Do you believe in God and why

[save the frogs]

2 minutes ago, owl sees all said:

Could it be that the Earth's first humans were extraterrestrial criminals.

not sure if it was voltaire, but a famous literary figure was quoted as saying sth like 'earth is where other planets send their rejects'.

 

[mauGR1]

5 minutes ago, owl sees all said:

The whole thing about 'God' is intriguing. Is it not?

 

For me he/she/it (god) is just one of three possibilities, explaining how and why we are here.

 

Firstly; that there is a spirit/human/all-powerful-being that created us; through Adam and Eve perhaps.

Secondly; that we evolved gradually from swamp creatures over millions of years.

Thirdly; that Earth had visitors some 40k years ago, and we are, either those same people, or we were engineered from apes or Neanderthal man; or the like.

 

I find the last of these possibilities the most fascinating. If this is a correct assumption, the next question is why. The UK sent it's naughty prisoners to Oz. Could it be that the Earth's first humans were extraterrestrial criminals. Could it be that we are the contents of another planet that was decaying and dying, and that necessitated finding a new home. There is also the possibility that we were put here as a food source, and as yet have not been harvested.

Yes, very intriguing, in fact in my slightly blurred vision, the reality somehow fits all the 3 possibilities you mentioned, and more.

I'd like to add that the "visitors " are probably still around. 

In other words, gods and demons are everywhere, and surely they can defy the laws of physics. 

[owl sees all]

1 minute ago, mauGR1 said:

Yes, very intriguing, in fact in my slightly blurred vision, the reality somehow fits all the 3 possibilities you mentioned, and more.

I'd like to add that the "visitors " are probably still around. 

In other words, gods and demons are everywhere, and surely they can defy the laws of physics. 

Agreed!

 

David Icke, that much ridiculed writer, has suggested that some humans have a bit of lizard in them, and under certain circumstances reveal that bit. Can't say I'm on board with that. But if we take out all the open space from the earth, it's only as big as a basket ball (regular US MBA size).

[mauGR1]

2 minutes ago, owl sees all said:

Agreed!

 

David Icke, that much ridiculed writer, has suggested that some humans have a bit of lizard in them, and under certain circumstances reveal that bit. Can't say I'm on board with that. But if we take out all the open space from the earth, it's only as big as a basket ball (regular US MBA size).

Can't say that i fully understand your 2nd paragraph ( open space ? )

I read D.I. and i have to say that there are very few things i disagree with.

Surely, we are living interesting times, apocalypse means also revelation. 

[mauGR1]

32 minutes ago, Hummin said:

The good ones can still be false prophets. A few of them I followed earlier and who I learned something from, turned out to be as everyone else. Good at talking, but in practice, well, money, ratings, 

Surely one has to question the real motivation for any action..

..so, are you still convinced that most scientists are working for the well being of the entire world?

[owl sees all]

2 minutes ago, mauGR1 said:

Can't say that i fully understand your 2nd paragraph ( open space ? )

I read D.I. and i have to say that there are very few things i disagree with.

Surely, we are living interesting times, apocalypse means also revelation. 

Open space = nothing.

 

I have a book on my shelf about David's view of 9/11. It is huge. Some 800 pages packed with stuff that is gradually being accepted as being factual.

 

Alice Walker said his book 'Humans get off your knees' was a masterpiece. Can't argue with that.

 

I wrote a sketch about Davis a few years ago. It was at the time when he was a professional goalie. If anyone would like to see it, I'll post the transcript; if I can find it!

[Sunmaster]

49 minutes ago, save the frogs said:

it's more useful to focus the discussion on karma than god.

most people don't care about god because there is no direct link to their life.

and people are generally selfish creatures.

if god doesn't affect your life, then who cares?

buddhism doesn't focus on god. but it does talk a lot about karma.

people would do well to read some buddhist texts and stop wasting time getting into abstract discussions about god.

clearly, 500 pages in, no matter how much conviction you have that god exists, most people will still not be convinced and even think it's ridiculous.

it's the wrong question to be focusing on.

karma is a more pertinent issue. 

