Do you believe in God and why

[mauGR1]

Just now, Skeptic7 said:

It's better than "Simon Says" ????

Thanks for your brilliant contribution ????

[thaibeachlovers]

Just now, Skeptic7 said:

Oh I'm never "absent" as I'm omnipresent and always watching...just like Santa. 

 

For 2+years now you've railed on and on how no mere human, nor science, can possibly have a clue about such stuff. Yet YOU somehow believe something (and even advocate and defend) what you readily and repeatedly admit YOU haven't a clue about. How is that possible? 

I had a personal experience ( a Road to Damascus moment ) and I know God exists. Before I get the ususal "you must have been on drugs" BS, I wasn't- not even drunk. I know that God exists in the same way I know sunsets happen. I can't prove scientifically that a sunset happens, but I can see them, just as I know God exists, without proof.

 

Those closed to the concept of God will likely never know, as one has to be open to the possibility that God exists.

BTW, before that moment I was agnostic, so not even religious.

[mauGR1]

5 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Those closed to the concept of God will likely never know, as one has to be open to the possibility that God exists.

We said that a zillion times, and it's worth repeating, even if i reckon that the great majority of "closed minds " will probably remain closed.

[thaibeachlovers]

13 minutes ago, Skeptic7 said:

It's better than "Simon Says" ????

If that's your level of debate, I'll go back my previous policy of ignoring your posts.

Bye.

[canthai55]

1 hour ago, Skeptic7 said:

For 2+years now you've railed on and on how no mere human, nor science, can possibly have a clue about such stuff. Yet YOU somehow believe something (and even advocate and defend) what you readily and repeatedly admit YOU haven't a clue about. How is that possible? 

The "Need" for some people to "Believe" is as important - if not more so - than the question if what they "Believe" does in fact exist.

 

[Sunmaster]

A man who does not know what a university is, goes to his town's university, looks at the building, walks around it, measures it, looks at all the details like doors, windows and decorations. Eventually, he claims to finally "know" what a university is all about. It's "just" a big building with a nice garden, he says. Nothing much to it.

 

Everyone who has ever studied at a university though, really knows that it's much more than that, and no simplistic definition will every explain the countless hours spent there, the knowledge imparted from the teachers to the students, the "ahaa" moments when something new has been realized and learnt, the joys and suffering of years of study.

 

The same way, materialists watch a few YouTube videos or read a few articles online about spirituality, and think they gathered enough information to build their opinions upon. 

You hear them say "It's just wishful thinking", "It's meaningless balm for the weak minded", "It's all mumbo jumbo".

 

If you tell them they should go inside the university and actually take a few courses in order to really understand what they're so easily dismissing, you will get all sorts of excuses...no time, no interest, too much effort and and and. 

Yet, they still feel entitled to disguise their opinions based on incomplete data as scientific fact.

 

Makes one wonder who the weak minded and weak willed people really are.

[Fat is a type of crazy]

1 hour ago, Sunmaster said:

A man who does not know what a university is, goes to his town's university, looks at the building, walks around it, measures it, looks at all the details like doors, windows and decorations. Eventually, he claims to finally "know" what a university is all about. It's "just" a big building with a nice garden, he says. Nothing much to it.

 

Everyone who has ever studied at a university though, really knows that it's much more than that, and no simplistic definition will every explain the countless hours spent there, the knowledge imparted from the teachers to the students, the "ahaa" moments when something new has been realized and learnt, the joys and suffering of years of study.

 

The same way, materialists watch a few YouTube videos or read a few articles online about spirituality, and think they gathered enough information to build their opinions upon. 

You hear them say "It's just wishful thinking", "It's meaningless balm for the weak minded", "It's all mumbo jumbo".

 

If you tell them they should go inside the university and actually take a few courses in order to really understand what they're so easily dismissing, you will get all sorts of excuses...no time, no interest, too much effort and and and. 

Yet, they still feel entitled to disguise their opinions based on incomplete data as scientific fact.

