Do you believe in God and why

[thaibeachlovers]

On 7/22/2021 at 10:27 PM, ivor bigun said:

sorry i suppose i wrote the wrong thing ,in many ways religion is a good thing ,it gives out many good vibes ,oh and some bad ones , but what i really meant is ,what i said in the beginning i do not believe that there is a God who looks over us ,also i do not believe that his Prophets  eg Jesus or Mohamed  were sent to us by God . i believe that in the end most religion is about control of the people ,

 

I also believe that religion is about control, but IMO religion has very little to do with faith, and most posts now are about spirituality/ faith and not about religion.

[thaibeachlovers]

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

I still don't know what spiritual science is. I get exploring the body and seeing what makes us tick but I think it is bad science if there are conclusions that there is a spiritual world but there is no testing to back that up.  If someone thinks there may be that's fine.

IMO if one needs some sort of proof to believe, then one has no faith. Faith, IMO, is believing as a result of some spiritual experience and not because of something we read in a book.

[VincentRJ]

7 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

? The Bible is a book. It is so general that many things in it can be taken to have different meanings, and many things written about are hard to believe eg if everyone on the planet except those on the Ark died in the flood, are we all descendants of incestous relationships? Thus, like the Koran, there are scholars that try to understand what it actually means.

IMO if it was the actual words of God it would be simple to understand and there would be no confusion.

The Bible is a book, but the stories and descriptions of God within it, predated the invention of books. The nature of human evolution is to attempt to describe and understand what was previously ineffable and indescribable. We are able to do this because of our capacity for language and abstract thought.

 

That doesn't mean, however, that our descriptions and understandings are correct. For example, there are numerous examples of Thunder Gods, which were attempts to explain the 'ineffable' experience of loud roars from the sky, which are much louder than the loudest roar from a Lion or an Elephant.

 

Likewise, there are those today, like Sunmaster, who claim to experience within, an unusual sense of calm or oneness with nature and their surroundings, perhaps in an enclosed space which is free of lightning and thunder, and then associate that experience with a God of some sorts, such as a God of Everything.

 

However, if you want to be more precise, then recent scientific research can provide some clues about the degree of 'oneness with nature' that humans have. Since we now have the technology to analyze the genome of humans and other animals and plants, we can confirm that 'oneness'. Even the genome of ants have a connection to the genome of humans.

 

Around 33% of the genome of ants and bananas are shared with humans. So, if you see an ant when walking through the woods, try to avoid stepping on it. ????

[thaibeachlovers]

8 hours ago, VincentRJ said:

The Bible is a book, but the stories and descriptions of God within it, predated the invention of books. The nature of human evolution is to attempt to describe and understand what was previously ineffable and indescribable. We are able to do this because of our capacity for language and abstract thought.

 

That doesn't mean, however, that our descriptions and understandings are correct. For example, there are numerous examples of Thunder Gods, which were attempts to explain the 'ineffable' experience of loud roars from the sky, which are much louder than the loudest roar from a Lion or an Elephant.

 

Likewise, there are those today, like Sunmaster, who claim to experience within, an unusual sense of calm or oneness with nature and their surroundings, perhaps in an enclosed space which is free of lightning and thunder, and then associate that experience with a God of some sorts, such as a God of Everything.

 

However, if you want to be more precise, then recent scientific research can provide some clues about the degree of 'oneness with nature' that humans have. Since we now have the technology to analyze the genome of humans and other animals and plants, we can confirm that 'oneness'. Even the genome of ants have a connection to the genome of humans.

 

Around 33% of the genome of ants and bananas are shared with humans. So, if you see an ant when walking through the woods, try to avoid stepping on it. ????

All good, but nothing you write disproves the existence of God the creator.

[mauGR1]

Just now, thaibeachlovers said:

All good, but nothing you write disproves the existence of God the creator.

He's watching the nature, so it won't be long before he sees the intelligent design at work ????

[VincentRJ]

13 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

All good, but nothing you write disproves the existence of God the creator.

That which is ineffable and indescribable cannot even be rationally discussed, never mind proved or disproved. The first fundamental requirement to prove or disprove the existence of 'anything' is a description of what it is.

 

It seems in this thread, the word God has become a synonym for the word 'ineffable'. However, the processes of 'Evolution' are not ineffable.

