Do you believe in God and why

[Sunmaster]

50 minutes ago, Skeptic7 said:

 

I know who and what I am. It seems you know only what you are not. So I was curious and therefore asking YOU.

 

It would be nice to get a reasonable answer or explanation for once, instead of always blathering in riddles and drivel. Or answering a question with a question. 

To know what I'm not is easy. To know who I am is a life(s)long endeavor.

 

Those who claim to know, know but the tiniest tip of the iceberg and don't bother to look for the rest..

 

Not answered with a question. ????

[mauGR1]

58 minutes ago, Skeptic7 said:

It would be nice to get a reasonable answer or explanation for once, instead of always blathering in riddles and drivel. Or answering a question with a question. 

 a troll's request for intellectual honesty ???? hilarious.

Trollin' trollin' trollin' ????

[Fat is a type of crazy]

1 hour ago, Sunmaster said:

To know what I'm not is easy. To know who I am is a life(s)long endeavor.

 

Those who claim to know, know but the tiniest tip of the iceberg and don't bother to look for the rest..

 

Not answered with a question. ????

As far as I know emotions and thoughts come from the body. You say it's easy to know you are not your body. That's a big call. I'll say you don't know for sure you are not your body. Because anything you have experienced or felt or sensed could be from your brain or your body in general. You cannot be sure in my opinion.

[Sunmaster]

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

As far as I know emotions and thoughts come from the body. You say it's easy to know you are not your body. That's a big call. I'll say you don't know for sure you are not your body. Because anything you have experienced or felt or sensed could be from your brain or your body in general. You cannot be sure in my opinion.

Maybe. Maybe not. 

You'll just have to find out for yourself and don't worry about what others know or don't know about themselves.

[mauGR1]

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

As far as I know emotions and thoughts come from the body. You say it's easy to know you are not your body. That's a big call. I'll say you don't know for sure you are not your body. Because anything you have experienced or felt or sensed could be from your brain or your body in general. You cannot be sure in my opinion.

If we compare the body to a machine, there is undoubtedly "something " which is, or it's supposed to be in charge. 

[ozimoron]

Just now, mauGR1 said:

If we compare the body to a machine, there is undoubtedly "something " which is, or it's supposed to be in charge. 

but if we compare our body to any other animal we can see there is not.

 

and if there was, which and whose god is the right one?

[mauGR1]

2 minutes ago, ozimoron said:

but if we compare our body to any other animal we can see there is not.

 

and if there was, which and whose god is the right one?

One, no one, and multitudes. 

That is an individual choice. Humans,  or at least most of them, differ from animals coz their range of choices is exponentially larger. 

[Sunmaster]

Just found a very good introductory video and summary about Spiral Dynamics.
Highly recommended. 

WARNING (for the easily triggered): This video is not religious or spiritual propaganda, but explains a theory of human development. ???? 
 

 

[Sparktrader]

No god for me

Too much bad stuff in world

Plus im into science not ghosts

[VincentRJ]

On 5/29/2022 at 9:23 PM, Sunmaster said:

I honestly don't think their explanation would be as simplistic as the materialist explanation is. But if they would present me with evidence that I can corroborate myself (like a Vulcan mind melt for example), I would have no trouble accepting that my belief system was lacking data. As a matter  of fact, I know that right now.

 

I am not this body.

I am not my emotions.

I am not my thoughts.

I don't have to identify with any of them to know who I am and therefore I don't have to cling on to them. 

I have to say those 4 statements can be very confusing and seem to defy basic logic. It seems very obvious, at least to me, that our body contains all our thoughts, emotions, feelings and state of knowledge, much of which are stored in our brain at a conscious and unconsciou level. Our brain exists within our body, therfore 'no body' equates to 'no existence', which equates to 'no identity'.

 

Of course, those who believe in a permanent 'soul', or the Indian, Vedic, version of Karma, will believe that their true identity exists outside of their body. However, all such teachings and beliefs, and their interpretations, exist within a human body.

