Do you believe in God and why

[mauGR1]

1 minute ago, Tippaporn said:

Simple enough.  But don't you want to know it's practical applications?  You know, those details which are to be used in creating and living the fulfilling life you've always intended?  If there's no interest in doing so and one is perfectly satisfied with their life in every facet of it then that's fair enough.

Yes, the details are extremely interesting, and the practical applications... that's why we have a physical body, and we're supposed to make the best of it.

As for being satisfied with my life, i never saw that as a goal.

Learning is more important imho.

I think helping others can make one happy and satisfied, but I'm still trying to find a way to do it.

 

 

[thaibeachlovers]

1 hour ago, Tippaporn said:

I just had a discussion with a customer and fellow engineer and he agreed wholeheartedly with me.  The prime question asked by everyone in engineering is, "Will this idea work?"  Throughout their lives most people have indiscriminately picked up a wide assortment of ideas, which they've then adopted as beliefs and erroneously accepted as conditions of reality rather than beliefs about reality.  The question of how this idea works is rarely if ever asked.

We went on to discuss the mechanics of how this situation came to be, how it operates, how it works.  In a design review someone may toss out a novel idea.  On it's surface, or at first glance, the idea seems to have rationality and be promising.  It is only after looking under the surface, under the veneer of it's rationale which first appears to supports it, that the rationale fails.

What is apparent to both of us, when looking out at so much of the insanity present in our current world, is that so many people accept so many ideas on their surface, at first glance, due to the veneer of rationality which is given to support an idea.  Few, and I mean very few, look much further.  Ever.  And especially once an idea is accepted by an individual as a "fact" of the world.

In my opinion you are putting faith and engineering in the same category and that just doesn't work for me.

My faith is no doubt different to that of every other poster ever been on this thread, but it's still faith.

When it comes to faith, there is IMO no one size fits all version.

You have your version and if it works for you, that's good, for you, but don't expect me or all others to agree with you on everything.

 

Mine works for me, and that is enough for me, but whether anyone else agrees with me or not is completely irrelevant to me. I really don't care whether anyone agrees with me or not, as that's not important.

What is important is being open to other's viewpoints and giving them the respect they deserve ( unless they are trolls ).

I'm open to such, and have learned much about faith on these many pages, but I only use what works for myself.

[Hummin]

9 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

 

I'm open to such, and have learned much about faith on these many pages, but I only use what works for myself.

I believe I have learned more about myself and my stand in these pages than my whole life spending reading up on different philosophy, belief’s and religions.

 

I have become more confident about what I know, what I believe and what I do not understand. It truly gives more peace of mind, and feels really not so important anymore in the whole, because it will not change my destiny! 
 

My ego is not that important!

[mauGR1]

9 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

In my opinion you are putting faith and engineering in the same category and that just doesn't work for me.

My faith is no doubt different to that of every other poster ever been on this thread, but it's still faith.

When it comes to faith, there is IMO no one size fits all version.

You have your version and if it works for you, that's good, for you, but don't expect me or all others to agree with you on everything.

 

Mine works for me, and that is enough for me, but whether anyone else agrees with me or not is completely irrelevant to me. I really don't care whether anyone agrees with me or not, as that's not important.

What is important is being open to other's viewpoints and giving them the respect they deserve ( unless they are trolls ).

I'm open to such, and have learned much about faith on these many pages, but I only use what works for myself.

I think that if we can manage, in this life, to expand our consciousness one way or another, we've already done a good job. 

I agree that it's a very personal thing, but sharing opinions with fellow travelers is a part of the journey. 

[Tippaporn]

1 hour ago, Hummin said:

I believe you are at another level of understanding the truth than me! So no worries, enjoy the journey as long it last!

 

Good luck

Whatever level of understanding I have was acquired.  You flew in the air, free as a bird.  Did you not acquire the skill and the understanding required to perform that magnificent accomplishment?  Is acquiring an understanding of life any different?  Before you took your first flight you set your intention and nothing stopped you from it.  Before I knew what I know now I did likewise.  I set my intention and let nothing stop me.  That part of the process is identical to any endeavour anyone undertakes.

