Do you believe in God and why

[Sparktrader]

Just now, mauGR1 said:

Everything is relative, pls try to understand the concept instead of nitpicking. 

Otherwise we could spend days just trying to define the meaning of honesty. 

You claimed it was a measure of intelligence. You have a habit of making false claims though.

[mauGR1]

14 minutes ago, Sparktrader said:

You claimed it was a measure of intelligence. You have a habit of making false claims though.

Troll

[Sparktrader]

Just now, mauGR1 said:

Troll

Nope. Just calling you out on false claims. Google defines honest for you.

[Sparktrader]

honorable in principles, intentions, and actions; upright and fair: an honest person. showing uprightness and fairness: honest dealings. ... sincere; frank: an honest face. genuine or unadulterated: honest commodities. respectable; having a good reputation: an honest name.

[Sparktrader]

In contrast, intelligent design is a less comprehensive alternative to evolutionary theory. While evolution relies upon detailed, well-defined processes such as mutation and natural selection, ID offers no descriptions of the design process or the designer. In fact, proponents do not even agree among themselves as to which biological phenomena were designed and which were not. Ultimately, this “theory” amounts to nothing more than pointing to holes in evolution and responding with a one-word, unceasingly repeated mantra: “design.” But unless ID advocates fill in the details, there is no way to scientifically test intelligent design or make predictions from it for future research. In short, it is not valid science.

 

https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/religion/news/2006/04/10/1934/the-flaws-in-intelligent-design/

[thaibeachlovers]

12 hours ago, VincentRJ said:

Where did you get the idea that the universe might have been created out of nothing. The current Big Bang theory states that the universe was created from a singularity, which is a very tiny point, but a tiny point of infinite mass.  Infinite mass is not nothing.

and where did the singularity come from? Nothing comes from nothing, unless it's magic.

 

I never said the universe was created from nothing. That would be what those that don't believe in God have to believe, as if God didn't create the universe, where did the matter to make it come from?  Can they explain where it all was before it became the universe?

 

God is often described as "infinite", so if the tiny point of infinite mass created the universe was "infinite", that would be God, would it not? You don't have to call it God if you don't want to, but God comes in many guises and has many names.

[thaibeachlovers]

4 hours ago, mauGR1 said:

Troll

You got that right, IMO.

[thaibeachlovers]

10 hours ago, VincentRJ said:

The term 'intelligent' is applied to a specific entity, such as an individual human or animal. Nature is an extremely broad term. You might as well ask if the Universe is intelligent.

If one believes in Gaia, there is no problem believing that the universe has an intelligence as well. It just doesn't have to conform to a human definition.

[thaibeachlovers]

10 hours ago, VincentRJ said:

All animals have some degree of sensory perception, which varies according to the species. Humans have the unique capacity for language and abstract thought, but that capacity depends upon the more fundamental capacity of sensory perception.

 

We've heard of people who are born with a deficiency in one or more of these sensory preceptors, such as being blind, or deaf, and such people obviously have unusual difficulties in life. But imagine someone who was born with no sensory preceptors at all. In other words, they were not only blind and deaf, but had no sense of smell, taste or feeling. Could such people have any thoughts about anything?

 

If a person practices meditation in order to reduce and even eliminate all thoughts, temporarily, and are successful in doing that, then they are putting themselves in the situation of a species that has no capacity for abstract thought and language. I can understand that such an experience would be ineffable.

 

Language and abstract thought is all about effability. If you temporarily eliminate it, you are into the world of 'ineffability'. The experience might be interesting and beneficial for mental health, and provide some new insights, but does not necessarily have anything to do with a mysterious God or mystical spirit.

Why do you limit perception to that experienced by the average person? Do you not accept that some can achieve a higher state of perception?

Meditating to  eliminate thoughts OPENS us to a HIGHER perception, it doesn't eliminate perception. However, if one is closed to that possibility, then one will never advance mentally beyond that which is basic.

 

If, as some of us believe, God is in everything, then everything is to do with God.

 

Seems to me that some are so bogged down in their perception of God, that they can't even understand what believers know.

So many come on here apparently believing that God is an old man in a throne sitting in the sky and judging us, but that's not what believers know as God.

We've been saying that for a very long time, but we still get those that confuse God with religion making claims that we debunked long ago.

