Do you believe in God and why

[Sunmaster]

8 minutes ago, spidermike007 said:

For me, there seems to be a direct correlation between the actual relationship one has with the creator, and the need to talk about it. The lack of any real spiritual practice, (or relationship with whatever notion one has of a God) seems to compel people to discuss religion endlessly, and attempt to convert others, whereas, those with a real inner life and spiritual practice, seem content to just live their lives, set an example for others, and let their lifestyle do the speaking. 

 

In other words, you would not feel comfortable discussing your intimate life with your loved one with others, so why talk about your inner life with others, unless they ask? 

The topic is literally "Do you believe in God and why?" Someone did ask....

[Tippaporn]

My personal assessment of our current world is that it keeps moving further and further away from any sense of true reality.  Some lay the blame on a shift to agnosticism or atheism.  My view is that science is much to blame for the ideologies it promotes.  In any case, it's stunning to see how this madness continues to proliferate.  And it begs the question in my mind as to where this will lead if it continues.  And what will it take to bring people back to reality.

The physical universe as idea construction.   And there are a lot of very unwholesome and bizarre ideas out there with which to create the most grotesque and unspeakable contructs.  Thankfully, this one never got acted on.

The point of this post is simply to illustrate what can, and does, happen when people have no idea of how reality works.  But think they do.

Government considered killing all Britain's pet CATS at the start of the Covid pandemic because they feared they were spreading virus, claims former health minister

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11809247/Ministers-considered-killing-Britains-pet-cats-start-Covid-pandemic.html

 

[thaibeachlovers]

On 3/2/2023 at 6:20 PM, Neeranam said:

No, they don't, but apes do. 

What's the difference? They are both creatures of the planet. If it's good enough for an ape to have a soul, why isn't it for an insect, or a bacteria?

You need to give a reason if you want your opinion to be taken seriously.

[thaibeachlovers]

3 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

Government considered killing all Britain's pet CATS at the start of the Covid pandemic because they feared they were spreading virus, claims former health minister

I remember a lot of domestic birds like ducks being killed in a certain SEA country when bird flu happened.

 

 

7 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

In any case, it's stunning to see how this madness continues to proliferate.  And it begs the question in my mind as to where this will lead if it continues.  And what will it take to bring people back to reality.

IMO no doubt about it, humans are a very imperfect species and we are doing everything we can to exterminate ourselves. When we are gone, Gaia will be "happy".

[Tippaporn]

1 minute ago, thaibeachlovers said:

I remember a lot of domestic birds like ducks being killed in a certain SEA country when bird flu happened.

 

 

IMO no doubt about it, humans are a very imperfect species and we are doing everything we can to exterminate ourselves. When we are gone, Gaia will be "happy".

It's not that humans are imperfect.  Human experience is a perfect reflection of exactly those ideas humans entertain.  Always has been and always will be.  It's not the people.  It's the ideas.  And the further the ideas move towards how things don't work the greater the failures.  It cannot be otherwise for it is law that we create through our ideas.  Every idea produces a result.  Whether it's beneficial or destructive.  Doesn't matter.  We get to experience the results of our ideas and decide from there where we want to go given the results..  It's as simple as that.  Life is all about learning how to use the energy we've been gifted.

[Tippaporn]

16 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

What's the difference? They are both creatures of the planet. If it's good enough for an ape to have a soul, why isn't it for an insect, or a bacteria?

You need to give a reason if you want your opinion to be taken seriously.

I, for one, would like @Neeranam to divulge the rational behind his conclusion.

[Hummin]

2 hours ago, Tippaporn said:

Subjective reality is the source, and the creator of, objective reality.  Full stop.  That is the bedrock reality of our condition which thus far has gone unrecognised.  And even when pointed out goes unaccepted.

Now here's where I see the trouble many have.  Subjective reality is translated into an objective universe.  This does not happen magically.  There is a definite and practical process by which this occurs.  We have been able to recognise portions of these processes.  Science has been instrumental in uncovering many of these processes.  For instance, how stress releases certain hormones which then have a particular effect upon the body.  Where it all goes wrong is that these mechanistic processes, the release of certain hormones in this example, are then believed to be the primary cause rather than merely the mechanistic vehicle of translating subjective reality into objective reality.  The true cause of any detrimental effects on the body is the stress, which is subjective.  The hormonal aspect is merely the functional aspect; the vehicle.  This misunderstanding is what leads to a view of our reality as purely mechanistic, and therefore deterministic.  Deterministic for the reason that it is the mechanistic, objective process which determines experience and not the subjective reality.  Which then feeds the idea that people are powerless to determine their own experience.  It's a wonderful illusion.

 

You, Hummin, are struggling with this illusion.  You recognise the fact of physical effects and therefore cannot deny that they play a role in the creation of our reality.  If you drink bleach you will most certainly die, for instance.  That is most obviously the undeniable physical effect of drinking bleach.  What I believe you are missing, Hummin, or fail to include into your equation, is that there must be a trigger which initiates the act of drinking bleach.  That trigger is an idea.  The source is first and always subjective; the idea to drink bleach, which only then gets translated into an objective reality via taking action on the idea.  Action is an idea in motion.  Full stop.

As much as one insists that ones ideas are correct, though they may not be, if they are not then the solution is to suspend the current beliefs long enough to play around with other ideas.  The process doesn't require the abandonment a belief forever whilst playing with another idea.  Only a temporary suspension.  My advice is to play around with the idea that subjective reality is the source of objective reality.  Pretend for awhile that this is the case, that this is how it works.  Only then will you allow yourself to see what your current beliefs keep hidden from you.

