Do you believe in God and why

[thaibeachlovers]

On 5/28/2021 at 5:35 PM, mauGR1 said:

Various times in this thread, the ancient symbol of Tao has been debated.

Today i came across a quote from a master which I deeply revere,  R.Steiner. 

Hope it's of some interest for someone. 

 

"

On TAO……quotation from Rudolf Steiner in a lecture 1905 

 

“The TAO gives expression to the highest to which a large part of humanity can look up and has revered for thousands of years. It is something which was considered as a distant goal of the world and of humanity, the highest element which man carried as a germ within him, which would one day develop into a fully opened blossom from the innermost depths of human nature. TAO signifies both a deeply hidden basis of the soul and at the same time an exalted future. 

Not only the name TAO, but the very thought of TAO filled those who had insight into it with timid reverence. The TAO spirituality is based on the principle of development, and it proclaims: That by which I am surrounded today is but a stage which has to be overcome. I must clearly see that this development in which I am involved has a Goal, that I am going to work towards an exalted Goal and that within me there lives a power which spurs me on to come to the Great Goal of TAO. 

If I can feel this great force within me and if I can feel that all creatures are aiming towards this great goal, then this force becomes the guiding force rushing towards me in the wind, sounding out of the stones, flashing in the lightning, rumbling in the thunder, sending its light to me from the sun. In the plant it is revealed as the force of growth, in the animal as feeling and perception. 

It is the force which will continually create form after form for every exalted aim, through which I know myself to be at one with the whole of nature, which flows out from me and into me with every breath I take, the symbol for the highest evolving spirit which I experience as life itself. I feel this force as TAO."

Just reading about that made me exhausted. I can't imagine myself getting that dedicated about anything at all. IMO by focusing on one thing like that I'd miss out on all the other things I've done in my life.

However, to each their own desires, and if any want to do that exclusively good for them. I just hope that they don't change their mind on their death bed and regret that they missed out on all the things they didn't do.

[mauGR1]

25 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Just reading about that made me exhausted. I can't imagine myself getting that dedicated about anything at all. IMO by focusing on one thing like that I'd miss out on all the other things I've done in my life.

However, to each their own desires, and if any want to do that exclusively good for them. I just hope that they don't change their mind on their death bed and regret that they missed out on all the things they didn't do.

Well, i guess it has something to do with my age and the practice, it took decades to me to become familiar with Steiner's language. 

Some other of his writings are still very cryptic to me, but I give it time.

Perhaps i will regret something when I'll have to leave my physical body, but surely not the time spent investigating the spirit.

Even if you didn't appreciate what RS has to say about the tao, I appreciate your sincerity very much. 

[thaibeachlovers]

3 minutes ago, mauGR1 said:

Well, i guess it has something to do with my age and the practice, it took decades to me to become familiar with Steiner's language. 

Some other of his writings are still very cryptic to me, but I give it time.

Perhaps i will regret something when I'll have to leave my physical body, but surely not the time spent investigating the spirit.

Even if you didn't appreciate what RS has to say about the tao, I appreciate your sincerity very much. 

Thanks.

I don't know much about the more exotic aspect of faith. I guess I'm too easily distracted to bother finding out.

[mauGR1]

3 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Thanks.

I don't know much about the more exotic aspect of faith. I guess I'm too easily distracted to bother finding out.

We are all different,  and everyone has his own path :according to RS, every human is a species on its own.

Whatever makes you happy is fine ????

[thaibeachlovers]

22 minutes ago, mauGR1 said:

We are all different,  and everyone has his own path :according to RS, every human is a species on its own.

Whatever makes you happy is fine ????

Nature makes me happy. Cities make me unhappy.

I like sunsets and rain ( as long as I'm looking at it and not in it ).

[Sunmaster]

5 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Just reading about that made me exhausted. I can't imagine myself getting that dedicated about anything at all. IMO by focusing on one thing like that I'd miss out on all the other things I've done in my life.

However, to each their own desires, and if any want to do that exclusively good for them. I just hope that they don't change their mind on their death bed and regret that they missed out on all the things they didn't do.

Lately, I've been thinking about death more than usual. First, one of my friends here in Thailand had a heart attack and passed away unexpectedly. Now I have a health issue myself.

Death is the greatest teacher they say. It forces you to relinquish all control that you thought you had in life, and give up everything you have, from material possessions, relationships, down to the very core of your being...your identity, your belief system, your ego. All this is stripped away during the process of dying. What remains if one sheds the ego? That's probably the reason why so many people who had near death experiences, completely reevaluate their lives, putting at the centre the only thing that really matters: love.

