Do you believe in God and why

[save the frogs]

 

[Sunmaster]

3 hours ago, VincentRJ said:

If one wishes to be objective and impartial, one should consider all attributes and related consequences. And that principle should also apply to religious beliefs.

Absolutely, so true.

 

Coincidentally, I woke up this morning with a small leftover from a dream, so I tossed it around a little in my head until it sort of came to a logical conclusion. 

In the dream I was teaching my nephew about an ice cream cup. I said that most people only see the most evident attributes of this cup. Is it full with ice cream or empty. They see the color and the shape. Their action will be based and therefore limited on only those bits of information. 

But there are many other attributes that are not so evident, like...what is it made of? Is the material recyclable? Is it rare and valuable? Is it soft and malleable or hard and fragile? Is it hot or cold? How does it smell? Is it a throwaway cup or is it a family heirloom? Where and how was it made?

If you know all these bits of information, your actions will be much more precise and effective. 

Knowledge is power, right?

 

While thinking about this dream, I made the connection to our lives. Most people see themselves as a separate biological machine and accept this as a fact and the only truth. However, how many more bits of information would come to light if only we could scrutinise ourselves a bit more. Why do we act the way we act? What triggers that negative emotion? Which memory feels painful and why? What is that dream trying to tell me? 

As with the example of the ice cream cup, increased knowledge will allow us to fine tune our behaviour, making it more effective and beneficial. 

 

This principle then should be applied to all parts of our existence, to religious dogma, to scientific dogma, and I would say most importantly, to ourselves. 

 

We say "This is my personality, my identity". But they are just objects here. Who or what is that which has a personality? Who is that subject that experiences this identity? 

 

Here is the problem with the limiting belief of the biological machine theory. It doesn't allow for further scrutiny since everything that is not measurable can not be included in the fact-finding process. It is automatically excluded because it doesn't fit in the given paradigm. 

But imagine how much information is lost due to this close mindedness?!

[couchpotato]

12 minutes ago, Sunmaster said:

Absolutely, so true.

 

Coincidentally, I woke up this morning with a small leftover from a dream, so I tossed it around a little in my head until it sort of came to a logical conclusion. 

In the dream I was teaching my nephew about an ice cream cup. I said that most people only see the most evident attributes of this cup. Is it full with ice cream or empty. They see the color and the shape. Their action will be based and therefore limited on only those bits of information. 

But there are many other attributes that are not so evident, like...what is it made of? Is the material recyclable? Is it rare and valuable? Is it soft and malleable or hard and fragile? Is it hot or cold? How does it smell? Is it a throwaway cup or is it a family heirloom? Where and how was it made?

If you know all these bits of information, your actions will be much more precise and effective. 

Knowledge is power, right?

 

While thinking about this dream, I made the connection to our lives. Most people see themselves as a separate biological machine and accept this as a fact and the only truth. However, how many more bits of information would come to light if only we could scrutinise ourselves a bit more. Why do we act the way we act? What triggers that negative emotion? Which memory feels painful and why? What is that dream trying to tell me? 

As with the example of the ice cream cup, increased knowledge will allow us to fine tune our behaviour, making it more effective and beneficial. 

 

This principle then should be applied to all parts of our existence, to religious dogma, to scientific dogma, and I would say most importantly, to ourselves. 

 

We say "This is my personality, my identity". But they are just objects here. Who or what is that which has a personality? Who is that subject that experiences this identity? 

 

Here is the problem with the limiting belief of the biological machine theory. It doesn't allow for further scrutiny since everything that is not measurable can not be included in the fact-finding process. It is automatically excluded because it doesn't fit in the given paradigm. 

But imagine how much information is lost due to this close mindedness?!

Far too deep for this time of the morning..I'm off to Swensons.

[Fat is a type of crazy]

21 minutes ago, Sunmaster said:

Absolutely, so true.

 

Coincidentally, I woke up this morning with a small leftover from a dream, so I tossed it around a little in my head until it sort of came to a logical conclusion. 

