Do you believe in God and why

[Tippaporn]

1 minute ago, mauGR1 said:

I can see your point, but i can see that you are posting here your truths, even for people who don't listen to you, and make a mockery of your wisdom. There might be no need for it, but still you're doing it.

Like in Plato's cave metaphor, the ones who have seen the light, for some reason, feel compelled to spread that awareness. 

I don't see anything wrong with that, it's part of our nature. 

In fact i heard that it's worse, and it would be pointless to keep that knowledge just for yourself. 

Believe me, I sometimes question why I post any of what I know at all.  LOL

I know of an instance where a doctor was remarking about the fact that he had numbers of patients who did not appear to want to improve their health while others responded to his aid wonderfully.  It was the cause of great consternation and frustration for him as no matter what he tried he was unable to get those who resisted his help to come to accept it instead.  He was given advice which confirmed that ill health served certain purposes for those who did not seem intent on regaining full health.  And further advice to focus on those individuals in his practice who truly were seeking an end to their maladies whilst allowing the others to go their way.

I always come back to the idea that there is, ultimately, value to sharing what I share because, as it is so strikingly apparent here, there are those posters who engage because they truly do want to increase their knowledge and understanding.  And, of course, there are those others who have their own entirely different reasons for engaging in this thread.  I don't mean to suggest that the above example be taken as a literal analogy in the sense that those others do not equally possess a desire for knowledge and understanding.  Just wanted to make mention of that point so as not to unnecessarily get anyone up in arms.  I'm quite sensitive to insults. 

[mauGR1]

21 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

Believe me, I sometimes question why I post any of what I know at all.  LOL

Same here, but i think that exchanging ideas is part of growth. 

I've taken, and I'm taking my fair share of insults, and even worse, indifference, but that is normal.

The more you say the truth, the more you make enemies.. welcome to planet earth.

sometimes I have to shut up myself, as I'm not ready yet to be crucified ????

[Tippaporn]

On 5/22/2022 at 6:52 PM, mikebike said:

On 5/22/2022 at 6:45 PM, Tippaporn said:

On 5/22/2022 at 6:26 PM, xylophone said:

I gave it a "laugh" reaction because of the twisted logic.

Please elaborate. The logic seems rick-solid to me.

The logic used here relies on false assumptions and artistic license.  Thor and Odin were once held as Gods.  Gods who fell by the wayside, as have many Gods throughout history.  Gods who have lost popularity and following become relegated to myth.  I have no doubt that the God who is currently recognised as existing, along with Allah, will one day, too, become myths.

The answer to the posited question also makes the logical error of falsely alluding to a consensus of belief to be synonymous with absolute truth.  Sunmaster offered up a very apropos to my point Marcus Aurelius quote.  “The opinion of 10,000 men is of no value if none of them know anything about the subject.”

The Dag Sørås quote is, in my opinion, done for laughs, as he is a comedian, and not to accurately portray any real truth.  (I don't know . . . maybe he does believe it's true.)  We're all familiar with saying something that is not necessarily accurate, or even truthful, but it's very clever and really sounds good.

Seriously.  Were you taken in by that?

 

BTW, there is an old folks home for all of the out-of-vogue Gods. 

 

[Sunmaster]

Once debate becomes an argument, it's useless. 

 

 

[KhunLA]

20 minutes ago, Sunmaster said:

Once debate becomes an argument, it's useless. 

On the subject of GOD, there is no debate.  You either do or you don't.  

 

One side based on 'faith', the other on 'science' and neither will budge, as both have a strong grip.  Non believer myself, to the dismay of my extreme Christian siblings.  A topic we never discuss.

[Tippaporn]

43 minutes ago, Sunmaster said:

Once debate becomes an argument, it's useless.

Excellent quote. 

[Tippaporn]

26 minutes ago, KhunLA said:

On the subject of GOD, there is no debate.  You either do or you don't.  

 

One side based on 'faith', the other on 'science' and neither will budge, as both have a strong grip.  Non believer myself, to the dismay of my extreme Christian siblings.  A topic we never discuss.

There is a middle ground that combines the two.  I don't know, maybe that's too obvious to have to mention since, afterall, we are subjective creatures residing in a physical body whilst existing in an objective world.  Sometimes, though, one can't see the forest through the trees. 