 

I'm not afraid of dying. There are some situations from my past that I could have handled better, for sure, but overall I think I had a good and productive life. The only worry I have, would be to leave this world before my parents. I would prefer to spare them the pain of losing their son. 

Apart from that, I think I'm good to go. ????

 

 

[yodsak]

Anthroposophy, philosophy based on the premise that the human intellect has the ability to contact spiritual worlds. It was formulated by Rudolf Steiner who postulated the existence of a spiritual world comprehensible to pure thought but fully accessible only to the faculties of knowledge latent in all humans. He regarded human beings as having originally participated in the spiritual processes of the world through a dreamlike consciousness. 

However, many scientists and physicians, including Michael Shermer, Michael Ruse, Edzard Ernst, David Gorski, and Simon Singh have criticized anthroposophy's application in the areas of medicine, biology, agriculture, and education to be dangerous and pseudoscientific.

[yodsak]

Rudolf Steiner co-invented 'Anthroposophical medicine’ which is based on occult notions and draws on his spiritual philosophy. It assumes metaphysical relations between planets, metals, and human organs, which provide the basis for therapeutic strategies. Diseases are believed to be related to actions in previous lives; in order to redeem oneself, it may be best to live through them without conventional therapy.

Today practitioners of anthroposophical medicine can be found in many communities in North America, Europe, and elsewhere.  ''Consulting the stars to understand diseases is obviously fallacious — and dangerous for the patient, who needs real care, not astrological hokum''.  —The dangers of Anthroposophical Medicine.

 > steiners-quackery

 infiltration of quackademic medicine into medical schools and academic medical centres .

>anthroposophic-medicine-at-the-university

[faraday]

@yodsak

 

If you are going to quote something, you really should say where it came from, otherwise it looks like your work.

 

That's called plagiarism.

 

Here's the reference:

 

 

https://www.britannica.com/topic/anthroposophy

 

 

[covidiot]

48 minutes ago, yodsak said:

infiltration of quackademic medicine 

ah yes. quackery. one of my favorite topics!

science does not understand a lot of things.

so quacks come in to try to fill the gaps.

some of them are deluded or charlatans, it's true ...

not sure about steiner. 

 

i can ask you some simple questions which science cannot answer.

 

where do thoughts come from? the mind? what is the mind? science knows hardly anything about the human mind.

 

what is the heart? scientists see it merely as an organ that pumps blood through the body. why have countless artists throughout history associated the heart with "love"? if it's nothing more than a muscle? are artists and musicians "quacks" too?

 

 

[mauGR1]

2 hours ago, faraday said:

@yodsak

 

If you are going to quote something, you really should say where it came from, otherwise it looks like your work.

 

That's called plagiarism.

 

Here's the reference:

 

 

https://www.britannica.com/topic/anthroposophy

 

 

Although you're right, I'm afraid you're wasting your time. 

Since the beginning of this thread, mr. Y is throwing on the table opinions taken from the web according to his belief in official science, without bothering to participate to the debate.

I can't really remember a single instance where he deigned himself to speak his mind.

To mr. Y, provided he's reading, I would just remind that science is not settled by definition ????

[rcuthbert]

Humans share a common ancestor with the chimp and bonobo. We have only been evolving from it for 6-8 million years. In fact, human's share 98.8% of our DNA with chimps. Thus, we are intelligent apes.

Our planet is only 4.5 billion years old, yet the universe has existed for at least 13.8 billion; consequently - given the fact that the universe contains at least 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 stars*- it is reasonable to assume that there are planets were life began billions of years before we started walking upright.

 

The argument that there is no power greater than humans is a very weak hypothesis.

 

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwis4oy9qPDwAhWE83MBHRUGAhwQFjAIegQIEhAD&url=http%3A%2F%2Fscienceline.ucsb.edu%2Fgetkey.php%3Fkey%3D3775&usg=AOvVaw1kHV8liGkk8XzLZ7rWArtl

 

[Fat is a type of crazy]

To reply to a few post in one:

You are correct that statistically there are likely to be life forms more advanced than us. But  the probability that such a life form is a type of god that created and or control humans is not likely. I assume by power you mean living thing.

 

I hope you get better Sunmaster. If your parents are still alive you must be still pretty youngish.

 

In defence of Yodsak I like the way his posts cut to the chase and get to the interesting part of what is behind a religion or belief.

 

I had a Taoist girlfriend and it was a fairly normal religion except they had some unusual ceremonies and were strict on what she could eat - not even garlic or onions. I have had a few seriously religious girlfriends including my current one. Not sure why that is. Maybe I am a bit serious too.