In the dream I was teaching my nephew about an ice cream cup. I said that most people only see the most evident attributes of this cup. Is it full with ice cream or empty. They see the color and the shape. Their action will be based and therefore limited on only those bits of information. 

But there are many other attributes that are not so evident, like...what is it made of? Is the material recyclable? Is it rare and valuable? Is it soft and malleable or hard and fragile? Is it hot or cold? How does it smell? Is it a throwaway cup or is it a family heirloom? Where and how was it made?

If you know all these bits of information, your actions will be much more precise and effective. 

Knowledge is power, right?

 

While thinking about this dream, I made the connection to our lives. Most people see themselves as a separate biological machine and accept this as a fact and the only truth. However, how many more bits of information would come to light if only we could scrutinise ourselves a bit more. Why do we act the way we act? What triggers that negative emotion? Which memory feels painful and why? What is that dream trying to tell me? 

As with the example of the ice cream cup, increased knowledge will allow us to fine tune our behaviour, making it more effective and beneficial. 

 

This principle then should be applied to all parts of our existence, to religious dogma, to scientific dogma, and I would say most importantly, to ourselves. 

 

We say "This is my personality, my identity". But they are just objects here. Who or what is that which has a personality? Who is that subject that experiences this identity? 

 

Here is the problem with the limiting belief of the biological machine theory. It doesn't allow for further scrutiny since everything that is not measurable can not be included in the fact-finding process. It is automatically excluded because it doesn't fit in the given paradigm. 

But imagine how much information is lost due to this close mindedness?!

 Said it before but why is something not measurable? Even if it is ether, or spirit stuff, or something that hasn't been discovered yet. Your dispute isn't with science but with dogmatic scientists or with the worth some put to answering your questions.

Those questions you ask are all scientific questions:

Why do we act the way we act?

What triggers that negative emotion?

Which memory feels painful and why?

What is that dream trying to tell me? 

There are many scientists who don't wish to look to answer these, as they probably see it is too difficult to find productive answers, and there may not be productive answers. Or they can't make a living from it.

But such questions are definitely not issues excluded by science. 

Edited December 3, 2023 by Fat is a type of crazy

[Sunmaster]

8 minutes ago, Fat is a type of crazy said:

 Said it before but why is something not measurable? Even if it is ether, or spirit stuff, or something that hasn't been discovered yet. Your dispute isn't with science but with dogmatic scientists or with the worth some put to answering your questions.

Those questions you ask are all scientific questions:

Why do we act the way we act?

What triggers that negative emotion?

Which memory feels painful and why?

What is that dream trying to tell me? 

There are many scientists who don't wish to look to answer these, as they probably see it is too difficult to find productive answers, and there may not be productive answers. Or they can't make a living from it.

But such questions are definitely not issues excluded by science. 

I think these are very subjective and personal questions. Why should I expect science to answer them for me? What can science tell me about my own dreams? What does science know about my childhood trauma and what is needed to resolve it? Does it have a magic pill to make it all go away? Where has this pill been for the past 30 years?
The hard sciences don't concern themselves with these intangible questions. The soft sciences (psychology, sociology...) try to tackle them with mixed results. 

But why stop at these 2, when there are other sources that have explored these questions from the beginning of time, have been verified and peer tested throughout history and are as valid today as they were thousands of years ago? Why? Because our science doesn't quite know how to handle them? Because they don't fit in the accepted dogma of what is possible/real and what isn't?
Is that a good enough reason to just ignore all that wealth of knowledge? 

[Fat is a type of crazy]

8 minutes ago, Sunmaster said:

I think these are very subjective and personal questions. Why should I expect science to answer them for me? What can science tell me about my own dreams? What does science know about my childhood trauma and what is needed to resolve it? Does it have a magic pill to make it all go away? Where has this pill been for the past 30 years?
The hard sciences don't concern themselves with these intangible questions. The soft sciences (psychology, sociology...) try to tackle them with mixed results. 