 

All issues are the same because they all work the same.  The principles that give success in one area of life are the same principles that work in every other area of life.  You have only one responsibility in life.  To be all that you can be.  To utilise every talent, skill, gift, capacity, and ability which life endowed you with to it's utmost.

If you want the meaning of life there it is.

[Tippaporn]

39 minutes ago, mauGR1 said:

Yes, the details are extremely interesting, and the practical applications... that's why we have a physical body, and we're supposed to make the best of it.

As for being satisfied with my life, i never saw that as a goal.

Learning is more important imho.

I think helping others can make one happy and satisfied, but I'm still trying to find a way to do it.

The goal of life is happiness.  Everything anyone does is only because they believe that in the doing it will bring happiness.  I pet my cats a lot. 

[Tippaporn]

28 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

In my opinion you are putting faith and engineering in the same category and that just doesn't work for me.

My faith is no doubt different to that of every other poster ever been on this thread, but it's still faith.

When it comes to faith, there is IMO no one size fits all version.

You have your version and if it works for you, that's good, for you, but don't expect me or all others to agree with you on everything.

 

Mine works for me, and that is enough for me, but whether anyone else agrees with me or not is completely irrelevant to me. I really don't care whether anyone agrees with me or not, as that's not important.

What is important is being open to other's viewpoints and giving them the respect they deserve ( unless they are trolls ).

I'm open to such, and have learned much about faith on these many pages, but I only use what works for myself.

My post never used the word faith.  Because I was not talking about faith at all.  Not sure how you read faith into that post.

What I was talking about was ideas and how people accept the ideas that they do.

[mauGR1]

5 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

The goal of life is happiness.  Everything anyone does is only because they believe that in the doing it will bring happiness.  I pet my cats a lot. 

I like cats and all the animal life, they are our little brothers. 

Yep, happiness is clarity of thought, as far as I'm concerned, and the best gift i can receive. 

[Tippaporn]

2 hours ago, Hummin said:

Thank you for your well placed words of wisdom.

 

I capitulate because you ask an impossible question to answer yes and no, but I guess everything have an logical explanation that can be solved by science one day, if we have enough time.

 

I wouldn't be alive today, if I had a singular pointed focus!

 

I needed to read the terrain, air, light, feelings and motivation.

 

If conditions was not right, and if it did not feel right, I turned it down.

 

Several times I did not feel good or felt somethiing was wrong, I lost a friend. Not every time, but enough times so I started to believe more in my gut.

I'm happy to have gotten through to you, Hummin.  It is why, in an earlier post, I accused you of cherry picking what you will answer out of a given post.  So many other posters do the same.  Pointed questions which are difficult to answer are for the most part ignored precisely because they are difficult questions.  It's no great mystery why most posters then respond only to the portion of a post which they feel comfortable enough to give a reply.  You are not unique in that sense.    Many of my posts receive no replies at all.  It's usually when I provide novel ideas, information which others hear for the first time and don't know what to do with.

Just to clear up some semantics.  What I mean by having a singular focus is to focus on a single intention to the exclusion of all else.  When flying that is your intention . . . to fly.  Everything related to that endeavour becomes part of your singular focus.

Now the question I asked is not an impossible question.  In fact the answer to it is in front of your face and in front of everyone's faces.  It's actually easy to answer.  You have only to examine it.  To look under the hood.  To investigate.  To play with it.  To observe.  And it will come quickly and effortlessly.

 

Edited September 7, 2022 by Tippaporn

[mauGR1]

I read somewhere the other day, that what we don't like of others, is what we don't like in ourselves. 

Perhaps not a dogma, but an invitation to see things from different perspectives. 

[VincentRJ]

3 hours ago, Tippaporn said:

You still didn't give a yes or no answer to the simple question of whether or not science is capable of proving everything in existence. 

Your question is not clear. What do you mean by "proving everything in existence"? Do you mean "observing or detecting everything in existence"?

