Do you believe in God and why

[Skeptic7]

I posted a Poll (survey) on TV a few months ago. For those interested in casting a vote and/or seeing the results...it can be found by clicking the link below.

 

 

[Tagged]

31 minutes ago, Skeptic7 said:

I want truth. 

The truth is, everything started with dus, and everything will be dust again. 

 

"for dustthou art, and unto dust shalt thou return."

[Isaanbiker]

On 9/5/2019 at 1:40 PM, oldhippy said:

So you are not talking about the jewish / christian / muslim god? (like most of the other posters).

More a wishy washy third age thing, a principle?

Fine for me, that is at least not harmfull to human beings.

Where did you get that stuff from? Mind to share some puffs? 

[Isaanbiker]

Not too many people even know that Jesus invented the pole dance. 

 

   Let's pray. 

[Skeptic7]

11 minutes ago, Isaanbiker said:

Not too many people even know that Jesus invented the pole dance. 

 

   Let's pray. 

Here's another "pole" dance not everyone is aware...????

 

https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2014/09/pennsylvania-teenager-hump-oral-sex-jesus-statue-prison/ 

 

Edited September 10, 2019 by Skeptic7

[FarFlungFalang]

54 minutes ago, Skeptic7 said:

I want truth. The only time to accept or believe things is when there are actual reasons supported by valid evidence.

Now for the painful part.

Firstly I like your rhetorical question so I'll answer why I argue both sides like you "I want truth" I also enjoy the search and the discussion trying to prove which side of the argument is the most truthful.As I've mentioned before I decided to define "god" and as you're aware there are many definitions of "god".This turned out for me to relatively easy after checking a few dictionaries I decided on the word "being" not a supernatural creator god thing as you put it (I will get to supernatural shortly)."being" means roughly something that exists or existence.So for me it's that simple if something exists then that falls into my definition of "god",and that fits in with what I call truth.I'm searching for errors in my argument and you have already pointed out that there is already a definition for god and I can't just make one up bit I did just make one up and it seems to fit pretty nicely in my argument.

Now the "supernatural" part.

" (of a manifestation or event) attributed to some force beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature" 

"Some force beyond scientific understanding" to me that seems to include wether the universe was created or not.If the universe was created then the force which created it is currently beyond scientific understanding.If the universe is eternal then I'm not sure wether that is beyond scientific understanding or not but to me it seems pretty super and pretty natural maybe even pretty supernatural or maybe just pretty?

"And while no one can honestly say with absolute 100% certainty that there is no god, even though that is what many of us strongly think, there is still no reason to believe it."

Above is an interesting quote from you in the "god" poll link.

 If you can find a flaw or weakness in either my definition of "god" or wether it is legitimate or not or wether it is untruthful let me know and I will see if I can defend it,because if I can't defend it successfully then I will have to continue my search for the truth. 

 

[Skeptic7]

9 minutes ago, FarFlungFalang said:

Now for the painful part.

Firstly I like your rhetorical question so I'll answer why I argue both sides like you "I want truth" I also enjoy the search and the discussion trying to prove which side of the argument is the most truthful.As I've mentioned before I decided to define "god" and as you're aware there are many definitions of "god".This turned out for me to relatively easy after checking a few dictionaries I decided on the word "being" not a supernatural creator god thing as you put it (I will get to supernatural shortly)."being" means roughly something that exists or existence.So for me it's that simple if something exists then that falls into my definition of "god",and that fits in with what I call truth.I'm searching for errors in my argument and you have already pointed out that there is already a definition for god and I can't just make one up bit I did just make one up and it seems to fit pretty nicely in my argument.

Now the "supernatural" part.

" (of a manifestation or event) attributed to some force beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature" 

"Some force beyond scientific understanding" to me that seems to include wether the universe was created or not.If the universe was created then the force which created it is currently beyond scientific understanding.If the universe is eternal then I'm not sure wether that is beyond scientific understanding or not but to me it seems pretty super and pretty natural maybe even pretty supernatural or maybe just pretty?

