Do you believe in God and why

[xylophone]

1 hour ago, Hummin said:

And still the answer is 42 ????

 

I believe your thoughts is right on, we are part of something bigger we can not comprehend. 

 

 

And still the answer is 42. Best explanation we've got!!

Edited May 12, 2023 by xylophone

[Hummin]

10 minutes ago, xylophone said:

And still the answer is 42. Best explanation weve got!!

Two of the biggest movies ever with true meaning and explanation of human nature and life,  is Life of Brian and The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy 

Edited May 12, 2023 by Hummin

[Sunmaster]

5 hours ago, Hummin said:

Two of the biggest movies ever with true meaning and explanation of human nature and life,  is Life of Brian and The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy 

Interstellar and Contact for me.
And series: Battlestar Galatica and Star Trek Voyager. 
Never get tired of rewatching them. ????

[mania]

13 hours ago, Sunmaster said:

What about consciousness?
However you may define consciousness, I think we can agree that human beings are conscious. 
Who or what else is conscious in your opinion? Lots of people believe that mammals with big brains are also conscious (dolphins, primates), but also dogs, pigs, horses etc. 
Then it gets more difficult. Can we attribute consciousness to "lower" life forms, such as birds, bugs or worms? Why or why not? 
What about plants? Are they conscious?
How far down the scale are you willing to attribute consciousness? 
What about cells? Atoms? Subatomic particles?

I'm willing to attribute consciousness all the way down the scale ????

 

Animals yes of course...All living things

 

Plants.... I remember a man I believe the same man that invented Kirlian Photography (not positive)

hooked up meters to a plant to try & measure such. Nothing was happening & then he thought (not out loud) "I wonder if I burn a leaf" meters went nuts. He then struck a match & much more activity blew it out & meters returned to calm.

 

 

I think again that we as humans like to think we are the top rung yet we are like babes. Or perhaps more accurately beings that know only a single language, 

 

We are very likely IMHO to be less versed than generations that previously existed long long ago

Edited May 12, 2023 by mania

[swissie]

 In India alone there are over 30'000 Gods (yes thirtythousand).

Humanity always had trouble understanding the concept of being born, only to die a short time later.
The "Gods" came in handy, as practically all religions offer "a life after death". The spiritual "best seller" of all time.
The only firm anchor in their life. They NEED this anchor. For most, the thaught of lifes only meaning is "reproduction" is unbearable for them.

- Imagine a TV evangelist, preaching "we must worship God, but there is no after live". He would lose his followers overnight.

I remain: Eternal life is the spiritual "best seller" of all time.

 

[Sunmaster]

6 hours ago, mania said:

I'm willing to attribute consciousness all the way down the scale ????

 

What about all the way up the scale?

[Sunmaster]

6 hours ago, swissie said:

 In India alone there are over 30'000 Gods (yes thirtythousand).

Humanity always had trouble understanding the concept of being born, only to die a short time later.
The "Gods" came in handy, as practically all religions offer "a life after death". The spiritual "best seller" of all time.
The only firm anchor in their life. They NEED this anchor. For most, the thaught of lifes only meaning is "reproduction" is unbearable for them.

- Imagine a TV evangelist, preaching "we must worship God, but there is no after live". He would lose his followers overnight.

I remain: Eternal life is the spiritual "best seller" of all time.

 

Who is "they"?
Your logic doesn't work really. Not in my case, nor in many other cases. 
Sure, the idea of an afterlife (or eternal consciousness) brings solace to a lot of people, religious and not, but it's not the cause of the belief in God....it's a byproduct of that belief. Two very different premises.

[save the frogs]

23 hours ago, Sunmaster said:

Interstellar and Contact for me.

Prometheus .... about a group of scientists hired by a corporation to visit a planet where they believe the aliens who engineered the human race now live. 

[Red Phoenix]

On 5/12/2023 at 7:03 AM, Sunmaster said:

A sub-topic worth exploring...