 

Edited July 28, 2021 by thaibeachlovers

[thaibeachlovers]

6 hours ago, VincentRJ said:

You seem to have misunderstood the most basic principle of language. That is, everything, in descriptive terms, is relative. There can be no concept of 'good' without a concept of 'bad'. There can be no concept of 'hot' without a concept of 'cold'. There can be no concept of 'intelligence' without a concept of 'stupidity'.

 

If the entire universe is intelligent, then there can be no stupid people. In fact, the concepts of intelligence and stupidity could not even exist in a universe where everything was intelligent.

I have no idea as to what your definition of "intelligence" is. Every "normal" human has "intelligence", but not all humans are not stupid. One only has to look at what some are doing, to know that some humans are stupid eg polluting the oceans to extinction.

Even ants have "intelligence", though not in the same way as humans.

 

Google defines intelligence as

noun

noun: intelligence

1. 1.

   the ability to acquire and apply knowledge and skills.

 

Every species has to acquire and apply knowledge in order to adapt and survive. They just do so differently than humans.

IMO intelligence is not exclusive to humans.

 

 

 

 

[Skeptic7]

4 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

If one believes in Gaia, there is no problem believing that the universe has an intelligence as well. It just doesn't have to conform to a human definition.

Huh? If not human definitions...then what? ALL definitions are human, up till now anyway. Even the misused ones, of which abound on this thread.

 

What other type of definitions are you proposing...or "conforming" to, if not human???

[Skeptic7]

8 hours ago, Sparktrader said:

honorable in principles, intentions, and actions; upright and fair: an honest person. showing uprightness and fairness: honest dealings. ... sincere; frank: an honest face. genuine or unadulterated: honest commodities. respectable; having a good reputation: an honest name.

Actual definitions...long standing and well accepted...have very little meaning anymore to a well known few here. Rather easier to twist, deform, misuse and flat out make up their own, to fit their mumbo-jumbo. 

[canthai55]

14 hours ago, VincentRJ said:

All animals have some degree of sensory perception, which varies according to the species. Humans have the unique capacity for language and abstract thought

Not true.

Octopus can problem solve, which requires abstract thinking. Along with chimps, birds, the list is long.

Whales communicate world wide with their low frequency 'voices'.

[mauGR1]

12 minutes ago, canthai55 said:

Not true.

Octopus can problem solve, which requires abstract thinking. Along with chimps, birds, the list is long.

Whales communicate world wide with their low frequency 'voices'.

What he said, and what you said is definitely worth some investigation.

It's clear that humans have a more developed brain and nervous system compared to animals, and the unique ability, in the animal kingdom, to expand their consciousness.

That said, reading some contribution here , from the notorious ones, makes me think of parrots, rather than humans ????

[VincentRJ]

5 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

and where did the singularity come from? Nothing comes from nothing, unless it's magic.

 

I never said the universe was created from nothing. That would be what those that don't believe in God have to believe, as if God didn't create the universe, where did the matter to make it come from?  Can they explain where it all was before it became the universe?

 

God is often described as "infinite", so if the tiny point of infinite mass created the universe was "infinite", that would be God, would it not? You don't have to call it God if you don't want to, but God comes in many guises and has many names.

The law of 'Conservation of Energy', states that matter and energy cannot be destroyed but only converted from one form to another.
Therefore, my answer to the question: "Why is there something rather than nothing?" is that 'nothing', by definition, cannot exist. Existence is all there is. Non-existence also cannot exist, so why ask the question?

 

The confusion about such issues probably arises because we see or feel only a very small fraction of the matter and energy that surrounds us, and therefore develop a false concept of 'empty space', and imagine that things can exist within an environment of emptiness of space.

 

However, the disciplines of modern science, such as Physics and particularly Quantum Mechanics, are revealing that there is no such thing as 'empty space', and that what appears to be empty is actually an invisible, smeared out cloud of waves and subatomic particles.

 

In any small location, such as a container where you've removed all gases to create a vacuum, there will still be trillions of photons, or waves which are part of the Electromagnetic Spectrum, whizzing through the container every second. You might imagine the container is empty, but it isn't.

