Do you believe in God and why

[Hummin]

11 minutes ago, mauGR1 said:

Yes, everything is possible. 

Every single atom could be a solar system with little planets and sentient beings trying the best to survive etc.

Perhaps there's no God, but it's better to believe that there is imho.

Is there of importance believe or not? In god I mean? 
 

Why is it so important to so many  people to claim there is a god, and the controversy opposite there is no god! I cant understand that in view of everything we are surrounded with, because, most individuals should know by now, if god exists, it is everything, not just god, but everything we know and do not know. 
 

Can only speak for myself, but My hero is David Attenborough, and he is all I need to know about my world and my god. 
 

 

Great interview and please watch to the end if interested in comment about him. He have done tons of interviews during his lifetime about god, but he have a very valid point here. 

 

 

[mauGR1]

3 minutes ago, Hummin said:

Is there of importance believe or not? In god I mean? 
 

Why is it so important to so many  people to claim there is a god, and the controversy opposite there is no god! I cant understand that in view of everything we are surrounded with, because, most individuals should know by now, if god exists, it is everything, not just god, but everything we know and do not know. 
 

Can only speak for myself, but My hero is David Attenborough, and he is all I need to know about my world and my god. 
 

 

Great interview and please watch to the end if interested in comment about him. He have done tons of interviews during his lifetime about god, but he have a very valid point here. 

 

 

Thanks, i know this guy, but I'm not watching videos. 

If you think that his point of view is significant, why don't you say with your words ?

[Hummin]

5 minutes ago, mauGR1 said:

Thanks, i know this guy, but I'm not watching videos. 

If you think that his point of view is significant, why don't you say with your words ?

Any reason why you do not enrich your world with interesting videos? Also include documentaries?

 

[CharlieH]

Flame post and response removed.

[xylophone]

3 hours ago, Sparktrader said:

The topic is about god. You want me to ask about pad thai?

 

 

Your question was, "where did humans come from?" And my answer was well, if you have ask a question like that, I feel sorry for you, and that still applies.

So, intelligent folk and those who don't believe in fairy stories, believe humans didn't come from God, which is what I think you are angling at, and I would be wasting my time if I tried to explain to somebody who believes that the first man was created by an ethereal entity, who then created a woman from his rib, and the story from thereon in involves a talking serpent and an apple, and many years later a virgin birth, the resurrection and someone floating up to the skies. Not to mention an old man building an ark which housed pairs of every creature on earth....and more fairy stories. 

You could, however, read "Charles Darwin's Theory of Evolution which is one of the most solid theories in science. And especially for you, evolution is the process of change in all forms of life over generations, and evolutionary biology is the study of how evolution occurs. Biological populations evolve through genetic changes that correspond to changes in the organisms' observable traits.
 

[mauGR1]

Just now, Hummin said:

Any reason why you do not enrich your world with interesting videos? Also include documentaries?

 

Sure i watch videos, but normally i choose. 

I am here to exchange ideas, not for watching videos. 

Perhaps conversations with real people enrich one's world more than watching videos ?

[Hummin]

3 minutes ago, xylophone said:

Your question was, "where did humans come from?" And my answer was well, if you have ask a question like that, I feel sorry for you, and that still applies.

So, intelligent folk and those who don't believe in fairy stories, believe humans didn't come from God, which is what I think you are angling at, and I would be wasting my time if I tried to explain to somebody who believes that the first man was created by an ethereal entity, who then created a woman from his rib, and the story from thereon in involves a talking serpent and an apple, and many years later a virgin birth, the resurrection and someone floating up to the skies. Not to mention an old man building an ark which housed pairs of every creature on earth....and more fairy stories. 

You could, however, read "Charles Darwin's Theory of Evolution which is one of the most solid theories in science. And especially for you, evolution is the process of change in all forms of life over generations, and evolutionary biology is the study of how evolution occurs. Biological populations evolve through genetic changes that correspond to changes in the organisms' observable traits.
 

Very few of us who have participated in this thread, believe in old scripts, we are at another level, but still confusing and at times a bit far over and above the edge ???????? for most

[Tippaporn]

On 9/8/2022 at 7:28 PM, VincentRJ said:

It seems clear to me that I answered the question. I think your confusion is a result of your being trapped into the 'either/or' situation. That is, something's either right or wrong, good or bad, hot or cold, and so on.