 

Makes one wonder who the weak minded and weak willed people really are.

What is the university and who are the teachers and what is their methodology in your example. Is it god? A particular text? A book on yoga? 

For yoga I accept that it has all sorts of positive effects and they are physical in my opinion. The mind and consciousness is physical. 

Control of breathing, flexibility, diet and  exercise can affect peace of the mind and focus, and that can in turn lead to good decisions in life including doing exercise etc.

On the other hand life experience such as hard word, or charitable work, or taking drugs and girls, and being good or bad, might help some on their path to a better life. 

The transfer back and forth  between all these thoughts, feelings, dreams, experiences, moral dilemmas,  and actual movement, I feel are physical. 

Therefore  that university would have to show me something beyond this and that in fact there is something non physical and provide evidence in that regard. 

Edited June 19, 2021 by Fat is a type of crazy

[thaibeachlovers]

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

The transfer back and forth  between all these thoughts, feelings, dreams, experiences, moral dilemmas,  and actual movement, I feel are physical. 

Therefore  that university would have to show me something beyond this and that in fact there is something non physical and provide evidence in that regard. 

It's not up to the university to convince you of anything. It's up to you to find out what a university is and does and how it does it.

 

 

Edited June 19, 2021 by thaibeachlovers

[thaibeachlovers]

2 hours ago, canthai55 said:

The "Need" for some people to "Believe" is as important - if not more so - than the question if what they "Believe" does in fact exist.

 

I can only speak for myself, but I was fine not believing, and I'm fine with believing. Believing made no practical difference to my life. The change, if any, was not calling myself agnostic anymore. I don't believe that God intervenes in my life, so the benefit of believing is mainly that I don't think "I" ends when my body dies. Seems to me that some people think believers should be "high" or something, and go around trying to convert others. Personally I'm not concerned with other's beliefs, and I never talk about it with friends.  

I still don't believe in religion so it wasn't as though I started going to church or anything like that.

[canthai55]

We are stardust
We are golden
And we've got to get ourselves
Back to the garden

 

Thank you Joni Mitchell

 

 

[Mansell]

On 6/18/2021 at 3:24 PM, Skeptic7 said:

Wrong. Zero proof and not one iota of empirical evidence. Personal experience and testimony are not considered proof, nor evidence of any acceptable kind in making such a claim accepted as fact. 

When you are dealing with reincarnation personal experience is valid......personal experience is pretty much valid with most things. But if your a skeptic like your name then all you can do is argue. I know people who have experienced their past lives while living now, and in much detail. Many of us are free thinkers and see this world differently than the skeptics and atheists do. If the proof bit you on the ass you would still find a way to deny it, or use words to rationalize your point of view. I have had experiences in this world that your ilk would think I was crazy. I have removed what you might call a ghost, but is actually a disincarnate entity, from people houses. They had experienced them and their friends knew there was something in the house......so they invited me in to get it to leave. And it worked. But you would have to find something in your world as a reference point to deny what I am telling you. And that is fine. One day your consciousness will be open to many of the unusual phenomena that happens every day. Until then you can wrap yourself in science and validate your belief system. I will continue on my spiritual path learning something new, hopefully daily.

[Fat is a type of crazy]

21 minutes ago, Mansell said:

When you are dealing with reincarnation personal experience is valid......personal experience is pretty much valid with most things. But if your a skeptic like your name then all you can do is argue. I know people who have experienced their past lives while living now, and in much detail. Many of us are free thinkers and see this world differently than the skeptics and atheists do. If the proof bit you on the ass you would still find a way to deny it, or use words to rationalize your point of view. I have had experiences in this world that your ilk would think I was crazy. I have removed what you might call a ghost, but is actually a disincarnate entity, from people houses. They had experienced them and their friends knew there was something in the house......so they invited me in to get it to leave. And it worked. But you would have to find something in your world as a reference point to deny what I am telling you. And that is fine. One day your consciousness will be open to many of the unusual phenomena that happens every day. Until then you can wrap yourself in science and validate your belief system. I will continue on my spiritual path learning something new, hopefully daily.

