Do you believe in God and why

[mauGR1]

8 minutes ago, ThaiBunny said:

My view is that none of us will ever know, that if we bother to hold any view at all (and that includes me) it is all mere fantasy

It's your choice to limit yourself to the theory that "none of us will ever know" but, if you just have a look at the history of humankind, it looks obvious that there is no limit to how high and how low our thoughts can go, so it's early to draw conclusions.

You should also concede, imho, that if a lot of people can see the evidence of an intelligent design at work, perhaps all those people are not all completely clueless.

Even the great Einstein admitted the likelihood of an intelligent design, how you choose to call it is irrelevant.

[Sunmaster]

28 minutes ago, ThaiBunny said:

Perhaps if you don't persist in asserting what you assume are my views. My view is that none of us will ever know, that if we bother to hold any view at all (and that includes me) it is all mere fantasy

So there's no truth, let alone Absolute Truth anywhere to be found, and if you think you can see it somewhere, be it with-in or with-out yourself, than you're delusional. That's what your saying, right?

 

 

[ThaiBunny]

16 minutes ago, mauGR1 said:

You should also concede, imho, that if a lot of people can see the evidence of an intelligent design at work, perhaps all those people are not all completely clueless.

Perhaps you should concede that what you call evidence is not evidence at all, it is perception

[mauGR1]

4 minutes ago, ThaiBunny said:

Perhaps you should concede that what you call evidence is not evidence at all, it is perception

Just google "Fibonacci numbers" and "Fibonacci sequence" it's clear evidence for me, but if you want to call it perception is fine for me ????

[ThaiBunny]

Just now, mauGR1 said:

Just google "Fibonacci numbers" and "Fibonacci sequence" it's clear evidence for me, but if you want to call it perception is fine for me ????

The topic in hand is "intelligent design". You state there is evidence, I say it's merely perception

[mauGR1]

1 minute ago, ThaiBunny said:

The topic in hand is "intelligent design". You state there is evidence, I say it's merely perception

Yes, i consider Fibonacci numbers, and a lot of other things, as evidence of intelligent design, but if you just refuse to look at it without bias, i've got nothing to add for now.

Surely you can't expect God to knock at your door with a smile and a box of chocolates to prove you something, can you ? ????

[Tippaporn]

15 minutes ago, ThaiBunny said:

16 minutes ago, mauGR1 said:

Just google "Fibonacci numbers" and "Fibonacci sequence" it's clear evidence for me, but if you want to call it perception is fine for me ????

The topic in hand is "intelligent design". You state there is evidence, I say it's merely perception

Don't mean to butt in on your conversation but whether the claim is that evidence of intelligent design exists or whether it's merely perception both arguments are neither here nor there since, as ThaiBunny has stated just earlier, ". . . that if we bother to hold any view at all (and that includes me) it is all mere fantasy."

 

Are we now arguing about whose fantasy is the correct one?  Aren't all fantasies equal?  Logical thinking.

 

Edited February 20, 2020 by Tippaporn

[sweatalot]

3 hours ago, mauGR1 said:

Yes, there are infinite ways, and yes, my opinion has not any importance.

It is of utter importance. For you. Because it creates your world.

[ThaiBunny]

Just now, mauGR1 said:

Surely you can't expect God to knock at your door with a smile and a box of chocolates to prove you something, can you ?

That is the only thing that will prove the existence of God. Everything else is conjecture. Your argument reminds me of my loopy niece who follows the "Organic Produce" religion. Her argument is that "it's obvious" organic produce is better than ordinary produce because of quantum entanglement - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_entanglement

[ThaiBunny]

1 minute ago, Tippaporn said:

Are we now arguing about whose fantasy is the correct one?  Logical thinking.

Can you quote the post where I've ever claimed that my fantasy is the correct one? I'm merely questioning the evidentiary basis of mauGR1's fantasy

[Tippaporn]

11 minutes ago, ThaiBunny said:

16 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

Don't mean to butt in on your conversation but whether the claim is that evidence of intelligent design exists or whether it's merely perception both arguments are neither here nor there since, as ThaiBunny has stated just earlier, ". . . that if we bother to hold any view at all (and that includes me) it is all mere fantasy."

 

Are we now arguing about whose fantasy is the correct one?  Aren't all fantasies equal?  Logical thinking.

 

Can you quote the post where I've ever claimed that my fantasy is the correct one? I'm merely questioning the evidentiary basis of mauGR1's fantasy

I asked a question, which is not a statement.  I'm merely pointing out that per your statement that any view anyone holds, including your own, is mere fantasy, so I'm asking, what is the point of comparing and arguing one fantasy over another.  Fantasies are all equal, one being no more real than the next.  At least I presume that to be true.  Of course, perhaps I can't ever know if it's true or not.  And perhaps, also, my view that one fantasy is equal to another fantasy may be fantasy itself.