 

Science is a process that involves observation and experimentation. Scientific theories and hypotheses are based upon obervations and experimentation. When there's a lack of sufficient observation, for whatever reason, and/or a difficulty to conduct experimentation because of the complexity of the situation and/or the long time scales involved, then uncertainty prevails.

 

The complexity of the universe as a whole is enormous. So far, the total sum of scientific knowledge cannot even tell us how many different species of life-forms exist on our planet. There is a general estimate of 8.7 million, but such an estimate probably doesn't include all insects and the millions of different microbes, bacteria and parasites.

 

The following article addresses the problem.
 

"Part of the problem is that we cannot simply count the number of life forms. Many live in inaccessible habitats (such as the deep sea), are too small to see, are hard to find, or live inside other living things. So, instead of counting, scientists try to estimate the total number of species by looking for patterns in biodiversity.

 

But most estimates of global biodiversity overlook microorganisms such as bacteria because many of these organisms can only be identified to species level by sequencing their DNA.
After compiling and analysing a database of DNA sequences from 5 million microbe species from 35,000 sites around the world, researchers concluded that there are a staggering 1 trillion species on Earth. That’s more species than the estimated number of stars in the Milky Way galaxy."

 

https://theconversation.com/how-many-species-on-earth-why-thats-a-simple-question-but-hard-to-answer-114909

 

To rephrase your question. Are human beings able to observe or detect everything in the entire universe using the Methodology of Science?  That would take an awful long time. ????

[Tippaporn]

14 minutes ago, VincentRJ said:

Your question is not clear. What do you mean by "proving everything in existence"? Do you mean "observing or detecting everything in existence"?

 

Science is a process that involves observation and experimentation. Scientific theories and hypotheses are based upon obervations and experimentation. When there's a lack of sufficient observation, for whatever reason, and/or a difficulty to conduct experimentation because of the complexity of the situation and/or the long time scales involved, then uncertainty prevails.

 

The complexity of the universe as a whole is enormous. So far, the total sum of scientific knowledge cannot even tell us how many different species of life-forms exist on our planet. There is a general estimate of 8.7 million, but such an estimate probably doesn't include all insects and the millions of different microbes, bacteria and parasites.

 

The following article addresses the problem.
 

"Part of the problem is that we cannot simply count the number of life forms. Many live in inaccessible habitats (such as the deep sea), are too small to see, are hard to find, or live inside other living things. So, instead of counting, scientists try to estimate the total number of species by looking for patterns in biodiversity.

 

But most estimates of global biodiversity overlook microorganisms such as bacteria because many of these organisms can only be identified to species level by sequencing their DNA.
After compiling and analysing a database of DNA sequences from 5 million microbe species from 35,000 sites around the world, researchers concluded that there are a staggering 1 trillion species on Earth. That’s more species than the estimated number of stars in the Milky Way galaxy."

 

https://theconversation.com/how-many-species-on-earth-why-thats-a-simple-question-but-hard-to-answer-114909

 

To rephrase your question. Are human beings able to observe or detect everything in the entire universe using the Methodology of Science?  That would take an awful long time. ????

You're right.  My question left room for too much ambiguity.  So I'll rephrase with unambiguous clarity.  Since most of the science folk here have made the claim that it is within science's ability, using the scientific method only, or the methodology of science as that is your preferential terminology, to positively establish the truth of every aspect of the nature of reality, in other words discover and prove it's functioning, then my question to Hummin is whether or not he believes that to be true.  Let me know if that rephrasing makes sense to you.

 

I'll give an example of what I was driving at with that question.  If I were to make the claim, which I have, that we create our own reality using ideas - the physical universe as idea construction - then science would brush that claim off as mere unfounded belief with no proof as to the truth of that claim.  Am I correct so far?

I'll have to refer here to one of my earlier posts.

  

On 8/27/2022 at 4:13 PM, Tippaporn said:

For my next hat trick I'd like to dispel the notion that the die hard science folks here hold, and claim over and over ad nauseam, that science is capable of proving everything and anything using the scientific method, and thus is the only discipline capable of determining the truth of all things?