You believe what you believe and say that the truth about god comes from personal experience. Not something that can be debated but it's fine.

 

In this post you say you know many people who have experienced their past lives while living now and in much detail. That should be provable - speaking different languages, verifiable facts about locations and people in the past or just giving a detailed description of the way of life. Forget the word science if it turns you off. Just get them to be tested by someone objective. One might suggest if they remember their past lives they should have many details rather than just 'I lived in Rome and wore a toga'. 

You say there was something in the house and it left. Your claim. Now let's see your evidence.

 

 If it's true it's true and you should have evidence.

Truth doesn't mean some vague videos where a hippy said he was a dog or one of those dodgy ghost hunter shows. 

Edited June 19, 2021 by Fat is a type of crazy

[Surelynot]

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

You believe what you believe and say that the truth about god comes from personal experience. Not something that can be debated but it's fine.

 

In this post you say you know many people who have experienced their past lives while living now and in much detail. That should be provable - speaking different languages, verifiable facts about locations and people in the past or just giving a detailed description of the way of life. Forget the word science if it turns you off. Just get them to be tested by someone objective. One might suggest if they remember their past lives they should have many details rather than just 'I lived in Rome and wore a toga'. 

You say there was something in the house and it left. Your claim. Now let's see your evidence.

 

 If it's true it's true and you should have evidence.

Truth doesn't mean some vague videos where a hippy said he was a dog or one of those dodgy ghost hunter shows. 

5555...like it.

[Sunmaster]

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

What is the university and who are the teachers and what is their methodology in your example. Is it god? A particular text? A book on yoga? 

For yoga I accept that it has all sorts of positive effects and they are physical in my opinion. The mind and consciousness is physical. 

Control of breathing, flexibility, diet and  exercise can affect peace of the mind and focus, and that can in turn lead to good decisions in life including doing exercise etc.

On the other hand life experience such as hard word, or charitable work, or taking drugs and girls, and being good or bad, might help some on their path to a better life. 

The transfer back and forth  between all these thoughts, feelings, dreams, experiences, moral dilemmas,  and actual movement, I feel are physical. 

Therefore  that university would have to show me something beyond this and that in fact there is something non physical and provide evidence in that regard. 

In my story, the university represents all that we call "spirituality". There are many courses/ways to the Self, many teachers showing different paths to the same goal and just as many methodologies. 
 

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

For yoga I accept that it has all sorts of positive effects and they are physical in my opinion. The mind and consciousness is physical. 

Again, Hatha Yoga (the one you're talking about) is a type of yoga that uses the physical body as a means of union with the divine. But that's just one of many yoga types, and most other types are not physical.

 

Also, the brain is physical. It can be measured, tested and observed with all sorts of devices. The mind is not physical.

Traditionally, scientists have tried to define the mind as the product of brain activity: The brain is the physical substance, and the mind is the conscious product of those firing neurons, according to the classic argument. But growing evidence shows that the mind goes far beyond the physical workings of your brain. https://qz.com/866352/scientists-say-your-mind-isnt-confined-to-your-brain-or-even-your-body/

And consciousness is even less physical. If it were, then science would actually know what it is and where it comes from by now.
Despite millennia of analyses, definitions, explanations and debates by philosophers and scientists, consciousness remains puzzling and controversial,^[2] being "at once the most familiar and most mysterious aspect of our lives".^[3] Perhaps the only widely agreed notion about the topic is the intuition that it exists. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consciousness

 

 

1 hour ago, Mansell said:

When you are dealing with reincarnation personal experience is valid.....personal experience is pretty much valid with most things.

Correct, and not only in regards to reincarnation. Any attempt to establish a truly comprehensive map of the truth/life/existence/world, must include all of the human experiences, even if they are messy, uneasy and appear chaotic.

