:

I find it very strange that someone can believe in something that he believes no-one can know. How do you explain that apparent contradiction? 

Why would you think that it's strange,  and how is that a contradiction?

[Tagged]

12 hours ago, VincentRJ said:

I find it very strange that someone can believe in something that he believes no-one can know. How do you explain that apparent contradiction? 

The universe and god lays inside you, as much as outside. We are all one, and that should say it all!

[VincentRJ]

8 hours ago, mauGR1 said:

Why would you think that it's strange,  and how is that a contradiction?

 

As soon as you identify and name a particular entity or phenomenon, it cease to be unknowable. An example would be the stars in the night sky. Ancient humans, like the Neanderthals, would have had very little knowledge about the stars, but would have at least known that they exist and that they appeared every night on a cloudless day. It's very unlikely that they would have understood that a star was similar to our own sun, but at a much greater distance from Earth. But some of the ancient Greeks did understand that, or at least 'hypothesized' that.

 

"Many people's work was needed to prove that the Sun is a star. The first person we know of to suggest that the Sun is a star up close (or, conversely, that stars are Suns far away) was Anaxagoras, around 450 BC. It was again suggested by Aristarchus of Samos, but this idea did not catch on. About 1800 years later, around AD 1590, Giordano Bruno suggested the same thing, and was burnt at the stake for it. Through the work of Galileo, Kepler, and Copernicus during the 16th and 17th centuries the nature of the solar system and the Sun's place in it became clear, and finally in the 19th century the distances to stars and other things about them could be measured by various people. Only then was it proved that the Sun is a star."
http://solar-center.stanford.edu/FAQ/Qsunasstar.html

 

In other words, that which is unknowable is totally useless. Any person or society that spends its time and resources investigating the 'unknowable' would be wasting that time and resources.
 

[VincentRJ]

8 hours ago, Tagged said:

The universe and god lays inside you, as much as outside. We are all one, and that should say it all!

 

That God is inside the believer as a concept, thought, experience, idea, is obviously true. FMRI scans of the brains of believers can confirm that. However, the assumption that the same concept or idea of God is also outside the believer has no scientific basis. Believing that god is as much outside you as inside you would be confusing fiction with non-fiction.

[Sunmaster]

12 minutes ago, VincentRJ said:

In other words, that which is unknowable is totally useless. Any person or society that spends its time and resources investigating the 'unknowable' would be wasting that time and resources.

It's not an either-or issue. Ultimately, the full scope of cosmic consciousness may be unknowable (debatable), but that doesn't mean that you can't or shouldn't invest your time and resources into practicing introspection and start peeling away those layers of ignorance that keep you from seeing your true identity. 

Scientists may never fully understand how exactly the universe was created, but that doesn't stop them from trying, does it?

In both cases, whatever knowledge we manage to gain is definitely not useless.

[Fat is a type of crazy]

27 minutes ago, Sunmaster said:

It's not an either-or issue. Ultimately, the full scope of cosmic consciousness may be unknowable (debatable), but that doesn't mean that you can't or shouldn't invest your time and resources into practicing introspection and start peeling away those layers of ignorance that keep you from seeing your true identity. 

Scientists may never fully understand how exactly the universe was created, but that doesn't stop them from trying, does it?

In both cases, whatever knowledge we manage to gain is definitely not useless.

Scientists aren't saying the universe is unknowable and you don't seem to be saying god is necessarily unknowable.  The post above had been referring to a post that seemed to say that  god is unknowable by definition. 

Edited April 25, 2021 by Fat is a type of crazy

[sweatalot]

I notice that there is a lot of talk here about knowing and belief, but I don't see a clear definition of these terms. so what are you discussing about?
I'll try a definition about belief:

belief is the unquestioned acceptance of an idea in the absence of verification and reason

 

But  what is knowing?
The first and maybe only thing I know is that I exist.
I am!

not:

I am a person, or this person with that name and that body and that life experience.

 

Who can prove to me that I am not an alien who dreams of being human?
What is  the point in discussing God when I don't know who I am?

[Tagged]

1 hour ago, VincentRJ said:

 

That God is inside the believer as a concept, thought, experience, idea, is obviously true. FMRI scans of the brains of believers can confirm that. However, the assumption that the same concept or idea of God is also outside the believer has no scientific basis. Believing that god is as much outside you as inside you would be confusing fiction with non-fiction.