 

For this exercise we'll make the assumption that the theory that one creates his or her own reality using thoughts is true.  In order for science to prove this then it would need to know what someone's true thoughts are in order to match the thought to the reality created.  Since thoughts are private no one can know what another's thoughts are.  And how can one produce evidence of a particular thought since it's not physical?

 

Any science die hard here (I think VincentRJ was the last but I haven't seen him of late) who would be willing to take that one on?

Could science even prove that the reverse, which is the only other option, is true . . . that we don't create our reality via thoughts, or otherwise?  Or would they object using the argument that it's not their obligation to prove a negative?

 

How often have I tried to convince them that the scientific method has it's limitations due to the fact that not everything is something physical that one can probe, categorise,  and measure?

 

[mauGR1]

33 minutes ago, VincentRJ said:

After compiling and analysing a database of DNA sequences from 5 million microbe species from 35,000 sites around the world, researchers concluded that there are a staggering 1 trillion species on Earth. That’s more species than the estimated number of stars in the Milky Way galaxy."

What's the point in counting the microbes when one doesn't know himself ?

Why not apply science methodology to the study of thoughts, emotions, feelings, perception, consciousness etc instead of dismissing them as "electrical impulses created by the human brain" ?

... which is a very shallow approach to say the least.

 

[Tippaporn]

12 minutes ago, mauGR1 said:

What's the point in counting the microbes when one doesn't know himself ?

<snip>

As I've been explaining over several posts now.  Some questions need to be answered before other questions can be asked.  If it's true that we create our own reality using thoughts then the rules of the game have changed epically and forever.  You can take most every science book on psychology and trash them.  The medical field would need to be totally revamped as well.  Every branch of science would find itself experiencing an upheaval.

[mauGR1]

3 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

As I've been explaining over several posts now.  Some questions need to be answered before other questions can be asked.  If it's true that we create our own reality using thoughts then the rules of the game have changed epically and forever.  You can take most every science book on psychology and trash them.  The medical field would need to be totally revamped as well.  Every branch of science would find itself experiencing an upheaval.

Yes, i think so, we're just living a sort of dark age, but, as they say, after the night comes the day.

 

[Hummin]

5 hours ago, mauGR1 said:

What's the point in counting the microbes when one doesn't know himself ?

Why not apply science methodology to the study of thoughts, emotions, feelings, perception, consciousness etc instead of dismissing them as "electrical impulses created by the human brain" ?

... which is a very shallow approach to say the least.

 

I believe there have been quite wide and broad researches on consensus parapsychology both civilian and for military purposes which foundings escalated during cold war. 
 

several science projects have been done with psychedelic’s. If astrophysics is difficult and complex matter, I expect nothing less where individuality matters as well reproducing and prove their findings. 
 

 

[mauGR1]

13 minutes ago, Hummin said:

 

I believe there have been quite wide and broad researches on consensus parapsychology both civilian and for military purposes which foundings escalated during cold war. 
 

several science projects have been done with psychedelic’s. If astrophysics is difficult and complex matter, I expect nothing less where individuality matters as well reproducing and prove their findings. 
 

 

Perhaps you expect those scientific researches to benefit humankind as a whole, but i don't. 

Investors invest money for a profit, and if they are big investors, they invest for a big profit.

The main interest of the leaders is to keep the people ignorant, that way it's easy to control them.

If you don't believe me, just look at who made the biggest profits in the last 2 years ????

[Hummin]

5 minutes ago, mauGR1 said:

Perhaps you expect those scientific researches to benefit humankind as a whole, but i don't. 

Investors invest money for a profit, and if they are big investors, they invest for a big profit.

The main interest of the leaders is to keep the people ignorant, that way it's easy to control them.

If you don't believe me, just look at who made the biggest profits in the last 2 years ????

My point is, such researches is an impossible task, if at all possible when one gifted person have problems to connect to another! 
 

Either to many false prophets out there, or each and one of us have their own genuine frequency ????