 

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

That should be provable - speaking different languages, verifiable facts about locations and people in the past or just giving a detailed description of the way of life.

Plenty of research has been done in this field, by actual scientists. I remember one doctor, who started researching this subject and interviewing many people who claimed to have had past life experiences, after some of his patients had near death experiences. I don't remember his name or the name of his book, but I'm sure you can google it and I'm sure there are plenty of other such resources. One only has to look... 
Will they satisfy your skepticism though? I doubt it.

There, found it:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ian_Stevenson
https://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/18/health/psychology/18stevenson.html

And another one:
For the past 20 years, Dr. Jim Tucker, now the director of the Division of Perceptual Studies, has focused mainly on cases found in the United States. His book Return to Life offers accounts of very strong American cases of young children who remember previous lives. In this book, Dr. Tucker writes about the now well-known cases of James Leininger, a young boy who had verifiable past-life memories of being a WWII pilot, and Ryan Hammons, who had verifiable memories of being a Hollywood extra and talent agent.
https://med.virginia.edu/perceptual-studies/our-research/children-who-report-memories-of-previous-lives/
and
https://uvamagazine.org/articles/the_science_of_reincarnation

Edited June 19, 2021 by Sunmaster

[Fat is a type of crazy]

1 hour ago, Sunmaster said:

In my story, the university represents all that we call "spirituality". There are many courses/ways to the Self, many teachers showing different paths to the same goal and just as many methodologies. 
 

Again, Hatha Yoga (the one you're talking about) is a type of yoga that uses the physical body as a means of union with the divine. But that's just one of many yoga types, and most other types are not physical.

 

Also, the brain is physical. It can be measured, tested and observed with all sorts of devices. The mind is not physical.

Traditionally, scientists have tried to define the mind as the product of brain activity: The brain is the physical substance, and the mind is the conscious product of those firing neurons, according to the classic argument. But growing evidence shows that the mind goes far beyond the physical workings of your brain. https://qz.com/866352/scientists-say-your-mind-isnt-confined-to-your-brain-or-even-your-body/

And consciousness is even less physical. If it were, then science would actually know what it is and where it comes from by now.
Despite millennia of analyses, definitions, explanations and debates by philosophers and scientists, consciousness remains puzzling and controversial,^[2] being "at once the most familiar and most mysterious aspect of our lives".^[3] Perhaps the only widely agreed notion about the topic is the intuition that it exists. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consciousness

 

 

Correct, and not only in regards to reincarnation. Any attempt to establish a truly comprehensive map of the truth/life/existence/world, must include all of the human experiences, even if they are messy, uneasy and appear chaotic.

 

Plenty of research has been done in this field, by actual scientists. I remember one doctor, who started researching this subject and interviewing many people who claimed to have had past life experiences, after some of his patients had near death experiences. I don't remember his name or the name of his book, but I'm sure you can google it and I'm sure there are plenty of other such resources. One only has to look... 
Will they satisfy your skepticism though? I doubt it.

There, found it:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ian_Stevenson
https://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/18/health/psychology/18stevenson.html

And another one:
For the past 20 years, Dr. Jim Tucker, now the director of the Division of Perceptual Studies, has focused mainly on cases found in the United States. His book Return to Life offers accounts of very strong American cases of young children who remember previous lives. In this book, Dr. Tucker writes about the now well-known cases of James Leininger, a young boy who had verifiable past-life memories of being a WWII pilot, and Ryan Hammons, who had verifiable memories of being a Hollywood extra and talent agent.
https://med.virginia.edu/perceptual-studies/our-research/children-who-report-memories-of-previous-lives/
and
https://uvamagazine.org/articles/the_science_of_reincarnation

I think this sort of post is where the debate about god can get interesting.

There is no doubt lack of certainty about the mind and consciousness and how it works. My opinion is that it is likely to be physical as one affects the other  but I concur it is to be proven what is going on. Similarly with yoga I think it is physical, for similar reasons, but I guess if we don't fully understand conscious thought, then neither of us can say we know for sure what happens in the mind body process. 