I was thinking about the increasing complexity of biological systems and how these systems are related to consciousness.
My primary assumption is that panpsychism is correct in saying that everything in the universe is conscious to some degree. Starting from the tiniest sub-atomic particles to the vastness of galaxies and beyond. This, coupled with the fact that conscious individual agents bond together in more complex systems, giving rise to a consciousness that is more than just the sum of its parts, brings us to a very interesting deductions.

In simple terms, take cells for example. Cells have their own individuality. They interact with their surroundings, they reproduce, they have their own goals and purpose. When they bond together to form an organ, they all work together to fill a higher purpose. The organ itself acquires new faculties and tools to interact with their surroundings. This new entity thus seems to be more than just a mere accumulation of cells. 

If we go one step further, we arrive at the human being, who is a collection of organs and parts. Yet, most will agree that we are more than that. There is a consciousness that oversees the function of all the different parts. Again, there is a new identity, there are new tools to interact with the world and new purposes.

But what if we take this a step further? What if we are all part of a bigger "organism", resulting in a higher order of complexity and consciousness? 
If this drive to unite individual agents into more and more complex systems can be seen throughout nature, does it make sense to you that it would stop at the human being, as if we were the glorious culmination of a very long evolutionary process?
Or would it make more sense to identify the human being as just another step of this process? 

In short....
Lower systems are transcended and included in higher systems, resulting in a consciousness that is more than the sum of its parts.

What about consciousness?
However you may define consciousness, I think we can agree that human beings are conscious. 
Who or what else is conscious in your opinion? Lots of people believe that mammals with big brains are also conscious (dolphins, primates), but also dogs, pigs, horses etc. 
Then it gets more difficult. Can we attribute consciousness to "lower" life forms, such as birds, bugs or worms? Why or why not? 
What about plants? Are they conscious?
How far down the scale are you willing to attribute consciousness? 
What about cells? Atoms? Subatomic particles?

Hi @Sunmaster,

It looks like your post shows that synchronicity is at work here...

Or were you inspired by reading John Carter's long essay on consciousness, which he published on his Substack on May 11th?  Considering the time difference between US and Thailand, you posted at approx same time (or just a bit later).

https://barsoom.substack.com/p/the-permittivity-of-free-thought?utm_source=substack&utm_medium=email

The Permittivity of Free Thought

Three ways of thinking about the brain’s relationship to consciousness, and what this implies for AI

His long essay consists of 5 parts.  First he writes about the brain and its function, then he explores 3 models of explaining consciousness: emission, transmission and permission (based on the work of Iain McGilchrist) and finally he discusses the implications of the above for AI. 

Although I think that his essay contains a fair amount of verbal ballast and that his message would have been more powerful if he had practiced 'the Art of Synthesis' and limited his essay to the essential, there are many worthwhile diamonds of thought in what he wrote.  So I do recommend it to the other person interested in the subject (besides myself), that gave your post a Liking.

 

Edited May 14, 2023 by Red Phoenix

[Sunmaster]

30 minutes ago, Red Phoenix said:

Hi @Sunmaster,

It looks like your post shows that synchronicity is at work here...

Or were you inspired by reading John Carter's long essay on consciousness, which he published on his Substack on May 11th?  Considering the time difference between US and Thailand, you posted at approx same time (or just a bit later).

https://barsoom.substack.com/p/the-permittivity-of-free-thought?utm_source=substack&utm_medium=email

The Permittivity of Free Thought

Three ways of thinking about the brain’s relationship to consciousness, and what this implies for AI

His long essay consists of 5 parts.  First he writes about the brain and its function, then he explores 3 models of explaining consciousness: emission, transmission and permission (based on the work of Iain McGilchrist) and finally he discusses the implications of the above for AI. 

Although I think that his essay contains a fair amount of verbal ballast and that his message would have been more powerful if he had practiced 'the Art of Synthesis' and limited his essay to the essential, there are many worthwhile diamonds of thought in what he wrote.  So I do recommend it to the other person interested in the subject (besides myself), that gave your post a Liking.