 

You can create your own reality to some extent, and that extent is very variable, depending upon your inheritance characteristics and the many experiences in your mother's womb and in early childhood which you can't remember. Such experiences are buried in the subconscious, which means you have no control over them, unless you specifically engage in certain processes that might help you to understand or be aware of at least some of those subconscious influences.
Psychology and Psychiatry deal with such issues, but also Buddhism and Yoga-type practices. 

 

"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."

 

I'm sorry.This sounds like complete nonsense to me. The entity to be, chooses it's parents, and the parents choose the characteristics of the 'soon to be born entity'?? Crikey!! I didn't realize you were into so much mumbo jumbo. ????

 

However, I apologize if I've offended you.

"It seems clear to me that I answered the question. I think your confusion is a result of your being trapped into the 'either/or' situation. That is, something's either right or wrong, good or bad, hot or cold, and so on."

Well, to be truthful you didn't answer the question.  Which was, "if you're not the one creating your experience then who does?  What agency determines aspects of your reality for you?"  Your reply as to the agency, which you answered in the context of "no one gets to choose to be born" was "someone."  You've got to admit that's funny.  Because that "someone" could theoretically be God.  And I know you don't believe in God.  So what other force has that ability, that power?

One more point.  I had asked that you incorporate freedom into the idea that our experience is created by us.  For you cannot seriously expect a correct answer to that question while omitting freedom.  The two are inextricably linked.  You cannot separate on from the other.  You didn't mention freedom at all.  Is it because this is what science so often does?  When information doesn't fit it just gets discarded?

It's not a question of right or wrong, good or bad, etc.  It's a question of having a practical working thesis.  Being a science guy you should at least be able to provide a rough outline of a working hypothesis at a minimum.  The key word here is "working."  Because if you can't show how it works then I think even you would agree that a non-working hypothesis would be utterly worthless.

"You can create your own reality to some extent, and that extent is very variable, depending upon your inheritance characteristics and the many experiences in your mother's womb and in early childhood which you can't remember. Such experiences are buried in the subconscious, which means you have no control over them, unless you specifically engage in certain processes that might help you to understand or be aware of at least some of those subconscious influences."

 

Good on you that you've at least admitted that we create our own reality to some extent.  As to the rest of that paragraph you are now entering the soft sciences, which are more than wanting.  I can say this much.  Science knows next to nothing about what the subconscious is.  They do spin theories using what little they do understand.  I would advise to accept science's conclusions on what the subconscious is with a grain of salt.  A truckload would do fine.  You do have a subconscious.  Why not explore your own?  While the question is a serious one I doubt you'd have an inkling on how to go about such a personal exploration.  Is it best then, or perhaps because it's your only other option, to carte blanche accept the opinions and dictats of "authoritative" science simply because they have anointed themselves authorities of credibility in all subject matter?  And especially since you don't have first hand knowledge yourself?

"Psychology and Psychiatry deal with such issues, but also Buddhism and Yoga-type practices."

It's coincidental that you would mention Buddhism.  Here's a quote that is saying the same thing I've been saying: you create your own reality using your thoughts.  Think of what you want and that is what you will create (joy).  Think of what you don't want and that is what you'll create (suffering).  The choice is always ours . . . second by second, minute by minute, hour by hour . . . thoughts create.  Period.

"What we are today comes from our thoughts of yesterday, and our present thoughts build our life of tomorrow: our life is the creation of our mind. If a man speaks or acts with an impure mind, suffering will follow him as the wheel of the cart follows the beast that draws the cart. If a man speaks or acts with a pure mind, joy follows him as his own shadow." - Gautama Buddha

"I'm sorry.This sounds like complete nonsense to me. The entity to be, chooses it's parents, and the parents choose the characteristics of the 'soon to be born entity'?? Crikey!! I didn't realize you were into so much mumbo jumbo." ????

 

For one, if you were to dig deeper into many of science's theories, objectively rather than fawningly, you'd quickly discover that much of science theories are exactly that . . . mumbo jumbo.  Why?  Because many of their theories either outright lack a working basis or their working basis is woefully incomplete.  Granted, it's difficult to be objective when you've already bought the farm. 