[mauGR1]

13 minutes ago, VincentRJ said:

It seems in this thread, the word God has become a synonym for the word 'ineffable'. However, the processes of 'Evolution' are not ineffable.

Oh, c'mon, it seems you like the word "ineffable", that's it ????

[thaibeachlovers]

13 minutes ago, VincentRJ said:

That which is ineffable and indescribable cannot even be rationally discussed, never mind proved or disproved. The first fundamental requirement to prove or disprove the existence of 'anything' is a description of what it is.

 

It seems in this thread, the word God has become a synonym for the word 'ineffable'. However, the processes of 'Evolution' are not ineffable.

God, IMO is not a synonym for anything. God is the creator and evolution is part of intelligent design.

[canthai55]

52 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

God, IMO is not a synonym for anything. God is the creator and evolution is part of intelligent design.

Many post on this Forum - and this thread - argue against intelligent design.

People believe in God because it makes them feel good, it calms them to think that there is a reason - even one they will never know - for what happens around them that they can not understand.

Just because you feel a sense of calm, of connectedness, during some activity - this means that God exists ?

Your are extrapolating this feeling to one which is "proof" of something you want to believe.

 

[thaibeachlovers]

5 minutes ago, canthai55 said:

Many post on this Forum - and this thread - argue against intelligent design.

People believe in God because it makes them feel good, it calms them to think that there is a reason - even one they will never know - for what happens around them that they can not understand.

Just because you feel a sense of calm, of connectedness, during some activity - this means that God exists ?

Your are extrapolating this feeling to one which is "proof" of something you want to believe.

 

You apparently don't get that what other people think isn't of any consequence for a believer.

 

Quote

Just because you feel a sense of calm, of connectedness, during some activity - this means that God exists ?

End quote

 

What are you on about? Are you just making things up?

When did I ever write about a sense of calm etc? I see God in nature, but God per se doesn't give me a warm fuzzy feeling. Believing in God doesn't make me feel anything different. It doesn't have to. If I only believed in God because of a "feeling", I'd be equating God to the buzz I got from being anesthetized for an operation.

 

[mauGR1]

I noticed that a recurring argument from non-believers,  is that believing in the existence of intelligent design/supreme consciousness/God, makes the believers feel "good ".

Well, sorry,  that's not an argument. 

Most reasonable people want to feel " good", even agnostics and atheists. 

You might instead question yourself,  why is that thinking that way makes you feel "good " ?

[canthai55]

1 hour ago, thaibeachlovers said:

You apparently don't get that what other people think isn't of any consequence for a believer.

 

Quote

Just because you feel a sense of calm, of connectedness, during some activity - this means that God exists ?

End quote

 

What are you on about? Are you just making things up?

When did I ever write about a sense of calm etc? I see God in nature, but God per se doesn't give me a warm fuzzy feeling. Believing in God doesn't make me feel anything different. It doesn't have to. If I only believed in God because of a "feeling", I'd be equating God to the buzz I got from being anesthetized for an operation.

 

Read my post. Read the quote I responded to.

Intelligent design - that is the key word.

That is what I am "on about"

 

Edited July 26, 2021 by canthai55

[Sunmaster]

12 hours ago, VincentRJ said:

Likewise, there are those today, like Sunmaster, who claim to experience within, an unusual sense of calm or oneness with nature and their surroundings, perhaps in an enclosed space which is free of lightning and thunder, and then associate that experience with a God of some sorts, such as a God of Everything.

Kind of disappointing that, after 2 years of openly sharing my experiences and discussing spirituality in all of its aspects, you are summarizing all that with "an unusual sense of calm or oneness with nature..." and associating it with your example to what an uneducated wild man believes thunder is.

 

4 hours ago, VincentRJ said:

That which is ineffable and indescribable cannot even be rationally discussed, never mind proved or disproved. The first fundamental requirement to prove or disprove the existence of 'anything' is a description of what it is.

 

It seems in this thread, the word God has become a synonym for the word 'ineffable'. However, the processes of 'Evolution' are not ineffable.