 

A major part of the problem is related to interpretation, which is based upon genetics, experiences in the womb before birth, experiences and education in early childhood, and later life, and so on. It is very difficult, if not impossible, to be completely unbiased

 

Whether it's an alien examining human behaviour, or a human examining animal behaviour, there's an unavoidable element of bias which is related to the intrinsic, biological characteristics of the observer.
The reason I have a general interest and admiration for the 'true methodology' of science, is because it is the 'least biased' method of interpretation that humans have devised.

 

However, not all scientists are the most unbiased, even though the 'methodology of science' is. All scientists are obviously human, with concerns about status, wealth, supporting their family, and so on. This factor will obviously affect, to some extent, the opinions of many scientists.

 

I raised the issue of Climate Science in this thread because it's relevant to this inbred bias of human nature. If you have a nice, highly paid job in a government funded Climate Research Centre, which continues to be funded because of a belief in a potential catastrophic scenario caused by continuing CO2 emissions from human activities, then that will likely influence your publicly expressed opinion, despite the lack of 'sound' evidence and the existence of contrary evidence which is rarely publicised in the media.

 

In other words, Climate Change Alarmism has become a type of new religion which exploits the public's 'faith in science', rather than the public's understanding of science and its methodology, and an understanding of its uncertainties when the issue under examination is very complex and chaotic.

 

By the way, your view that science only addresses the materialistic world is flawed. The Electromagnetic Spectrum consists of photons which have no mass, and are pure energy. We can see a small fraction of that spectrum, known as light, but the vast majority of the spectrum is invisible and undetectable by human senses without the aid of scientifically created devices.

 

These non-materialistic forms of energy are everywhere, passing through your body and brick walls, yet people who believe in souls and invisible, scientifically undectable spirits, are unable to detect simple radio waves, which science, with its devices, can easily detect. Who to believe? ????
 

[Sunmaster]

4 hours ago, VincentRJ said:

I have to say those 4 statements can be very confusing and seem to defy basic logic. It seems very obvious, at least to me, that our body contains all our thoughts, emotions, feelings and state of knowledge, much of which are stored in our brain at a conscious and unconsciou level. Our brain exists within our body, therfore 'no body' equates to 'no existence', which equates to 'no identity'.

 

Of course, those who believe in a permanent 'soul', or the Indian, Vedic, version of Karma, will believe that their true identity exists outside of their body. However, all such teachings and beliefs, and their interpretations, exist within a human body.

 

A major part of the problem is related to interpretation, which is based upon genetics, experiences in the womb before birth, experiences and education in early childhood, and later life, and so on. It is very difficult, if not impossible, to be completely unbiased

 

Whether it's an alien examining human behaviour, or a human examining animal behaviour, there's an unavoidable element of bias which is related to the intrinsic, biological characteristics of the observer.
The reason I have a general interest and admiration for the 'true methodology' of science, is because it is the 'least biased' method of interpretation that humans have devised.

 

However, not all scientists are the most unbiased, even though the 'methodology of science' is. All scientists are obviously human, with concerns about status, wealth, supporting their family, and so on. This factor will obviously affect, to some extent, the opinions of many scientists.

 

I raised the issue of Climate Science in this thread because it's relevant to this inbred bias of human nature. If you have a nice, highly paid job in a government funded Climate Research Centre, which continues to be funded because of a belief in a potential catastrophic scenario caused by continuing CO2 emissions from human activities, then that will likely influence your publicly expressed opinion, despite the lack of 'sound' evidence and the existence of contrary evidence which is rarely publicised in the media.

 

In other words, Climate Change Alarmism has become a type of new religion which exploits the public's 'faith in science', rather than the public's understanding of science and its methodology, and an understanding of its uncertainties when the issue under examination is very complex and chaotic.

 

By the way, your view that science only addresses the materialistic world is flawed. The Electromagnetic Spectrum consists of photons which have no mass, and are pure energy. We can see a small fraction of that spectrum, known as light, but the vast majority of the spectrum is invisible and undetectable by human senses without the aid of scientifically created devices.