 

[rcuthbert]

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

To reply to a few post in one:

You are correct that statistically there are likely to be life forms more advanced than us. But  the probability that such a life form is a type of god that created and or control humans is not likely. I assume by power you mean living thing.

 

I hope you get better Sunmaster. If your parents are still alive you must be still pretty youngish.

 

In defence of Yodsak I like the way his posts cut to the chase and get to the interesting part of what is behind a religion or belief.

 

I had a Taoist girlfriend and it was a fairly normal religion except they had some unusual ceremonies and were strict on what she could eat - not even garlic or onions. I have had a few seriously religious girlfriends including my current one. Not sure why that is. Maybe I am a bit serious too.

 

Imagine a gigantic gas planet. It contains none of the building blocks of life, yet it is filled with massless particles. Eventually they form bonds which evolve into a ubiquitous conscious mind. Being massless it would not be governed by E=MCsquared. Hypothetically, it could instantly communicate with other massless planetary minds. Now imagine what it could become after 12 billion years of evolution.

Incidentally, quantum physicists have discovered particles that can travel faster than the speed of light. As well as particles that can be in two different places at the same time. Are these behaviors offering us a glimpse of the mind of God?

[Elad]

5 hours ago, rcuthbert said:

Imagine a gigantic gas planet. It contains none of the building blocks of life, yet it is filled with massless particles. Eventually they form bonds which evolve into a ubiquitous conscious mind. Being massless it would not be governed by E=MCsquared. Hypothetically, it could instantly communicate with other massless planetary minds. Now imagine what it could become after 12 billion years of evolution.

Incidentally, quantum physicists have discovered particles that can travel faster than the speed of light. As well as particles that can be in two different places at the same time. Are these behaviors offering us a glimpse of the mind of God?

 

I have never heard of a gaseous planet made of massless particles, the gas giants in our own solar system such as Jupiter and Saturn are made mostly of hydrogen and helium, which contain particles of mass.

 

Do you have a link for the particles discovered that travel faster than light? The physicists down at CERN have been accelerating particles for many years now and they reach speeds of 0.99999 c but never the speed of light. It seems Einstein's special relativity holds true.

[covidiot]

http://web.mnstate.edu/gracyk/courses/web publishing/aquinasfiveways_argumentanalysis.htm

St. Thomas Aquinas:  The Existence of God can be proved in five ways.

Argument Analysis of the Five Ways     The Fifth Way: Argument from Design We see that natural bodies work toward some goal, and do not do so by chance. Most natural things lack knowledge.   But as an arrow reaches its target because it is directed by an archer, what lacks intelligence achieves goals by being directed by something intelligence. Therefore some intelligent being exists by whom all natural things are directed to their end; and this being we call God.

Edited May 30, 2021 by covidiot

[Fat is a type of crazy]

4 hours ago, covidiot said:

http://web.mnstate.edu/gracyk/courses/web publishing/aquinasfiveways_argumentanalysis.htm

St. Thomas Aquinas:  The Existence of God can be proved in five ways.

Argument Analysis of the Five Ways     The Fifth Way: Argument from Design We see that natural bodies work toward some goal, and do not do so by chance. Most natural things lack knowledge.   But as an arrow reaches its target because it is directed by an archer, what lacks intelligence achieves goals by being directed by something intelligence. Therefore some intelligent being exists by whom all natural things are directed to their end; and this being we call God.

One of my favourite bands is Devo. They were horrified by what they saw in America, including the Kent State University killings in the 70's, and came up with the concept of Devolution i.e. that most things in nature don't get 'better' or 'smarter' but just fall apart and devolve. People thought the theory might be true with recent Presidents and such. Movies like Idiocracy look at similar ideas. 

 

But, as has been said here more than once, the way to think of evolution isn't that things are becoming smarter or more evolved as some necessary path,  that could be being   lead by an intelligent god.

It's just that DNA throws out mutations and every now and then a mutation is born that has a characteristic that either helps or hinders its survival. One baby is less smart or has worse eyesight or whatever and is less likely to reproduce. The smarter one survives. 

In terms of intelligence and thoughts I don't see those evolutionary concepts as unique to say eyesight or coordination. You get dumb dogs and smart dogs and it's the same for humans. I don't think the fact that we can communicate and think more effectively distinguishes us that much from apes or dogs or suggests we are on a special path lead by a god.