 

I doubt that would be any better. Most people only know the "popular" definition, which is more like a cosmic vendetta and has nothing to do with the actual law.

[mauGR1]

1 minute ago, owl sees all said:

Open space = nothing.

 

I have a book on my shelf about David's view of 9/11. It is huge. Some 800 pages packed with stuff that is gradually being accepted as being factual.

 

Alice Walker said his book 'Humans get off your knees' was a masterpiece. Can't argue with that.

 

I wrote a sketch about Davis a few years ago. It was at the time when he was a professional goalie. If anyone would like to see it, I'll post the transcript; if I can find it!

Lol, i have the same book, i have to say that it took me a few months to read it.

Yes, I'm not i the position to judge the veracity of every single detail, but his general vision of some reality hidden to the majority "resonates" so to speak.

Media has become a joke, obviously almost everything is driven by profit.

[Hummin]

5 minutes ago, mauGR1 said:

Surely one has to question the real motivation for any action..

..so, are you still convinced that most scientists are working for the well being of the entire world?

The good thing with scientist's, their findings, proves, and theories get tested all the time by others. What one scientists do or a broader team do, will always be open for others to prove them wrong, or prove them right.

 

A guru with opinions, can be anyone, and they can create great damage to people and also damage on a broader and a bigger scale. 

[owl sees all]

5 minutes ago, Hummin said:

The good thing with scientist's, their findings, proves, and theories get tested all the time by others. What one scientists do or a broader team do, will always be open for others to prove them wrong, or prove them right.

To a point.

 

A good deal of research is suppressed and never sees he light of day.

[mauGR1]

4 minutes ago, Hummin said:

The good thing with scientist's, their findings, proves, and theories get tested all the time by others. What one scientists do or a broader team do, will always be open for others to prove them wrong, or prove them right.

 

A guru with opinions, can be anyone, and they can create great damage to people and also damage on a broader and a bigger scale. 

Perhaps you're right, but it's also right to never stop questioning ????

[Hummin]

59 minutes ago, save the frogs said:

it's more useful to focus the discussion on karma than god.

most people don't care about god because there is no direct link to their life.

and people are generally selfish creatures.

if god doesn't affect your life, then who cares?

buddhism doesn't focus on god. but it does talk a lot about karma.

people would do well to read some buddhist texts and stop wasting time getting into abstract discussions about god.

clearly, 500 pages in, no matter how much conviction you have that god exists, most people will still not be convinced and even think it's ridiculous.

it's the wrong question to be focusing on.

karma is a more pertinent issue. 

 

Karma have weakness as a measurement, because you can do good, but at same time do wrong.

 

 

[Hummin]

9 minutes ago, mauGR1 said:

Perhaps you're right, but it's also right to never stop questioning ????

Thats the main thing to keep it interesting! What we know today, will soon expire on date

Edited February 13, 2023 by Hummin

[save the frogs]

25 minutes ago, Hummin said:

Karma have weakness as a measurement, because you can do good, but at same time do wrong.

we can debate it, i suppose.

but my main point was that buddhism doesn't seem to focus on god.

[save the frogs]

37 minutes ago, Sunmaster said:

I doubt that would be any better. Most people only know the "popular" definition, which is more like a cosmic vendetta and has nothing to do with the actual law.

then you would have to stretch the "Do You Believe in Karma?" thread to 500 pages.

inevitably, someone would bring up bar girls, so it could get interesting. 

[mauGR1]

3 minutes ago, save the frogs said:

we can debate it, i suppose.

but my main point was that buddhism doesn't seem to focus on god.

Surely we are debating it !

However, yes, Buddhists usually don't debate god directly, but once we accept karma laws as a reality, one may ask what is the origin of those karma laws .

Imho, accepting the existence of karma, one accepts the existence of higher beings, which somehow makes one open to the existence of a supreme being.