 

There are also other invisible forces such as gravitational waves which appear to pervade everywhere, and the possibility of Dark Matter and Dark Energy which, together, are claimed to constitute around 95% of the total matter and energy in the universe.

 

In other words, all the matter and energy that our scientific instruments can detect, including all the atoms, the sub-atomic particles, gravitational waves, and the waves in the electromagnetic spectrum, constitute just 5% of the total amount of matter and energy in the universe, according to current theories which have yet to be validated.

 

Have I answered your questions? ????
 

[mauGR1]

8 minutes ago, VincentRJ said:

The law of 'Conservation of Energy', states that matter and energy cannot be destroyed but only converted from one form to another.
Therefore, my answer to the question: "Why is there something rather than nothing?" is that 'nothing', by definition, cannot exist. Existence is all there is. Non-existence also cannot exist, so why ask the question?

 

The confusion about such issues probably arises because we see or feel only a very small fraction of the matter and energy that surrounds us, and therefore develop a false concept of 'empty space', and imagine that things can exist within an environment of emptiness of space.

 

However, the disciplines of modern science, such as Physics and particularly Quantum Mechanics, are revealing that there is no such thing as 'empty space', and that what appears to be empty is actually an invisible, smeared out cloud of waves and subatomic particles.

 

In any small location, such as a container where you've removed all gases to create a vacuum, there will still be trillions of photons, or waves which are part of the Electromagnetic Spectrum, whizzing through the container every second. You might imagine the container is empty, but it isn't.

 

There are also other invisible forces such as gravitational waves which appear to pervade everywhere, and the possibility of Dark Matter and Dark Energy which, together, are claimed to constitute around 95% of the total matter and energy in the universe.

 

In other words, all the matter and energy that our scientific instruments can detect, including all the atoms, the sub-atomic particles, gravitational waves, and the waves in the electromagnetic spectrum, constitute just 5% of the total amount of matter and energy in the universe, according to current theories which have yet to be validated.

 

Have I answered your questions? ????
 

How does that contradict what @thaibeachlovers said ?

Actually, perhaps for the 1st time, I agree with every word of your post.

The difference is just that all of this "samsara" is intelligent and conscious in some people's opinion, while it's apparently random and unconscious in your opinion. 

[Sunmaster]

10 minutes ago, VincentRJ said:

The law of 'Conservation of Energy', states that matter and energy cannot be destroyed but only converted from one form to another.
Therefore, my answer to the question: "Why is there something rather than nothing?" is that 'nothing', by definition, cannot exist. Existence is all there is. Non-existence also cannot exist, so why ask the question?

 

The confusion about such issues probably arises because we see or feel only a very small fraction of the matter and energy that surrounds us, and therefore develop a false concept of 'empty space', and imagine that things can exist within an environment of emptiness of space.

 

However, the disciplines of modern science, such as Physics and particularly Quantum Mechanics, are revealing that there is no such thing as 'empty space', and that what appears to be empty is actually an invisible, smeared out cloud of waves and subatomic particles.

 

In any small location, such as a container where you've removed all gases to create a vacuum, there will still be trillions of photons, or waves which are part of the Electromagnetic Spectrum, whizzing through the container every second. You might imagine the container is empty, but it isn't.

 

There are also other invisible forces such as gravitational waves which appear to pervade everywhere, and the possibility of Dark Matter and Dark Energy which, together, are claimed to constitute around 95% of the total matter and energy in the universe.

 

In other words, all the matter and energy that our scientific instruments can detect, including all the atoms, the sub-atomic particles, gravitational waves, and the waves in the electromagnetic spectrum, constitute just 5% of the total amount of matter and energy in the universe, according to current theories which have yet to be validated.

 

Have I answered your questions? ????
 

Well, not really.
The question about where the 5% of the known and the 95% of the yet to be validated universe comes from is still open. To say it comes from a "singularity" (A point in the history of the universe in which the entire universe is squeezed into at least one point of infinite density, infinite temperature, infinite curvature.), is just using a placeholder, scientific sounding buzzword instead of another religious buzzword. 
The Big Bang theory, is just that, a theory, a hypothesis ...not validated science. 

[VincentRJ]

1 hour ago, canthai55 said:

Not true.

Octopus can problem solve, which requires abstract thinking. Along with chimps, birds, the list is long.