Ineffability and indescribability are but 2 of several characteristics of a genuine mystical experience. The fact that you can't fully explain in words what you have experienced due to the limitations of language, does in no way disprove the existence of that "something". 
I'm 100% certain that, if you had such an experience yourself, despite all the scientific knowledge and the language skills you have, you would be stumped to put it into words and describe it to others....just like all the people before you were unable to do. You would start using symbols, analogies and metaphors, because they are the closest we can get to describing it. Once you notice that others don't really get it, maybe you will stop trying. But the effects of that experience would still be visible through your actions: how you relate with others, your priorities may change, how you react to the ups and downs in life etc.

It's definitely not all about "a good feeling". Looking deeply at yourself takes balls and lots of tears. Facing your shadows and working out long buried emotional baggage takes courage, forgiveness and acceptance....they're not handed to you on a silver platter sprinkled with rainbows and happy unicorns.

Neither simple belief, nor direct experience are shortcuts to a worry-free existence. Ignoring the issues won't help either, because sooner or later, they always catch up with you, forcing you to face them.

The "happy feeling" then, is something that has to be earned and is a byproduct of your hard work on yourself. It's not the cause, nor the goal.

Edited July 26, 2021 by Sunmaster

[VincentRJ]

10 hours ago, Sunmaster said:

Ineffability and indescribability are but 2 of several characteristics of a genuine mystical experience. The fact that you can't fully explain in words what you have experienced due to the limitations of language, does in no way disprove the existence of that "something". 

Wow! If a characteristic is ineffable and indescribable, how do you know it's a characteristic? It might be the opposite of a characteristic, such as uncharacteristic, abnormal, bizarre, aberrant, freakish, unnatural, and so on. ????

 

"I'm 100% certain that, if you had such an experience yourself, despite all the scientific knowledge and the language skills you have, you would be stumped to put it into words and describe it to others."

 

That says it all. Certainty about something you cannot rationally be certain about. An excellent example of the problems that human societies have faced in the past and will continue to face into the future.

 

I'll repeat mark Twain's quote because it's so relevant in this context.

“It ain’t what you don’t know that gets you into trouble. It’s what you know for sure that just ain’t so. "

[Sunmaster]

27 minutes ago, VincentRJ said:

Wow! If a characteristic is ineffable and indescribable, how do you know it's a characteristic? It might be the opposite of a characteristic, such as uncharacteristic, abnormal, bizarre, aberrant, freakish, unnatural, and so on. ????

 

"I'm 100% certain that, if you had such an experience yourself, despite all the scientific knowledge and the language skills you have, you would be stumped to put it into words and describe it to others."

 

That says it all. Certainty about something you cannot rationally be certain about. An excellent example of the problems that human societies have faced in the past and will continue to face into the future.

 

I'll repeat mark Twain's quote because it's so relevant in this context.

“It ain’t what you don’t know that gets you into trouble. It’s what you know for sure that just ain’t so. "

Erm, I said the genuine mystical experience is ineffable and indescribable (among others traits), not the characteristics. The characteristics can very well be defined. Just look up the definitions in your dictionary. I thought that would be obvious. Apparently not though.

 

I suggest reading more carefully in the future lest you'll embarrass yourself again. ????????

 

 

[VincentRJ]

9 minutes ago, Sunmaster said:

Erm, I said the genuine mystical experience is ineffable and indescribable (among others traits), not the characteristics. The characteristics can very well be defined. Just look up the definitions in your dictionary. I thought that would be obvious. Apparently not though.

 

I suggest reading more carefully in the future lest you'll embarrass yourself again. ????????

 

 

You wrote: "Ineffability and indescribability are but 2 of several characteristics of a genuine mystical experience." 

 

That means, there are two characteristics of mystical experience which are ineffable and indescribable, does it not? Which two characteristics are ineffable and indescribable? And which characteristics are effable and describable?

[Sunmaster]

1 hour ago, VincentRJ said:

You wrote: "Ineffability and indescribability are but 2 of several characteristics of a genuine mystical experience." 

 

That means, there are two characteristics of mystical experience which are ineffable and indescribable, does it not? Which two characteristics are ineffable and indescribable? And which characteristics are effable and describable?

No, it doesn't. 

English is not my first language, but I've re-read my statement several times, and I think it's correct. 

The experience itself is ineffable, the characteristics of the experience can be described. 

 

 

[VincentRJ]

7 hours ago, Sunmaster said:

No, it doesn't. 

English is not my first language, but I've re-read my statement several times, and I think it's correct. 

The experience itself is ineffable, the characteristics of the experience can be described. 