[save the frogs]

yes, that's right mauGR1.

but i think talking about god can become too abstract to the point where people find it irrelevant

 

ps einstein was not an atheist.

https://www.simpletoremember.com/articles/a/einstein/

 

1. I want to know how God created this world. I am not interested in this or that phenomenon, in the spectrum of this or that element. I want to know His thoughts; the rest are details.
2. My religion consists of a humble admiration of the illimitable superior spirit who reveals himself in the slight details we are able to perceive with our frail and feeble mind.
3. God does not play dice with the universe.
4. God is subtle but he is not malicious.

[mauGR1]

2 minutes ago, save the frogs said:

yes, that's right mauGR1.

but i think talking about god can become too abstract to the point where people find it irrelevant

 

ps einstein was not an atheist.

https://www.simpletoremember.com/articles/a/einstein/

 

1. I want to know how God created this world. I am not interested in this or that phenomenon, in the spectrum of this or that element. I want to know His thoughts; the rest are details.
2. My religion consists of a humble admiration of the illimitable superior spirit who reveals himself in the slight details we are able to perceive with our frail and feeble mind.
3. God does not play dice with the universe.
4. God is subtle but he is not malicious.

Of course i agree, but whether we discuss religion, gods and karma, I'm interested, provided that we are open even to the most bizarre theories. 

As for Einstein, one has to consider that in certain circles, in this materialistic era, it's a social suicide to entertain discussions about god/gods, so one can understand that scientists in general are reluctant to enter such discussions. 

[OneMoreFarang]

3 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

So, if not for God, where did imagination come from? Do you believe that something can come from nothing? Before the universe existed, if you don't believe in God there was nothing, zero, nada. Soooo, explain how the universe emerged from nothing.

Was it magic? Does science have an ability to make something come out of nothing, does it explain how it could happen?

If there is no logical explanation as to how the universe came out of nothing, the only logical answer is that something unknown to science made it happen ie God.

Are you serious?

According to you something can't come from nothing.

And that is why it must be god who did it. Why?

And if god did it, where did god come from? From nothing? Or from something?

Because if god came from something then your logic is wrong.

And if god came from nothing then your logic is also wrong.

 

There are lots of things which we and even the best scientists don't know. But that is no reason that god did it.

A good example are the "things" which Einstein discovered.

According to your logic if Einstein or someone else would not have discovered this then that would mean god did it. No!

[OneMoreFarang]

3 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Nature IS God, God IS nature. Did it all just happen by accident?

To reiterate, I reject the god of religion and accept God the creator. Something created the universe, and that something is God. Just don't get hung up by organised religion.

Nature is nature. Nature is not god. It has already a name, it's called nature.

 

I am sure I recommended this book earlier in this thread. Maybe read it.

Richard Dawkins explains it in great detail.

 

 

 

[Neeranam]

2 hours ago, save the frogs said:

it's more useful to focus the discussion on karma than god.

most people don't care about god because there is no direct link to their life.

and people are generally selfish creatures.

if god doesn't affect your life, then who cares?

buddhism doesn't focus on god. but it does talk a lot about karma.

people would do well to read some buddhist texts and stop wasting time getting into abstract discussions about god.

clearly, 500 pages in, no matter how much conviction you have that god exists, most people will still not be convinced and even think it's ridiculous.

it's the wrong question to be focusing on.

karma is a more pertinent issue. 

 

It's amazing how many Westerners don't even believe in Karma.

I remember being at a lecture by a senior Tibetan Lama in Dharmasala, India.

When the translator told him that most Westerners didn't believe in Karma he laughed aloud for ages.

Hindu, Buddhist believe in Karma, as did Jesus. I'm not sure how many Christians have decided it doesn't exist; it seems obvious to me, but then again, I've seen it in action and witnessed proof of it. 

 

[Neeranam]

1 hour ago, Hummin said:

Karma have weakness as a measurement, because you can do good, but at same time do wrong.

 

 

Karma is a Universal Law, how can it have weakness?

 

[mauGR1]

10 minutes ago, Neeranam said:

Karma is a Universal Law, how can it have weakness?

 

I guess he means "weakness " from a purely materialistic point of view, in fact it's not so easy to "measure " karmic laws in centimeters or moon cycles. 