 

As could be true as a genuine personal secret phone number.

 

 

[mauGR1]

6 minutes ago, Hummin said:

My point is, such researches is an impossible task, if at all possible when one gifted person have problems to connect to another! 
 

Either to many false prophets out there, or each and one of us have their own genuine frequency ????

 

As could be true as a genuine personal secret phone number.

 

 

The fact that we are using the same language, and yet we have problems understanding each other, is a reminder of a biblical tale,  the tower of Babel.

History repeats, let's see what's happening in the next few years.

[VincentRJ]

6 hours ago, Tippaporn said:

You're right.  My question left room for too much ambiguity.  So I'll rephrase with unambiguous clarity.  Since most of the science folk here have made the claim that it is within science's ability, using the scientific method only, or the methodology of science as that is your preferential terminology, to positively establish the truth of every aspect of the nature of reality, in other words discover and prove it's functioning, then my question to Hummin is whether or not he believes that to be true.  Let me know if that rephrasing makes sense to you.

 

I'll give an example of what I was driving at with that question.  If I were to make the claim, which I have, that we create our own reality using ideas - the physical universe as idea construction - then science would brush that claim off as mere unfounded belief with no proof as to the truth of that claim.  Am I correct so far?

I'll have to refer here to one of my earlier posts.

  

 

Well, thanks for admitting your ambiguity, but I still  think you're muddling things up. For a start, no-one gets to choose whether or not they will be born, so the reality of their own existence is created by someone else.

 

After the fetus in the mother's womb has developed to a certain stage, it begins to experience certain effects associated with the feelings and experiences of the mother. For example, if the mother likes listening to the music of Mozart, the baby in the womb, after it has developed its hearing capacity, will be able to hear the music and experience, in some way, the mother's joy which is associated with the music.

 

After the baby is born, the young child will also show pleasure whenever the music of Mozart is played. Scientific studies have confirmed this. However, if the reverse were to occur, and the mother were to experience anger and displeasure when hearing a particular type of music, then these reactions would also be felt by the unborn infant in the womb, and the young child after birth would most likely show displeasure whenever that music is played.

 

There are many other experiences that occur in the early stages of life, which become embedded in our subconscious, and which influence our behaviour and choices in life. If these 'unknown influences' become a major problem, then the scientific disciplines of Psychology and Psychiatry might help.

 

Another common example is a phobia of snakes and spiders. Do people create their own phobias, or are they just embedded in the subconscious? The following study provides some evidence that such phobias are inherited.
https://www.cbs.mpg.de/Fear-of-spiders-and-snakes-is-deeply-embedded-in-us

 

"Snakes and spiders evoke fear and disgust in many people. Even in developed countries lots of people are frightened of these animals although hardly anybody comes into contact with them. Until now, there has been debate about whether this aversion is innate or learnt. Scientists at the Max Planck Institute for Human Cognitive and Brain Sciences (MPI CBS) in Leipzig and the Uppsala University have recently discovered that it is hereditary: Babies as young as six months old feel stressed when seeing these creatures—long before they could have learnt this reaction."

 

In summary, I would say that we can create our own realty to the extent that we can control our own thoughts, ideas, emotions, and motivations. However, most people can't even control their own weight because they are addicted to tasty and sugary foods. ????
 

[mauGR1]

39 minutes ago, VincentRJ said:

Well, thanks for admitting your ambiguity, but I still  think you're muddling things up. For a start, no-one gets to choose whether or not they will be born, so the reality of their own existence is created by someone else.

As far as i know, souls choose to be born, perhaps they choose the parents too, and the time, and the location. 

Probably doesn't make sense to you, I'm just saying. 

[rumak]

9 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

What is important is being open to other's viewpoints and giving them the respect they deserve ( unless they are trolls ).

I'm open to such, and have learned much about faith on these many pages, but I only use what works for myself.

Amen.   Hopefully the participants also take some time off to go outside for a walk ,  smell the roses and look at the trees .      Or not ..............