But why stop at these 2, when there are other sources that have explored these questions from the beginning of time, have been verified and peer tested throughout history and are as valid today as they were thousands of years ago? Why? Because our science doesn't quite know how to handle them? Because they don't fit in the accepted dogma of what is possible/real and what isn't?
Is that a good enough reason to just ignore all that wealth of knowledge? 

Fair point. But science is not the concern but the difficulty of finding the answer in scientific terms. So I suppose we might say - this works really well for me and fits what I have experienced, and this life time is short, so I'll believe these ancient ideas rather than wait for a stronger verification in scientific terms. At the same time I totally respect the tenets of science and understand that I would prefer there was a scientific answer but it is what it is. 

Edited December 3, 2023 by Fat is a type of crazy

[Sunmaster]

40 minutes ago, Fat is a type of crazy said:

Fair point. But science is not the concern but the difficulty of finding the answer in scientific terms. So I suppose we might say - this works really well for me and fits what I have experienced, and this life time is short, so I'll believe these ancient ideas rather than wait for a stronger verification in scientific terms. At the same time I totally respect the tenets of science and understand that I would prefer there was a scientific answer but it is what it is. 

Yes, but with the difference that I don't accept (believe) those ancient answers merely due to a lack of a better (scientific) answer. 

I see truth in them because I verified and validated them on my own. That's the scientific process at work here: you take the theory, apply the parameters, you come to a set of conclusions, you double check your conclusions with other people's findings and thus confirm whether the theory is valid or not.

Why then would I want to wait for established science to maybe confirm that at some undefined time in the future?

Like you say, life is too short to wait for others to confirm what I can confirm by myself. 

Edited December 3, 2023 by Sunmaster

[Mark Nothing]

King Solomon also met God in a dream, who asked him what he desired, anything.  Wisdom from God was his response.

 

Proverbs in the Bible was written by King Solomon.  The focus of Proverbs is to bring Divine truth into proper focus enabling us to look at life through God's eyes, from his eternal all knowing point of view.

 

I am going through the Bible section by section doing a deep dive into the author and the background under which inspiration came.  It brings the stories to life.  During this process, I also say a simple prayer asking God's spirit to deliver the meaning to me.

 

Most of the people I know seem to be unaware of King Solomon's findings, pursuing more money and goodies and cravings instead of God's blessing on their soul allowing their tree of life to flourish with the fruits as intended.

[Sunmaster]

The most simple and fundamental truth there is. 

Consciousness is all there is. It's up to us to investigate it.

No books, no religions, no science needed.
All you need is right here, right now: your own consciousness.

 

[thaibeachlovers]

On 11/29/2023 at 11:48 PM, Woof999 said:

 

Isn't that the wrong way around? Finite life is so full of meaning that you should make the most of every single day.

 

If my soul was eternal, through re-incarnation, heaven or whatever else, then my ~<100 years living on this planet is so insignificant in the grand scheme of things that whatever I do day to day means almost nothing.

You expose the most fundamental problem with believing in an after life. I hope there is and logically I know there is, but what if there isn't? Not having visited the after life I can't KNOW.

Certainly I'd prefer an off switch than "hell" as portrayed by the men in funny hats.

 

I have no doubt that in the innermost recesses of even the most committed anti spiritual person's mind there is a niggling doubt that death is the end. Spirituality is so entrenched in human existence that it must be genetic, but it was subverted and exploited by the men in funny hats for their own ends.

[VincentRJ]

5 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

You expose the most fundamental problem with believing in an after life. I hope there is and logically I know there is, but what if there isn't? Not having visited the after life I can't KNOW.

Certainly I'd prefer an off switch than "hell" as portrayed by the men in funny hats.

 

I have no doubt that in the innermost recesses of even the most committed anti spiritual person's mind there is a niggling doubt that death is the end. Spirituality is so entrenched in human existence that it must be genetic, but it was subverted and exploited by the men in funny hats for their own ends.