What Im struggling with is your curtain about what you understand and believe, and what I or others understand and believe or not.

 

Your claims and how you educate others is out of order, as well the claim you know the the truth. 

 

A relationship is more than just physical, but still there is chemicals involved, and without chemicals no reaction on our physically self. 

 

Not much time to answer. Have a good day.

 

[mauGR1]

25 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

I, for one, would like @Neeranam to divulge the rational behind his conclusion.

The concept of " group soul" which is apparently meeting some skepticism, is already on google.

How many folks are able to entertain that concept, i don't know.

 

[thaibeachlovers]

On 3/3/2023 at 4:57 AM, Purdey said:

Just to be clear, the onus is never on someone proving something doesn't exist! The onus is always on the person who claims it exists. It is impossible to prove that something does not exist. Science cannot prove that which is not there. Therefore, I cannot prove purple elephants exist.

Anyway, I don't intend to convince you to change your mind. Please continue to believe in gods if you will. I will explain what I know and believe (or not). The topic is 'do you believe in god and why.' I am just going to show why i don't believe in god(s) with evidence for why I don't believe.

First off, I am not sure which of the 4,200 world religions you believe in as the "right one." 

A Perfect Abrahamic God? 

if god is perfect, why did he create us and many other living creatures so poorly? For instance, so many diseases, our bones break easily, and as we get older our bodies and minds break down. Poorly-made spines, inflexible knees, and pelvic bones that make childbirth difficult and painful for women. Thus perfect design is nonsense. We can't live our lives hoping that one day an explanation for why our eyes or shoulders were designed so poorly will arise. The eye is often used as an example of intelligent design, which doesn't explain shortsightedness or kids born blind.

History is proving that religions are wrong about several things.

The Bible claims the world was created 6,000 years ago. Actually, the Bible never specifically states 6,000 years. Some Christians insist it is true though. We know through science it is 4.54 billion years old, plus or minus about 50 million years. Forms of absolute dating exist such as thermoluminescence, electron spin resonance, etc. We find rocks all the time that are dated as millions or even billions of years old. Doesn't this conflict with the belief that the universe was recently created by a god? We now know also that the universe doesn't move around the Earth (Copernicus et al) .

Religion has often been used to explain the inexplicable. The Greeks used Poseidon to explain how earthquakes happen, which we now know is due to the movement of tectonic plates to relieve pressure. God didn't cause the recent Turkish earthquakes and - and to me this is strange as most religions believe disasters are god's punishment for something - yet no Muslim suggests he did.

Abortion

Christian fundamentalists argue that abortion is against god, yet Jews vehemently do not agree and argue you cannot ban abortion because there is nothing about fetuses being people in the Torah. Just water. The same god but opposing views. Furthermore, god aborted millions of fetuses during the Great Flood by killing all pregnant women, if you believe ancient scripture. 

Everyone agrees with you

You could state that the millions of religious people proves that there is a consensus that god exists. But which god? Yahweh (was married to Asteroth, but not now), Kwaku Ananse, Altjira, Quetzalcoatl, Ahura Mazda, Thor, Zoroaster, Anubis, Zeus? Do you believe in Quetzalcoatl or is it the place of your birth that governs your religion? And no, you don't have genetic memory of a whole religion.

So, if god exists, which god? Are you afraid of following the wrong god and going to Hades?

The Bible was written by god, or by people following god's will

It comes from a mishmash of older sources (Google is your friend, find out). Ideas were taken wholesale from older religions. The original sin was knowledge, given in the account of the Fall of mankind (Genesis 3). There is an older Greek legend, Pandora’s Box, that appears to attest to the same historical event. Both stories tell how the first woman unleashed sin, sickness, and suffering upon the world which had been, up to that point, a paradise. Both stories end with the emergence of hope, hope in a promised Redeemer in the case of Genesis.

Contradictions

A book essentially written by god or through his guidance cannot contradict itself. I cannot believe in a god of contradictions. Yet contradictions start in the opening chapters of the Bible, where inconsistent creation stories are told. Genesis chapter 1 says the first man and woman were made at the same time, and after the animals. But Genesis chapter 2 gives a different order of creation: man, then the animals, and then woman.

Genesis 1:2-3 claims that God created light and divided it from darkness on the first day; but Genesis 1:14-19 tells us the sun, moon, and stars weren’t made until the fourth day.

Genesis 1:20 says the fowl were created out of the waters; Genesis 2:19 alleges they were formed from the ground.

Genesis 6:19-22, God ordered Noah to bring “of every living thing of all flesh, two of every sort . . . into the ark.” Genesis 7:2-3 relates that the Lord ordered Noah to take into the ark the clean beasts and the birds by sevens, and only the unclean beasts by twos. There are many other problems in the Old Testament.

Matthew 2:13-15 said Joseph and Mary fled to Egypt with Jesus immediately after the wise men from the east had brought gifts. But Luke 2:22-40 claims that after the birth of Jesus, his parents remained in Bethlehem 40 days, then went to Jerusalem “to present him to the Lord,” and then returned to their home in Nazareth. Luke mentions no journey into Egypt or visit by wise men from the east.

John 19:17 recounts that Jesus carried his own cross. But Mark 15:21-23 disagrees by saying a man called Simon carried the cross.

Who created evil?

Isaiah 45:7: “I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the Lord do all these things.”

Is Satan evil?

In the whole Bible, Satan killed just 10 people while god killed millions. Satan killed the seven sons and three daughters of Job, and God only allowed it as part of a bet. (Job 1:12–19)

Also, Satan's job is to torture (only) bad people in hell. Doesn't that make him a good guy?