 

I just had a brief look at the Ian Stevenson wiki page and the James Leilinger case so comments are going to be admittedly based on not much . Both interesting thanks.

I do note that the doctor is clearly not a quack and there is some praise, but also some fairly detailed criticisms, of Ian Stevenson on that page.  

 

If James Leilinger is the poster boy for these types of stories then I'd say it is interesting but there's plenty of scope for doubt.

The child played with planes and had nightmares - many young boys do. He did come up with some interesting statements, according to the parents, but they seem limited. 

 

The child was interested in planes and war before his statement about the past life. Was his interest in planes due to the past life or is it a kid interested in planes who has an imagination.. possibly egged on by his father.  

Why couldn't the child just tell the story - I was a pilot, I lived at this address, my wife was Mary and her nickname is Happy, I had a dog called Jim etc etc.

 

Instead he has just a few details mainly related to the plane crash that came up after visiting a War Museum. What started as a story by the son, could have been reinforced between  father and son, until it becomes a thing. I could not see indications the boy had been taken aside, away from his parents,  and came up with startling new evidence.

 

It could be, for example,  that only a few memories could come from a past life and this could explain his limited recollection. But, except for mentioning the name of an aircraft carrier, and a few other limited statements according to the parents, it does not appear to be a compelling case.  

 

 

 

[Fat is a type of crazy]

My story. 22 and in the Gili islands off the coast of Lombok. Met a swedish girl..I was travelling overland to Timor and she was going to Bali. Spent a few days together. As we parted she gave me a name of a girl in Australia who could go into past lives. This girl was the girlfriend of a lead singer in an Australian band that had some  hits of a spiritual nature. 

I saw her, she was pretty,  and she took me into the back room and said I should lie down and think I am on a river floating and let my mind go. She talked about stuff and pictures did come into my mind of a person from hundreds of years ago. $50 please. I felt weird for the next few days.  

It was fun but the pictures I got were nothing much. That adds to my opinion that it is not a thing. 

[mauGR1]

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

My story. 22 and in the Gili islands off the coast of Lombok. Met a swedish girl..I was travelling overland to Timor and she was going to Bali. Spent a few days together. As we parted she gave me a name of a girl in Australia who could go into past lives. This girl was the girlfriend of a lead singer in an Australian band that had some  hits of a spiritual nature. 

I saw her, she was pretty,  and she took me into the back room and said I should lie down and think I am on a river floating and let my mind go. She talked about stuff and pictures did come into my mind of a person from hundreds of years ago. $50 please. I felt weird for the next few days.  

It was fun but the pictures I got were nothing much. That adds to my opinion that it is not a thing. 

I had 2 very vivid dreams in my 60 years when I thought I was remembering past lives. No proof,  but some strong feelings. 

I think that dying and take human form again is such a shock that it's difficult to remember past lives.

I don't think it's very important anyway, and not necessarily an argument in favour,  or against the existence of God. 

As I said in various posts, there are analogies between the theory of reincarnation and going to sleep and waking up, so death could be described as a state of rest where one gathers new energies to start again.

 

[Neeranam]

On 4/14/2019 at 9:25 PM, ivor bigun said:

Do you really believe in him or any of the other Gods ?

This guy has an intersting take on God. 

 

[Sunmaster]

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

I think this sort of post is where the debate about god can get interesting.

There is no doubt lack of certainty about the mind and consciousness and how it works. My opinion is that it is likely to be physical as one affects the other  but I concur it is to be proven what is going on. Similarly with yoga I think it is physical, for similar reasons, but I guess if we don't fully understand conscious thought, then neither of us can say we know for sure what happens in the mind body process. 

Yes, very interesting indeed.

You think that consciousness is a byproduct of the mind or the brain, ...the physical produces the non-physical. Correct?