 

"You expose the most fundamental problem with believing in an after life. I hope there is and logically I know there is, but what if there isn't? Not having visited the after life I can't KNOW."
 

Logically, you know there is an after life, but not having visited the after life, you can't know??
I'd like to know what logical process you are using to arrive at the conclusion there is 'logically' an after life.

 

Perhaps the problem is the definition of the term 'after life'. Are you referring to a permanent soul, identity, or self, that is independent of the physical body? If so, what do you imagine happens to this 'soul', after the body has died?

 

Logically, there has to be an 'after life' in the sense that all life produces offspring, when alive, but also when dead. When the physical body, of all life-forms, dies, it provides food for other living organisms. This is a continual, recycling process which is essential for all life to continue. In this sense, no 'after life' means no life at all.

[thaibeachlovers]

12 minutes ago, VincentRJ said:

Perhaps the problem is the definition of the term 'after life'. Are you referring to a permanent soul, identity, or self, that is independent of the physical body? If so, what do you imagine happens to this 'soul', after the body has died?

 

Of course. I imagine it just returns to God from whence it came. I have no way to know if it retains "I", or not. If it does, there will be a few "interesting" meetings with the souls of those I knew in this existence.

Have you been dead to know what happens after? Of course not, so how can anyone say that they know there is no God?

 

12 minutes ago, VincentRJ said:

I'd like to know what logical process you are using to arrive at the conclusion there is 'logically' an after life.

I'm not interested in discussing it with someone that would reject my "proof" out of hand.

If you knew what I experienced and experienced it for yourself you wouldn't even ask that question.

It's entirely subjective.

 

 

12 minutes ago, VincentRJ said:

This is a continual, recycling process which is essential for all life to continue. In this sense, no 'after life' means no life at all.

Only till the universe dies when the last sun runs out of fuel. After that all life, of any sort, ends in this existence. However, all the souls of every living thing that ever existed will be with God in a different dimension.

Edited December 7, 2023 by thaibeachlovers

[xylophone]

This is so true and both sad and amusing.....................

 

[Sunmaster]

17 hours ago, xylophone said:

This is so true and both sad and amusing.....................

 

It truly is sad. 

It's also sad that most people only know religion(s) by looking at the surface, picking out the obvious incongruencies and shortcomings, and because of that, never manage to see the hidden beauty of the less obvious spiritual teachings. There are parts in major established religions that focus less on dogma and ritual, and instead focus on direct experience. See Sufism in Islam or Christian Mysticism.
When you ridicule religions as a whole (Christianity in your example), you also dismiss these other realities. I think that's even more sad.

[Walker88]

If your wife or girlfriend, with whom you've yet to consummate the relationship or after you've had a vasectomy, came to you pregnant and insisted "God did it", I doubt anyone would buy it.

 

Yet this month much of the world celebrates just such a tale told by a Bronze Age woman to her traveling mate. I enjoy the Holiday, but the lie behind it is rather silly.

 

If a dad provides absolutely no assistance or financial support to the child he helped create, we call him a Deadbeat Dad, yet billions pray to a fictitious being that behaved exactly that way.

 

Religion is a funny thing.

 

Another few billion folks insist---under penalty of death---that the supposed creator of 200 billion galaxies each with around a trillion stars picked some illiterate pedophile in the middle of nowhere to share its final message.

 

Then there was a guy who seemed to suffer from what we now know is clinical depression, but he found a solution where he would make himself absent of all desire, thus never being down or disappointed. He also plagiarized from the vedas, which were written before he came on the scene. His solution became a faith, or some say a philosophy, though 99.99% of its faithful sure seem to want wealth and respect and 'face'.