 

[thaibeachlovers]

9 hours ago, Tippaporn said:

My post never used the word faith.  Because I was not talking about faith at all.  Not sure how you read faith into that post.

What I was talking about was ideas and how people accept the ideas that they do.

Given the topic is about God, I can't see how mentioning faith is irrelevant to the discussion.

[thaibeachlovers]

9 hours ago, mauGR1 said:

I read somewhere the other day, that what we don't like of others, is what we don't like in ourselves. 

Perhaps not a dogma, but an invitation to see things from different perspectives. 

Very true. I had an epiphany about that many years ago, that what I disliked most in other people were the things I disliked about myself.

 

[Hummin]

37 minutes ago, mauGR1 said:

As far as i know, souls choose to be born, perhaps they choose the parents too, and the time, and the location. 

Probably doesn't make sense to you, I'm just saying. 

You understand, this is what puts off most people, and especially when the same people who claim such, making jokes and laugh of others opinions. 
 

Especially when you state you do not expect us to understand ????

 

And when you loose your patience, become just a little rude to ????

 

Some of your personal beliefs is so  far fetched comparing to science more or less accepted theories. How can a egg and a sperm out of millions choose their parents and become an embryo? And on which level or in which phase or stage do you believe the selection happens? Before or after being infested? 
 

If not one of the best examples of fittest of survival, then I do not really know? Just one out of 100 millions makes it! 
 

Sometimes I really do not get it, because its to far out there. Yes I can believe life travel space and infest planets, but for a soul to choose their own destiny,,,,,,, thats a nugget and hard to believe

 

 

Edited September 8, 2022 by Hummin

[thaibeachlovers]

1 minute ago, Hummin said:

You understand, this is what puts off most people, and especially when the same people who claim such, making jokes and laugh of others opinions. 
 

Especially when you state you do not expect uscto understand ????

 

And when you loose your patience, become just a little rude to ????

 

Some of your personal beliefs is so  far fetched comparing to science more or less accepted theories. How can a egg and a sperm out of millions choose their parents and become an embryo? And on which level or in which phase or stage do you believe the selection happens? Before or after being infested? 
 

If not one of the best examples of fittest of survival, then I do not really know? Jjust one out of 100 millions makes it! 
 

Sometimes I really do not get it, because its to far out there. Yes I can believe life travel space and infest planets, but for a soul to choose their own destiny,,,,,,, thats a nugget and hard to believe

 

 

For a while I was convinced, by others, that our souls were born into humans to learn stuff while on Earth. I'm no longer convinced of that, but I'm open minded as to it's possibility.

[Tippaporn]

42 minutes ago, VincentRJ said:

Well, thanks for admitting your ambiguity, but I still  think you're muddling things up. For a start, no-one gets to choose whether or not they will be born, so the reality of their own existence is created by someone else.

 

After the fetus in the mother's womb has developed to a certain stage, it begins to experience certain effects associated with the feelings and experiences of the mother. For example, if the mother likes listening to the music of Mozart, the baby in the womb, after it has developed its hearing capacity, will be able to hear the music and experience, in some way, the mother's joy which is associated with the music.

 

After the baby is born, the young child will also show pleasure whenever the music of Mozart is played. Scientific studies have confirmed this. However, if the reverse were to occur, and the mother were to experience anger and displeasure when hearing a particular type of music, then these reactions would also be felt by the unborn infant in the womb, and the young child after birth would most likely show displeasure whenever that music is played.

 

There are many other experiences that occur in the early stages of life, which become embedded in our subconscious, and which influence our behaviour and choices in life. If these 'unknown influences' become a major problem, then the scientific disciplines of Psychology and Psychiatry might help.

 

Another common example is a phobia of snakes and spiders. Do people create their own phobias, or are they just embedded in the subconscious? The following study provides some evidence that such phobias are inherited.
https://www.cbs.mpg.de/Fear-of-spiders-and-snakes-is-deeply-embedded-in-us

 

"Snakes and spiders evoke fear and disgust in many people. Even in developed countries lots of people are frightened of these animals although hardly anybody comes into contact with them. Until now, there has been debate about whether this aversion is innate or learnt. Scientists at the Max Planck Institute for Human Cognitive and Brain Sciences (MPI CBS) in Leipzig and the Uppsala University have recently discovered that it is hereditary: Babies as young as six months old feel stressed when seeing these creatures—long before they could have learnt this reaction."