Everything which can't be measured is shunned by the so called science nowadays.

There's a reason why it's called kali yuga, or era of darkness. 

[Woof999]

3 hours ago, Neeranam said:

I know what it means, but the person who used doesn't. 

"Oh yes he does". In the post of yours that I quoted earlier, you suggested that one doesn't need to be as intelligent as Einstein to believe in god. That is a poor choice of words because, not only did Einstein not say he believed in god, he specifically said that belief in a personal god is childish.

 

In other words, your post would have made sense to reference someone of intelligence that was a theist, whatever their definition of god was, not an agnostic in the belief of a higher power and a true disbeliever in the belief of a personal god.

 

5 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

To be agnostic is to believe that a higher power is possible.

...and that is misleading. As written, it would suggest the person believes the existence of a higher power is more probable than not. I could equally write it as "to be agnostic is to believe that it is possible there is no higher power". An agnostic would believe that, with the knowledge we have at hand, and potentially into eternity, one could not prove either way.

[Woof999]

1 hour ago, Neeranam said:

it seems obvious to me, but then again, I've seen it in action and witnessed proof of it. 

Can you provide an example that couldn't equally be explained by coincidence?

[Hummin]

1 hour ago, Neeranam said:

Karma is a Universal Law, how can it have weakness?

 

Is it a "nature" law, or is it a man made law?

 

Guilt or our consensus can play a role, but as I said, doing things in best meaning, can harm people and nature. 

 

Edited February 13, 2023 by Hummin

[Hummin]

3 hours ago, mauGR1 said:

I guess he means "weakness " from a purely materialistic point of view, in fact it's not so easy to "measure " karmic laws in centimeters or moon cycles. 

Everything which can't be measured is shunned by the so called science nowadays.

There's a reason why it's called kali yuga, or era of darkness. 

Thank you for trying, on the road now, so have to come back to you later, but please elaborate more on behalf of me? 

 

No wonder why people talk about karma, when it doesnt count for themselves, but you made a good point of my earlier statement if your intention was good.

[mauGR1]

1 hour ago, Hummin said:

Thank you for trying, on the road now, so have to come back to you later, but please elaborate more on behalf of me? 

 

No wonder why people talk about karma, when it doesnt count for themselves, but you made a good point of my earlier statement if your intention was good.

I think we've clashed a few times,with you and others, on similar opinions before, there are not bad intentions from me. 

I think I've been very clear now, and in the past, but i can try with other words...

What escapes our 5 basic senses ( cannot be measured) is not considered "real" by materialistic science.

[Hummin]

13 minutes ago, mauGR1 said:

I think we've clashed a few times,with you and others, on similar opinions before, there are not bad intentions from me. 

I think I've been very clear now, and in the past, but i can try with other words...

What escapes our 5 basic senses ( cannot be measured) is not considered "real" by materialistic science.

And I have said many times there is no conflict between science and faith or belief. What I said, when you think you doing good, you can also do bad. Karma as I know buddhist practice, ties them both physically and verbally from doing what is best for them, to be a better person. Karma belief like buddhism practice was the question, not what a "freethinker" might practice or believe.

 

Karma can be you, your, guilt, consensus, or it can be universal in form where many people wish bad things to happen, or opposite.

 

What generates such energy I do not want to speculate in. 

 

Unfortunate there is no proof neither prayers or karma exists, or work, even miracles happens all over the world on daily basis. Bear with me, I just wrote this on the run ????

[mauGR1]

5 minutes ago, Hummin said:

Unfortunate there is no proof neither prayers or karma exists, or work, 

 

Yes, that's the point, i believe in the power of thought, i believe in prayers, and i believe that karma is real. 

Have to say though, that being aware of my insufficient understanding of those matters, i try to be careful in judging people's karma, or a country's karma.

Yet, I'm interested in my own karma, and sorry to say that again, Steiner's work is being precious for understanding interesting details of karmic laws.

I'm also aware that some talk about karma, they may have good manners, a clear voice, but they sound not true to my ears.