 

These non-materialistic forms of energy are everywhere, passing through your body and brick walls, yet people who believe in souls and invisible, scientifically undectable spirits, are unable to detect simple radio waves, which science, with its devices, can easily detect. Who to believe? ????
 

From the point of view of "Orange", the materialistic worldview, everything beyond Orange (Green>Yellow>Turquoise>...) is incomprehensible, especially when it comes to non-materialistic fields. "Beyond-Orange" spirituality is seen as nothing more than Purple myths or Blue religious doctrine, when in fact the difference is like night and day. This is called the Pre-Trans fallacy. 

I could write pages (and I have here in the past) about this, but it won't make one shred of difference, because you wouldn't be able, nor willing, to accept any of the premises. You would label them as unscientific and dismiss them as soon as you read them. I have tried to introduce consciousness research last year, hoping that a scientific approach to this subject would be more interesting and easier to grasp for materialists like you. As far as I can tell, it hasn't made any difference because you're still asking the same questions. There is still the same mistrust in anything that doesn't conform to the accepted materialistic paradigm, even when it comes from non-religious, non-spiritual sources such as neuroscience, psychology, linguistics and anthropology for example. When such scientific studies err too far from the established scientific consensus, ironically, they are dismissed as pseudo-scientists by the conservative scientists.

So, if scientific evidence can't rock your boat, what chance would I have to make even a dent in your belief system? And why would I want to? In the past, I felt it was my spiritual duty to make people see what I see, to help them progress on the spiral, but no more. I now focus on my own journey and let others follow theirs. There is no alternative, really. Everyone progresses at his own pace.

 

[VincentRJ]

12 hours ago, Sunmaster said:

I could write pages (and I have here in the past) about this, but it won't make one shred of difference, because you wouldn't be able, nor willing, to accept any of the premises. You would label them as unscientific and dismiss them as soon as you read them. I have tried to introduce consciousness research last year, hoping that a scientific approach to this subject would be more interesting and easier to grasp for materialists like you. As far as I can tell, it hasn't made any difference because you're still asking the same questions. There is still the same mistrust in anything that doesn't conform to the accepted materialistic paradigm, even when it comes from non-religious, non-spiritual sources such as neuroscience, psychology, linguistics and anthropology for example. When such scientific studies err too far from the established scientific consensus, ironically, they are dismissed as pseudo-scientists by the conservative scientists.

I think you've misunderstood my position on this issue. I don't conform to any scientific consensus if i have any reason which causes doubt. If I come across evidence that implies or suggests the 'so-called' or 'promoted' consensus could be incorrect, I'll change my mind, which is what I did on the issue of CO2-driven climate change.

 

As I understand, the process of scientific enquiry should not be based upon a consensus. If it were, it would be more difficult for science to progress because the younger, developing scientists, would think, 'How dare I question the opinions of these great scientists who came before me!'

 

However, if the contrarian proposals which go against the so-called consensus, seems flawed, or do not stack up, then I don't accept them. I do my best to use my nous when adressing such issues. However, I do accept that one can achieve beneficial experiences when meditating and ceasing all thoughts on all issues

 

I think Mark Twain's quote should be repeated here. “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]

3 minutes ago, VincentRJ said:

I think you've misunderstood my position on this issue. I don't conform to any scientific consensus if i have any reason which causes doubt. If I come across evidence that implies or suggests the 'so-called' or 'promoted' consensus could be incorrect, I'll change my mind, which is what I did on the issue of CO2-driven climate change.

 

As I understand, the process of scientific enquiry should not be based upon a consensus. If it were, it would be more difficult for science to progress because the younger, developing scientists, would think, 'How dare I question the opinions of these great scientists who came before me!'

 

However, if the contrarian proposals which go against the so-called consensus, seems flawed, or do not stack up, then I don't accept them. I do my best to use my nous when adressing such issues. However, I do accept that one can achieve beneficial experiences when meditating and ceasing all thoughts on all issues

 

I think Mark Twain's quote should be repeated here. “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. “ 

That's a very commendable and healthy approach.