 

This might be a valid approach, but the problem with this theory is that it leaves far too many questions unanswered. Traditional scientists tend to be very cautious making any statements about this, but many other scientists are bringing more and more evidence to the table that consciousness is not generated by the brain. Funnily enough, that's what the spiritual science has been saying all along: the body is a product of consciousness, not the other way around.

For example, read or watch the videos of the scientists who had NDE, what they experienced and how it changed them. 
Do you think they have a hidden agenda for promoting their change of heart? Would they lie and put their careers on the line? Could they all be victims of some biological deception and lose their rational, scientific minds in favour of airy-fairy mumbo jumbo? Science itself doesn't have the answer to what they have experienced. Perhaps some answers can be found elsewhere? I'm not a scientist, nor do I have any academic credentials in neuroscience, so I can't fault anyone for not taking me seriously. I'm just a little Sunmaster, writing my thoughts on the internet. There are far more qualified people out there, both in the scientific and spiritual area, and you would be surprised at how many points they would agree upon.

So, when actual scientists bravely speak up about their experiences, wouldn't that be doubly worth listening to?

Here is an interesting article I just found, but there is a lot more out there of course:
In fact, Fenwick believes that consciousness actually exists independently and outside of the brain as an inherent property of the universe itself like dark matter and dark energy or gravity. Hence, in Fenwick’s view, the brain does not create or produce consciousness; rather, it filters it.

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/think-well/201906/does-consciousness-exist-outside-the-brain

I don't agree with all the conclusions however, for example "So, ironically, only in death can we be fully conscious."....or "There is no empirically established explanatory framework for understanding how consciousness can exist independently and outside of the brain."

In reality, there definitely is an empirically established framework for understanding consciousness from within (one of them is Yoga), but sadly it is not (yet) taken sufficiently serious by traditional science. One day it will be, of that I'm sure, but until then, sceptics will remain sceptics because they need science to tell them what is real and what isn't. 
 

[canthai55]

At the end of the day I don't think mankind will ever know if "God" is "Real"

Empirical evidence will be a long time coming - if ever.

Since the dawn of man there has been a sense of wonder when looking at a night sky, a newborn baby, ...

A belief system most likely stems from that, and has been built upon and made more elaborate as time goes by.

As it got more sophisticated politics took over and it started to be used - not just believed.

Now it could become more rigid and used to exert control over people. There came into being the "Us against Them" which we still see in organized religion to this day.

But I am veering into "Religion" not "God"

 

Live a good life. If there are gods and they are just, then they will not care how devout you have been, but will welcome you based on the virtues you have lived by. If there are gods, but unjust, then you should not want to worship them. If there are no gods, then you will be gone, but will have lived a noble life that will live on in the memories of your loved ones.

Marcus Aurelius

 

 

[thaibeachlovers]

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

My story. 22 and in the Gili islands off the coast of Lombok. Met a swedish girl..I was travelling overland to Timor and she was going to Bali. Spent a few days together. As we parted she gave me a name of a girl in Australia who could go into past lives. This girl was the girlfriend of a lead singer in an Australian band that had some  hits of a spiritual nature. 

I saw her, she was pretty,  and she took me into the back room and said I should lie down and think I am on a river floating and let my mind go. She talked about stuff and pictures did come into my mind of a person from hundreds of years ago. $50 please. I felt weird for the next few days.  

It was fun but the pictures I got were nothing much. That adds to my opinion that it is not a thing. 

Did you expect to "live" a past life or experience an out of body experience, and because not up to expectations dismiss it as "nothing much"?

My spiritual experiences are pretty much just appreciating sunsets and scenery, so one might say that they are "not much" too.

IMO the problems for some are that if a burning bush doesn't  speak to them they think spirituality doesn't exist.

 

So far on this thread, reasons not to believe are that God is mean for letting people get sick and die; because bad people use religion to do bad things; because miracles are not performed like party tricks on demand; and because primitive human science isn't able to "prove" the existence of God.

 

If that is the benchmark for believing, then there isn't much hope for enlightenment, IMO. It's almost as though some are afraid to believe because if they did they might have to give up bad behaviour or some such.