It is more of a concept where you put nature in the middle, or the universe as you. We know how nature is working as one, and every littel thing depends on each other, and only that way we, the humans have become, and therefor one. The same is proved for the galaxy, that there would not have been life on planet earth if the moon, was not there, or the other planets in tha exact same positions working with us around the sun. Still alot we do not know, but so far science have proved that we are in the sweet spot among our neighbours. Then how we work with the other galaxies, on our universe, and maybe how our universe works together as well. I will stop here but I guess you get it. And every little chemical reaction, and every little bacteria we have adopted working with us in our own little universe for how many "creatures"? It is so many tiny little mechanical things happening inside us on another leve and another scale that is quite exceptional. 

 

Sorry, did not bother spell check

[VincentRJ]

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

Scientists aren't saying the universe is unknowable and you don't seem to be saying god is necessarily unknowable.  The post above had been referring to a post that seemed to say that  god is unknowable by definition. 

 

That's exactly my point. If you define or describe something as unknowable, then why waste your time on the issue. According to the Pali Canon, Gautama Buddha was of the opinion that the creator of the universe was unknowable and that we shouldn't waste our time speculating on the issue because there were more important issues to address, such as the cause of suffering in this life, in the present.

[jvs]

21 minutes ago, sweatalot said:

I notice that there is a lot of talk here about knowing and belief, but I don't see a clear definition of these terms. so what are you discussing about?
I'll try a definition about belief:

belief is the unquestioned acceptance of an idea in the absence of verification and reason

 

But  what is knowing?
The first and maybe only thing I know is that I exist.
I am!

not:

I am a person, or this person with that name and that body and that life experience.

 

Who can prove to me that I am not an alien who dreams of being human?
What is  the point in discussing God when I don't know who I am?

I have read most of the posts here,i responded a few times also.

As long as there is no clear definition of god,people keep talking about different things.

Now you come up with this!A lot of question indeed.

Two days ago i started rereading this whole topic and what i am finding is amazing to me.

Amazing but also scary and laughable.

[Sunmaster]

22 minutes ago, VincentRJ said:

 

That's exactly my point. If you define or describe something as unknowable, then why waste your time on the issue. According to the Pali Canon, Gautama Buddha was of the opinion that the creator of the universe was unknowable and that we shouldn't waste our time speculating on the issue because there were more important issues to address, such as the cause of suffering in this life, in the present.

Buddha said arguing about it is useless, since words can in no way convey the truth of the Absolute.
Again, that doesn't mean that practicing meditation to gradually reveal the truth (for yourself) is useless. This personal and very subjective revelation is the remedy to all the suffering you may have in this life.

Hope this clarifies it. 

[Fat is a type of crazy]

47 minutes ago, sweatalot said:

I notice that there is a lot of talk here about knowing and belief, but I don't see a clear definition of these terms. so what are you discussing about?
I'll try a definition about belief:

belief is the unquestioned acceptance of an idea in the absence of verification and reason

 

But  what is knowing?
The first and maybe only thing I know is that I exist.
I am!

not:

I am a person, or this person with that name and that body and that life experience.

 

Who can prove to me that I am not an alien who dreams of being human?
What is  the point in discussing God when I don't know who I am?

My 2 cents.

I guess knowledge by definition is objectively correct whereas belief is subject and may be knowledge but may not. Similar to your definition.

Descartes wrote  I think therefore I am which addresses the issue of - whether or not I am in a dream, or controlled by others, or am or am not the person I think I am, I think therefore I am.  

 

I think we tend to focus on what we think we can control or have a shot at understanding. If this is all a dream I consider that idea beyond my control or too theoretical so I don't think about it. 

As you are pointing out too all we know about the world is through our body.

I think it's a good point that it might be a better task to understand our own body first. 

Then we might understand how the concept of god affects and interacts with our bodies if that makes sense. 

[sweatalot]

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

Descartes wrote  I think therefore I am

is that really you what thinks?

Do you decide to think a thought when you like - or when not?

And when you not decide to think - are you not thinking then?

If you are that which is producing your thoughts, then why are there uncomfortable thoughts?

This knowledge "I am" is not a thought. Do you have to think it up or do you just know it?
It's more like a feeling, the feeling to exist, but it's not a feeling. It is knowledge.

 

Have you ever felt that you do not exist?

[Fat is a type of crazy]

5 hours ago, sweatalot said:

is that really you what thinks?

Do you decide to think a thought when you like - or when not?

And when you not decide to think - are you not thinking then?

If you are that which is producing your thoughts, then why are there uncomfortable thoughts?

This knowledge "I am" is not a thought. Do you have to think it up or do you just know it?
It's more like a feeling, the feeling to exist, but it's not a feeling. It is knowledge.

 

Have you ever felt that you do not exist?