 

Science and knowledge of both biochemistry and physics have taken away almost all the power anybody's god or gods had. I have to tip my hat to John Smith, however, who sold a lie to people who should have known better, because much was already known about existence when he made up his tale, even tossing in magic underwear to the mix. It is kind of understandable that Stone Age or Bronze Age people were fooled by charlatans or crazy people, but by the time John Smith sold his bill of goods, much of the true nature of existence had been revealed.

 

The mind decays with age or injury. A good many people are nothing but vegetative just before passing. Still many need to believe that at that instant of death all comes back to what it was, complete with memories and personality.....unless the entity is reincarnated, in which case the mind must go through some sort of Men in Black neuralyzer to erase memory of any past iteration. For many, it is too much to accept that existence is random, resulting more from somebody being horny than any Master Plan, and consciousness is merely a wonderful interplay between physical atoms and electromagnetism.

[Sunmaster]

42 minutes ago, Walker88 said:

If your wife or girlfriend, with whom you've yet to consummate the relationship or after you've had a vasectomy, came to you pregnant and insisted "God did it", I doubt anyone would buy it.

 

Yet this month much of the world celebrates just such a tale told by a Bronze Age woman to her traveling mate. I enjoy the Holiday, but the lie behind it is rather silly.

 

If a dad provides absolutely no assistance or financial support to the child he helped create, we call him a Deadbeat Dad, yet billions pray to a fictitious being that behaved exactly that way.

 

Religion is a funny thing.

 

Another few billion folks insist---under penalty of death---that the supposed creator of 200 billion galaxies each with around a trillion stars picked some illiterate pedophile in the middle of nowhere to share its final message.

 

Then there was a guy who seemed to suffer from what we now know is clinical depression, but he found a solution where he would make himself absent of all desire, thus never being down or disappointed. He also plagiarized from the vedas, which were written before he came on the scene. His solution became a faith, or some say a philosophy, though 99.99% of its faithful sure seem to want wealth and respect and 'face'.

 

Science and knowledge of both biochemistry and physics have taken away almost all the power anybody's god or gods had. I have to tip my hat to John Smith, however, who sold a lie to people who should have known better, because much was already known about existence when he made up his tale, even tossing in magic underwear to the mix. It is kind of understandable that Stone Age or Bronze Age people were fooled by charlatans or crazy people, but by the time John Smith sold his bill of goods, much of the true nature of existence had been revealed.

 

The mind decays with age or injury. A good many people are nothing but vegetative just before passing. Still many need to believe that at that instant of death all comes back to what it was, complete with memories and personality.....unless the entity is reincarnated, in which case the mind must go through some sort of Men in Black neuralyzer to erase memory of any past iteration. For many, it is too much to accept that existence is random, resulting more from somebody being horny than any Master Plan, and consciousness is merely a wonderful interplay between physical atoms and electromagnetism.

 

Let's have a quick look at quantum theory. It's a very complicated theory and only a handful of people in the world understand the full scope of it, and even those people admit that their knowledge of it is sketchy or incomplete. Then you have a myriad of amateur physicists who kind of grasp the overall idea behind it, because the first group dumbed it down enough so that the masses would understand. They use analogies and examples to get complex concepts across. Finally, you have a third group of people who have no idea whatsoever, but like to parrot big words so that others may think they actually know what they're talking about.

One theory....many interpretations and understandings of the theory. Those who know are few, those that don't know are many.
The clarity/intelligence/level of development of the interpreter defines how well the original theory is understood and implemented.

The same principle applies to religious/spiritual knowledge.
You have a few people who know what they're talking about (Buddha, Adi Shankara, Teresa of Avila just to name a few). But since what they are talking about can't really be put into words due to its ineffable nature, they have to come up with analogies, images or stories to convey a better understanding for those who didn't have a direct experience.
Then you have the believers, who kind of get the idea behind, but because their understanding is limited, they tend to distort those teachings by mixing them with less enlightened information. 
Finally, you have the group with a minimal understanding who will accept anything proposed without further inquiry (those that take the bible literally for example).