Consciousness research goes a bit further than "beneficial experiences when meditating" though. Their findings point toward a universe where our role as conscious beings far exceeds what our 5 senses and our intellect can grasp. They point towards a higher/wider consciousness in which we are all embedded in and from which our (seemingly) separate consciousness emerges. Meditation is just a tool to bring our slice of consciousness back to the wider consciousness, and eventually unite with it. This is the original purpose of religion (derived from the Latin word religiō - to "re-bind").

 

And this is why all genuine mystical experiences have a common core of distinct features: "A critical definitional feature of the mystical experience is a sense of unity, or the experience of becoming one with all that exists. Stace (1960b) described this mystical unity as “the apprehension of an ultimate nonsensuous unity in all things”. Stace made a distinction between the qualitative nature of unity in extrovertive mystical experiences and the qualitative nature of unity in introvertive mystical experiences. Unity in the extrovertive mystical experience involves recognition of the oneness of all, in which one finds unity at the core of the inner subjectivity or inner reality of all things despite the diversity or apparent individual identity and separation of all things. Unity in the introvertive mystical experience, on the other hand, involves an experience of the complete dissolution of the self, loss of the notion of “I” and loss of all boundaries, such that there is no separation or individual identity. Introvertive mystical experience involves an experience of unity that is otherwise devoid of content, sometimes referred to as “the void”. While both extrovertive and introvertive types are considered experiences of mystical unity, Stace considered extrovertive unity as an “incomplete kind of experience which finds its completion and fulfillment in the introvertive kind of experience” (Stace, 1960a).

 

In addition to the experience of introvertive or extrovertive types of unity, Stace described six other dimensions of mystical experience: 1) sacredness: a sense that what is encountered is holy or sacred; 2) noetic quality: the experience is imbued with an aspect of meaning and a sense of encountering ultimate reality that is more real than usual everyday reality; 3) deeply felt positive mood: joy, ecstasy, blessedness, peace, tenderness, gentleness, tranquility, awe; 4) ineffability: the experience is difficult to put into words; 5) paradoxicality: to explain the experience, one seems to have to describe the co-existence of mutually exclusive states or concepts; 6) transcendence of time and space: Introvertive mystical experiences may have a non-spatial and non-temporal aspect, such that the traditional notions of time and space have no meaning.."  source

Hopefully, more scientists will approach this subject with open, inquisitive minds and not be part of a scientific inquisition.

[Sparktrader]

On 6/2/2022 at 11:02 AM, VincentRJ said:

I think you've misunderstood my position on this issue. I don't conform to any scientific consensus if i have any reason which causes doubt. If I come across evidence that implies or suggests the 'so-called' or 'promoted' consensus could be incorrect, I'll change my mind, which is what I did on the issue of CO2-driven climate change.

 

As I understand, the process of scientific enquiry should not be based upon a consensus. If it were, it would be more difficult for science to progress because the younger, developing scientists, would think, 'How dare I question the opinions of these great scientists who came before me!'

 

However, if the contrarian proposals which go against the so-called consensus, seems flawed, or do not stack up, then I don't accept them. I do my best to use my nous when adressing such issues. However, I do accept that one can achieve beneficial experiences when meditating and ceasing all thoughts on all issues

 

I think Mark Twain's quote should be repeated here. “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. “ 

We don't know what we don't know. We only know what we know.

 

 

[Sunmaster]

Interesting podcast.

Dr. Roland Griffiths, Ph.D., is a professor of neuroscience, psychiatry, and behavioral science and director of the Psychedelic and Consciousness Research at Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine. He is the author of over 400 scientific research publications and has trained more than 50 postdoctoral research fellows. He has been a consultant to the National Institutes of Health and numerous pharmaceutical companies in the development of new psychotropic drugs.