 

I'm not familiar with this author and I don't know what substack is. 
I'm always interested in all aspects of consciousness, especially now with AI making big steps forward. Recently I found Lex Fridman podcasts on YT, which are very fascinating. I recommend checking him out.

What do you think about consciousness and AI? Do you think a machine can become sentient?
 

 

[Hummin]

12 minutes ago, Sunmaster said:

  Do you think a machine can become sentient?
 

 

if Ai become self Aware, or when it becomes self aware,,,,

[Red Phoenix]

17 minutes ago, Sunmaster said:

What do you think about consciousness and AI? Do you think a machine can become sentient?

When you believe - like I do - in a Conscious Universe, in a sense that everything - from a human being to an atom - is conscious, but that it is the DEGREE of consciousness that makes the difference, then it logically follows that machines ARE already conscious. 

And when machines are operating on software that mimics human decision processes, they will indeed develop a 'higher' consciousness than the pure material one that they currently already have.  There have been several incidents recently in which AI made decisions that went far beyond on what they were programmed to do, leaving their programmers baffled and in one case even leading to the programmers pulling the switch to stop. 

As AI does not have the qualities that make us human, I do not believe that machine AI consciousness will surpass the level of consciousness that (some) humans are able to achieve.  But we certainly are opening the Box of Pandora with these developments.  And a future in which HAL - from Kubricks 2001 - A Space Odyssea - would decide to wipe out all or most of humanity based on his machine-logic/consciousness, is quickly becoming a frightful possibility.  

[Sunmaster]

1 minute ago, Red Phoenix said:

When you believe - like I do - in a Conscious Universe, in a sense that everything - from a human being to an atom - is conscious, but that it is the DEGREE of consciousness that makes the difference, then it logically follows that machines ARE already conscious. 

And when machines are operating on software that mimics human decision processes, they will indeed develop a 'higher' consciousness than the pure material one that they currently already have.  There have been several incidents recently in which AI made decisions that went far beyond on what they were programmed to do, leaving their programmers baffled and in one case even leading to the programmers pulling the switch to stop. 

As AI does not have the qualities that make us human, I do not believe that machine AI consciousness will surpass the level of consciousness that (some) humans are able to achieve.  But we certainly are opening the Box of Pandora with these developments.  And a future in which HAL - from Kubricks 2001 - A Space Odyssea - would decide to wipe out all or most of humanity based on his machine-logic/consciousness, is quickly becoming a frightful possibility.  

I understand what you're saying and I think pretty much the same.
My idea is that AI will be so good at mimicking human consciousness that it will become almost impossible to tell the difference. On the other hand, I believe that humans have a connection to the universal consciousness that I just can't see happening for AI.

[fusion58]

On 4/14/2019 at 9:25 PM, ivor bigun said:

It has fasinated me for years that people can believe in god and that Jesus was born to his virgin mother .

When you realize that there are so many billions of planets across hundreds of billions of light years.

It must be great to believe in a God and that one day you will be reunited with your loved ones a lady once said to me that she knows she will meet Jesus when she dies,i thought gosh he must be busy sitting down with the billions of people who die.

Do you really believe in him or any of the other Gods ?

Religion and science present (usually) competing or incompatible theories re: how the world works, the nature of reality, the origins of the cosmos, complex life on Earth, etc.

 

The one difference between the two camps that always strikes me is how you will often hear leading scientists, e.g., physicists, cosmologists, et al, say "we don't know for sure," or "we could be wrong" in reference to this theory or that. However, you will almost never hear a theist utter the phrase "I could be wrong" - despite the fact that their theories or arguments are supported primarily by a priori philosophical or metaphysical claims with the occasional contingent (and dubious) empirical claim.

[save the frogs]

actress from the film The Exorcist says "the number of tragedies that occurred during the making of the film are inexplicable" and "it's obvious that we were attracting certain kinds of energy". 