 

 

[thaibeachlovers]

9 hours ago, Sunmaster said:

Here is an interesting article I just found, but there is a lot more out there of course:
In fact, Fenwick believes that consciousness actually exists independently and outside of the brain as an inherent property of the universe itself like dark matter and dark energy or gravity. 

That's interesting, as it basically reinforces what I've been saying all along- that our life force ( soul ) came from God and will return to God after our biological transport mechanism dies. Ie the life force exists outside "us" and is part of creation. IMO all living things have a tiny part of the universal life force that is within them as long as "alive", but it doesn't die with our biological bodies.

[thaibeachlovers]

26 minutes ago, canthai55 said:

At the end of the day I don't think mankind will ever know if "God" is "Real"

Empirical evidence will be a long time coming - if ever.

I don't get why anyone thinks God's reality should be revealed to humans. Do humans try to communicate with bacteria?

[canthai55]

21 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

I don't get why anyone thinks God's reality should be revealed to humans.

You have stated that you have 'My spiritual experiences are pretty much just appreciating sunsets and scenery'

So God is revealed to you in this way.

Why should other people not have other reasons, or no reason at all, to 'experience' in their own way ?

Go on and on about what you have said for 405 pages but belittle and scoff at what others believe and 'experience'

Smacks of organized religion - My Way or the Hiway

[thaibeachlovers]

8 minutes ago, canthai55 said:

You have stated that you have 'My spiritual experiences are pretty much just appreciating sunsets and scenery'

So God is revealed to you in this way.

Why should other people not have other reasons, or no reason at all, to 'experience' in their own way ?

Go on and on about what you have said for 405 pages but belittle and scoff at what others believe and 'experience'

Smacks of organized religion - My Way or the Hiway

555555555555555555555

God doesn't appear to me in sunsets. I appreciate sunsets and scenery for themselves, but I also appreciate that God created them and that I get to enjoy them.

 

belittle and scoff at what others believe and 'experience'

Quote where I said that or it's not true.

 

Smacks of organized religion - My Way or the Hiway

LOL. What other people believe or don't believe is of no concern to myself, and I'm not into forcing my beliefs on others. All I'm doing is stating what my position on faith is.

 

I certainly have no intention of modifying my position to suit your desires, so you are welcome to put me on ignore if you are so irritated by what I write.

Edited June 20, 2021 by thaibeachlovers

[Sunmaster]

45 minutes ago, canthai55 said:

Empirical evidence

Empirical evidence is the information obtained through observation and documentation of certain behavior and patterns or through an experiment. Empirical evidence is a quintessential part of the scientific method of research that is applicable in many disciplines.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empirical_evidence

 

The great spiritual disciplines have done just that for millennia: collect information through observation of the inner processes, documented them, verified them through repetition in others and passed them on from teacher to student. 

That's why we can speak of a "spiritual science". The methodology used is the same as in the traditional western approach of science.

As an example:
Some time in a remote past, X found that by rigorous contemplation he would access a part of him that would give him great peace and wisdom. Having spent a long time doing that, he mapped out the steps so that others could reach the same conclusions. X teaches Y these steps, who dutifully follows them. Y comes to the same conclusions and adds his own findings to the map, expanding and refining it. Y passes on his findings to Z, who again confirms these findings.
A pattern and methodology emerges that grows with each generation, creating a wealth of knowledge of the inner workings of the mind, and how it connects to the "Overmind" (stole this definition from Childhood's End ???? ).

Now imagine Mr. S, who has but a fleeting and superficial knowledge of these processes, comes and says "X, Y and Z are just delusional. I've never experienced such things, therefore they don't exist." 

Here's the university story again. A seeker of Truth and Knowledge, as a true scientist should be, would never dismiss such a gargantuan amount of empirical evidence. 

 

[Fat is a type of crazy]

51 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Did you expect to "live" a past life or experience an out of body experience, and because not up to expectations dismiss it as "nothing much"?