Whales communicate world wide with their low frequency 'voices'.

It seems I wasn't clear enough. It's the 'capacity' (for language and abstract thought) which is unique. Our capacity for language and abstract thought is far greater than that of any other animal. Didn't you know that? ????

[Sparktrader]

2 hours ago, Skeptic7 said:

Actual definitions...long standing and well accepted...have very little meaning anymore to a well known few here. Rather easier to twist, deform, misuse and flat out make up their own, to fit their mumbo-jumbo. 

Well yes. They have no science. Just some belief in a spirit that invented itself. 

[Sparktrader]

When you ask them to show their theory in detail they respond by calling you a troll. Nope. That means they automatically lose the argument.

 

You either have science to put forward or you don't.

[VincentRJ]

16 minutes ago, Sunmaster said:

The Big Bang theory, is just that, a theory, a hypothesis ...not validated science. 

Of course it's a hypothesis. It's not completely validated, and there are competing scientific theories, or hypothesis. However, there is some degree of validation in the sense that it fits our current physics and mathematical calculations, and it's at least one of the best explanations we can think of.

 

It's far better than the explanation of a Creator God, which has no scientific validation whatsoever. ????

[Sparktrader]

19 minutes ago, Sunmaster said:

Well, not really.
The question about where the 5% of the known and the 95% of the yet to be validated universe comes from is still open. To say it comes from a "singularity" (A point in the history of the universe in which the entire universe is squeezed into at least one point of infinite density, infinite temperature, infinite curvature.), is just using a placeholder, scientific sounding buzzword instead of another religious buzzword. 
The Big Bang theory, is just that, a theory, a hypothesis ...not validated science. 

Yet it has some science to support it. God has none.

[mauGR1]

2 minutes ago, Sparktrader said:

When you ask them to show their theory in detail they respond by calling you a troll. Nope. That means they automatically lose the argument.

 

You either have science to put forward or you don't.

You seem to deliberately misunderstand what's being said.

Nobody is against science here.

Nobody cares to 'win  an argument " either, except you. 

Perhaps trying to understand what is being discussed before commenting would be fair.

[Sparktrader]

1 minute ago, mauGR1 said:

You seem to deliberately misunderstand what's being said.

Nobody is against science here.

Nobody cares to 'win  an argument " either, except you. 

Perhaps trying to understand what is being discussed before commenting would be fair.

Nope. I asked you many times before. Put forward your science.

 

All I got was question dodging. Calling the question maker a troll means 1 you have no science and 2 you lose the argument.

[Sparktrader]

6 minutes ago, VincentRJ said:

Of course it's a hypothesis. It's not completely validated, and there are competing scientific theories, or hypothesis. However, there is some degree of validation in the sense that it fits our current physics and mathematical calculations, and it's at least one of the best explanations we can think of.

 

It's far better than the explanation of a Creator God, which has no scientific validation whatsoever. ????

Correct. But when we point out the facts they call us trolls for not accepting their non scientific rough guesses lol

[Sunmaster]

PART 3 
(Oh wow, a paper written by actual scientists for a government program! Amazing) ???? 

 

THE EXPERIMENTAL INDUCTION OF RELIGIOUS-TYPE EXPERIENCES

JEAN HOUSTON AND ROBERT E. L. MASTERS

 

 

This paper will not be concerned primarily with psychedelic drugs or those religious-type experiences occurring in the drug-state. There now is an extensive literature devoted to that subject, including our own book, The Varieties of

Psychedelic Experience,4 especially the concluding chapters. And it should, therefore, be of greater interest to report on some new non-drug research which we have been conducting and continue to conduct at our laboratory in New York City.

 

However, for the benefit of those still unfamiliar with the drug-state experiences one case will be described here briefly. The research subject—and all of our work has been in research and not in psychotherapy—was a successful executive in his early fifties. As is the case with all of our subjects, he should be considered “normal,” with no problems beyond those confronting even the best-adjusted members of our species. He is intensely interested in art. This subject’s experience followed, in general, the pattern of “descent” that has been described, except that, having no urgent psychological problems, there was little concern with his own personal history and, instead, a somewhat greater than usual amount of philosophical discussion. His attention then was focused upon Eastern art, as he selected several illustrated books on that subject from among a broad selection of art and other books that were available to him. The religious art occupied him especially, and he mentioned that he thought a particular picture would be extremely important for him, if only he could find it. He was then handed a picture of a Japanese Buddha, and at once he sighed ecstatically, started to weep and then closed his eyes. What followed next, he describes in a report written several days later.