Here's a quote for you from Seth from the book, The Unknown Reality Vol. 1:

"Consciousness is composed of energy, with everything that implies. The psyche, then, can be thought of as a conglomeration of highly charged "particles" of energy, following rules and properties, many simply unknown to you. On other levels, laws of dynamics apply to the energy sources of the self. Think of a given "self" as a nucleus of an energy gestalt of consciousness. That nucleus, according to its intensity, will attract to it certain masses of the entire energy patterns available to a given identity."
 

The key phrase here is "many simply unknown to you."  You must admit that many scientific theories are created with only that information which is currently known.  Even then not all of the currently know information is incorporated into many of their theories.  What does not fit, or is inconvenient, is left out.  Aside from information that is currently known is the unknown.  Which is much, much vaster than what is known.

 

If science were to be purely objective and honest then they would say about a given theory, such as evolution, "This is what our available "facts" currently point to but, hey, we could be completely wrong.  If a single piece of unknown information were to become known it might alter or even completely invalidate what we've currently concluded."  Rather, in their hubris they claim to "know" even as they are fully aware of the truth of the preceding sentence.

FYI, that paragraph by Seth describes, to a small extent, who we are.  I don't expect anyone to fully, or even partially understand it but kudos to you if you do.  This is extremely complex subject matter.  Before anyone reads it with little understanding and then comments that it's nothing but word salad then understand that to comment derogatorily from a mere paragraph would be disingenuous.  There's 20 years of work by Jane Roberts which  provides more than ample information which would make perfect sense of that paragraph.  No one should be writing a book review on a book they haven't read.

And one more quote from Seth, from the same volume, as he comments specifically on what I claimed, that the to-be-born child chooses his parents and vice versa.

"Each of you, again, chose your parents and environment. You spoke in your notes (two days ago) of precognition in connection with art - an excellent point. Precognition in those terms also applies at your birth, when ahead of time you are quite aware on unconscious levels of those conditions that you will meet. You have chosen them and projected them ahead of you, out into the medium of time."

No worries about insulting me.  We're good.

[Hummin]

5 minutes ago, mauGR1 said:

Sure i watch videos, but normally i choose. 

I am here to exchange ideas, not for watching videos. 

Perhaps conversations with real people enrich one's world more than watching videos ?

Well, thank for your trust in my sources, Im just about to leave for this the next week, so, in the meantime, try to have a look, you want be disappointed in the old man. 
 

 

 

[mauGR1]

1 minute ago, Hummin said:

Well, thank for your trust in my sources, Im just about to leave for this the next week, so, in the meantime, try to have a look, you want be disappointed in the old man. 
 

 

 

I think i watched quite a few of him, he's very famous and rightly so.

But, as i said, I'm here to hear ideas, possibly in short, for the conversation to be flowing. 

Like sitting with friends and talking, at least that's my idea of a forum. 

[Tippaporn]

43 minutes ago, CharlieH said:

Flame post and response removed.

Love your signature, CharlieH.  5555555555

[Sparktrader]

1 hour ago, xylophone said:

Your question was, "where did humans come from?" And my answer was well, if you have ask a question like that, I feel sorry for you, and that still applies.

So, intelligent folk and those who don't believe in fairy stories, believe humans didn't come from God, which is what I think you are angling at, and I would be wasting my time if I tried to explain to somebody who believes that the first man was created by an ethereal entity, who then created a woman from his rib, and the story from thereon in involves a talking serpent and an apple, and many years later a virgin birth, the resurrection and someone floating up to the skies. Not to mention an old man building an ark which housed pairs of every creature on earth....and more fairy stories. 

You could, however, read "Charles Darwin's Theory of Evolution which is one of the most solid theories in science. And especially for you, evolution is the process of change in all forms of life over generations, and evolutionary biology is the study of how evolution occurs. Biological populations evolve through genetic changes that correspond to changes in the organisms' observable traits.
 

And I dont believe in any of that. Just because one believes in god doesn't mean they follow any bible. Intelligent folk know the difference between a book and a belief.