 

"A topic we never discuss."  You're a wise one. 

 

[KhunLA]

3 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

There is a middle ground that combines the two.  I don't know, maybe that's too obvious to have to mention as, afterall, we are subjective creatures residing in a physical body whilst existing in an objective world.  Sometimes, though, one can't see the forest through the trees. 

 

Not seeing how that is possible, as science has proof that contradicts the Bible, if that is what one bases their belief on.  GOD is based on belief of nothing that can be seen, felt or measured.  

 

Can't see how it's not an either or kind of thing.  One does contradict the other.

[Tippaporn]

1 hour ago, Sunmaster said:

Once debate becomes an argument, it's useless.

Another good quote on debating.  I know it's good because I just created it.  It very true, though.

"You can never debate with a dishonest man."  - Tippers

[Sunmaster]

22 minutes ago, KhunLA said:

Not seeing how that is possible, as science has proof that contradicts the Bible, if that is what one bases their belief on.  GOD is based on belief of nothing that can be seen, felt or measured.  

 

Can't see how it's not an either or kind of thing.  One does contradict the other.

The Bible is just a book with a lot of distorted/corrupted truth and doesn't represent the total wealth of knowledge when it comes to spirituality.
Science may be at odds with religious dogma, but not with spirituality or mysticism, simply because spirituality is much broader (free from dogma) and in fact welcomes and supports scientific inquiry. 

I'm perfectly capable of combining my spiritual beliefs with science for example. There is not one single scientific fact (fact, not assumption!) that contradicts any of my spiritual beliefs. You can find a great example of this in consciousness research, which is an attempt at understanding subjective realities through scientific inquiry.

Actually, I believe it will be inevitable that science and spirituality will one day join in one single discipline. Both try to map out reality from 2 different directions, but the further they go, the closer they will get to one another.

[Tippaporn]

17 minutes ago, KhunLA said:

Not seeing how that is possible, as science has proof that contradicts the Bible, if that is what one bases their belief on.  GOD is based on belief of nothing that can be seen, felt or measured.  

 

Can't see how it's not an either or kind of thing.  One does contradict the other.

In the chance that this is a case of crossed wires my response was in reference to faith (subjective reality) and science (objective reality).  If ever there is to be a holistic understanding the two need to be combined.  I'll grant that they may appear to be contradictory but they are not.

[ivor bigun]

7 hours ago, Sunmaster said:

You are stating this as a fact.
How would you able to determine if one had communion with God or not? 
 

well lots of different people i am sure say that they have spoken to their God ,from their religion ,how do you know that their God is not the real one and they have spoken to him?

 

[Tippaporn]

1 hour ago, Sunmaster said:

The Bible is just a book with a lot of distorted/corrupted truth and doesn't represent the total wealth of knowledge when it comes to spirituality.
Science may be at odds with religious dogma, but not with spirituality or mysticism, simply because spirituality is much broader (free from dogma) and in fact welcomes and supports scientific inquiry. 

I'm perfectly capable of combining my spiritual beliefs with science for example. There is not one single scientific fact (fact, not assumption!) that contradicts any of my spiritual beliefs. You can find a great example of this in consciousness research, which is an attempt at understanding subjective realities through scientific inquiry.

Actually, I believe it will be inevitable that science and spirituality will one day join in one single discipline. Both try to map out reality from 2 different directions, but the further they go, the closer they will get to one another.

Ultimately it will be known that objective reality is wholly dependent upon, and in fact a construct of, subjective reality.  And that piece of information is the ultimate heretical statement in the eyes of object-based science that can ever be uttered.  One day it will be thoroughly understood that consciousness creates form, and not the other way around.  A random chance mixture of the correct ingredients in perfect proportion coincidentally existing in a perfectly conducive environment and finally agitated to the optimum degree by some unknown spark is not the way consciousness arose.  Again, consciousness creates form, and not the other way around.

 

I don't expect or even desire to convince a single soul of that here, though.  It requires, among many things, much prerequisite knowledge to understand, no different than a calculus course requiring algebra, geometry and trigonometry as prerequisite courses.  But it is a concept that anyone can learn and understand.
 