 

Sorry, ThaiBunny, by way of logic I'm simply using your own (perhaps faulty) logic against you.  Faulty logic can be proven as faulty since it ends up as nonsensical when it's applied.

[ThaiBunny]

21 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

Fantasies are all equal, one being no more real than the next. 

On the contrary, some fantasies will have a higher score for the balance of probabilities. The world is not binary 

[Tippaporn]

7 minutes ago, ThaiBunny said:

On the contrary, some fantasies will have a higher score for the balance of probabilities. The world is not binary 

Now that reply drew a smile on my lips.  Well, I've made my point as best I could but I am not intent on beating a dead horse.  In my view, though it may be fantastical, I believe the balance of probabilities that we would ever agree lies somewhere in the far negative range.  I'll let this dog lie.

[mauGR1]

1 hour ago, sweatalot said:

It is of utter importance. For you. Because it creates your world.

Sorry, but that is only partially true; if i said that my opinion is very important to me, that would be also partially true.

Perhaps i know better than you what creates "my world" , don't you think ?

So, i say again, compared to a potentially infinite numbers of universes and living beings, my opinion has not any importance.

[Tippaporn]

My feeling is that a lot of these discussions tend to focus at a very granular level.  In other words, there are literally a zillion to the nth degree of specific topics which could be raised, discussed and argued over.  It would be, in my view, most difficult to address a shaving of a sliver of a hair of the totality of singular issues within a single lifetime.  I tend to work backwards and address the larger questions first, then apply those answers to specific situations.  Why?  Again in my view, a great many specific and similar questions on a variety of subject matter are a derivative, or an outgrowth, of a singular and much larger question.  Answer the larger question first and many of the specific questions fall away.

 

Aside from that, so many lesser questions have been answered by science, albeit oftentimes (and I mean oftentimes) unsatisfactorily in my opinion.  While I appreciate science and would never deny it's proven value I am not by any means a disciple of science.  I understand many are in the sense that they willingly and unquestioningly would believe any utterance emanating from the mouth of science.  It's not so much that a part of me is overly skeptical to an unhealthy degree but rather I believe they have adopted a fatal flaw in that their pursuit of answers to any question must be based in pure objectivity.

 

Anyone who read my earlier post this morning where I question whether the source of objective reality is subjective reality can now understand my misgivings that science, at least in it's current state, would ever be able to unravel the mysteries of life.  If it were true, and I firmly believe it is (and my belief is not grounded entirely in mere suppositions (or fantasies, I might add)), then it would turn science on it's head.

 

So, for me to involve myself in the minutae of issues means that I will be confronted again and again with having to argue against science's judgments.  Arguing against those who believe in science more or less unilaterally is not just difficult but in many cases impossible in my eyes.  Questioning someone's belief in something is one thing.  Questioning someone's absolute conviction is entirely another matter.

 

I find it interesting as well, regarding science, that a branch does not exist which is tasked with assimilating the findings of the many disparate branches, which oftentimes seem to be at odds with each other, to present a uniform, comprehensive view of reality with which all branches are in consensus.

 

Just wanted to state my views so that anyone wishing to debate with me knows where I stand on these issues.

[FrOgSbEaK]

Yes es of course because athiests are such a bunch of kfin anklers 

[thaibeachlovers]

11 hours ago, Tippaporn said:

Assume for a moment that consciousness is not dependent on form.  One obvious implication of that would be that we survive death.  Another important implication would be that physical reality is but one reality.  Another is that if consciousness is not dependent on form then an after death environment may well be one of formlessness, in other words non-physical.  And furthermore, if we were not dependent on form and we embark to another reality after this one then it would be implied that our physical reality is not a closed system (else the travel of consciousness beyond this reality would be impossible).

 

Let's playfully consider these assumptions as true.  If we survive death, and if our reality is indeed only one of many (perhaps infinite), and if our system is not closed, then it would only be logical that information has pathways allowing it to cross between realities.  In which case the flow of information goes both ways.

 

Playing with the idea further then it would be not only possible but quite natural for information to enter our realty from another.  Any hints our clues confirming this that anyone can come up with?

 

So here's an interesting question:  What if an entity (I'm assuming we are neither male nor female but both) were to send information to us explaining our reality, who we really are, what "God" is (the term one wishes to use for a prime entity is unimportant), and how reality works in specific detail?  Has it happened?  Is it still happening?

 

Some enquiring minds would like to know.

I did say a few thousand posts ago that that is much what i believe. This life is just one part of a much vaster existence in a different form from this poor body that carries us around.

Given we are just electricity in formation, there is nothing to stop that electricity assuming many different forms through eternity.

Mankind's arrogance is to assume that we actually know about life the universe and everything, when IMO we know nothing, Jon Snow.