 

In summary, I would say that we can create our own realty to the extent that we can control our own thoughts, ideas, emotions, and motivations. However, most people can't even control their own weight because they are addicted to tasty and sugary foods. ????
 

"For a start, no-one gets to choose whether or not they will be born, so the reality of their own existence is created by someone else."

I know this question is becoming repetitive but no matter how many times I ask this question, no matter the poster, everyone so far as avoided answering it.

Who creates your experience if not you?  Can you name the agency?  Can you validate that agency's existence?.

There's a main belief folks have that there's some outside force which controls us in various ways.  So now you're being ambiguous.  Or cryptic.  Who is this "someone else."  Name it.  Identify it.  Where does it exist?  What's it's source?  What powers does it have?  You don't believe in a God and yet you're referring to a God-like entity.  Religion accepts this "someone else" as being God.

Here's another question which, forgive me if I'm wrong, I also believe you'll avoid.  What of freedom?  How does freedom work when there exists another power which controls us?  Creating one's own reality requires full and absolute freedom.  If you don't have absolute freedom then you can't create your own reality.   Can you understand how the two are inextricably entwined?

As to your statement, which is a belief, knowing what I know it's false.  We do choose to enter this earthly existence.  In fact, the entity to be chooses it's parents and the parents choose this soon to be born entity.
 

Science excels at the hard sciences.  In my opinion when it comes to the soft sciences they are rather primitive.  Take this article on dreaming, for example, which to my knowledge is pure, worthless rubbish.

What Your Dreams Actually Mean, According to Science

Not in all of eternity will science ever understand what dreams are by probing the brain.  With dreams, as with so much other human experience, you're dealing with pure subjective reality.  Physical instruments are useless.  They'll tell you nothing.  If anyone is serious about understanding what dreams are you would have to explore the subject from the inside, not the outside.  Dreams are part of subjective reality and can only be explored using our subjective self.  That should be beyond obvious.

Anyway, I don't mean to go off on a tangent by commenting on the opening statement of your post.  It's the first part of my post which I'd like you give answers, as best you can, to the questions I posed.  Those questions about who creates our realty and freedom are more important than you realise.  Those two questions, answered properly, crack the nut in many ways.

[mauGR1]

4 minutes ago, Hummin said:

You understand, this is what puts off most people, and especially when the same people who claim such, making jokes and laugh of others opinions. 
 

Especially when you state you do not expect uscto understand ????

 

And when you loose your patience, become just a little rude to ????

 

Some of your personal beliefs is so  far fetched comparing to science more or less accepted theories. How can a egg and a sperm out of millions choose their parents and become an embryo? And on which level or in which phase or stage do you believe the selection happens? Before or after being infested? 
 

If not one of the best examples of fittest of survival, then I do not really know? Jjust one out of 100 millions makes it! 
 

Sometimes I really do not get it, because its to far out there. Yes I can believe life travel space and infest planets, but for a soul to choose their own destiny,,,,,,, thats a nugget and hard to believe

 

 

Lol, thanks for the intellectual honesty, yes, you are right, and i was in fact suspecting that, despite living on the same planet, we belong to different universes.

If it makes sense to you, but i think not ????

[Tippaporn]

11 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Given the topic is about God, I can't see how mentioning faith is irrelevant to the discussion.

It's certainly relevant to the topic.  But it wasn't relevant to my post.

[mauGR1]

14 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Very true. I had an epiphany about that many years ago, that what I disliked most in other people were the things I disliked about myself.

 

Yes, sometimes it's been for me difficult to accept that in the past i occasionally behaved like a complete moron.

Yet, a spiritual path includes a strict self criticism, total honesty, and possibly a very clean heart.