You don't go from
1+1=2
to
(z2+2zy√+y−1)2((1+y)(z+y√)−y√(z2+2zy√+y+1))21z+y√=(1−y)2−4y√(1−y)z+O(z2)((1−y)z−y√z2)2(1y√−zy+O(z2))=1−4y√1−yz+O(z2)z2(1−2y√1−yz+O(z2))1y√(1−zy√+O(z2))=1z2y√(1−zy√−2y√1−yz+O(z2))=1z2(1y√−1+yy(1−y)z+O(z2))
in a day.

And that is one of the many problems with debates such as this, especially on a public general forum.  A lack of specific knowledge about the subject matter.  One cannot write a review of a book they've never read.

Also, zero patience in filling in the gaps between the current set of knowledge an individual possesses and the knowledge that they need to gain for a full understanding.  It's almost as if folks have this expectation that they can take, say, a calculus class, show up on day one and say "fark this" when they're told at the end of class that they're not ready to take the final exam the next day.  Good Lord, show some patience, folks.

Another obstacle encountered on any road to knowledge is one of desire.  Many people do not have the degree of desire required to pursue certain knowledge.  They like to only dabble in certain subject matter.  There's nothing at all wrong with such a predisposition.

Personal propensities and inclinations also are a determinant in the pursuit of knowledge in any field.  Some folks like math while others shun it.  Some enjoy endeavours involving a great deal of socialisation while others enjoy tasks requiring deep concentration in solitude.

And so, truth be told, this subject matter is not for everyone.

 

[Hummin]

3 minutes ago, ivor bigun said:

well lots of different people i am sure say that they have spoken to their God ,from their religion ,how do you know that their God is not the real one and they have spoken to him?

 

When going in to meditation state, who do you think is answering their questions? 
 

Like an inventor when creating something? Who is the inventor, who speak to them about their solutins, when waking up during the night and they found the missing part that would make their invention work? 
 

Every person who are deep thinkers about us, life creation, credit a god or something bigger than themselves. Inventors is sane enough to credit themselves for their thoughts andcsolutions. 
 

where do you think the bible quote came from “God created man in his own image“ and why? 
 

The only answer is everything is god, as one! 
 

The more interesting these days is how Hinduism taking back their identity as scientists, where their religion for thousands of years can be seen as proved science where we discover more theories that can in some ways relate back to their origins gods and their tales. 

 

 

[mauGR1]

15 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

Ultimately it will be known that objective reality is wholly dependent upon, and in fact a construct of, subjective reality.  And that piece of information is the ultimate heretical statement in the eyes of object-based science that can ever be uttered.  One day it will be thoroughly understood that consciousness creates form, and not the other way around.  A random chance mixture of the correct ingredients in perfect proportion coincidentally existing in a perfectly conducive environment and finally agitated to the optimum degree by some unknown spark is not the way consciousness arose.  Again, consciousness creates form, and not the other way around.

 

I don't expect or even desire to convince a single soul of that here, though.  It requires, among many things, much prerequisite knowledge to understand, no different than a calculus course requiring algebra, geometry and trigonometry as prerequisite courses.  But it is a concept that anyone can learn and understand.
 

You don't go from
1+1=2
to
(z2+2zy√+y−1)2((1+y)(z+y√)−y√(z2+2zy√+y+1))21z+y√=(1−y)2−4y√(1−y)z+O(z2)((1−y)z−y√z2)2(1y√−zy+O(z2))=1−4y√1−yz+O(z2)z2(1−2y√1−yz+O(z2))1y√(1−zy√+O(z2))=1z2y√(1−zy√−2y√1−yz+O(z2))=1z2(1y√−1+yy(1−y)z+O(z2))
in a day.

And that is one of the many problems with debates such as this, especially on a public general forum.  A lack of specific knowledge about the subject matter.  One cannot write a review of a book they've never read.

Also, zero patience in filling in the gaps between the current set of knowledge an individual possesses and the knowledge that they need to gain for a full understanding.  It's almost as if folks have this expectation that they can take, say, a calculus class, show up on day one and say "fark this" when they're told at the end of class that they're not ready to take the final exam the next day.  Good Lord, show some patience, folks.

Another obstacle encountered on any road to knowledge is one of desire.  Many people do not have the degree of desire required to pursue certain knowledge.  They like to only dabble in certain subject matter.  There's nothing at all wrong with such a predisposition.