 

I feel sorry for the sick and homeless not strangers on the net, you don't either. You simply used an internet arguing tactic that is 20 years old when I asked you a question you couldn't answer - oneupmanship.

 

Making false assumptions about strangers and using oneupmanship tactics doesnt make your comments stronger, the opposite.

 

 

[Sparktrader]

1 hour ago, xylophone said:

Charles Darwin's Theory of Evolution

https://www.discovery.org/a/10661/

 

Not very solid

[Sparktrader]

https://www.nationalgeographic.com/science/article/darwin-evolution-crispr-microbiome-bacteria-news

 

Seems Darwinism is a weak theory getting picked apart now.

[Tippaporn]

1 hour ago, xylophone said:

<snip>

You could, however, read "Charles Darwin's Theory of Evolution which is one of the most solid theories in science. And especially for you, evolution is the process of change in all forms of life over generations, and evolutionary biology is the study of how evolution occurs. Biological populations evolve through genetic changes that correspond to changes in the organisms' observable traits.
 

". . . one of the most solid theories in science."

Stick with the hard sciences.  Once subjective reality enters into the equation, which evolution completely disregards, you're in no man's land.

[Sparktrader]

https://www.hoover.org/research/mathematical-challenges-darwins-theory-evolution-david-berlinski-stephen-meyer-and-david

 

Experts say why Darwin is wrong.

[mauGR1]

Groupthink is a phenomenon that occurs when the desire for group consensus overrides people's common sense desire to present alternatives, critique a position, or express an unpopular opinion. 

 

Apparently agnostics are not immune to group thinking. 

I'd guess roughly 70%, or even more, of the human population are severely affected. 

[Hummin]

1 hour ago, Sparktrader said:

https://www.nationalgeographic.com/science/article/darwin-evolution-crispr-microbiome-bacteria-news

 

Seems Darwinism is a weak theory getting picked apart now.

It doesn't make him totally wrong to be one of the first who started to be convinced evolution was the answer, and it is still evolution, just with new proofs and evolved theory?

[Sparktrader]

4 minutes ago, Hummin said:

It doesn't make him totally wrong to be one of the first who started to be convinced evolution was the answer, and it is still evolution, just with new proofs and evolved theory?

In 50 years they may say he totally wrong.

[Hummin]

4 minutes ago, Sparktrader said:

In 50 years they may say he totally wrong.

Okay, Not based on this later research they referred to, if I understood it correctly!

[Sparktrader]

8 minutes ago, Hummin said:

Okay, Not based on this later research they referred to, if I understood it correctly!

In 50 years who knows. What did we know in 1972?

 

 

[Hummin]

43 minutes ago, Sparktrader said:

In 50 years who knows. What did we know in 1972?

 

 

I do not understand why some find evolution as a problem, and doom the whole idea. I find that strange, instead of keep the mind open

[Tippaporn]

3 hours ago, Hummin said:

I do not understand why some find evolution as a problem, and doom the whole idea. I find that strange, instead of keep the mind open

Because, Hummin, it's not a fully working theory.  When asked to show how it works in great detail there exist multiple failures in the explanation as given.  We're talking about life, Hummin.  Where does the individual consciousness fit into evolution?  Nowhere.  How can that be?  What's implied in the theory is that that living consciousness which it purports to explain as to it's development plays zero role in it's own development.  Rather, the theory claims instead some ambiguous force called Natural Selection, which is a theory itself, which in God-like fashion determines the process.  The theory doesn't at all define Natural Selection except in vague terms.  Certainly not in definitive terms.  No information about it's properties or where it exists.  Or in what format or medium.

I have a completely open mind about the theory of evolution, Hummin,  I ask questions.  And if I get zero answers to my questions, and if those questions can't be answered then it can't be shown to work in greater detail and thus it must be a failed theory.  It's called deductive reasoning, Hummin.

 

You, on the other hand, do not have an open mind about evolution.  Why do I say this?  Because you willingly ignore the questions that I and others ask about it.  You willing accept the holes, the gaps, the missing information, the excluded information.  And pretend these failures are of no real import.  That is the definition of being close minded.  To see only that which you want to see and ignore and/or dismiss all objections.

