Do you believe in God and why

[geronimo]

18 minutes ago, WalkingOrders said:

 

There is NO scientific law of attraction to my knowledge beyond magnetism, if there is I don't think there is any spiritual scientific connection established. 

 

 

There isn't ..... to your knowledge .... 

[WalkingOrders]

8 minutes ago, geronimo said:

There isn't ..... to your knowledge .... 

No unicorns either. All I ask is that unknowns are stated as such honestly without attempting to pass off new age hocus pocus as science, we all have beliefs.

[Sunmaster]

Personally, I firmly believe in the fact that we can attract things in our lives. Being optimistic and focusing my mind on something has often helped me to reach my goals.

Calling it a "law" is a bit too much of a stretch for me though and maybe a bit naive to be honest. If it were so easy and clear cut, then none of the people who believe it and practice it would ever get sick or have other undesirable things happen to them. Reality is different.
The difference I think is that the ego believes it has an unlimited credit card and that the universe is just a big shopping mall, where your every little desire is instantly fulfilled.
What we get though, is not what the ego wants, but what the soul needs. 
If the soul needs an illness to learn an important lesson in life, than that's what it will get, regardless of how many times the ego wishes it away.

Now, if the ego's desire and the soul's necessities are in unison, than I think magic can happen.

[mauGR1]

24 minutes ago, Sunmaster said:

Now, if the ego's desire and the soul's necessities are in unison, than I think magic can happen.

Not bad, but you are confusing the soul with the spirit, apart from that, i think that what you say is about right.

[Sunmaster]

19 minutes ago, mauGR1 said:

Not bad, but you are confusing the soul with the spirit, apart from that, i think that what you say is about right.

From what I understand, the ego is an illusory mental construct that falls away after death.

The soul is that individual (but never separate) part of Spirit that incarnates over and over again, forgetting about its divine provenance, learning life lessons along the way, until it finds its way back to Spirit and becomes one with it. When incarnated, we don't remember our soul status but after we die, our eternal status becomes clear again. With this knowledge, we (as souls) choose our next incarnation to hopefully make some progress. 
In this picture, Spirit is the ever-present, unchanging ground of all being.

Edited January 30, 2020 by Sunmaster

[mauGR1]

3 minutes ago, Sunmaster said:

From what I understand, the ego is an illusory mental construct that falls away after death.

The soul is that individual (but never separate) part of Spirit that incarnates over and over again, forgetting about its divine provenance, learning life lessons along the way, until it finds its way back to Spirit and becomes one with it. When incarnated, we don't remember our soul status but after we die, our eternal status becomes clear again. With this knowledge, we (as souls) choose our next incarnation to hopefully make some progress. 
In this picture, Spirit is the ever-present, unchanging ground of all being.

Definitely it makes sense, so pls ignore my remark, as it would be useless to discuss about semantics.

[Skeptic7]

1 hour ago, Sunmaster said:

Personally, I firmly believe in the fact that we can attract things in our lives. Being optimistic and focusing my mind on something has often helped me to reach my goals.

Calling it a "law" is a bit too much of a stretch for me though and maybe a bit naive to be honest. If it were so easy and clear cut, then none of the people who believe it and practice it would ever get sick or have other undesirable things happen to them. Reality is different.
The difference I think is that the ego believes it has an unlimited credit card and that the universe is just a big shopping mall, where your every little desire is instantly fulfilled.
What we get though, is not what the ego wants, but what the soul needs. 
If the soul needs an illness to learn an important lesson in life, than that's what it will get, regardless of how many times the ego wishes it away.

Now, if the ego's desire and the soul's necessities are in unison, than I think magic can happen.

Was really lovin' this post until the ego and soul part. I have a very good friend...the closest friend I've ever made here in Thailand...and he believes he can "manifest" (attract) things too. He's given me his best ones and to me they are no more his manifestations than that of pure chance. One...if he's remembering all the details correctly...is quite the coincidence, but I tell him that is exactly the word I use for it. NEEDLESS to say, we have some LONG sunrise conversations and disagreements. He also likes Trump which is another distinct point of disagreement...so it's usually well after lunch when we part ways and only intended a cup or 2 of java. 

 

Have to admit though...you totally lose me when the "soul" needs a lesson and it will get it regardless what the "ego" wants. Like there's some sort of Cosmic Justice out there. Unless totally off base...seems arrogant, self-centered and extremely myopic to imply such when there is so much suffering of innocents and children and our fellow earthlings (animals for any who need it spelled out) whom have no "ego" at all, so much as an out of control "ego". 