 

 

Edited May 14, 2023 by save the frogs

[mania]

10 hours ago, fusion58 said:

The one difference between the two camps that always strikes me is how you will often hear leading scientists, e.g., physicists, cosmologists, et al, say "we don't know for sure," or "we could be wrong" in reference to this theory or that. However, you will almost never hear a theist utter the phrase "I could be wrong"

That is because dogmatic religions cornerstone  is "Faith"

Faith  as taught to them thru stories sadly so often misinterpreted texts written by men.

 

For them to say "I could be wrong" would crumble their faith/house as it is all they have

Edited May 14, 2023 by mania

[Sunmaster]

42 minutes ago, mania said:

That is because dogmatic religions cornerstone  is "Faith"

Faith  as taught to them thru stories sadly so often misinterpreted texts written by men.

 

For them to say "I could be wrong" would crumble their faith/house as it is all they have

True.

On the other hand though, you have maybe 90% of materialists who have no idea about the actual science behind their beliefs and blindly follow whatever the men in white coats tell them.

The vast majority then goes on to change the "we think it's like that but we are not sure" to "it's like that. Full stop." And when challenged, they have the same reactions as those who believe in religious dogma. They lash out and become aggressive, and there is no chance of a rational discussion. 

This is because people need certainties in life, something they can hold on to and build their lives upon. It doesn't matter whether those "certainties" are religious or scientific. Just look at how many people believe that the brain produces consciousness or that a mysterious explosion started the universe. They treat them as facts, when in reality they are just theories. 

 

It's good to be objective and see both sides. Dogma is bad in both camps.

Edited May 14, 2023 by Sunmaster

[fusion58]

12 hours ago, Sunmaster said:

True.

On the other hand though, you have maybe 90% of materialists who have no idea about the actual science behind their beliefs and blindly follow whatever the men in white coats tell them.

Where do you get "90%?"

 

And can you really argue with a straight face that acceptance of a scientific theory is indicative of "blindness" when that theory is supported by evidence?

 

 

12 hours ago, Sunmaster said:

The vast majority then goes on to change the "we think it's like that but we are not sure" to "it's like that. Full stop."

When a scientific theory is supported by enough experimental and/or observational evidence, then "it's like that" statements are warranted.

 

For example, physicists can claim to know what they know about things like elementary particles, the four forces, etc., with an extremely high level of certainty.

 

 

12 hours ago, Sunmaster said:

 

 

 

And when challenged, they have the same reactions as those who believe in religious dogma. They lash out and become aggressive, and there is no chance of a rational discussion. 

More often than not, those who actually make an effort to learn about and  understand science "lash out" when they become exasperated or lose patience with people who peddle pseudo-scientific nonsense, baseless conspiracy theories, etc.

 

It's usually the latter group - not the former - who make rational discussion impossible.

 

12 hours ago, Sunmaster said:

This is because people need certainties in life, something they can hold on to and build their lives upon. It doesn't matter whether those "certainties" are religious or scientific.

This is a false comparison which obscures the fact that there are, in fact, varying degrees of certainty where scientific theories are concerned, i.e., there are some things we know re: how the world works with a high degree of certainly, and others to a lesser extent.

 

The most striking difference between scientists and religionists, as noted in my previous post, is that you'll never hear a theist admit to ANY uncertainty where religious claims are concerned - despite the fact that the vast majority of those claims are based solely on armchair a priori  philosophical or metaphysical "proofs" and the occasional contingent empirical claim when those "proofs" fail.

 

12 hours ago, Sunmaster said:

 

Just look at how many people believe that the brain produces consciousness or that a mysterious explosion started the universe. They treat them as facts, when in reality they are just theories. 

These are not "just" theories. They're theories supported by varying amounts of experimental and observational evidence.

 

The same can hardly be said re: religious theories which posit the existence of incorporeal "souls," supernatural agencies, etc.

 

Furthermore, the claim that most people "treat them (theories in neuroscience or cosmological theories) as facts" is groundless.

 

On the contrary, scientists are usually very careful to acknowledge when a theory is a "work in progress" or when it has some problems. For example, even the most ardent proponents of the Big Bang theory will admit that, despite the many predictions of the theory which are supported by observational evidence, the theory still has some problems.