One theory....many interpretations and understandings of the theory. Those who know through direct experience are few, those that don't know are many.
The clarity/intelligence/level of development of the interpreter defines how well the original theory is understood and implemented.

So, who is to blame for the faulty information that pervades the masses? Do you blame the theory or those who interpret the theory? 
What is the solution? Certainly not going from door to door trying to enlighten people. 
I think the solution is to gain a deeper understanding by ourselves, so that one day WE may become one of the few who understand. This, I believe, is the best course of action. Don't care yourself with what others believe or don't believe, but try to further your own understanding. 

 

1 hour ago, Walker88 said:

consciousness is merely a wonderful interplay between physical atoms and electromagnetism.

This is yet another unverified and unproven belief that people take as a "scientific" fact. Any serious and honest neuroscientist will tell you that they simply don't know how consciousness is formed. 
Sure, on one level it is a wonderful interplay between atoms and electromagnetism, yet it is so much more than that.

[thaibeachlovers]

20 hours ago, Sunmaster said:

 

Let's have a quick look at quantum theory. It's a very complicated theory and only a handful of people in the world understand the full scope of it, and even those people admit that their knowledge of it is sketchy or incomplete. Then you have a myriad of amateur physicists who kind of grasp the overall idea behind it, because the first group dumbed it down enough so that the masses would understand. They use analogies and examples to get complex concepts across. Finally, you have a third group of people who have no idea whatsoever, but like to parrot big words so that others may think they actually know what they're talking about.

One theory....many interpretations and understandings of the theory. Those who know are few, those that don't know are many.
The clarity/intelligence/level of development of the interpreter defines how well the original theory is understood and implemented.

The same principle applies to religious/spiritual knowledge.
You have a few people who know what they're talking about (Buddha, Adi Shankara, Teresa of Avila just to name a few). But since what they are talking about can't really be put into words due to its ineffable nature, they have to come up with analogies, images or stories to convey a better understanding for those who didn't have a direct experience.
Then you have the believers, who kind of get the idea behind, but because their understanding is limited, they tend to distort those teachings by mixing them with less enlightened information. 
Finally, you have the group with a minimal understanding who will accept anything proposed without further inquiry (those that take the bible literally for example).

One theory....many interpretations and understandings of the theory. Those who know through direct experience are few, those that don't know are many.
The clarity/intelligence/level of development of the interpreter defines how well the original theory is understood and implemented.

So, who is to blame for the faulty information that pervades the masses? Do you blame the theory or those who interpret the theory? 
What is the solution? Certainly not going from door to door trying to enlighten people. 
I think the solution is to gain a deeper understanding by ourselves, so that one day WE may become one of the few who understand. This, I believe, is the best course of action. Don't care yourself with what others believe or don't believe, but try to further your own understanding. 

 

This is yet another unverified and unproven belief that people take as a "scientific" fact. Any serious and honest neuroscientist will tell you that they simply don't know how consciousness is formed. 
Sure, on one level it is a wonderful interplay between atoms and electromagnetism, yet it is so much more than that.

Can he explain where atoms and electromagnetism originated? No, of course he can't. Non believers have to imagine it all just happened, by magic, out of nothing.

It's not hard to pick holes in their reasoning.

[thaibeachlovers]

21 hours ago, Walker88 said:

Yet this month much of the world celebrates just such a tale told by a Bronze Age woman to her traveling mate. I enjoy the Holiday, but the lie behind it is rather silly.

You should at least try and get your story straight. Bronze age ended hundreds of years before Jesus, and she didn't tell it to her travelling mate. She told him or he found out before they traveled as he married her to save her from scandal ( and perhaps getting stoned to death as a whore ) We don't know if he knew that she claimed to be impregnated by God. It's all written down.

 

Christmas is a pagan festival co opted by early Christians, so what is the lie?

[Nick Carter icp]

6 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Can he explain where atoms and electromagnetism originated? No, of course he can't. Non believers have to imagine it all just happened, by magic, out of nothing.