Omniscience

If God knows everything that has happened and will happen, as well as every thought your mind creates before you think it, your future is a foregone conclusion. What happened to free will?

Omnipotence is the ability to do anything. If God can do anything, he should be able to, for instance, draw a square circle. He cannot  know and not know something simultaneously. Why does a loving god know and yet allow natural disasters, massacres, and wars?

Afterlife

This is very subjective. Spiritual entities such as gods, devils, heaven, hell, angels, demons, and so on have never been (and cannot be) scientifically examined or observed. These spiritual features cannot be proven to exist if they are not observable and measurable.

What happens after death? Catholics get individual judgement, sometimes called particular judgement, at the moment of death when each individual will be judged on how they have lived their life. Hindus believe in reincarnation, with souls receiving a new body and life, depending on Karma, good and bad actions in a previous life. As in Buddhism, the goal is to be liberated from the cycle and to attain reunion with Brahman (Hindu) or Nirvana (Buddhist). Muslim beliefs are similar to many Christians. After physical death, the soul lives on to await Judgement Day and whether it will go to Paradise or Hell. Hey! Wait a minute - why are some judged immediately but others wait for judgement day? The Bible says there will be a judgement day so why are some people getting judged upon death? It is as if no one agrees on the same ideas. So, scratch that. We die, we are dead.

Is god good?

I agree with the outrage of Stephen Fry on this topic so I suggest you listen to him. He is talking in Catholic Ireland.

 

I do have several copies of the Bible and appreciate the poetry of the King James version.

 

When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things.

1 Corinthians 13

 

Way too long to answer everything, so a few points

Science cannot prove that which is not there.

Human science is too primitive to prove or disprove the existence of God. Anyone that thinks science, as it is now, knows anything about faith is IMO deluding themselves.

First off, I am not sure which of the 4,200 world religions you believe in as the "right one."

He doesn't believe in religion, and neither do I. Religion uses faith, but is a man made construct, so the form is more important than the substance ergo the use of funny hats to designate their status within religion.

Christian religions claim to represent a man that was against riches, but are themselves rich.

A Perfect Abrahamic God?

Religion.

if god is perfect, why did he create us and many other living creatures so poorly?

God created a planet that is inhabited by creatures known as animals. Animals are subject to the problems you note. Our bodies that carry "us" around are animals.

Blame evolution if you think our bodies are imperfect.

History is proving that religions are wrong about several things.

Religion again.

Christian fundamentalists argue that abortion is against god,

Religion again

You could state that the millions of religious people proves that there is a consensus that god exists.

Religion.

The Bible was written by god, or by people following god's will

Religion.

Who created evil?

Religion.

 

 

 

Seems your problem is with religion, not faith, which you don't even mention.

I'm not religious, the poster you quoted isn't religious.

 

Perhaps you can get back to us with something about faith.

[thaibeachlovers]

8 minutes ago, mauGR1 said:

The concept of " group soul" which is apparently meeting some skepticism, is already on google.

How many folks are able to entertain that concept, i don't know.

 

If animals have souls, and I'm not convinced they do, ants would have a group soul, as they work as a unit, not individuals.

[mauGR1]

3 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

If animals have souls, and I'm not convinced they do, ants would have a group soul, as they work as a unit, not individuals.

Yep, that's it, and dogs are another group soul, and so are lions and giraffes.

Other kinds of group souls are those ideologies, tribes, even, to some extent, countries and football team fans who are aware of some kind of unity of intents.

[Neeranam]

On 3/2/2023 at 4:33 PM, Tippaporn said:

People will make statements as fact here.  I tend to ask a lot of questions if I don't agree with someone's statement of fact.  The questions are meant to bring out the logical flaws in the statement as I see them.  Some take that questioning as an attempt to make them look stupid and to deliberately embarrass them.  Not knowing you other than seeing you around this site I didn't want my questioning to be misinterpreted in that way by you.  So I flat out stated it to preempt any misinterpretation on your part.

I guess my intention didn't work out as planned.  I admit I had reservations when I worded it but concluded it was worded well enough.  Utter fail, huh?     

No offense meant, Neeranam. 

Thanks for the explanation(although an apology would be better), offense was taken. You are intelligent enough to understand why.

 

[Tippaporn]

1 hour ago, Hummin said:

What Im struggling with is your curtain about what you understand and believe, and what I or others understand and believe or not.

 

Your claims and how you educate others is out of order, as well the claim you know the the truth. 

 

A relationship is more than just physical, but still there is chemicals involved, and without chemicals no reaction on our physically self. 

 

Not much time to answer. Have a good day.

 

"A relationship is more than just physical, but still there is chemicals involved, and without chemicals no reaction on our physically self. "

Well, that's more than obvious, isn't it?  If subjective reality is translated into physical reality then of course it makes sense that for physical reality to function it needs the means by which it can function.  Physical reality isn't produced magically, you know.  You have a physical organism with all of it's systems designed to mirror your subjective reality.  It has to have the means to do so.  Hence hormones, for instance.  But without the subjective self there are no physical chemicals for any reactions as there would be no physical self.  Which comes first?  The subjective reality or the physical reality?  It's a good question to ask yourself.

"Your claims and how you educate others is out of order, as well the claim you know the the truth. "

Sorry if I'm being tough on you.  I'm just trying to get you to think past your beliefs.  And you are resistant to do so.  Didn't you write this sometime earlier?

 

Anyone changed their belief during this tread? Modified their belief, changed their belief? 

 

I believe I have become more aware the roots of my belief, and stronger in my opinion. Not much change but maybe matured in my true faith.

 

Thanks to everyone involved, it have been a great tread, even alot of bickering and reputations, we managed to keep it civilized most of the time without to much modification.