 

12 hours ago, Sunmaster said:

 

It's good to be objective and see both sides. Dogma is bad in both camps.

The implication that there's some sort of parity with respect to objectivity (or adherence to "dogma") on "both sides" is really laughable, as I hope my post has demonstrated here.

[Sunmaster]

2 hours ago, fusion58 said:

Where do you get "90%?"

 

And can you really argue with a straight face that acceptance of a scientific theory is indicative of "blindness" when that theory is supported by evidence?

 

 

When a scientific theory is supported by enough experimental and/or observational evidence, then "it's like that" statements are warranted.

 

For example, physicists can claim to know what they know about things like elementary particles, the four forces, etc., with an extremely high level of certainty.

 

 

More often than not, those who actually make an effort to learn about and  understand science "lash out" when they become exasperated or lose patience with people who peddle pseudo-scientific nonsense, baseless conspiracy theories, etc.

 

It's usually the latter group - not the former - who make rational discussion impossible.

 

This is a false comparison which obscures the fact that there are, in fact, varying degrees of certainty where scientific theories are concerned, i.e., there are some things we know re: how the world works with a high degree of certainly, and others to a lesser extent.

 

The most striking difference between scientists and religionists, as noted in my previous post, is that you'll never hear a theist admit to ANY uncertainty where religious claims are concerned - despite the fact that the vast majority of those claims are based solely on armchair a priori  philosophical or metaphysical "proofs" and the occasional contingent empirical claim when those "proofs" fail.

 

These are not "just" theories. They're theories supported by varying amounts of experimental and observational evidence.

 

The same can hardly be said re: religious theories which posit the existence of incorporeal "souls," supernatural agencies, etc.

 

Furthermore, the claim that most people "treat them (theories in neuroscience or cosmological theories) as facts" is groundless.

 

On the contrary, scientists are usually very careful to acknowledge when a theory is a "work in progress" or when it has some problems. For example, even the most ardent proponents of the Big Bang theory will admit that, despite the many predictions of the theory which are supported by observational evidence, the theory still has some problems.

 

The implication that there's some sort of parity with respect to objectivity (or adherence to "dogma") on "both sides" is really laughable, as I hope my post has demonstrated here.

First, we should make a few distinctions so that we can understand each other.

 

1) You use "religionists" as an umbrella definition for people who believe more than what science can or is willing to explore. Under this broad definition you have all sorts of beliefs and as many practical implementation of those beliefs as there are people on this earth. Here, in the forum, most are free thinkers that don't adhere to any particular dogma. I'll include our science friends in that, too.

 

2) It's not an issue of religion VS science.

Most people here (if not all) appreciate science and profit from scientific discoveries. I'm definitely one of them. Just look at my avatar... I'm a science officer! 

What we argue however, is that science is a tool to make sense of the material world. It is not the right tool to explore the inner worlds. 

 

3) To explore the inner worlds means to know your true Self. This was the original function of religion.  Or should be.

It is not possible to measure, dissect, analyse, calculate the value of this adventure. It is hardly possible to put it into words.

The right tools for this journey seem to be introspection, meditation but also rituals, creativity and spontaneity. 

 

4) You say that real scientists will gladly admit that sometimes they just don't know. That may be true (maybe), but I'm talking of common mortals that don't work in a lab and don't write scientific papers. Those are more often than not the people who magically transform a theory into a certainty. The 'science says...' radical types. We had our fair share here. 

 

For example, the idea that consciousness is a product of the brain is nothing but a theory, yet it is so often proclaimed as a scientific fact. Science simply doesn't know where consciousness comes from. It can only see and measure the effects of consciousness. And this point is crucial: For science to admit that consciousness is NOT a product of the brain, would imply that the great schools of spiritual development were right all along. Are right in saying that it's really the other way around. The material is a product of consciousness. 