Edited January 30, 2020 by Skeptic7

[ThaiBunny]

6 minutes ago, Sunmaster said:

From what I understand, the ego is an illusory mental construct that falls away after death.

The latest scientific thinking is that our consciousness itself is a mental construct; we "create" ourselves - https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg23831830-300-consciousness-how-were-solving-a-mystery-bigger-than-our-minds/. One inevitable outcome is that no one else can ever truly understand or know me, because I am my own creation. As for a "god", we struggle to conceive of ourselves, so clutching at the straws of intelligent design (where really there is nothing but chaos and entropy) or external divinities is to use the Peanuts' phrase, a security blanket

[ThaiBunny]

4 minutes ago, Skeptic7 said:

Was really lovin' this post until the ego and soul part. I have a very good friend...the closest friend I've ever made here in Thailand...and he believes he can "manifest" (attract) things too. He's given me his best ones and to me they are no more his manifestations than that of pure chance. One...if he's remembering all the details correctly...is quite the coincidence, but I tell him that is exactly the word I use for it.

My standard response to that sort of thing is to challenge the other person to prove that their experience or evidence is not simply a placebo. My niece is a firm believer in a lot of the New Age fads, especially "organic produce" as well as the more bizarre end of the medical spectrum such as kinesiology, acupuncture and homeopathy. Interestingly homeopathy and "organic produce" are intellectual twins - each believes that undetectable particles can benefit or harm those who use or don't use such nostrums. Needless to say she is incapable of demonstrating that any claimed benefits is anything other than a placebo

[mauGR1]

9 minutes ago, Skeptic7 said:

Like there's some sort of Cosmic Justice out there. Unless totally off base...seems arrogant, self-centered and extremely myopic to imply such when there is so much suffering of innocents and children and our fellow earthlings (animals for any who need it spelled out) whom have no "ego" at all, so much as an out of control "ego". 

Suffering is part of this world and this experience, and it's not going away.

Without suffering, you would not know what is happiness, and there would be no evolution.

Perhaps you should accept it and move on instead of complaining all the time.

[Skeptic7]

1 minute ago, mauGR1 said:

Suffering is part of this world and this experience, and it's not going away.

Without suffering, you would not know what is happiness, and there would be no evolution.

Perhaps you should accept it and move on instead of complaining all the time.

No complaining here...truly liked Sun's post up to a point and just shared my thoughts on where we differ. It's the claimants whom seem to think they can change it all by daydreaming. I'm the realist in our little powwow. No gods...no masters...no spirit in the sky...no control over the cosmos or even one's health or well-being. Nature just is and doesn't give FLIP about us or your little mind games. 

[mauGR1]

3 minutes ago, Skeptic7 said:

No complaining here...truly liked Sun's post up to a point and just shared my thoughts on where we differ. It's the claimants whom seem to think they can change it all by daydreaming. I'm the realist in our little powwow. No gods...no masters...no spirit in the sky...no control over the cosmos or even one's health or well-being. Nature just is and doesn't give FLIP about us or your little mind games. 

You seem to despise imagination, or daydreaming as you call it, in favour of realism.

Fair enough (for you) but i think we have, and we need both.

Take out imagination from a human, and you'll have a poor thing of a being.

 

The fact that "nature is", as you put it, doesn't imply that we have "no control" on our well-being.

[Sunmaster]

1 minute ago, Skeptic7 said:

Unless totally off base...seems arrogant, self-centered and extremely myopic to imply such when there is so much suffering of innocents and children and our fellow earthlings (animals for any who need it spelled out) whom have no "ego" at all, so much as an out of control "ego". 

Of course, if you look at all the suffering from the perspective of the ego (limited in time, separate from everything else, self-centered, myopic and often arrogant), then you'll perceive that suffering as terribly unfair. Well, it may appear unfair if you believe there's a dispenser of fairness; if you are an atheist, then it just is what it is.

From the soul perspective though, things change quite dramatically. The reality we think is real right now, is then nothing more than a dream. Compared to the never-dying soul, an incarnation lasts but a few moments. The pain and suffering within that reality (our world) is then just as illusory as our ego. 

Look at this example:

When you're dreaming or having a nightmare, the pain and the emotions you feel are very real to you. All your surrounding seem very real and you never question them while in the dream, even though there are a bit wacky. Upon waking up then, you realize it was just a bad dream, all the suffering and emotions you felt, instantly vanish and you soon forget all about it.