 

Sounds to me to be an admission that rather than consider new ideas you just cling ever tighter to the beliefs you hold.

As to truth, do you deny that the world follows laws?  And if I claim to know some of these laws I'm a charlatan?  Or do you believe that no one can know and understand these laws?  And how dare someone "impose" their "truths" if they do actually know some of the laws and speak of them with confidence?  In the meanwhile you have no problem with opining your views as to your "truth."  Which I don't have a problem with at all.  In fact I encourage you to do so.  But you are sensitive if someone questions your "truths" or asks you to justify them.  Especially if someone outright opposes them.  Then you cry and stomp your feet in indignation that someone is trying to impose their beliefs onto you.

"I have my beliefs and they're good enough for me.  They serve me well.  Who are you to say I shouldn't believe what I believe and I should rather believe what you believe.  Who are you to dare to say you have any real "truths."  And dare to suggest that my "truths" may be faulty."

Hummin, you can believe anything you want.  I really don't care.  I'm not trying to convince you of anything.  But if this thread is to be an exchange of ideas for the purpose of learning through an examination of what one beliefs in order to ferret out the false ones and replace them with ideas more representative of actual reality to our benefit then I am not at all shy to pit my ideas against another's.  Nor am I afraid to mete out honest criticism.  Or to receive criticism myself.  In fact, I welcome it.  For we all know that it's often easier for someone else to see about ourselves that which we are blind to.

Are you afraid of having your ideas challenged?  Of constructive criticism?  If you can't handle that then just say it and I'll be more than happy to leave you alone.

 

[Tippaporn]

32 minutes ago, Neeranam said:

Thanks for the explanation(although an apology would be better), offense was taken. You are intelligent enough to understand why.

 

You should be intelligent enough to know that my explanation served as an apology.  Sorry to hear you're so sensitive.

[Purdey]

5 hours ago, Tippaporn said:

Those laws are irrefutable and eternal.  They are what one might call bedrock reality.

You really don't get that the flying teapot was just a method of reducing the question of how do we know God exists if we can't see him in the same way we cannot see the teapot or prove it is there (but it is).

Not sure how you think that if laws of god that the universe revolves around the earth were irrefutable when they later were refuted by science. Or that what people believe to be true about Newtonian laws were later changed by Einstein. 

As i said, go on believing in your invisible friend. I cannot prove the existence of blue elephants because i have never seen one, but according to your logic, we should believe in them because you and many others do. 

P.S. I keep my mind open to believing in a god that shows himself. 

 

[Hummin]

50 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

"A relationship is more than just physical, but still there is chemicals involved, and without chemicals no reaction on our physically self. "

Well, that's more than obvious, isn't it?  If subjective reality is translated into physical reality then of course it makes sense that for physical reality to function it needs the means by which it can function.  Physical reality isn't produced magically, you know.  You have a physical organism with all of it's systems designed to mirror your subjective reality.  It has to have the means to do so.  Hence hormones, for instance.  But without the subjective self there are no physical chemicals for any reactions as there would be no physical self.  Which comes first?  The subjective reality or the physical reality?  It's a good question to ask yourself.

"Your claims and how you educate others is out of order, as well the claim you know the the truth. "

Sorry if I'm being tough on you.  I'm just trying to get you to think past your beliefs.  And you are resistant to do so.  Didn't you write this sometime earlier?

 

Anyone changed their belief during this tread? Modified their belief, changed their belief? 

 

I believe I have become more aware the roots of my belief, and stronger in my opinion. Not much change but maybe matured in my true faith.

 

Thanks to everyone involved, it have been a great tread, even alot of bickering and reputations, we managed to keep it civilized most of the time without to much modification.

 

Sounds to me to be an admission that rather than consider new ideas you just cling ever tighter to the beliefs you hold.

As to truth, do you deny that the world follows laws?  And if I claim to know some of these laws I'm a charlatan?  Or do you believe that no one can know and understand these laws?  And how dare someone "impose" their "truths" if they do actually know some of the laws and speak of them with confidence?  In the meanwhile you have no problem with opining your views as to your "truth."  Which I don't have a problem with at all.  In fact I encourage you to do so.  But you are sensitive if someone questions your "truths" or asks you to justify them.  Especially if someone outright opposes them.  Then you cry and stomp your feet in indignation that someone is trying to impose their beliefs onto you.

"I have my beliefs and they're good enough for me.  They serve me well.  Who are you to say I shouldn't believe what I believe and I should rather believe what you believe.  Who are you to dare to say you have any real "truths."  And dare to suggest that my "truths" may be faulty."

Hummin, you can believe anything you want.  I really don't care.  I'm not trying to convince you of anything.  But if this thread is to be an exchange of ideas for the purpose of learning through an examination of what one beliefs in order to ferret out the false ones and replace them with ideas more representative of actual reality to our benefit then I am not at all shy to pit my ideas against another's.  Nor am I afraid to mete out honest criticism.  Or to receive criticism myself.  In fact, I welcome it.  For we all know that it's often easier for someone else to see about ourselves that which we are blind to.

Are you afraid of having your ideas challenged?  Of constructive criticism?  If you can't handle that then just say it and I'll be more than happy to leave you alone.

 

You forget one important thing, I have never claimed I know! I just see and experience what I see without condemning others or ridicule anyone. At least trying not to, even some have quite extraordinary view on themselves and their knownledge.

 

As said before lack of confidence often expose the mirror effect as we talked about before. 

 

What I believe there is really nothing to criticize, because it there right in front of us right here right now, and it is the world we live in, that is pure magic and we should put more energy into it, instead of ruining it. It is what gives is everything thing we need to live a good life if we just cut the <deleted> and respected the true Nature.