Personal propensities and inclinations also are a determinant in the pursuit of knowledge in any field.  Some folks like math while others shun it.  Some enjoy endeavours involving a great deal of socialisation while others enjoy tasks requiring deep concentration in solitude.

And so, truth be told, this subject matter is not for everyone.

 

That's very well said !

Out of curiosity, did you write it yourself ?

[mauGR1]

1 hour ago, Sunmaster said:

Actually, I believe it will be inevitable that science and spirituality will one day join in one single discipline. 

It's happening already, it's just not very popular ????

[Skeptic7]

7 hours ago, Sunmaster said:

You are stating this as a fact.
How would you able to determine if one had communion with God or not? 
 

How would they?  Which is exactly the point. Couldn't this purely vague defense be made about literally anything? (Rhetorical of course. Yes is the only answer) Gets nowhere. Proves nothing.

Round and round this BS goes for the 2nd and 3rd full circle in 3 years. Same ol' non-arguments with same ol' non-evidence. Hopefully there won't be a 4th.

 

7 hours ago, mauGR1 said:

Since when have you been appointed as a spokesman for the whole humankind past and present?

..just asking for a friend ????

Nothing new under the sun. For once we are in FULL agreement. 

[Tippaporn]

Just now, mauGR1 said:

That's very well said !

Out of curiosity, did you write it yourself ?

Well, I typed it.    Yeah, it's all mine.

Admittedly, I did copy and past the calculus formula. 

[Tippaporn]

3 minutes ago, Skeptic7 said:

Round and round this BS goes for the 2nd and 3rd full circle in 3 years. Same ol' non-arguments with same ol' non-evidence. Hopefully there won't be a 4th.

If you are full up with this thread and it has nothing left to offer you then why to you persistently come back, not just to read but to post, too?  It's remarkable.

[Skeptic7]

2 hours ago, KhunLA said:

 

One side based on 'faith', the other on 'science' and neither will budge,

Incorrect. Science will budge and even change when better evidence (or even any evidence) is presented. Faith based on dogma (usually) will not. 

[KhunLA]

2 minutes ago, Skeptic7 said:

Incorrect. Science will budge and even change when better evidence (or even any evidence) is presented. Faith based on dogma (usually) will not. 

I don't expect that day to come in my lifetime or ever.  Can't be bother wasting brain cells even thinking about it.  

 

Once a Christian, until I researched & thought about it.  Now an Atheist, and the concept or argument for a GOD seems sillier & sillier the older I get.   Just have to A2D.

[mauGR1]

15 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

Well, I typed it.    Yeah, it's all mine.

Admittedly, I did copy and past the calculus formula. 

Well, congratulations; apart from us having similar views of the so called reality, you seem to have (English is not my first language) some remarkable writing skills. 

[mauGR1]

23 minutes ago, Skeptic7 said:

How would they?  Which is exactly the point. Couldn't this purely vague defense be made about literally anything? (Rhetorical of course. Yes is the only answer) Gets nowhere. Proves nothing.

Round and round this BS goes for the 2nd and 3rd full circle in 3 years. Same ol' non-arguments with same ol' non-evidence. Hopefully there won't be a 4th.

 

Nothing new under the sun. For once we are in FULL agreement. 

If you are in agreement with me, i must have done something very wrong.

I'm sorry, it happens ????

[VincentRJ]

4 hours ago, Tippaporn said:

Science attaches zero credibility to subjective reality and precisely for the reasons you give.  The moment they accept subjective reality as real is the point at which they become synonymous with religion.
 

Another excellent example of great confusion. Well done!  ????

 

Of course science accepts the existence of subjective reality. Every individual creature on this planet is different to some degree, even if they are of the same species. Even 'so-called' identical twins are genetically different to some degree, because of differences in the genetic mutations that occur during their development in the womb. If the twins lead separate lives after they are born, their differences will increase as a result of their different lifestyles and experiences.

 

Science understands this quite well, but not perfectly, of course. Psychology, Psychiatry and Neuroscience are some of the scientific disciplines that address these subjective realities.  There are trillions of examples of subjective reality. I'll just highlight a few obvious ones.