 

The same way the soul awakens from the dream of being a person with a body and an ego, to realize it is much more than that. 
From this point of view, the suffering children are exactly where they chose to be as a soul. They may need this suffering to learn something for their own path, or help someone else through their sacrifice, or something else entirely.

The important thing to remember here is that once the soul sheds the mortal body, all the pain suffered during its incarnation will have no more bearing than a bad dream has on us right now.

Don't ask me for evidence or proof please. This is what I've learned from my own research, coupled with personal experiences. Take it or leave it, I don't mind either way.

[luckyluke]

7 minutes ago, Sunmaster said:

Take it or leave it

That's something which should apply to everything already posted here on this topic.

With of course respect to any opinion formulated,

as long it is not being claimed as the only right one.

[Skeptic7]

3 minutes ago, Sunmaster said:

Of course, if you look at all the suffering from the perspective of the ego (limited in time, separate from everything else, self-centered, myopic and often arrogant), then you'll perceive that suffering as terribly unfair. Well, it may appear unfair if you believe there's a dispenser of fairness; if you are an atheist, then it just is what it is.

From the soul perspective though, things change quite dramatically. The reality we think is real right now, is then nothing more than a dream. Compared to the never-dying soul, an incarnation lasts but a few moments. The pain and suffering within that reality (our world) is then just as illusory as our ego. 

Look at this example:

When you're dreaming or having a nightmare, the pain and the emotions you feel are very real to you. All your surrounding seem very real and you never question them while in the dream, even though there are a bit wacky. Upon waking up then, you realize it was just a bad dream, all the suffering and emotions you felt, instantly vanish and you soon forget all about it.

 

The same way the soul awakens from the dream of being a person with a body and an ego, to realize it is much more than that. 
From this point of view, the suffering children are exactly where they chose to be as a soul. They may need this suffering to learn something for their own path, or help someone else through their sacrifice, or something else entirely.

The important thing to remember here is that once the soul sheds the mortal body, all the pain suffered during its incarnation will have no more bearing than a bad dream has on us right now.

Don't ask me for evidence or proof please. This is what I've learned from my own research, coupled with personal experiences. Take it or leave it, I don't mind either way.

I'll leave it, but thanks for the honest and cordial reply...especially the last paragraph. Of course I'll honor your request. My journey through life, study of birds/bugs/wildlife/nature and all my personal experiences tell a remarkably different tale. 

[Sunmaster]

2 hours ago, luckyluke said:

...

as long it is not being claimed as the only right one.

I don't recall you posting this under the atheist's claims when they make absolute statements.

Or does it pertain only to the 'spiritual' side?

[luckyluke]

28 minutes ago, Sunmaster said:

I don't recall you posting this under the atheist's claims... 

You are right, you don't recall. 

 

[Sunmaster]

21 minutes ago, luckyluke said:

You are right, you don't recall. 

 

Yeah? Show me or it didn't happen. ????

I need evidence.

[luckyluke]

2 hours ago, Sunmaster said:

Yeah? Show me or it didn't happen. ????

I need evidence.

I tought it was clear that I am not taking sides.

 

Instead to go back to find posts where it is obvious, and copy and paste them. 

 

I hereby declare that :

whoever (Believers, Non-Believers, Atheists, and others)  who was posting here or will,

is welcome to express his opinions as long he is not claiming that his opinions are the only right ones. 

 

I hope this will satisfy you Sunmaster. 

 

[VincentRJ]

9 hours ago, luckyluke said:

 

I hereby declare that :

whoever (Believers, Non-Believers, Atheists, and others)  who was posting here or will,

is welcome to express his opinions as long he is not claiming that his opinions are the only right ones. 

 

To clarify this position I think it would be useful to consider the meaning of the word  'qualia'. The word is generally used to describe personal experiences and sensations which are true for the individual but not necessarily true for others.

 

An obvious example is the taste of a particular food or spice. Person 'A' says, 'This food is delicious'. Person 'B' says, 'This food tastes awful'. Who is right? They are both right, of course, assuming they are not lying.

 

Such experiences or opinions are different  from the beliefs and/or explanations associated with such experiences. The experience itself, a quale, is undeniable, but the explanation for such experiences, whether the experience is of joy or pain or a perception of a particular colour, is dependent upon the soundness of the investigation, and the interpretation of the evidence and data.
 