[Tippaporn]

5 minutes ago, Purdey said:

You really don't get that the flying teapot was just a method of reducing the question of how do we know God exists if we can't see him in the same way we cannot see the teapot or prove it is there (but it is).

Not sure how you think that if laws of god that the universe revolves around the earth were irrefutable when they later were refuted by science. Or that what people believe to be true about Newtonian laws were later changed by Einstein. 

As i said, go on believing in your invisible friend. I cannot prove the existence of blue elephants because i have never seen one, but according to your logic, we should believe in them because you and many others do. 

Huh?

"You really don't get that the flying teapot was just a method of reducing the question of how do we know God exists if we can't see him in the same way we cannot see the teapot or prove it is there (but it is)."

I guess you didn't take up my suggestion to read the Wiki article.  This is what it states:

Russell's teapot is an analogy, formulated by the philosopher Bertrand Russell (1872–1970), to illustrate that the philosophic burden of proof lies upon a person making empirically unfalsifiable claims, rather than shifting the burden of disproof to others.

And you wrote earlier:

"Just to be clear, the onus is never on someone proving something doesn't exist! The onus is always on the person who claims it exists. It is impossible to prove that something does not exist.  Science cannot prove that which is not there.  Therefore, I cannot prove purple elephants exist."

Your use of Russell's Teapot certainly fit perfectly what you wrote above as it is the very definition of Russell's analogy.  If your intention was, as you say, to use Russell's Teapot as a method of reducing the question then you picked an absolutely wrong analogy.  Now it seems I've offended enough sensitive souls out there lately so I'll be careful with this question.  Are you trying to walk back the understanding that your writing conveys?  My sincere apologies in advance if the question bruises your ego. 

 

"Not sure how you think that if laws of god that the universe revolves around the earth were irrefutable when they later were refuted by science. Or that what people believe to be true about Newtonian laws were later changed by Einstein. "

I'm not sure that the laws of God were the source of the idea that the universe revolved around the earth.  Was that written in the Bible?  Just asking because I can't claim to know.  But since it's your claim I'll ask you as you seem to know.  As to Newtonian laws, specifically gravity, yes, a more comprehensive theory was given by Einstein.  But Einstein's theory didn't negate Newton's law entirely.

 

In Newton’s view, all objects — from his not-so-apocryphal apple to planets and stars — exert a force that attracts other objects. That universal law of gravitation worked pretty well for predicting the motion of planets as well as objects on Earth — and it's still used, for example, when making the calculations for a rocket launch.

 

But Newton's view of gravity didn't work for some things, like Mercury’s peculiar orbit around the sun. The orbits of planets shift over time, and Mercury’s orbit shifted faster than Newton predicted.

 

Einstein offered a different view of gravity, one that made sense of Mercury. Instead of exerting an attractive force, he reasoned that each object curves the fabric of space and time around them, forming a sort of well that other objects — and even beams of light — fall into. Think of the sun as a bowling ball on a mattress. It creates a depression that draws the planets close.

 

This new model solved the Mercury problem. It showed that the sun so curves space that it distorts the orbits of nearby bodies, including Mercury. In Einstein’s view, Mercury might look like a marble forever circling the bottom of a drain.

 

In any case, my entire point in bringing up the physical laws which science has discovered was to illustrate that there are known laws governing the workings of reality.  And to know those laws which are yet unknown are my interest.  I did write this:

The workings of our world, our universe, our reality are governed by laws.  Full stop.

Do you disagree with that statement?  You didn't specifically address the general point I made.  I wonder why?

"As i said, go on believing in your invisible friend."

But you wouldn't know whether a God or Gods exist or not.  You can't state God's non-existence as a definitive declaration of truth.  At least not if you cared to be honest.  You may believe God or Gods don't exist.  And that is your unquestionable right.  But that's simply your personal belief.  And it's a belief grounded in part because, as I stated earlier, you recognise no evidence of a God or Gods.  But you know as well as I do that you cannot disprove a thing solely due to the absence of the thing.

Also, I could take your statement as a slight against my intelligence.  An insult.  And I could use it as an excuse to feel butt-hurt.  But I am not so sensitive as some others here appear to be.  I'd rather use rational and logic to counter your idea.

"I cannot prove the existence of blue elephants because i have never seen one, . . . "

I also wrote this:

 

"(do keep plausibility in mind - purple elephants are a ludicrous, and deceptive, analogy)"

And despite my warning you went straight to using the same utterly ludicrous analogy yet again.  And why would you use an utterly ludicrous analogy?  Because by referring to something so ludicrous as believing in the existence of purple elephants you wish to imply those  believing in God or Gods are just as ludicrous.  You wish to twist reality in order to paint "believers" in a disparaging way.  I told you it was a deceptive tactic.  Why did you think you could fool me now?  And so I'm calling you out on it.

". . . but according to your logic, we should believe in them because you and many others do."

 

If you want my opinion then I'd say you didn't understand any of my logic.  Or anything that I wrote, for that matter.  I was logically pointing out that beliefs act as a filtering mechanism for information.  Hence you see what you want to see.  And often only what you want to see.  If the conviction of a belief as "truth" is strong enough you will ignore anything and everything that doesn't fit your belief, even though it has undeniable validity.  Even stone cold facts can be ignored, dismissed, or refuted.    It's commonly known as bias.  I'll ask you another question.  Are you ignorant as to the term bias and/or the definition of bias?  Or how bias operates?  Okay, the questions are truly rhetorical.  But this one is not.  Would you claim that you have no biases?