[mauGR1]

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

One of my favourite bands is Devo. They were horrified by what they saw in America, including the Kent State University killings in the 70's, and came up with the concept of Devolution i.e. that most things in nature don't get 'better' or 'smarter' but just fall apart and devolve. People thought the theory might be true with recent Presidents and such. Movies like Idiocracy look at similar ideas. 

 

But, as has been said here more than once, the way to think of evolution isn't that things are becoming smarter or more evolved as some necessary path,  that could be being   lead by an intelligent god.

It's just that DNA throws out mutations and every now and then a mutation is born that has a characteristic that either helps or hinders its survival. One baby is less smart or has worse eyesight or whatever and is less likely to reproduce. The smarter one survives. 

In terms of intelligence and thoughts I don't see those evolutionary concepts as unique to say eyesight or coordination. You get dumb dogs and smart dogs and it's the same for humans. I don't think the fact that we can communicate and think more effectively distinguishes us that much from apes or dogs or suggests we are on a special path lead by a god.

But, would you concede that what you see as random could be instead very well reasoned ?

Otherwise you should assume that humans are the highest form of consciousness in the universe, which is highly unlikely. 

Thing is, we can see and study just a little part of the visible universe, just imagine what is invisible for us at the moment.

Moreover,  I've noticed that "science" has become a dogma in too many people's heads, doesn't that go against the very notion of science?

[rcuthbert]

5 hours ago, Elad said:

 

I have never heard of a gaseous planet made of massless particles, the gas giants in our own solar system such as Jupiter and Saturn are made mostly of hydrogen and helium, which contain particles of mass.

 

Do you have a link for the particles discovered that travel faster than light? The physicists down at CERN have been accelerating particles for many years now and they reach speeds of 0.99999 c but never the speed of light. It seems Einstein's special relativity holds true.

I concede that the tachyon's ability to travel faster than light remains hypothetical. https://www.google.com/search?q=tachyonic+particle+quantum&client=firefox-b-d&ei=-jW0YOzJC43Yz7sP27ivqAI

Without imagination, the modern world would not exist. I bet many considered Tesla a nut when he predicted the Internet and smart phones

:https://www.google.com/search?q=tesla+predicted+internet+cell+phones&client=firefox-b-d&bih=626&biw=1366&hl=en&ei=9ji0YIT8FtKv8QOg15rwBw&oq=tesla+predicted+internet+cel&gs_lcp=Cgdnd3Mtd2l6EAEYADIICCEQFhAdEB46BwgAEEcQsAM6BggAEBYQHlC-X1jrdWCFggFoAXACeACAAZIFiAGCCpIBBzAuNC41LTGYAQCgAQGqAQdnd3Mtd2l6yAEIwAEB&sclient=gws-wiz

[covidiot]

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

I don't think the fact that we can communicate and think more effectively distinguishes us that much from apes or dogs or suggests we are on a special path lead by a god.

For one thing, dogs don't contemplate the existence of God. At least I don't think they do. 

 

[Fat is a type of crazy]

1 hour ago, covidiot said:

For one thing, dogs don't contemplate the existence of God. At least I don't think they do. 

 

I am sometimes surprised by dogs - their level of awareness, there ability to understand what is wanted, they dream, they work stuff out. In the process of doing what they do they must think and in a sense question what's going on - why something is happening - if they rationalise then they probably do explain things to themselves as being due to this and that..it's not a big step for them to wonder if say, if  their dog or human  friend dies, or if something is hard to understand like a TV screen, that they might have some concept of a bigger thing making it happen. A  dog's thought process may be different but they may have some conceptual mind process  to deal with the unexplained ... a dog  god. Is it smarter to put things down to god than just dealing with them as they happen as best you can. 

[Fat is a type of crazy]

1 hour ago, mauGR1 said:

But, would you concede that what you see as random could be instead very well reasoned ?

Otherwise you should assume that humans are the highest form of consciousness in the universe, which is highly unlikely. 

Thing is, we can see and study just a little part of the visible universe, just imagine what is invisible for us at the moment.

Moreover,  I've noticed that "science" has become a dogma in too many people's heads, doesn't that go against the very notion of science?

Science to me is every possibility considered but just provable concepts accepted. I think it is scientific to accept that we know only a bit about what is going on out there e.g. dark matter,  and are statistically not likely to be the highest form of consciousness in the universe, and that based on what we know there could be a god but no proof at this time. 

Science by definition is your friend and is on your side. You could say  I feel strongly there is a god due to my personal experiences but I accept that that feeling is not sufficient to say there is proof of god. I am not belittling believers by saying it is a feeling but am just looking for a word that equates to human experience. Is there a human thought process or mind process  that is more than a feeling and can be deemed objective proof. Not as far as I am concerned. 