My spiritual experiences are pretty much just appreciating sunsets and scenery, so one might say that they are "not much" too.

IMO the problems for some are that if a burning bush doesn't  speak to them they think spirituality doesn't exist.

 

So far on this thread, reasons not to believe are that God is mean for letting people get sick and die; because bad people use religion to do bad things; because miracles are not performed like party tricks on demand; and because primitive human science isn't able to "prove" the existence of God.

 

If that is the benchmark for believing, then there isn't much hope for enlightenment, IMO. It's almost as though some are afraid to believe because if they did they might have to give up bad behaviour or some such.

 

 

 

So what should the benchmark be. A sunset makes you feel good and therefore god exists.

 

Reincarnation doesn't make sense to me. But you are right to say that the fact I couldn't find my past life in a one hour session doesn't mean I should dismiss it out of hand. It did seem to be cobblers but I keep an open mind. Time is limited and we all make priorities based on what we see as the odds of a particular path leading to a happier life. Studying or meditating long hours on this stuff is  something that does not appeal. However I think by having an awareness and openness to new things can help. But being open doesn't mean taking a leap of faith if it does not feel correct and the evidence is not there to back it up.  

[VincentRJ]

I recall stating many pages ago in this thread, that God exists as a construct of the human mind. If one expands upon this concept, it seems undeniable to me that everything, without exception, that humans can think about, perceive, talk about and express in any way, are constructs of the human mind.

When we mention the 'Laws of Physics', there is usually an assumption that such 'laws' are embedded in the external reality of the universe, and that we humans, through the scientific process, have discovered such laws, which exist independent of us. However, the concept of a 'law', whether in the legal context or the scientific context, is still a 'construct of the human mind', and as we know from the history of scientific enquiry, science is never settled and every 'so-called law' is subject to change or modification.

 

The unique characteristic of humans, amongst the animal kingdom, is our greater capacity for language and abstract thought. Mathematics is an example of this abstract thought, which has been essential for all scientific and economic progress.
It is difficult to deny that 1+1=2, in abstract mode, or in terms of the practical reality that most humans experience, attributing simple words to objects that appear to be the same but in reality are different.

 

For example, (one human being) + (one human being) = 2 human beings. However, we know that every human being is different to some degree. Even 'so-called identical twins' are not really identical. In fact there are no two objects that are completely identical. They are just 'similar' to varying degrees.

 

Common language uses a very rough and approximate degree of similarity when applying the same name to objects which, in reality, are different. Science has to be much more precise, hence the huge number of scientific words or terms in the many disciplines of science.
One might think that at a fundamental level, such as the atom, there are identical objects. For example, the nucleus of an atom contains neutrons and protons bonded tightly together. However, the same chemical element can have a different number of neutrons, but still have the same name, as in 'Carbon'; but science digs deeper and finds there are about 15 different isotopes of Carbon with a different number of neutrons, although the most common variants are Carbon 12, 13 and 14.

 

One might ask, are two Carbon 12 atoms identical? The answer is 'No'. The electrons, protons and neutrons in the nucleus of any atom are in various states of excitement, and the nucleus as a whole can rotate and vibrate at various speeds.

 

In other words, there are no two objects in the world that are truly and completely identical. Mathematics is a an abstract, human construct, which is extremely useful, but still a human construct.

 

Hope my post is not too profound for you all.  ????
 

[canthai55]

52 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

I certainly have no intention of modifying my position to suit your desires, so you are welcome to put me on ignore if you are so irritated by what I write.

My desires ? This is a Forum discussion.

Do you not feel that replying with a load of 555 and hilites is belittling and scoffing at people ?

[canthai55]

3 minutes ago, VincentRJ said:

Hope my post is not too profound for you all.  ????

Not at all.

To me Science is the way we try to understand the world around us.

Philosophy is a way of trying to understand the world within us.

I realize that this boundary is artificial and a product of the human mind.