And with that single realisation everything changes and things start to make sense that were previously unknown. Clairvoyance, chakras, Near Death Experiences, Out of Body Experiences, higher states of consciousness, mysticism, religions etc etc....don't seem so crazy and farfetched after all.

 

I could continue but the post is already too long as it is. 

????

Edited May 15, 2023 by Sunmaster

[Hummin]

5 minutes ago, SucKaDiK said:

Moderators = drunken nazis + royal dick suckers

How much did you consume of stimulants toonight? 

[Sunmaster]

[save the frogs]

On 5/13/2023 at 8:30 AM, save the frogs said:

Prometheus .... about a group of scientists hired by a corporation to visit a planet where they believe the aliens who engineered the human race now live. 

FYI ... in case anyone is interested.

I just watched the movie Prometheus. 

And this is what I got from the movie.

 

They basically try to find "God" by going to another planet to seek out an alien race they believe created mankind.

But they all end up dead. They got punished for seeking to know who God is and why God created us

 

So the moral of the story seems to be that they got punished because they are asking questions that we are not supposed to have answers to.

 

Edited May 19, 2023 by save the frogs

[Sunmaster]

38 minutes ago, save the frogs said:

FYI ... in case anyone is interested.

I just watched the movie Prometheus. 

And this is what I got from the movie.

 

They basically try to find "God" by going to another planet to seek out an alien race they believe created mankind.

But they all end up dead. They got punished for seeking to know who God is and why God created us

 

So the moral of the story seems to be that they got punished because they are asking questions that we are not supposed to have answers to.

 

Been quite a while since I watched it, but as far as I remember they were trying to find humanity's creators who added their DNA to our planet, not God. They expected those creators to be a benevolent father figure, but that was a deadly mistake.
 

[save the frogs]

9 hours ago, Sunmaster said:

Been quite a while since I watched it, but as far as I remember they were trying to find humanity's creators who added their DNA to our planet, not God. They expected those creators to be a benevolent father figure, but that was a deadly mistake.
 

true, the movie doesnt reference any absolute God.

but Engineers who created mankind.

and those Engineers were themselves created by sth else. 

[Sunmaster]

1 minute ago, save the frogs said:

true, the movie doesnt reference any absolute God.

but Engineers who created mankind.

and those Engineers were themselves created by sth else. 

Sure, but evil engineers are not an indication to an evil God, just like evil people, cancer in children, or natural disasters are not an indication to an evil God.

[save the frogs]

12 minutes ago, Sunmaster said:

Sure, but evil engineers are not an indication to an evil God, just like evil people, cancer in children, or natural disasters are not an indication to an evil God.

i'm not even exactly sure what message about God this film is trying to convey.

the engineers almost look human, but then the film ends with a frightening alien-like creature (like in the earlier Alien films) who seem to have dominance over the engineers. 

 

Edited May 19, 2023 by save the frogs

[save the frogs]

1 hour ago, Sunmaster said:

Sure, but evil engineers are not an indication to an evil God, just like evil people, cancer in children, or natural disasters are not an indication to an evil God.

the film certainly hints that God is evil.

and the film suggests layers of creation. a succession of increasingly more complex life forms creating lesser complex life forms.

the universe may very well be created that way .... layers of creation.

mind-blowing, confusing, perplexing. 

[Sunmaster]

5 minutes ago, save the frogs said:

the film certainly hints that God is evil.

Sure, whatever you say.

[save the frogs]

6 minutes ago, Sunmaster said:

Sure, whatever you say.

I noticed you are not very welcoming to people expressing opinions that differ from yours.

To be fair, I have a long list of character flaws as well. 

 

[Sunmaster]

22 minutes ago, save the frogs said:

I noticed you are not very welcoming to people expressing opinions that differ from yours.

To be fair, I have a long list of character flaws as well. 

 

Yes, you notice a lot of things. Like determining that Paramhansa Yogananda is a power-hungry evil guru, after reading 2 or 3 quotes. Or that I am an evil guru myself. ????

So you must be correct. ????????

Edited May 19, 2023 by Sunmaster