Edited May 31, 2021 by Fat is a type of crazy

[thaibeachlovers]

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

A  dog's thought process may be different but they may have some conceptual mind process  to deal with the unexplained ... a dog  god. I

LOL. I've had a few dogs and looked after many in my time. IMO a dog will have affection for the person that feeds them, but that's as far as it goes.

The rest is down to training.

They are a pack animaL, so they will appear to be operating from intelligence, but IMO it's just genetic imperatives.

[thaibeachlovers]

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

Science to me is every possibility considered but just provable concepts accepted. I think it is scientific to accept that we know only a bit about what is going on out there e.g. dark matter,  and are statistically not likely to be the highest form of consciousness in the universe, and that based on what we know there could be a god but no proof at this time. 

Science by definition is your friend and is on your side. You could say  I feel strongly there is a god due to my personal experiences but I accept that that feeling is not sufficient to say there is proof of god. I am not belittling believers by saying it is a feeling but am just looking for a word that equates to human experience. Is there a human thought process or mind process  that is more than a feeling and can be deemed objective proof. Not as far as I am concerned. 

Obviously belief in a Creator is a subjective one, given lack of scientific proof, but IMO there is more evidence of God than there is of true love between men and women.

 

 

[thaibeachlovers]

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

Science by definition is your friend and is on your side.

Huh? Science has developed all the weapons used to kill each other. Is mustard gas "on my side"?

[Fat is a type of crazy]

2 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Huh? Science has developed all the weapons used to kill each other. Is mustard gas "on my side"?

Science isn't a person. It's a method of finding truth. What people do with that truth can be bad. 

[thaibeachlovers]

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

Science isn't a person. It's a method of finding truth. What people do with that truth can be bad. 

I agree, but I was commenting on your claim that science is my "friend". IMO it's used far more for evil than good.

It's no friend of mine.

[Fat is a type of crazy]

21 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

I agree, but I was commenting on your claim that science is my "friend". IMO it's used far more for evil than good.

It's no friend of mine.

Science has surely added to your life more than it's taken away.  

Without science we would just hope for the best. Volcano or plague happens. Have no idea why..don't care..it's god's will.   

Same with proving god..you can say god does exist and that's that, or you can say I feel it exists, and hope one day I can prove it, but in the meantime I'll live a certain way and associate with certain  people as I feel good doing so ..proof or not. 

 

[mauGR1]

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

Science to me is every possibility considered but just provable concepts accepted. I think it is scientific to accept that we know only a bit about what is going on out there e.g. dark matter,  and are statistically not likely to be the highest form of consciousness in the universe, and that based on what we know there could be a god but no proof at this time. 

Science by definition is your friend and is on your side. You could say  I feel strongly there is a god due to my personal experiences but I accept that that feeling is not sufficient to say there is proof of god. I am not belittling believers by saying it is a feeling but am just looking for a word that equates to human experience. Is there a human thought process or mind process  that is more than a feeling and can be deemed objective proof. Not as far as I am concerned. 

 

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

Science to me is every possibility considered but just provable concepts accepted. I think it is scientific to accept that we know only a bit about what is going on out there e.g. dark matter,  and are statistically not likely to be the highest form of consciousness in the universe, and that based on what we know there could be a god but no proof at this time. 

Science by definition is your friend and is on your side. You could say  I feel strongly there is a god due to my personal experiences but I accept that that feeling is not sufficient to say there is proof of god. I am not belittling believers by saying it is a feeling but am just looking for a word that equates to human experience. Is there a human thought process or mind process  that is more than a feeling and can be deemed objective proof. Not as far as I am concerned. 

I appreciate your reasoning,  i can't really find any flaw in that.

Yet, i think you have a rather low opinion of what is regarded as "feelings ".

In fact, the whole range of feelings is very important in shaping and directing our thoughts and lives, at least as important as physical matter, if not even more.

If i and you are looking at the same red flower, we are getting totally different feelings, that's the evidence of the existence of a soul, which surely one cannot see with the physical eyes, yet exists, and it's not less real than the physical body.

[thaibeachlovers]

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

Science has surely added to your life more than it's taken away.  

No.

 

Even the medium ( invented by science ) by which I am conversing with you has made my life worse as I'm an internet addict and my life would have been many times better and more wisely used had I never gone on the internet that first time.

I hate to think of the thousands of hours I've wasted behind a screen.

Sadly though, as I said I'm an addict.

Edited May 31, 2021 by thaibeachlovers