I didn't like the Matrix which I think looked at some of this stuff. In fact I watched 10 minutes of the first one and turned it off. Like I said above I think there are a million theoreticals about who we are, and what's actually going on outside the front door, but to me the scientific method is interesting because it looks at what is - it doesn't prove 10 million other hypotheticals, including the existence of god, aren't correct. 

 

Freud and others looked at the issue of uncomfortable thoughts - noting that the conscious mind may not understand the subconscious mind. 

Sexuality is a good example - the bible and other religious teachings may tell us that we should go for a jesus loving good girl and we may try to do that but our hearts and other parts might be attracted to a an issan girl who knows little about jesus and may not follow his moral code. It is understandable that how we are told to feel, as against how we feel, might not be the same. 

I know if I don't do my regular exercise I start to thing more negative thoughts so maybe  our  thoughts are a reflection of our physical body. 

 

There are two ways we can decide  I am.

From a feeling or sense only which I consider belief.

From scientific experiments which objectively could be defined as knowledge.

Knowledge itself of course is not 100 per cent for sure but the chances are way above belief.

 

If I felt I did not exist for more than a fleeting moment I may consider that the focus should not be the philosophical ideas surrounding it  but rather my physical or mental state. 

[Kanada]

On 4/18/2021 at 8:32 PM, Sunmaster said:

You first...

Any Grade 6 Science book!

 

[Kanada]

On 4/18/2021 at 8:47 PM, Peter Denis said:

 

 

 

Ping-pong with the Gods

 

True Peter

im out????

[Sunmaster]

51 minutes ago, Brad Grier said:

Any Grade 6 Science book!

 

Any grade 6 science book has definite proof that there is no cosmic consciousness? 

Wow, I must have been absent during that lesson.

????????????

 

Maybe you can give us a recap? 

Edited April 26, 2021 by Sunmaster

[thaibeachlovers]

On 4/24/2021 at 9:20 PM, VincentRJ said:

I find it very strange that someone can believe in something that he believes no-one can know. How do you explain that apparent contradiction? 

Because of a personal experience of the sort that you apparently never had.

[thaibeachlovers]

13 hours ago, VincentRJ said:

As soon as you identify and name a particular entity or phenomenon, it cease to be unknowable. An example would be the stars in the night sky. Ancient humans, like the Neanderthals, would have had very little knowledge about the stars, but would have at least known that they exist and that they appeared every night on a cloudless day. It's very unlikely that they would have understood that a star was similar to our own sun, but at a much greater distance from Earth.

LOL, you are undone by your own argument.

The evidence of the creator is all about us, but for those that choose not to see it, it does not exist.

 

The Waterboys sang it better than I can explain it

 

The whole of the moon

[Verse 1]
I pictured a rainbow
You held it in your hands
I had flashes
But you saw the plan
I wandered out in the world for years
While you just stayed in your room
I saw the crescent
You saw the whole of the moon
The whole of the moon
 

[CharlieH]

No personal jibes please.

[mauGR1]

13 hours ago, VincentRJ said:

soon as you identify and name a particular entity or phenomenon, it cease to be unknowable. 

Yep, perhaps not an absolute truth, but close. 

It's true that the knowledge about planets and stars has dramatically improved in the latest centuries,  but mostly thanks to the invention and the development of sophisticated tools. 

I don't think that the ancient were less intelligent. 

I don't think that the ancient were all ignorant as you seem to think, the philosophers and scientists in ancient Greece were not enlightened out of the blue, they just became famous in history because of the invention and the script,  and later the schools for people 's children.

If you want to think that everything is happening "by chance", fair enough,  I believe that there's a design,  an intelligent design which permeates everything from the smallest particles to the infinite. 

There is merit in investigating the design,  but why assume that knowledge and intelligence belongs to humans only ?

That's unscientific imho.

 

[thaibeachlovers]

13 hours ago, VincentRJ said:

However, the assumption that the same concept or idea of God is also outside the believer has no scientific basis.

To use that argument as some sort of "proof" is to say that you think science actually knows everything, which is an obvious nonsense. Science does not and probably never will "know" everything.

Trying to use science to say God does not exist outside the believer is to negate your argument, IMO, as science does not know what is outside the physical, IMO.

Human science is primitive and has no tools to measure the supernatural, far as I know. Here's a hint- Ghostbusters was a made up movie, not reality.

[thaibeachlovers]

1 minute ago, mauGR1 said:

There is merit in investigating the design,  but why assume that knowledge and intelligence belongs to humans only ?

That's unscientific imho.

One should always bear in mind that intelligent life has to exist elsewhere in the universe. IMO it's unreasonable to claim that ONLY earth is suitable to support intelligence. There must be billions of stars with planets.