"And while no one can honestly say with absolute 100% certainty that there is no god, even though that is what many of us strongly think, there is still no reason to believe it."

Above is an interesting quote from you in the "god" poll link.

 If you can find a flaw or weakness in either my definition of "god" or wether it is legitimate or not or wether it is untruthful let me know and I will see if I can defend it,because if I can't defend it successfully then I will have to continue my search for the truth. 

 

2 things...

 

1. appears that you've left of the preceding adjective in the definitions of both "god" and "God". nothing i've seen just says "being". there are preceding adjectives like "supreme", "all-powerful", "omni" this and that, "supernatural", etc. Now since you've omitted those adjectives and come up with just the word "being" as your definition...does that mean since we are and have "being", we are also gods? Is every "being" a god? Seems the answer has got to be NO. 

 

If you're stating your definition is "a being beyond the laws of nature"...then that is no different than the definitions from which you stripped the adjectives.

 

2. I've changed my statement from the God Belief Poll you quoted above, with the major change emboldened below...

And while no one can say with absolute 100% certainty that there are no leprechauns/fairies/unicorns, Bigfoot or Russell's teapot, even though that is what many of us strongly think, there are still no valid reasons to believe in any of them.

 

Does that make my point a bit better or more clear? 

 

You still haven't made clear why you believe such and what convinced you...nor presented any actual evidence for such. Are you aware of any forces beyond or outside the laws of nature? 

 

[FarFlungFalang]

7 minutes ago, Skeptic7 said:

You still haven't made clear why you believe such and what convinced you...nor presented any actual evidence for such. Are you aware of any forces beyond or outside the laws of nature? 

I guess what I did was come up with a definition that I could believe in rather than try and believe in the generally accepted definition of god which is something I couldn't do.So you could say I cheated and you would probably be right but I would say I bent the rules or made up some of my own which when I think about it others have made up the definition of god so I figured I would do the same which seems fair to me.Yes mine is a stripped down version of the definition of god devoid of the religious connotations which I've done to try and help god fit into the real world of logic and reason.

"We are being" meaning we are existing and we are "a" being meaning we are an existence not "a" god but god or part of that which is defined by my definition of "god" that is existence.With my definition "all powerful" "supreme" and "omni"(which means everywhere) can still be applied.Supreme means number one or of the highest rank, I can't think of something that ranks higher or is more important than existence or something that is more powerful than existence.

 I get you point about fairies and leprechauns and such,not being able to prove something doesn't exist doesn't prove that it exist or is a valid reason for believing in it.

 I am not aware of any forces beyond or outside of the laws of nature which is why I chose the "beyond scientific understanding" part of the definition as it seemed to present me with a choice of options rather than having to apply both parts of the definition which doesn't help my argument much.

So to try and answer why I believe such I think is answered in the beginning of this reply and I'm not sure I'm entirely convinced as I'm still trying to explore my definition and with your generous help I've explored previously unexplored areas.Actual evidence of existence,proof of existence? or evidence and proof that god can be defined as existence?   

[Skeptic7]

38 minutes ago, FarFlungFalang said:

I guess what I did was come up with a definition that I could believe in rather than try and believe in the generally accepted definition of god which is something I couldn't do.So you could say I cheated and you would probably be right but I would say I bent the rules or made up some of my own which when I think about it others have made up the definition of god so I figured I would do the same which seems fair to me.Yes mine is a stripped down version of the definition of god devoid of the religious connotations which I've done to try and help god fit into the real world of logic and reason.

"We are being" meaning we are existing and we are "a" being meaning we are an existence not "a" god but god or part of that which is defined by my definition of "god" that is existence.With my definition "all powerful" "supreme" and "omni"(which means everywhere) can still be applied.Supreme means number one or of the highest rank, I can't think of something that ranks higher or is more important than existence or something that is more powerful than existence.

 I get you point about fairies and leprechauns and such,not being able to prove something doesn't exist doesn't prove that it exist or is a valid reason for believing in it.