[geronimo]

I hereby declare that Ivorbigun has broken the record for the longest thread, beating "I know she's a bargirl but she's different" started by Ironmikey_22, and this god thread now holds the title.

 

Looking forward to seeing Ivor at the award presentations ......

[mauGR1]

47 minutes ago, VincentRJ said:

To clarify this position I think it would be useful to consider the meaning of the word  'qualia'. The word is generally used to describe personal experiences and sensations which are true for the individual but not necessarily true for others.

 

An obvious example is the taste of a particular food or spice. Person 'A' says, 'This food is delicious'. Person 'B' says, 'This food tastes awful'. Who is right? They are both right, of course, assuming they are not lying.

 

Such experiences or opinions are different  from the beliefs and/or explanations associated with such experiences. The experience itself, a quale, is undeniable, but the explanation for such experiences, whether the experience is of joy or pain or a perception of a particular colour, is dependent upon the soundness of the investigation, and the interpretation of the evidence and data.
 

Sorry, but you didn't clarify a lot.

There are people who read the book, and people who read it again.

There are people who judge a book from its cover.

People who judge a book by the people who are reading it.

People who base their opinions on what a tv program says etc etc.

 

To say that all opinions are the same is wrong, like saying that Mozart's music is similar to the neighbour's dog barking.

 

[ThaiBunny]

16 minutes ago, mauGR1 said:

like saying that Mozart's music is similar to the neighbour's dog barking

Noel Coward once described Mozart's music as "like pissing on flannel" - https://www.newstatesman.com/music/2010/07/child-genius-mozart-composer

[mauGR1]

32 minutes ago, ThaiBunny said:

Noel Coward once described Mozart's music as "like pissing on flannel" - https://www.newstatesman.com/music/2010/07/child-genius-mozart-composer

Really, who is that Coward ?

..And why anyone would be interested to know his opinion ?

[luckyluke]

41 minutes ago, mauGR1 said:

To say that all opinions are the same is wrong, like saying that Mozart's music is similar to the neighbour's dog barking.

 

What if one or more feel this way ?

They just expressed an opinion, not a fact.

However not being agreed with them, I will not claim that their opinion has less value than mine, because it is about feeling/notion, which is not measurable.

[VincentRJ]

46 minutes ago, mauGR1 said:

To say that all opinions are the same is wrong, like saying that Mozart's music is similar to the neighbour's dog barking.

 

Wow! You really have misunderstood my comment. I was in fact stating the opposite. All opinions can be different, yet all equally true if they are 'qualia'.

 

The taste of the deliciousness of a particular food is a 'quale'. The taste is real for the person experiencing the taste. It would be silly to have an argument over the 'reality' of such a taste, as though the taste had an independent existence in the external world, and the person experiencing the taste of deliciousness was wrong because the taste is in fact awful.

 

The existence of God can be considered as a 'quale'. He exists as an experience in the mind or imagination of certain individuals. There is no evidence for an external existence of any God.
 

[mauGR1]

3 minutes ago, luckyluke said:

What if one or more feel this way ?

They just expressed an opinion, not a fact.

However not being agreed with them, I will not claim that their opinion has less value than mine, because it is about feeling/notion, which is not measurable.

It's all relative, a barking dog can be useful sometimes; my point is not to measure the opinions, i'm just saying that opinions are not the same.

[luckyluke]

2 minutes ago, mauGR1 said:

i'm just saying that opinions are not the same.

Of course, opinions can be shared by some or than not;

but they are what they are, opinions not facts.

 

 

[mauGR1]

6 minutes ago, VincentRJ said:

Wow! You really have misunderstood my comment. I was in fact stating the opposite. All opinions can be different, yet all equally true if they are 'qualia'.

 

The taste of the deliciousness of a particular food is a 'quale'. The taste is real for the person experiencing the taste. It would be silly to have an argument over the 'reality' of such a taste, as though the taste had an independent existence in the external world, and the person experiencing the taste of deliciousness was wrong because the taste is in fact awful.

 

The existence of God can be considered as a 'quale'. He exists as an experience in the mind or imagination of certain individuals. There is no evidence for an external existence of any God.
 

No, i don't think so.

In my opinion, the eternal God, or intelligent design if you prefer, is more real than you or me.

You or me or this planet are temporary realities, God is an eternal reality.

 

[mauGR1]

9 minutes ago, luckyluke said:

Of course, opinions can be shared by some or than not;

but they are what they are, opinions not facts.

 

 

What you consider an opinion may stay an opinion forever, but it may also become a fact.