I totally reject the concept that God specifically invented US. Far as I'm concerned intelligent life developed as part of the basis of the universe- ie evolution. Elsewhere it may not even look like us, but be a blob of silicone, or an electrical cloud.

[mauGR1]

22 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

One should always bear in mind that intelligent life has to exist elsewhere in the universe. IMO it's unreasonable to claim that ONLY earth is suitable to support intelligence. There must be billions of stars with planets.

I totally reject the concept that God specifically invented US. Far as I'm concerned intelligent life developed as part of the basis of the universe- ie evolution. Elsewhere it may not even look like us, but be a blob of silicone, or an electrical cloud.

Yep, as stated countless times, our perception is limited,  even some animals can see, hear, or jump,say, better than humans... go figure what is out there among countless stars and planets.... the whole universe and beyond must be bustling with life way beyond the imaginable. 

[rcuthbert]

The Hubble Space Telescope has discovered at least 200 billion galaxies. The Milky Way contains 100,000,000,000 stars, and at least 100,000,000,000 planets. The Earth is 4.54 billion years old, yet the Milky Way is 13.51 billion years old. Not to mention that the known universe is 13.8 billion years old. Thus it is reasonable to assume that A - life exists on other planets, and B - that life has been evolving on planets that are much older that the Earth. For the sake of argument, let's assume that only 0.01% of the planets are capable of sustaining life. Therefore, 100,000 planets are viable candidates. Now multiply 100,000 by 200,000,000,000, and we find that there could be twenty million billion possibilities.

 

Humans share a common ancestor with the chimpanzee and bonobo. We have been evolving for 6-7 million years, yet we still share 98.8% of our DNA with the chimp. Incidentally, chimpanzees wage war, and kill members of their troop that go against group norms. Sound familiar?

 

As to the nature of reality (speaking as one who has no background in physics) - a stone is not a solid object. It is a swirling mass of electrons that orbit atoms - which are bound by invisible forces.

Then there are quantum particles that can be in two paces at once... In fact, it could be argued that when one observes the aforementioned behaviors - one is "getting a glimpse into the mind of God."

 

In short, to assume that a species - which has been evolving away from Its primate origins for a short (in galactic terms) period of time - possesses the highest universal intellect is both unscientific and arrogant.

Edited April 26, 2021 by rcuthbert
Grammar

[VincentRJ]

1 hour ago, thaibeachlovers said:

To use that argument as some sort of "proof" is to say that you think science actually knows everything, which is an obvious nonsense. Science does not and probably never will "know" everything.

Trying to use science to say God does not exist outside the believer is to negate your argument, IMO, as science does not know what is outside the physical, IMO.

Human science is primitive and has no tools to measure the supernatural, far as I know. Here's a hint- Ghostbusters was a made up movie, not reality.

I've never, ever claimed there is proof that a God, or Intelligent Designer, does not exist. A lack of evidence is not proof. My position is, there is no 'scientific' evidence of a God existing outside of the human imagination.

 

Do you understand the difference between 'unknowable' and unknown'? That which is 'unknowable' can never be known, no matter how much effort and research you apply. That which is currently 'unknown' might eventually be 'known', after sufficient research and effort has been applied.

[thaibeachlovers]

12 minutes ago, rcuthbert said:

As to the nature of reality (speaking as one who has no background in physics) - a stone is not a solid object. It is a swirling mass of electrons that orbit atoms - which are bound by invisible forces.

Before one starts claiming that something is impossible, one should always remember that we, and everything we see is at basic electrical particles in formation. Given that is so, anything is possible simply by re arranging the particles.

[thaibeachlovers]

1 minute ago, VincentRJ said:

I've never, ever claimed there is proof that a God, or Intelligent Designer, does not exist. A lack of evidence is not proof. My position is, there is no 'scientific' evidence of a God existing outside of the human imagination.

 

Do you understand the difference between 'unknowable' and unknown'? That which is 'unknowable' can never be known, no matter how much effort and research you apply. That which is currently 'unknown' might eventually be 'known', after sufficient research and effort has been applied.

I apologise. I only just realised that I should have said "unknowable in THIS existence". I believe that after this animal body that carries ME around dies, I go back to whence I came before I was born to this world, and then everything will be known. As we are part of God, when we return to God it makes sense to me that we will know everything.

I certainly don't believe that God cares to be handing over the secrets of life the universe and everything to a barbaric species that spends more on killing each other than in developing our spiritual side.

If God ever even considers us I doubt God would think it a good idea to let us escape this solar system given our propensity for destroying our habitat.