It's not hard to pick holes in their reasoning.

 

   Where did God come from ?

Who formed him ?

[thaibeachlovers]

21 hours ago, Walker88 said:

Another few billion folks insist---under penalty of death---that the supposed creator of 200 billion galaxies each with around a trillion stars picked some illiterate pedophile in the middle of nowhere to share its final message.

Would you prefer a burning bush?

 

I'm not saying I believe he was actually chosen by God though, as I don't believe that God cares about humans any more than the Dodo ( and we know what happened to the Dodo ), given I don't ascribe human emotions to God.

That's right, whether you live or die is IMO of zero consequence to God. Carry on.

[thaibeachlovers]

22 hours ago, Walker88 said:

Science and knowledge of both biochemistry and physics have taken away almost all the power anybody's god or gods had.

Creating the universe from nothing is pretty powerful though. If God didn't create it, where do you suggest it originated from? Did Voldemort create it by magic?

 

To those that believe in God without religion, God isn't a power, but a spiritual experience we have within ourselves..

[thaibeachlovers]

20 hours ago, Sunmaster said:

Sure, on one level it is a wonderful interplay between atoms and electromagnetism, yet it is so much more than that.

Is it not possible that atoms and electromagnetism were created to allow consciousness to have a mechanism to exist independently of God?

 

[Sunmaster]

4 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Is it not possible that atoms and electromagnetism were created to allow consciousness to have a mechanism to exist independently of God?

 

If God is defined as the ultimate principle of existence, the Ground of All Being....then logic would dictate that there is nothing outside of God or independent of God. There is nothing that isn't God. If there were, then there would be something besides God, which in turn would mean that God is not the all-pervading, all-powerful principle we ascribe to it.

But the first part of your sentence is correct. The material body, including the brain with all its functions is a way for consciousness to interact with the material world.

[Sunmaster]

32 minutes ago, Nick Carter icp said:

 

   Where did God come from ?

Who formed him ?

These are 4D questions (space and time) that make no sense when related to something that transcends 4D. 
Something that has a beginning in time is by its own nature temporary. First it wasn't there, then it appeared, finally it will disappear again. If something is temporary, it is not God, but only a manifestation of God.

God is the principle that is unaffected by time. 
 

Edited December 13, 2023 by Sunmaster

[thaibeachlovers]

1 minute ago, Sunmaster said:

If God is defined as the ultimate principle of existence, the Ground of All Being....then logic would dictate that there is nothing outside of God or independent of God. There is nothing that isn't God. If there were, then there would be something besides God, which in turn would mean that God is not the all-pervading, all-powerful principle we ascribe to it.

But the first part of your sentence is correct. The material body, including the brain with all its functions is a way for consciousness to interact with the material world.

That is where we differ. I believe that God created the universe as something separate from God.

If everything in the universe was part of God, there would be no need of the universe.

However, how do I know that I am not part of God and just making up my own existence for some unknown reason- I might have made an entirely illusionary existence, along the lines of the Matrix? After all, most of the planet is unknown to me except what I see on tv. Some AI might be inventing the entire Gaza conflict and Palestine might not even exist, along with the entire world that I can not walk in. Jim Carry made a movie about a life like that, where he lived in a movie set not knowing that the edges of his existence kept the real world out.

[thaibeachlovers]

4 minutes ago, Sunmaster said:

These are 4D questions (space and time) that make no sense when related to something that transcends 4D. 
Something that has a beginning in time is by its own nature temporary. First it wasn't there, then it appeared, finally it will disappear again. If something is temporary, it is not God, but only a manifestation of God.

God is the principle that is unaffected by time. 
 

Some things do not make sense logically eg we being logical creatures wonder where God came from, is there another God that made our God, and so on like reflecting mirrors for all eternity?

However, to be human is to not know everything and to believe in a superior being without scientific proof is the essence of spirituality IMO.