One last point.  Since I can't seem to shake the odd feeling that you're a science acolyte I have to ask you, since you brought it up, about long established scientific "truths" being refuted.  Doesn't it bother you that an established scientific law from 1687, and one with great practical use, had been refuted nearly 300 years later?  Does that instill confidence in what science believes today?  What else might they be in error of?  And what might you believe to be absolute "truth" which is nothing of the sort?

I'll leave you with one of my favourite quotes from a very astute guy.  Ponder the implications of that statement for awhile.

“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. “ – Mark Twain

[Tippaporn]

2 hours ago, Hummin said:

You forget one important thing, I have never claimed I know! I just see and experience what I see without condemning others or ridicule anyone. At least trying not to, even some have quite extraordinary view on themselves and their knownledge.

 

As said before lack of confidence often expose the mirror effect as we talked about before. 

 

What I believe there is really nothing to criticize, because it there right in front of us right here right now, and it is the world we live in, that is pure magic and we should put more energy into it, instead of ruining it. It is what gives is everything thing we need to live a good life if we just cut the <deleted> and respected the true Nature.

"You forget one important thing, I have never claimed I know!"

Oh, come now, Hummin.  You present your ideas of how reality works and yet you claim that you know nothing?  You have no firm beliefs as to what is true and what is not?  Your beliefs are your "truths."  You do know what you know.  Every time someone claims to know something then what they know represents their "truth."  It is automatically implied.  That's what beliefs are.  That's the very definition of belief.  Your premise is absurd and beyond my belief.

I've never ridiculed or disrespected you, Hummin.  Your person, never.  Your ideas?  Absolutely.  But you are not your ideas.  A painter paints a painting using paints.  The paints are not the painter.  The paints are the paints and the painter is the painter.  They are two separate things.  The thinker thinks thoughts.  The thinker is not the thoughts that he thinks.  The two are separate.  Only someone who mistakes his thoughts for who he is does then feel his personhood threatened when his ideas are questioned.  Or ridiculed.  Or attacked.

"As said before lack of confidence often expose the mirror effect as we talked about before."

Yes, we discussed that earlier.  And I said then and I'll repeat myself, while I certainly agree on the concept of a mirror effect it is not the case here.  You obviously didn't agree with my assessment when I first stated it since you are again repeating it.  I don't lack confidence about what I know and so I speak with great confidence.  Is that wrong?  Should people not feel confident about what they know?  Do you feel zero confidence about what you know?  Is that why you claim to never claim to know?  Because in truth you really know nothing?  Is that what you're saying?

"What I believe there is really nothing to criticize, because it there right in front of us right here right now, and it is the world we live in, that is pure magic and we should put more energy into it, instead of ruining it. It is what gives is everything thing we need to live a good life if we just cut the <deleted> and respected the true Nature."

I'm happy that you understand what you wrote above but it's Greek to me.  You're alluding to all sorts of things without ever defining anything, nor explaining anything in any detail whatsoever, nor providing any reasoning behind any of it.  To me it's all just a bunch of fluffy happy talk that doesn't convey much of anything.  I'm not saying that it doesn't hold meaning for you.  I fully grant that it does.

I'll quote myself here:

"A true explanation of who we are and what this world is must account for every aspect of reality, every phenomenon, and be able to rationally and logically explain every experience.  And every aspect, phenomenon and explanation must fit together seamlessly."

Ask yourself, if you were to assemble all of your disparate beliefs in one place and then try to fit them all together to present a cohesive picture of reality, of who we are and how it all works do you think that the whole of your beliefs would be able to accomplish that?  I'm not trying to ridicule you here, Hummin.  But for God's sake admit that you have at least some things to learn.  And perhaps even more to unlearn if you were honest and objective about it.  I know I do.  I'm not ashamed to admit that there is much that I have to learn.  But for Christ's sake, whatever I learn has to at least have more than a modicum of sense before I accept it.  And it's workings must be shown.  If I were not to care about common sense, logic, functionality, then I'd be extremely prone to believing in purple elephants or any other such fantasy.

As to the "really nothing to criticise" it smacks of woke ideology.  Everyone gets an "A" for effort.  No one can be questioned lest they feel shamed and butt-hurt.  I've got a great Pretenders song for you.

Off topic but Chrissie Hynde is hot. 
 

 

[Hummin]

5 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

"You forget one important thing, I have never claimed I know!"

Oh, come now, Hummin.  You present your ideas of how reality works and yet you claim that you know nothing?  You have no firm beliefs as to what is true and what is not?  Your beliefs are your "truths."  You do know what you know.  Every time someone claims to know something then what they know represents their "truth."  It is automatically implied.  That's what beliefs are.  That's the very definition of belief.

I've never ridiculed or disrespected you, Hummin.  Your person, never.  Your ideas?  Absolutely.  But you are not your ideas.  A painter paints a painting using paints.  The paints are not the painter.  The paints are the paints and the painter is the painter.  They are two separate things.  The thinker uses thoughts.  The thinker is not the thoughts that he thinks.  The two are separate.  Only someone who mistakes his thoughts for who he is does he then feel his personhood threatened when his ideas are questioned.  Or ridiculed.

"As said before lack of confidence often expose the mirror effect as we talked about before."

Yes, we discussed that earlier.  And I said then and I'll repeat myself, while I certainly agree on the concept of a mirror effect it is not the case here.  You obviously didn't agree with my assessment when I first stated as you are again repeating it.  I don't lack confidence about what I know and so I speak with great confidence.  Is that wrong?  Should people not feel confident about what they know?  Do you feel zero confidence about what you know?  Is that why you claim to never claim to know?