[VincentRJ]

13 hours ago, Sunmaster said:

Buddha said arguing about it is useless, since words can in no way convey the truth of the Absolute.
Again, that doesn't mean that practicing meditation to gradually reveal the truth (for yourself) is useless. This personal and very subjective revelation is the remedy to all the suffering you may have in this life.

Hope this clarifies it. 

 

Sorry! That's confusing and doesn't clarify anything, unless of course you are defining the term 'arguing' as a heated and angry discussion, in which case, the Buddha would not have recommended that whatever the issue.

 

An argument in the philosophical sense is a peaceful presentation of a reason, or set of reasons, in support of an idea, action or theory. After his enlightenment, the Buddha taught for around 45 years, presenting numerous arguments and analogies to various groups and individuals around the country.

 

However, there were certain issues on which he was relatively silent. Here's a list of them.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_unanswered_questions

 

"In Buddhism, unanswered questions or undeclared questions (Sanskrit avyākṛta, Pali: avyākata - "unfathomable, unexpounded" are a set of common philosophical questions that Buddha refused to answer, according to Buddhist texts. The Pali texts give only ten, the Sanskrit texts fourteen questions."

 

Here's another related story where the Buddha presents an 'argument' explaining why he does not have an opinion on the origins of the universe, the existence of a Creator God, and a permanent soul, and so on.
https://www.dhammawiki.com/index.php/Silence_of_the_Buddha

 

"One of the few original sources ever mentioned in discussions on the Buddha's supposed silence is his dialogue with the wandering ascetic Vacchagotta. This man asked the Buddha a series of questions - Is the universe finite, infinite, both or neither? Is the soul the same as the body? Is it different from the body? Does an enlightened person exist after death?...etc. 

 

To each of these questions the Buddha replied `I am not of that view Vaccha'. Finally Vacchagotta asked the Buddha why he had no opinion on these matters and he replied because such questions, and any answers that could be given to them, are `just opinions, the grasping of opinions, the jungle of opinions, the wriggling of opinions ... They do not lead to giving up, turning away, dispassion, stopping, calming, higher knowledge, to awakening nor to Nirvana."

 

Of course, 2500 years ago there was no 'modern science' with sophisticated tools of detection that are now far more sensitive than our very limited senses of sight, hearing, smell, taste and feeling. If the Buddha were teaching today, it is reasonable to presume his arguments and analogies would be different.

[thaibeachlovers]

6 minutes ago, VincentRJ said:

 

Sorry! That's confusing and doesn't clarify anything, unless of course you are defining the term 'arguing' as a heated and angry discussion, in which case, the Buddha would not have recommended that whatever the issue.

 

An argument in the philosophical sense is a peaceful presentation of a reason, or set of reasons, in support of an idea, action or theory. After his enlightenment, the Buddha taught for around 45 years, presenting numerous arguments and analogies to various groups and individuals around the country.

 

However, there were certain issues on which he was relatively silent. Here's a list of them.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_unanswered_questions

 

"In Buddhism, unanswered questions or undeclared questions (Sanskrit avyākṛta, Pali: avyākata - "unfathomable, unexpounded" are a set of common philosophical questions that Buddha refused to answer, according to Buddhist texts. The Pali texts give only ten, the Sanskrit texts fourteen questions."

 

Here's another related story where the Buddha presents an 'argument' explaining why he does not have an opinion on the origins of the universe, the existence of a Creator God, and a permanent soul, and so on.
https://www.dhammawiki.com/index.php/Silence_of_the_Buddha

 

"One of the few original sources ever mentioned in discussions on the Buddha's supposed silence is his dialogue with the wandering ascetic Vacchagotta. This man asked the Buddha a series of questions - Is the universe finite, infinite, both or neither? Is the soul the same as the body? Is it different from the body? Does an enlightened person exist after death?...etc. 

 

To each of these questions the Buddha replied `I am not of that view Vaccha'. Finally Vacchagotta asked the Buddha why he had no opinion on these matters and he replied because such questions, and any answers that could be given to them, are `just opinions, the grasping of opinions, the jungle of opinions, the wriggling of opinions ... They do not lead to giving up, turning away, dispassion, stopping, calming, higher knowledge, to awakening nor to Nirvana."

 

Of course, 2500 years ago there was no 'modern science' with sophisticated tools of detection that are now far more sensitive than our very limited senses of sight, hearing, smell, taste and feeling. If the Buddha were teaching today, it is reasonable to presume his arguments and analogies would be different.

Just because he refused to give an opinion on certain things does not make them not true.

I have my opinion on women, but while others may disagree, it doesn't invalidate my opinion. Likewise with God. I have my belief and disagreeing with it does not make me wrong.