 I am not aware of any forces beyond or outside of the laws of nature which is why I chose the "beyond scientific understanding" part of the definition as it seemed to present me with a choice of options rather than having to apply both parts of the definition which doesn't help my argument much.

So to try and answer why I believe such I think is answered in the beginning of this reply and I'm not sure I'm entirely convinced as I'm still trying to explore my definition and with your generous help I've explored previously unexplored areas.Actual evidence of existence,proof of existence? or evidence and proof that god can be defined as existence?   

A lot to ponder, especially if it troubles you. Personally I don't get it nor see the need, but only you are you. Appreciate your honesty, engagement and willingness to admit you don't know...which is what some others here refuse to do...regardless how extraordinary and nonsensical their claims or beliefs. 

 

Others here will say I'm not willing to admit "don't know'. The difference is that I'm NOT the one making extraordinary claims and bending/twisting already established definitions. They are making wild claims, with no evidence or reason or explanation. Extraordinary Claims Require Extraordinary Evidence...as Carl Sagan put so succinctly. I'm just not receptive to such woo claims and insist they provide such evidence. Not only can they not...they can't even provide a shred of ordinary evidence. 

 

My final point, with which a few posters here take great offense and could never grasp, so much as resolve is...what is the difference between something that is completely unknowable, disinterested, hands off, invisible, inexplicable, incomprehensible and totally quiet...what is the diff between that and something that doesn't exist? What's the diff? How can anyone know or comprehend that which is totally unknowable and incomprehensible? It's impossible. So the bigger question is...why even give it a thought or care...like some here do??? They make spectacular claims and then whine and cry foul when I press them for some sort of an explanation. If it can't be known, as they say...then how do they know?!? It's a obvious contradiction and also beyond comprehension! haha

[Sunmaster]

5 hours ago, Skeptic7 said:

I want truth. The only time to accept or believe things is when there are actual reasons supported by valid evidence. Sure there are "feel good" reasons for people to believe in such things...it makes me feel good...it's comforting...i just can't wrap my head around it...etc. Not interested. Personally, I want to KNOW. I want to know true things and discard untrue things. Truth is based on facts, evidence, reality, logic and reason. Before any type of supernatural explanation can be considered, it first has to be demonstrated...yes? Since we have unlimited examples of natural processes every single second of our lives and zero (thus far anyway) examples of supernatural...it's obvious IMO. 

 

 

This sounds all very nice and reasonable,  however this is not what emerged from your posts. Quite the contrary actually. 

What you're after is not truth, at least not the one with a capital T, but more like confirmation of what you already believe to be true.

There no challenging your own set of beliefs, which is what true truth seekers do. You've been presented with methods that allow you to find out by yourself, through your own personal experience, if the spiritual mumbo jumbo is actually true or not. You would trust your own experience, right? 

 

You say you need evidence to prove the existence of a higher power....

Is evidence based reality the only reality there is?

The evidence in that system has to be generated inside that system itself to be valid. In our case, science should be able to provide evidence for spirit.

What if there are other systems that work with different sets of rules?

What if our evidence based reality is transcended and included in another wider reality, much like your "child consciousness" was transcended and included in your "adult consciousness"? The knowledge you have gathered as an adult would not make much sense to the child. The same way the spiritual reality won't make much sense in the material reality. Still, it exists with or without evidence.

 

To prove the existence of God you would have to play by the rules set within that (spiritual) reality. Trying to prove that reality through scientific methods will never work and can not be considered evidence for the non-existence of a higher power, unless you're really obnoxious of course. 

[Sunmaster]

1 hour ago, Skeptic7 said:

A lot to ponder, especially if it troubles you. Personally I don't get it nor see the need, but only you are you. Appreciate your honesty, engagement and willingness to admit you don't know...which is what some others here refuse to do...regardless how extraordinary and nonsensical their claims or beliefs. 

 

Others here will say I'm not willing to admit "don't know'. The difference is that I'm NOT the one making extraordinary claims and bending/twisting already established definitions. They are making wild claims, with no evidence or reason or explanation. Extraordinary Claims Require Extraordinary Evidence...as Carl Sagan put so succinctly. I'm just not receptive to such woo claims and insist they provide such evidence. Not only can they not...they can't even provide a shred of ordinary evidence. 