"What I believe there is really nothing to criticize, because it there right in front of us right here right now, and it is the world we live in, that is pure magic and we should put more energy into it, instead of ruining it. It is what gives is everything thing we need to live a good life if we just cut the <deleted> and respected the true Nature."

I'm happy that you understand what you wrote above but it's Greek to me.  You're alluding to all sorts of things without ever defining anything, nor explaining anything in any detail whatsoever, nor providing any reasoning behind any of it.  To me it's all just a bunch of fluffy happy talk that doesn't convey much of anything.  I'm not saying that it doesn't hold meaning for you.  I fully grant that it does.

I'll quote myself here:

"A true explanation of who we are and what this world is must account for every aspect of reality, every phenomenon, and be able to rationally and logically explain every experience.  And every aspect, phenomenon and explanation must fit together seamlessly."

Ask yourself, if you were to assemble all of your disparate beliefs in one place and then try to fit them all together to present a cohesive picture of reality, of who we are and how it all works do you think that the whole of your beliefs would be able to accomplish that?  I'm not trying to ridicule you here, Hummin.  But for God's sake admit that you have at least some things to learn.  And perhaps even more to unlearn if you were honest and objective about it.  I know I do.  I'm not ashamed to admit that there is much that I have to learn.  But for Christ's sake, whatever I learn has to at least have more than a modicum of sense before I accept it.  And it's workings must be shown.  If care not about common sense, logic, functionality, then I'd be extremely prone to believing in purple elephants or any other fantasy.

As to the "really nothing to criticise" it smacks of woke ideology.  Everyone gets an "A" for effort.  No one can be questioned lest they feel shamed and butt-hurt.  I've got a great Pretenders song for you.
 

 

????

 

Belief is a belief, because there is no evidences, and Im comfortable to use the word I do not know. 

 

What I feel, what I see, taste smell, and how my mind as well physical body reacts is more important for me, than live in another reality. Im happy to learn more about the reality we live in, and sure a creator would be pleased if we respected the creation we live with and off. Be it it a creator exists or not, that is really not important, because we have to deal with the creation right her right now, and not make delusional alternate realities to escape what many find problematic, to live a complete life within the limits and resources we have for the moment. 

 

Be it Materialistic or far fetched spirituality, bot distracts us from what is essential to succeed as good human beings cultivate this planet for the best of all living creatures. So much energy and resources spent on egoistic purposes.

 

I also good things in materialism, religion as well spirituality as tools to improve peoples health and well being as well build societies and create necessary bonds, but there will always be a cross point, where it becomes toxic.

[spidermike007]

7 hours ago, Tippaporn said:

By that logic why talk to anyone about anything?

Some things are more personal than others. Preaching to others who are not asking for advice strikes me as a high level of insecurity. 

[mikebike]

4 hours ago, Tippaporn said:

As to truth, do you deny that the world follows laws? 

Your are gonna have to give us your definition of "laws" before we can even discuss this. 

[mikebike]

Some posters on this thread could benefit in some philosophy 101...

 

 

 

 

[Tippaporn]

11 minutes ago, Hummin said:

????

 

Belief is a belief, because there is no evidences, and Im comfortable to use the word I do not know. 

 

What I feel, what I see, taste smell, and how my mind as well physical body reacts is more important for me, than live in another reality. Im happy to learn more about the reality we live in, and sure a creator would be pleased if we respected the creation we live with and off. Be it it a creator exists or not, that is really not important, because we have to deal with the creation right her right now, and not make delusional alternate realities to escape what many find problematic, to live a complete life within the limits and resources we have for the moment. 

 

Be it Materialistic or far fetched spirituality, bot distracts us from what is essential to succeed as good human beings cultivate this planet for the best of all living creatures. So much energy and resources spent on egoistic purposes.

 

I also good things in materialism, religion as well spirituality as tools to improve peoples health and well being as well build societies and create necessary bonds, but there will always be a cross point, where it becomes toxic.

"Belief is a belief, because there is no evidences . . . "

Not always true.  If you believe in God and yet have no evidence to show that doesn't mean there is no evidence.  It means only that there is no evidence that would be acceptable to someone who doesn't believe.  I believe in life after death but cannot provide evidence to hold in my hand to show another.  Despite that I know it to be true.  But I could never convince someone with a lights out theory of death.  That person would tell me that I'm full of sh!t.  And probably spit on me as well.

". . . and Im comfortable to use the word I do not know."

Again, it strains credulity that a person would claim to know nothing or anything without certainty.  I don't believe you, Hummin.

"What I feel, what I see, taste smell, and how my mind as well physical body reacts is more important for me, than live in another reality."

Who's even talking about living in another reality?  Not I.  Nor would I.  Reference please.

"I'm happy to learn more about the reality we live in."

I've yet to hear you agree with me on anything I've posted, let alone show even the slightest interest in what I have to say.  So one the one hand I have my doubts.  At least in learning any concepts with which you are unfamiliar.  I'll grant that you're learning but that that learning follows the very narrow lines of established, conventional thought.

"Be it Materialistic or far fetched spirituality, bot distracts us from what is essential to succeed as good human beings cultivate this planet for the best of all living creatures. So much energy and resources spent on egoistic purposes."

Materialism is no good.  Spirituality is no good.  What's left then?  And these distract us how?  And what is it that is the essential ingredient required to succeed as a "good" human being?  "Good" in quotes since good is absolutely relative.  So what exactly is this essential thing or quality?  Can you define it?  Does it have a name?  Is it an essence?  And if so an essence of what?  I do agree with you wholeheartedly that we have not been good stewards of this earth.  Well, I have been in many ways.