 

… I experienced a shattering thunderbolt of ecstacy and my body dissolved into the flow of matter or energy of which the universe is made. I was swept into the core of existence from which all things arise and into which all things converge. Here there is no distinction between subject and object, space and time, or anything else. Here everything simply is and there is no beginning and no ending—only becoming. The aspect of this place is quite simple, although I cannot recall details too well. There is a flow into the center and a flow out from the center, but no form. The color is neutral, both warm and cool, and there is a soft light emanating from underneath, giving off a faint glow. I do not remember if there was any sound, but there was total integration so there would be no distinction between sound and no sound. All one is aware of is pure ecstacy and love.

There was no dominant element or directing force. Everything flowed from itself by its own energy. If there is any god or creative power, it exists only as a manmade concept. In form, the ultimate reality seemed at times to have four corners, but this may have been a transitional stage of vision prior to reaching the center. I recall describing the core as a sphere composed of an infinite number of small spheres revolving in a spiral toward a center which itself is infinite, and that each of the small spheres is composed of still smaller spheres also revolving toward an infinite center and so on. How this concept came to me I do not know, as I do not have a clear recollection of such an image. It may be that at the ultimate

ultimate point one is within the core and can no longer observe. There is no sensation as such at the core—only a state of utter, ineffable bliss.

Here, as in the earlier phases, one is aware of a tremendous surge of compassion and a powerful desire to share one’s rapture with others. As the self dissolves, the other becomes one with all else and so there is no selfishness. Nor is there any element of conflict—because all are one. I am aware of having made a loud exclamation at the moment of revelation and having spoken at some times during my deepest experience, but I do not remember any words except that at the end I said, “all is indeed one,” as I discovered this truth.

I have no idea whether I was seconds or hours in this state. As I felt myself reappearing from the profound rapture of the core, I questioned, momentarily, the value of returning. For an instant (or was it an hour?) I was tempted to remain in the place of infinite beauty, but I began to think of the interest that life in the world holds—music, books, art, people—a different kind of pleasure than the other, and I let myself rise to the surface of consciousness. What would have happened if my joy in the world were not quite so strong and I had yielded to that temptation?

 

[mauGR1]

1 minute ago, Sparktrader said:

Nope. I asked you many times before. Put forward your science.

 

All I got was question dodging. Calling the question maker a troll means 1 you have no science and 2 you lose the argument.

Sorry, i  don't remember any direct question from you. 

If you think that you can win a chess game by overturning the table, then i am not going to play chess with you ????

[Sparktrader]

2 minutes ago, mauGR1 said:

Sorry, i  don't remember any direct question from you. 

If you think that you can win a chess game by overturning the table, then i am not going to play chess with you ????

Put forward your science. Asked multiple times.

[Sunmaster]

10 minutes ago, VincentRJ said:

Of course it's a hypothesis. It's not completely validated, and there are competing scientific theories, or hypothesis. However, there is some degree of validation in the sense that it fits our current physics and mathematical calculations, and it's at least one of the best explanations we can think of.

 

It's far better than the explanation of a Creator God, which has no scientific validation whatsoever. ????

Trying to fit square pegs in round holes again, aren't we.... 

Science is not the only way we validate truth. Science is in it's infancy when it comes to consciousness research. The spiritual sciences have a couple of 1000 years head start on that. Science is not the ultimate truth giver as it changes all the time and has to adapt once new data flows in. Imagine the repercussions in the scientific world once the new research on consciousness emerges to mainstream science.... ????
 

[Sparktrader]

1 minute ago, Sunmaster said:

Trying to fit square pegs in round holes again, aren't we.... 

Science is not the only way we validate truth. Science is in it's infancy when it comes to consciousness research. The spiritual sciences have a couple of 1000 years head start on that. Science is not the ultimate truth giver as it changes all the time and has to adapt once new data flows in. Imagine the repercussions in the scientific world once the new research on consciousness emerges to mainstream science.... ????
 

Science is the only way. The other option is fiction.