 

Sorry! That makes no sense to me. After thinking about it, I'd say I have no wish to have an 'ineffable' experience. It would likely just cause confusion, and there's more than enough of that already in the world.

 

However, a joyful experience, or a liberating experience, or an insightful experience, or an experience of unusual calm and clarity, and so on, are all welcome. ????

[Sunmaster]

32 minutes ago, VincentRJ said:

Sorry! That makes no sense to me. After thinking about it, I'd say I have no wish to have an 'ineffable' experience. It would likely just cause confusion, and there's more than enough of that already in the world.

 

However, a joyful experience, or a liberating experience, or an insightful experience, or an experience of unusual calm and clarity, and so on, are all welcome. ????

You equate ineffable with confusing, when in reality it's the complete opposite of confusing.

Ineffable (how many times have we used this word now? ????) doesn't mean that it won't make sense to you. It just means you are not able to put into words what you have experienced. 

 

Joyful...yes, liberating....yes, insightful.. yes, unity...yes.......indescribably so.

 

The world definitely needs more of these!

 

Edited July 26, 2021 by Sunmaster

[mauGR1]

30 minutes ago, VincentRJ said:

Sorry! That makes no sense to me. After thinking about it, I'd say I have no wish to have an 'ineffable' experience. It would likely just cause confusion, and there's more than enough of that already in the w

Just the opposite,  too much confusion has its origin in too many people running around like headless chickens. 

It would be much better if more people could take the time to sit and think ????

[Sunmaster]

1 hour ago, VincentRJ said:

Sorry! That makes no sense to me. After thinking about it, I'd say I have no wish to have an 'ineffable' experience. It would likely just cause confusion, and there's more than enough of that already in the world.

 

However, a joyful experience, or a liberating experience, or an insightful experience, or an experience of unusual calm and clarity, and so on, are all welcome. ????

For a better understanding, please have a look at this:

https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.601.4094&rep=rep1&type=pdf

[thaibeachlovers]

3 hours ago, VincentRJ said:

Sorry! That makes no sense to me. After thinking about it, I'd say I have no wish to have an 'ineffable' experience. It would likely just cause confusion, and there's more than enough of that already in the world.

 

However, a joyful experience, or a liberating experience, or an insightful experience, or an experience of unusual calm and clarity, and so on, are all welcome. ????

Apparently you never had an ineffable experience, but you lecture those that have as to what it's like.

 

[thaibeachlovers]

12 hours ago, VincentRJ said:

Wow! If a characteristic is ineffable and indescribable, how do you know it's a characteristic? It might be the opposite of a characteristic, such as uncharacteristic, abnormal, bizarre, aberrant, freakish, unnatural, and so on. ????

 

"I'm 100% certain that, if you had such an experience yourself, despite all the scientific knowledge and the language skills you have, you would be stumped to put it into words and describe it to others."

 

That says it all. Certainty about something you cannot rationally be certain about. An excellent example of the problems that human societies have faced in the past and will continue to face into the future.

 

I'll repeat mark Twain's quote because it's so relevant in this context.

“It ain’t what you don’t know that gets you into trouble. It’s what you know for sure that just ain’t so. "

Just replace the reference to spiritual experience with "romantic love" and your post would be as relevant, yet most have no problem believing in "romantic love".

 

[Fat is a type of crazy]

11 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Just replace the reference to spiritual experience with "romantic love" and your post would be as relevant, yet most have no problem believing in "romantic love".

 

Few are saying the feeling of romantic love is due a puppet master from the 4th dimension or some unknowable ethereal world

[thaibeachlovers]

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

Few are saying the feeling of romantic love is due a puppet master from the 4th dimension or some unknowable ethereal world

All of which has zero to do with what I said. How about answering what I wrote instead of inventing something completely irrelevant to it.

Perhaps it's because you don't actually have any answers

[Fat is a type of crazy]

5 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

All of which has zero to do with what I said. How about answering what I wrote instead of inventing something completely irrelevant to it.

Perhaps it's because you don't actually have any answers

You seemed to be saying that a spiritual experience should not be hard to believe since romantic love is a similar experience, and we don't know the source of either, but people are happy to believe in romantic love. 

I think though believing  in romantic love is believing in a psychological response whereas believing that an experience is spiritual requires belief in a whole unknown world or god. 