 

Some people enjoy the taste of a particular food, and other people find the taste of the same food disgusting. Some people find snakes in general very attractive and quite fascinating, yet other people find them horrifying. Some people enjoy classical music, and others find it boring.

 

In the medical industry it's well known that prescribed drugs do not always have the same effect on all indiviuals who are treated, because of differences in their genome, biological chemistry, diet and lifestyle, and many other factors. Also, in the dietary industry it is observed that a particular diet does not work or have the same effect on all individuals, for reason that can be examined by 'science'.

 

However, there are certain principles that apply to all individuals, with no exception. For example, if anyone ceases to eat or drink any food, they must lose weight, and the longer they cease eating, the more weight they will lose. There are no exceptions. There may be differences in the rate of weight loss, due to the amount of physical activity the fasting people engage in, but even if someone lies on a couch all day watching TV, they will still lose weight because the body needs energy to survive, and that energy must come from somewhere. The basic law of the 'Conservation of Energy' applies here.

[Skeptic7]

2 minutes ago, KhunLA said:

I don't expect that day to come in my lifetime or ever.  Can't be bother wasting brain cells even thinking about it.  

 

Once a Christian, until I researched & thought about it.  Now an Atheist, and the concept or argument for a GOD seems sillier & sillier the older I get.   Just have to A2D.

Full agreement with the above...except for me being a lifelong atheist. However my point was not about the evidence or lack thereof. It was about you claiming science as being unchanging or immoveable (won't budge). This is a false equivalency and inaccurate.

[Skeptic7]

5 minutes ago, mauGR1 said:

If you are in agreement with me, i must have done something very wrong.

I'm sorry, it happens ????

To clarify...y'all have nothing new under the sun to offer up. Referring to your postscript. It's totally fits and I concur.

[mauGR1]

3 minutes ago, VincentRJ said:

In the medical industry it's well known that prescribed drugs do not always have the same effect on all indiviuals who are treated, because of differences in their genome, biological chemistry, diet and lifestyle, and many other factors. Also, in the dietary industry it is observed that a particular diet does not work or have the same effect on all individuals, for reason that can be examined by 'science'.

 

I guess @Tippaporn is not referring to the real science, but to the so called science which they are trying to push down our throat, so to speak.

I know already that you don't see the difference, and i don't know if you do it on purpose.

Try harder.????

[Tippaporn]

18 minutes ago, VincentRJ said:

  

5 hours ago, Tippaporn said:

Science attaches zero credibility to subjective reality and precisely for the reasons you give.  The moment they accept subjective reality as real is the point at which they become synonymous with religion.

Another excellent example of great confusion. Well done!  ????

 

Of course science accepts the existence of subjective reality. <snip>

I've never said that science denies the existence of subjective reality.  Science recognises it's existence but does not treat it as real in the same way it considers a physical object to be real.  What comes from subjective reality carries no weight with science.  Science not only grants subjective reality zero credibility but it has a great distrust of subjective reality as well.

I believe the confusion is on your end has has to do with reading comprehension.

[Sunmaster]

1 hour ago, ivor bigun said:

well lots of different people i am sure say that they have spoken to their God ,from their religion ,how do you know that their God is not the real one and they have spoken to him?

 

You are too conditioned by religion on what you think GOD is supposed to be. Does he look like an old bearded man? A cloud? An elephant? Give an apple to 10 different artists and you will get 10 different pictures of that apple. None of those will be the real apple though.

 

How I know, or how anyone else knows, is irrelevant and just a distraction. 
The real question should be: How can YOU know?
That's all that really matters.

If you don't believe there is something, then you won't believe there is a way to communicate with this something, and you won't be able to accept that anyone else would be able to communicate with it either.
You will remain what you are now. If that condition makes you happy, then there is nothing more to say.

 

[Hummin]

7 minutes ago, Sunmaster said:

 

If you don't believe there is something, then you won't believe there is a way to communicate with this something, and you won't be able to accept that anyone else would be able to communicate with it either.
You will remain what you are now. If that condition makes you happy, then there is nothing more to say.

 

A fair question for you, could it be you are communicating with yourself? 
 

As we know, or believe we carry memories in our DNA, and also called genetic memory since genes are built up on dna, and the dna memory have been formed by your very first ancestors all the way up to you. Can it be your answers lays inside you, and not outside?