 

My final point, with which a few posters here take great offense and could never grasp, so much as resolve is...what is the difference between something that is completely unknowable, disinterested, hands off, invisible, inexplicable, incomprehensible and totally quiet...what is the diff between that and something that doesn't exist? What's the diff? How can anyone know or comprehend that which is totally unknowable and incomprehensible? It's impossible. So the bigger question is...why even give it a thought or care...like some here do??? They make spectacular claims and then whine and cry foul when I press them for some sort of an explanation. If it can't be known, as they say...then how do they know?!? It's a obvious contradiction and also beyond comprehension! haha

Of course you're able to know, that's what spiritual practices are meant for.

Maybe you (or anyone for that matter) will never grasp and know God in its entirety, but is that a reason not even to try?

Edited September 10, 2019 by Sunmaster

[thaibeachlovers]

On ‎9‎/‎9‎/‎2019 at 5:29 PM, Tagged said:

Whatever created "everything", they could as most likely sit behind a desk and made our limited universes on a computer. We are just a game, a science project, entertainment, for all we know. 

 

However, you mention electricity and electrons

https://www.universetoday.com/116615/how-are-energy-and-matter-the-same/

 

 

Far as I know, "God" could regard planet earth as we regard an ant farm. Interesting to look at, but no way going to go and rescue an ant that gets into trouble.

[thaibeachlovers]

4 hours ago, Skeptic7 said:

If it can't be known, as they say...then how do they know?!?

It's called "faith". The acceptance that there are some things which are inexplicable. I've experienced many such in my life.

As someone that apparently has no faith in anything that can't be seen, touched or explained by "science", I doubt you are even willing to accept the reality that there is more to existence than can be explained by "science", so I don't get why you are even on here, as you are not going to convert the faithful. 

[Skeptic7]

1 minute ago, thaibeachlovers said:

It's called "faith". The acceptance that there are some things which are inexplicable. I've experienced many such in my life.

As someone that apparently has no faith in anything that can't be seen, touched or explained by "science", I doubt you are even willing to accept the reality that there is more to existence than can be explained by "science", so I don't get why you are even on here, as you are not going to convert the faithful. 

Then why not explain it for all to understand? Anyone can make up fantasies and spout them out as realities. Trump does it all the time. Doesn't make him (or you) correct. "Faith" is an acceptable answer, if rather lame...but as soon as "faith" is your answer, there is no justification or acceptable explanation. You should be done and leave it there.  

 

I get it now...

 

You believe, based on faith, in something "greater than us". However you have no idea what it is. It is invisible, inexplicable, incomprehensible, unknowable, un-provable, supernatural, but doesn't interact and is totally disinterested.

 

OK I get it now...

You have "faith" in NOTHINGNESS. 

[FarFlungFalang]

42 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

As someone that apparently has no faith in anything that can't be seen, touched or explained by "science", I doubt you are even willing to accept the reality that there is more to existence than can be explained by "science", so I don't get why you are even on here, as you are not going to convert the faithful. 

He is here because he is skeptical and is asking questions which is absolutely the right thing to do.I too am skeptical I ask myself questions but it is good to get different questions if the questions cannot be satisfactorily answered then doubts must arise.If ones argument can withstand the questions and can be successfully addressed then it increases in strength.

[ThaiBunny]

9 hours ago, FarFlungFalang said:

I guess what I did was come up with a definition that I could believe in rather than try and believe in the generally accepted definition of god which is something I couldn't do

Why do you need anything to believe in? What's the point?

[FarFlungFalang]

2 minutes ago, ThaiBunny said:

Why do you need anything to believe in? What's the point?

For me it was about being comfortable playing Blind Willie Johnson's slide guitar songs which are predominately gospel songs.Being a non believer in the existence of god made me uncomfortable performing his music.That is the reason and also the point of it.If you read some of my previous post you can see I was also interested trying to argue the other side of the debate to explore possible plausible arguments.There was no real or pressing "need" just a desire to search for knowledge and explore the concept of truth.  