[Sunmaster]

1 minute ago, thaibeachlovers said:

That is where we differ. I believe that God created the universe as something separate from God.

If everything in the universe was part of God, there would be no need of the universe.

However, how do I know that I am not part of God and just making up my own existence for some unknown reason- I might have made an entirely illusionary existence, along the lines of the Matrix? After all, most of the planet is unknown to me except what I see on tv. Some AI might be inventing the entire Gaza conflict and Palestine might not even exist, along with the entire world that I can not walk in. Jim Carry made a movie about a life like that, where he lived in a movie set not knowing that the edges of his existence kept the real world out.

I guess it depends on your definition of God then.
I cannot conceive of something separate from God, least of all the material world. 

How do you know whether you are part of God or just imagining your life? Good question!
I think both options are correct. We are part of God AND we are creating our lives by shining the light of our consciousness and illuminating the world around us. Nothing and nobody can create it for us. We are like the projector in a cinema, bringing images to life on the unchanging silver screen of the Divine Consciousness. We believe the images to be true, we cry during sad scenes, we laugh during funny scenes, but when the film ends, what is left? Only the silver screen remains. 
How do we know that? By stepping back and not attaching ourselves to the ever-changing stories. By becoming dispassionate observers. Only then do we have the choice whether to play along and act as if the film were real, or simply observe the scenes in the full knowledge that they are just temporary projections. 
 

[xylophone]

23 hours ago, Walker88 said:

If your wife or girlfriend, with whom you've yet to consummate the relationship or after you've had a vasectomy, came to you pregnant and insisted "God did it", I doubt anyone would buy it.

 

Yet this month much of the world celebrates just such a tale told by a Bronze Age woman to her traveling mate. I enjoy the Holiday, but the lie behind it is rather silly.

 

If a dad provides absolutely no assistance or financial support to the child he helped create, we call him a Deadbeat Dad, yet billions pray to a fictitious being that behaved exactly that way.

 

Religion is a funny thing.

 

Another few billion folks insist---under penalty of death---that the supposed creator of 200 billion galaxies each with around a trillion stars picked some illiterate pedophile in the middle of nowhere to share its final message.

 

Then there was a guy who seemed to suffer from what we now know is clinical depression, but he found a solution where he would make himself absent of all desire, thus never being down or disappointed. He also plagiarized from the vedas, which were written before he came on the scene. His solution became a faith, or some say a philosophy, though 99.99% of its faithful sure seem to want wealth and respect and 'face'.

 

Science and knowledge of both biochemistry and physics have taken away almost all the power anybody's god or gods had. I have to tip my hat to John Smith, however, who sold a lie to people who should have known better, because much was already known about existence when he made up his tale, even tossing in magic underwear to the mix. It is kind of understandable that Stone Age or Bronze Age people were fooled by charlatans or crazy people, but by the time John Smith sold his bill of goods, much of the true nature of existence had been revealed.

 

The mind decays with age or injury. A good many people are nothing but vegetative just before passing. Still many need to believe that at that instant of death all comes back to what it was, complete with memories and personality.....unless the entity is reincarnated, in which case the mind must go through some sort of Men in Black neuralyzer to erase memory of any past iteration. For many, it is too much to accept that existence is random, resulting more from somebody being horny than any Master Plan, and consciousness is merely a wonderful interplay between physical atoms and electromagnetism.

 

Wonderful, wonderful, wonderful................The best I have ever seen, thank you @Walker88

Edited December 13, 2023 by xylophone

[Negita43]

Whether you do or not the important question is:

"Do you believe in the institutionalization of the concept of God by man - IE Religion.

[Sunmaster]

34 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

to believe in a superior being without scientific proof is the essence of spirituality IMO.

I have to disagree with this.

To believe is to take something to be true without knowing for sure if it's true or not. "I believe the world was created in 7 days."
The essence of spirituality is spiritual practice, to go from mere believing to knowing through direct experience. 
If you know something to be true, why would you need science to validate it for you? It would be redundant.