This is not commenting on Sunmaster's case but just the logic of your argument. 

[thaibeachlovers]

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

You seemed to be saying that a spiritual experience should not be hard to believe since romantic love is a similar experience, and we don't know the source of either, but people are happy to believe in romantic love. 

I think though believing  in romantic love is believing in a psychological response whereas believing that an experience is spiritual requires belief in a whole unknown world or god. 

This is not commenting on Sunmaster's case but just the logic of your argument. 

Actually that's not what I'm saying.

My point is that romantic love isn't a scientifically provable "thing" but people believe it exists, therefore anyone that believes in romantic love can not say that spirituality ( God ) does not exist.

If it's OK to believe in an IMO illusory feeling about "romantic love", it has to be OK to believe in spirituality.

 

Why do you assume that belief in God isn't a psychological response as real as those "in love" have?

 

I'm not saying that anyone HAS to believe in God, but they should give those that do the same respect as those "in love" get.

 

BTW, I don't need to believe in a whole unknown world to believe in God the creator. I'm as certain of that as I am that the sun will rise again tomorrow.

Obviously non believers can't understand it, but that doesn't mean they are right.

[VincentRJ]

8 hours ago, mauGR1 said:

Just the opposite,  too much confusion has its origin in too many people running around like headless chickens. 

It would be much better if more people could take the time to sit and think ????

The 'headless chicken' analogy is an excellent example of 'complete ineffability'. Well done! ????

 

Without a head, the chicken is completely unable to understand any experience to the slightest degree. Imagine a group of humans who frequently had ineffable experiences. They'd be running around like headless chooks. ????

[mauGR1]

1 hour ago, VincentRJ said:

The 'headless chicken' analogy is an excellent example of 'complete ineffability'. Well done! ????

 

Without a head, the chicken is completely unable to understand any experience to the slightest degree. Imagine a group of humans who frequently had ineffable experiences. They'd be running around like headless chooks. ????

Well, my point was that meditation, normally, doesn't turn average people into fools

Agree that ineffability, the way you mean it, can happen to anyone to some degree.

In other words, losing the plot can happen to anyone, regardless of one's faith, or lack of it, for various reasons.

Having read a few books about wars, for example, it's not unusual for good men to turn into ruthless,  cruel assassins, in certain circumstances. 

Btw, i guess Buddhists believe in reincarnation, or some sort of afterlife,  how do they explain that without an intelligent design involved?

[VincentRJ]

14 hours ago, mauGR1 said:

Btw, i guess Buddhists believe in reincarnation, or some sort of afterlife,  how do they explain that without an intelligent design involved?

According to the Tibetan belief, the spirit leaves the body after death, and within a period of 49 days it floats around until it eventually enters the womb of a human female, or animal female, during the process of conception (or copulation). The spirit is claimed to represent the good and bad behaviour characteristics of the deceased person.

 

There is an amusing explanation from the Tibetan scriptures that I came across some time ago. The Lama or Abbot of a Tibetan monastery had recently died, and a senior monk who also lived at the monastery was aware that the deceased Lama had misbehaved badly during his time at the monastery, and the monk was very concerned about the Lama's future life. He was concerned that the lama might be reborn into a lower species of animal as a result of his bad karma.

 

Then one day, whilst the monk was walking along a river bank, he saw a young lady washing clothes in the river. Then he noticed the Lama's spirit hovering above the lady. He immediately thought this could be an opportunity for the Lama to be reborn as a human, so he rushed over to the lady and tried to have intercourse with her.

 

However, the young lady was physically strong because she was a farm worker, and was able to fight off the monk and flee back to her village. When she got back she described to her mother what had happened, and described the appearance of the monk.

 

The lady's mother was shocked because the monk was a very well-respected and revered person in the area, so the mother told her daughter that the monk must have had a good reason to do what he'd done and that she should return to the monk and offer herself to him.

 

So the daughter did that. She found the monk sitting on a rock looking very sad. She apologized for fighting him off, and offered herself to him for whatever purpose he desired. The monk then explained why he had tried to have intercourse with her, but also said it was now too late. After she had fled, he had noticed the Lama's spirit moving to a nearby field where there were two donkeys copulating.

 

The deceased Lama would now be reborn as a donkey. ????

 

No intelligent designer required. Just 'nature' doing its thing. ????