[CMNightRider]

15 hours ago, Skeptic7 said:

So you're OK with living in a natural world and universe with natural processes and explanations all around us...with zero "supernatural" processes ever and never a supernatural explanation for anything...yet you are OK denying natural processes for abiogenesis and inserting some supernatural Thing??? Think maybe time you put down the pipe. 

 

No evidence of any god-creator-thing has ever been demonstrated. No evidence of anything supernatural has ever been demonstrated. You cannot explain something extremely complex and not yet quite figured out by inserting something absurd and even more misunderstood and unlikely. 

 

Please show one valid example of anything understood now, which was not previously understood, that has been attributed to a supernatural process. Just one?!? I'll help ya out...there aren't any. Not one. ZERO. 

 

Snap out of it! 

Okay, here is one of many for you to contemplate.  Probably the greatest evidence of design in creation is DNA, the material of which our genes are made, as well as the genetic material for every living thing on the planet.  One of the startling discoveries about DNA is that it is a highly complex informational code, so complex that scientists struggle hard to decipher even the tiniest portions of the various genes in every organism.  DNA conveys intelligent information; in fact, molecular biologists use language terms -- code, translation, transcription -- to describe what it does and how it acts.  Communication engineers and information scientists tell us that you can't have a code without a code-maker, so it would seem that DNA is probably the strongest indicator in our world that there is an intelligent Designer behind its existence.

[ThaiBunny]

33 minutes ago, FarFlungFalang said:

Being a non believer in the existence of god made me uncomfortable performing his music

It must be your Catholic upbringing, all that guilt. I can happily belt out a hymn just as I can happily sing the national anthem - anybody's national anthem. The words are a load of tosh, but the feeling of solidarity is palpable

[ThaiBunny]

23 minutes ago, CMNightRider said:

it would seem that DNA is probably the strongest indicator in our world that there is an intelligent Designer behind its existence.

So what - what's the point of such a belief?

[CMNightRider]

26 minutes ago, ThaiBunny said:

So what - what's the point of such a belief?

Lol, I guess the point would be, DNA is probably the strongest indicator in our world there is an intelligent Designer (God) behind its existence.  If some of you guys want to hang on to the belief we came from cosmic dust or some sort of soupy substance from another planet, then you people will be in for a rude awakening when your time is up on this planet.  You have until your last breath to choose between Heaven or Hell.   

[Sunmaster]

4 hours ago, FarFlungFalang said:

He is here because he is skeptical and is asking questions which is absolutely the right thing to do.I too am skeptical I ask myself questions but it is good to get different questions if the questions cannot be satisfactorily answered then doubts must arise.If ones argument can withstand the questions and can be successfully addressed then it increases in strength.

Thanks FarFlungFalang for a new interesting point of view. Asking questions is great, it's the whole point of this thread. Even better though is being able to consider answers that may not fit in your BS (belief system), at the very least listen to them without judgement or condescension. One should have the humility to know that nobody has all the answers.

[CMNightRider]

22 hours ago, Skeptic7 said:

So you're OK with living in a natural world and universe with natural processes and explanations all around us...with zero "supernatural" processes ever and never a supernatural explanation for anything...yet you are OK denying natural processes for abiogenesis and inserting some supernatural Thing??? Think maybe time you put down the pipe. 

 

No evidence of any god-creator-thing has ever been demonstrated. No evidence of anything supernatural has ever been demonstrated. You cannot explain something extremely complex and not yet quite figured out by inserting something absurd and even more misunderstood and unlikely. 

 

Please show one valid example of anything understood now, which was not previously understood, that has been attributed to a supernatural process. Just one?!? I'll help ya out...there aren't any. Not one. ZERO. 

 

Snap out of it! 

This is one of God's creations to give some thought to.  