How does consciousness, life itself, fit into the equation, Hummin?  What is it's role?  I know you can't answer these questions.  Again, as I stated above, stick with the hard sciences.  For once subjective reality enters into the equation you truly are in no mans land.  Science has zero clue as to what consciousness even is.  The theory must include consciousness.  Period.

[Sparktrader]

16 hours ago, Hummin said:

Is there of importance believe or not? In god I mean? 
 

Why is it so important to so many  people to claim there is a god, and the controversy opposite there is no god! I cant understand that in view of everything we are surrounded with, because, most individuals should know by now, if god exists, it is everything, not just god, but everything we know and do not know. 
 

Can only speak for myself, but My hero is David Attenborough, and he is all I need to know about my world and my god. 
 

 

Great interview and please watch to the end if interested in comment about him. He have done tons of interviews during his lifetime about god, but he have a very valid point here. 

 

 

David has a good voice. Loves animals. Expert on anything really? I dont think so. Lots of people do the work for him.

 

I do agree man written texts are not perfect. Talk to god direct not thru organised religion. Organised religion is flawed cause man started it.

 

 

[Sparktrader]

 

[xylophone]

16 hours ago, Sparktrader said:

You simply used an internet arguing tactic that is 20 years old when I asked you a question you couldn't answer - oneupmanship.

On the contrary, your question was the tactic you used to try and elicit the response you wanted, and not a "genuine" question, and it is a very simple argumentative technique. And as for not being able to answer your question, well I did, this after enquiring as to whether you were serious or not with the question, to which a child would know the answer, so why ask it?

 

As for natural selection, well I will follow the experts on this...........

Coyne concludes his introduction with the bold statement that “all the evidence — both old and new — leads ineluctably to the conclusion that evolution is true.

In this succinct and accessible summary of the facts supporting the theory of natural selection, Jerry A. Coyne dispels common misunderstandings and fears about evolution and clearly confirms the scientific truth that supports this amazing process of change.
 

[Sparktrader]

4 minutes ago, xylophone said:

On the contrary, your question was the tactic you used to try and elicit the response you wanted, and not a "genuine" question, and it is a very simple argumentative technique. And as for not being able to answer your question, well I did, this after enquiring as to whether you were serious or not with the question, to which a child would know the answer, so why ask it?

 

As for natural selection, well I will follow the experts on this...........

Coyne concludes his introduction with the bold statement that “all the evidence — both old and new — leads ineluctably to the conclusion that evolution is true.

In this succinct and accessible summary of the facts supporting the theory of natural selection, Jerry A. Coyne dispels common misunderstandings and fears about evolution and clearly confirms the scientific truth that supports this amazing process of change.
 

1 you are using oneupmanship. 20yos do that on twitter.

 

2 you talked about Darwinism which is wrong

[Sparktrader]

6 minutes ago, xylophone said:

genuine" question

The opposite is true. Where humans came from is the key question. Most important.

[mauGR1]

36 minutes ago, Sparktrader said:

The opposite is true. Where humans came from is the key question. Most important.

It's a tough question, no wonder he can't reply.

A honest answer could be

"Science doesn't know yet "

Yet, if he said that he doesn't know, his beliefs would crumble down. 

[xylophone]

36 minutes ago, Sparktrader said:

The opposite is true. Where humans came from is the key question. Most important.

A key question, but one to which you didn't know the answer, but which a 15 year old would know! Strange, unless you had an ulterior motive?

 

Darwinism is not wrong, and I quote "Charles Darwin's Theory of Evolution is one of the most solid theories in science" although some aspects of it are being debated, in the main it still seems the seminal work.

 

I have no idea what you are talking about with regards to "20-year-olds do that on Twitter" because I have never visited Twitter, nor do I have access to it, nor do I want to.

 

As for your statement about "one-upmanship" only you know the meaning of that in this context, because I have no idea to what you are referring.

 

Anyway, I can't waste my time debating nonsense with people like you, who seem to dream up all sorts of strange retorts, and at the age of 75, I choose to interchange with other learned folk like myself, not Twitter guys like you! So onto "ignore" you go.

 

PS. You obviously spend time on Twitter because you seem to know a lot about it!