Ego bad.  Uhm, we do have egos.  Are you saying that an inherent portion of us is undesirable and inherently destructive?  Would it be true to say that you don't understand what the ego is, or what it's function is?  That your misunderstanding of it has led you to believe that the ego is bad?  In my humble opinion I would say that that is the case.  Perhaps it might be worthy to understand where your misunderstanding of the ego comes from?  The ego plays a crucial role within the structure of personality.  It could be fairly said that the ego's ideal role has been distorted.  But inherently the ego is not only necessary but good.

"I also good things in materialism, religion as well spirituality as tools to improve peoples health and well being as well build societies and create necessary bonds, but there will always be a cross point, where it becomes toxic."

Cross point where it all becomes toxic?  If your assessment is accurate then what would be the cause of that?  Would it be ignorance?  Ignorance of what?  Ignorance of the true nature of who we are and of our reality?  A spiritual disconnect?

Everything I've ever posted here was meant to be used as a tool to improve people's well being.  Good health is a natural part of well being.  I've mentioned it here before.  I'm an engineer.  I design things.  For my designs to perform as intended they must follow the laws governing our reality.  If they don't then they don''t work.  How do I know when they don't work?  Because if I don't adhere to the laws governing our reality then problems arise.  The problems are the indication that I'm not following the laws governing our reality.  Those problems can be minor or catastrophic, depending on how grossly I failed to adhere to the laws.

Now I'm telling you what happens, the results I encounter when I fail to follow the laws which govern our reality relative to my specific work.  What do you think happens, Hummin, when other laws aren't followed in other areas of life?  You can be assured of problems.  Problems are always the telltale that your ideas aren't in sync with the laws governing reality.

So, all I've been trying to do here, Hummin, is to explain to folks that it's important to know what the laws governing our reality are.  Because if we don't follow them we will be ensured of suffering all of the problems that bad ideas produce as a natural result.  Ideas are not inert.  They create.  Garbage in , garbage out.  Do you get it now?  Do you understand now where I'm coming from?  Yet no one seems to want to hear any of it because, for heaven's sake, my "truths" are not their "truths" and how dare I speak of what I know.  It's so petty.  It really has nothing to do with "truth."  Rather, it has everything to do with what is.  Call "what is" truth if you like.  I don't care what label you give it.

Our reality is governed  by laws.  End of story.  If you don't know what those laws are you will be in a position to implement ideas which do not work.  And again, how would anyone know if an idea is good or bad?  Problems.

So keep fighting me, Hummin.

[Tippaporn]

33 minutes ago, spidermike007 said:

Some things are more personal than others. Preaching to others who are not asking for advice strikes me as a high level of insecurity. 

Who's preaching?  A high level of insecurity?  If that's your personal interpretation Mike you couldn't be more wrong.

Let me see.  I twist no one's arm here to believe anything.  I offer what I know.  I exchange ideas.  I debate ideas.  I speak with confidence.  In a forum where people are questioning everything.  And you end up interpreting all of that as nothing more than preaching to people not asking and all out of a sense of insecurity?  You gotta explain yourself, Mike.  Because what you wrote doesn't fly.

[Tippaporn]

31 minutes ago, mikebike said:

Your are gonna have to give us your definition of "laws" before we can even discuss this. 

You've never heard of gravity?  How can I take you seriously?

[Tippaporn]

33 minutes ago, mikebike said:

Your are gonna have to give us your definition of "laws" before we can even discuss this. 

How about this one.  Two objects cannot occupy the same space.  Not a Law?  I'll tell ya what.  You try placing two steel objects, preferably hardened, in line with each other in a 600 ton press and forcing them to occupy the same space.  See what happens.  Oh, and here's an important tip.  Make sure you're standing right in front of the press.  I'd hate for you to miss the fireworks.

Some advice for ya.  Better to think before you expose yourself with some cutesy quip.

[Tippaporn]

28 minutes ago, mikebike said:

Some posters on this thread could benefit in some philosophy 101...

Lemme see.  After 300+ years of science the only consensus amongst scientists regarding consciousness is that it exists.  And you want me to learn from these knuckleheads?

How about you share some of your wisdom with us?  Or aren't you an expert?

[Tippaporn]

33 minutes ago, mikebike said:

Some posters on this thread could benefit in some philosophy 101...

 

 

Are the mind and brain identical?  That is one of the dumbest questions you could ask.  If you can't tell the difference you've have no business lecturing about it.  But I'm sure you're all ears, Mike.  Good for you.  Learn anything?  Come on, share it with us.

[Sunmaster]

26 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

Lemme see.  After 300+ years of science the only consensus amongst scientists regarding consciousness is that it exists.  And you want me to learn from these knuckleheads?

How about you share some of your wisdom with us?  Or aren't you an expert?

And at the same time there are sources where people have studied consciousness for 1000s of years from the inside and described it in great detail. 

But "unfortunately " they are not scientists, so let's just ignore all that. Too messy anyway. ????

[Tippaporn]

5 hours ago, Purdey said:

<snip>

 

P.S. I keep my mind open to believing in a god that shows himself.

I just caught your edit.  Personally, I don't care whether you or anyone else believes in God or not.  My idea of God is not the same as any conventional portrayals of a father figure with a long beard, etc.  In fact I prefer the term All That Is.  Which I think is a more apt description.  A lot less preconceived notions around that label, for sure.

In any case, whatever your idea of God is it's looking you in the face all the time.  You either recognise it or you don't.  The evidence is everywhere but nowhere if you're blind to it.  Or rather it's in your face but again, you take it as something else.  Or discount it.  Anyway, up to you.  Either way is fine.