 

The Earth...its size is perfect.  The Earth's size and corresponding gravity holds a thin layer of mostly nitrogen and oxygen gases, only extending about 50 miles above the Earth's surface.  If Earth were smaller, an atmosphere would be impossible, like the planet Mercury.  If Earth were larger, its atmosphere would contain free hydrogen, like Jupiter.  Earth is the only known planet equipped with an atmosphere of the right mixture of gases to sustain plant, animal and human life.

 

The Earth is located the right distance from the sun.  Consider the temperature swings we encounter, roughly -30 degrees to +120 degrees.  If the Earth were any further away from the sun, we would all freeze.  Any closer and we would burn up.  Even a fractional variance in the Earth's position to the sun would make life on Earth impossible. The Earth remains this perfect distance from the sun while it rotates around the sun at a speed of nearly 67,000 mph.  It is also rotating on its axis, allowing the entire surface of the Earth to be properly warmed and cooled every day.

[Skeptic7]

6 hours ago, CMNightRider said:

Okay, here is one of many for you to contemplate.  Probably the greatest evidence of design in creation is DNA, the material of which our genes are made, as well as the genetic material for every living thing on the planet.  One of the startling discoveries about DNA is that it is a highly complex informational code, so complex that scientists struggle hard to decipher even the tiniest portions of the various genes in every organism.  DNA conveys intelligent information; in fact, molecular biologists use language terms -- code, translation, transcription -- to describe what it does and how it acts.  Communication engineers and information scientists tell us that you can't have a code without a code-maker, so it would seem that DNA is probably the strongest indicator in our world that there is an intelligent Designer behind its existence.

Not so. That's why the vast majority of countries around the world disagree and do not teach I.D. It's just Christianity badly disguised as legit. It isn't.

 

Internationally, evolution is taught in science courses with limited controversy, with the exception of a few areas of the United States and several Islamic fundamentalist countries. In the United States, the Supreme Court has ruled the teaching of creationism as science in public schools to be unconstitutional, irrespective of how it may be purveyed in theological or religious instruction. In the United States, intelligent design (ID) has been represented as an alternative explanation to evolution in recent decades, but its "demonstrably religious, cultural, and legal missions" have been ruled unconstitutional by a lower court.

 

From the Australian Academy of Science...

More than 70,000 scientists and science teachers are represented in an open letter warning that 'intelligent design' should not be taught in school science classes. The letter was published in major Australian newspapers on 21 October 2005.

 

and from...

The U.S. National Academy of Sciences has stated that "creationism, intelligent design, and other claims of supernatural intervention in the origin of life or of species are not science". "Intelligent design" creationism is not supported by scientific evidence.

 

and...

The Council of Europe’s Parliamentary Assembly approved a resolution saying attacks on the theory of evolution were rooted “in forms of religious extremism” and amounted to a dangerous assault on science and human rights.

[Skeptic7]

4 minutes ago, CMNightRider said:

This is one of God's creations to give some thought to.  

 

The Earth...its size is perfect.  The Earth's size and corresponding gravity holds a thin layer of mostly nitrogen and oxygen gases, only extending about 50 miles above the Earth's surface.  If Earth were smaller, an atmosphere would be impossible, like the planet Mercury.  If Earth were larger, its atmosphere would contain free hydrogen, like Jupiter.  Earth is the only known planet equipped with an atmosphere of the right mixture of gases to sustain plant, animal and human life.

 

The Earth is located the right distance from the sun.  Consider the temperature swings we encounter, roughly -30 degrees to +120 degrees.  If the Earth were any further away from the sun, we would all freeze.  Any closer and we would burn up.  Even a fractional variance in the Earth's position to the sun would make life on Earth impossible. The Earth remains this perfect distance from the sun while it rotates around the sun at a speed of nearly 67,000 mph.  It is also rotating on its axis, allowing the entire surface of the Earth to be properly warmed and cooled every day.

You have got to be kidding me! Ridiculous to the nth power. Beyond absurd.   Betting you're also amazed and astounded how the hole in the ground is just the perfect size and shape(!) for the water in it.      