 

Dr. Roland Griffiths and Jordan P Peterson discuss the research with John Hopkins University. They spoke about how Griffiths got into psychedelics and convinced ethic committees to approve such research, why he chose the scientific path, specifics about his studies with psilocybin, transformations of cancer patients with family members, the impact of psilocybin in existing institutions, the ongoing studies he is performing with long-time meditators and religious leaders, how the integration of psilocybin into society may look and more.

 

 

[TropicalGuy]

On 5/29/2022 at 5:25 PM, Elad said:

If the aliens laid out undeniable evidence for the existence of a supernatural being, then I would throw my atheistic view of the universe out the window and become a believer, because its all about the evidence. On the other hand, if the aliens showed us that everything can be explained by nature, like how life and the universe started, how it will end, and how consciousness is all part of the physical. Would you be willing to give it all up? 

Like many subjects which can’t be completely proven ( with or without overwhelming evidence) it comes down to reasonable (mathematical) probability or (astronomical) Odds.
 

Odds on former case ? million to one against ?odds on latter ? Million to one FOR. Or a hundred thousand to one, whatever, picture is clear. I know where my money would be.

[TropicalGuy]

On 6/3/2022 at 4:15 PM, Sparktrader said:

We don't know what we don't know. We only know what we know.

 

 

“ any substantive reason causing reasonable doubt” perhaps ?  
 

I changed my mind in the other direction on Climate Change, from Sceptic to Believer???? after research. 

[Sparktrader]

4 hours ago, TropicalGuy said:

“ any substantive reason causing reasonable doubt” perhaps ?  
 

I changed my mind in the other direction on Climate Change, from Sceptic to Believer???? after research. 

Research told me the opposite. 118 record low temps right now in Oz. Record snow fall.

[Sparktrader]

https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/can-science-rule-out-god/#

[Woof999]

Replying to the original question, no I don't believe, because there is not a single piece of evidence to point to their being a higher power.

 

God is all good and God is all powerful, yet there is suffering in the world, so (s)he's either not all good, not all powerful or perhaps doesn't exist.

[Sunmaster]

9 minutes ago, Sparktrader said:

https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/can-science-rule-out-god/#

The answer to the author's question is not in cosmology imo, but in consciousness research (both on a personal as on a scientific level). Not look out in the universe, but look at the universe within.
At least he is humble and honest enough to admit that science is not capable of ruling out "God". Small steps.

[Sparktrader]

3 minutes ago, Woof999 said:

Replying to the original question, no I don't believe, because there is not a single piece of evidence to point to their being a higher power.

 

God is all good and God is all powerful, yet there is suffering in the world, so (s)he's either not all good, not all powerful or perhaps doesn't exist.

I agree

[Sparktrader]

1 minute ago, Sunmaster said:

The answer to the author's question is not in cosmology imo, but in consciousness research (both on a personal as on a scientific level). Not look out in the universe, but look at the universe within.
At least he is humble and honest enough to admit that science is not capable of ruling out "God". Small steps.

Life force

Hard to explain

[Sunmaster]

2 minutes ago, Sparktrader said:

Life force

Hard to explain

Hard to explain
Not hard to seek
Not hard to find

[Sparktrader]

3 minutes ago, Sunmaster said:

Hard to explain
Not hard to seek
Not hard to find

Nature is god. I can go along with thar. God is not outside nature.

[Sparktrader]

God didnt create nature. Nature created god, a life force, a spirit, a soul. You see it in birds.

[mauGR1]

The fact that the existence of God cannot be proven doesn't mean a thing.

In the same way, ants and flies cannot prove the existence of humans. 

Once you see the order of the universe, you can think that it happened by chance, but that would be un-scientific. 

"I don't know " , that's closer to the truth. 

There seems to be an intelligent design at work, definitely, and whatever you want to call it is your choice. 

[mauGR1]

6 minutes ago, Sparktrader said:

God didnt create nature. Nature created god, a life force, a spirit, a soul. You see it in birds.

And who created nature then ? ????

[Sparktrader]

9 minutes ago, mauGR1 said:

And who created nature then ? ????

Big bang

[Sunmaster]

1 minute ago, Sparktrader said:

Big bang

Big Bang = God ????