[patongphil]

On 4/14/2019 at 11:47 PM, hiwave said:

Go the Purple!!

[CMNightRider]

1 hour ago, Skeptic7 said:

Not so. That's why the vast majority of countries around the world disagree and do not teach I.D. It's just Christianity badly disguised as legit. It isn't.

 

Internationally, evolution is taught in science courses with limited controversy, with the exception of a few areas of the United States and several Islamic fundamentalist countries. In the United States, the Supreme Court has ruled the teaching of creationism as science in public schools to be unconstitutional, irrespective of how it may be purveyed in theological or religious instruction. In the United States, intelligent design (ID) has been represented as an alternative explanation to evolution in recent decades, but its "demonstrably religious, cultural, and legal missions" have been ruled unconstitutional by a lower court.

 

From the Australian Academy of Science...

More than 70,000 scientists and science teachers are represented in an open letter warning that 'intelligent design' should not be taught in school science classes. The letter was published in major Australian newspapers on 21 October 2005.

 

and from...

The U.S. National Academy of Sciences has stated that "creationism, intelligent design, and other claims of supernatural intervention in the origin of life or of species are not science". "Intelligent design" creationism is not supported by scientific evidence.

 

and...

The Council of Europe’s Parliamentary Assembly approved a resolution saying attacks on the theory of evolution were rooted “in forms of religious extremism” and amounted to a dangerous assault on science and human rights.

What, lol???  The greatest evidence of design in creation is DNA, the material of which our genes are made, as well as the genetic material for every living thing on the planet.  Understanding this basic fact is not some sort of dangerous assault on science or human rights.  You might want to rub those sleepy little eyes and wake up.  

 

 

[Skeptic7]

8 minutes ago, patongphil said:

Go the Purple!!

Yeah...the toaster can and will actually do something if i push the right levers! 

 

Great stuff! Go the Purple! 

[Skeptic7]

6 minutes ago, CMNightRider said:

What, lol???  The greatest evidence of design in creation is DNA, the material of which our genes are made, as well as the genetic material for every living thing on the planet.  Understanding this basic fact is not some sort of dangerous assault on science or human rights.  You might want to rub those sleepy little eyes and wake up.  

 

 

Eyes rubbed and wide awake...along with the overwhelming majority of the scientific community...you know, the experts in these fields...which also disagrees with you. 

[Sunmaster]

The third post about the "Positive God-interpretation" is dedicated to literature.

This is a subjective list and doesn't want to be a "Top 10 Spiritual Best Sellers". Certain books find their way to us just at the right time and anchor themselves in our hearts. Sometimes they seed an idea that blossoms up years later. Some of them need to be read several times and each time we discover something new. Some books teach us more than 1000 sermons. Some books answer questions, others raise many more.

 

These books are the closest to my heart.

 

This book is truly amazing. The love Yogananda feels for God can be felt in every sentence and makes this book an all time classic when it comes to spiritual literature. My number 1.

 

I really like this book. It's a novel set in the future, were a group of people play a game wherein one must be able to build a philosophy that includes every human discipline. A first step to an integral philosophy.

An old book, but with timeless pearls of wisdom.

 

All books by Ken Wilber. A modern day philosopher and transpersonal psychologist. The developer of the Integral Theory: Integral theory is Ken Wilber's attempt to place a wide diversity of theories and thinkers into one single framework. It is portrayed as a "theory of everything", trying "to draw together an already existing number of separate paradigms into an interrelated network of approaches that are mutually enriching.
Not an easy read, but very very interesting.

 

Don Edward Beck is a teacher, geopolitical advisor, and theorist focusing on applications of large scale psychology, including social psychology, evolutionary psychology, organizational psychology and their effect on human sociocultural systems. 

 

 A leading spiritual and philosophical thinker. A captivating read.

 

Simple and to the point.

 

Finally, here is something I just found while browsing for pictures. It's about a scientist who found answers in spiritual practice. A scientist who believes in spiritual stuff?!? Heresy!!! 555
https://upliftconnect.com/a-scientists-spiritual-awakening/