[mauGR1]

10 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

Aside from that, so many lesser questions have been answered by science, albeit oftentimes (and I mean oftentimes) unsatisfactorily in my opinion.  While I appreciate science and would never deny it's proven value I am not by any means a disciple of science.  I understand many are in the sense that they willingly and unquestioningly would believe any utterance emanating from the mouth of science.  It's not so much that a part of me is overly skeptical to an unhealthy degree but rather I believe they have adopted a fatal flaw in that their pursuit of answers to any question must be based in pure objectivity.

Very well worded, i would simply say that to put all one's faith in science to answer all questions, can backfire, as it creates a wall of prejudice, which obstructs the flow of intuitions.

[Tippaporn]

Also, in my opinion if there were a single branch of science in which I would allow my hopes to ride on for real answers it would be quantum physics.  For one, quantum physics suggests the existence of an infinite number of parallel universes.  Anyone who has been introduced to the concept of probabilities would see this as confirmation.  Perhaps I'll entertain everyone tomorrow with my explanation of probabilities; how it operates and the reasons for it's existence.  I say "entertain" because some might have concluded that I'm off my rocker reading some of my previous posts.  LOL

 

And, coincidentally (though I don't believe in coincidence at all), I just in the last half hour came across this highly interesting article entitled:  Objective Reality Doesn't Exist, Quantum Experiment Shows

 

"Alternative facts are spreading like a virus across society. Now, it seems they have even infected science — at least the quantum realm. This may seem counter intuitive. The scientific method is after all founded on the reliable notions of observation, measurement and repeatability. A fact, as established by a measurement, should be objective, such that all observers can agree with it.

"But in a paper recently published in Science Advances, we show that, in the micro-world of atoms and particles that is governed by the strange rules of quantum mechanics, two different observers are entitled to their own facts. In other words, according to our best theory of the building blocks of nature itself, facts can actually be subjective."

 

Funny that my last post makes mention of just that.  Personally, I love the way the reality works.  It's so in sync.

[luckyluke]

2 hours ago, mauGR1 said:

Surely you can't expect God to knock at your door with a smile and a box of chocolates to prove you something, can you ?

The smile and the chocolates won't be necessary to me.

[mauGR1]

9 minutes ago, luckyluke said:

The smile and the chocolates won't be necessary to me.

You must be a joy at parties

[luckyluke]

16 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

when IMO we know nothing

I won't pretend that, we have discovered already a lot and sure it isn't finished.

However the degree of knowing to  understand, being happy, having a peaceful mind, vary from one individual to another.

Some need complex thinking or/and special situations, others don't. 

[sirineou]

6 minutes ago, luckyluke said:

I won't pretend that, we have discovered already a lot and sure it isn't finished.

However the degree of knowing to  understand, being happy, having a peaceful mind, vary from one individual to another.

Some need complex thinking or/and special situations, others don't. 

Yes but what about the chocolate? back on my Christian days all we got was a cracker some bad wine, and a chance to exchange germs, No one said anything about chocolate. If i knew there might be chocolat I might had reconsidered this whole thing. By the way what kind of chocolate are we talking about?  

Edited February 20, 2020 by sirineou

[luckyluke]

2 minutes ago, sirineou said:

By the way what kind of chocolate are we talking about? 

Belgian, of course.

 

[Tippaporn]

11 minutes ago, sirineou said:

18 minutes ago, luckyluke said:

I won't pretend that, we have discovered already a lot and sure it isn't finished.

However the degree of knowing to  understand, being happy, having a peaceful mind, vary from one individual to another.

Some need complex thinking or/and special situations, others don't. 

Yes but what about the chocolate? back on my Christian days all we got was a cracker some bad wine, and a chance to exchange germs, No one said anything about chocolate. If i knew there might be chocolat I might had reconsidered this whole thing. By the way what kind of chocolate are we talking about?  

Belgian, of course.  I'll take Marzipan over chocolate any day, though.  Niederegger from Lübeck, please.

 

BTW, may as well ask because one never knows . . . anyone have a source for Marzipan in Thailand.  I'll pay in gold for that information.  

 

Edit:  Damn, you beat me to the punchline, Luckyluke.  Must be due to your nick?  If it wasn't the random universe perhaps it was it God who helped you out?  LOL  Just kidding.

 

Edit the edit:  You ain't reading my thoughts, are you?  That would not be polite.

 

Edited February 20, 2020 by Tippaporn

[luckyluke]

4 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

If it wasn't the random universe perhaps it was it God who helped you out? 

I am Belgian, so I have some knowledge about chocolate and beers.

But maybe you are right, and sure some will believe it is the case.

And why not if that makes them happy.

[Tippaporn]

3 minutes ago, luckyluke said:

I am Belgian, so I have some knowledge about chocolate and beers.

But maybe you are right, and sure some will believe it is the case.

And why not if that makes them happy.

I'm German, so I have some knowledge of Marzipan and beers, too.

 

Both make me very happy.  

[luckyluke]

2 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

I'm German, so I have some knowledge of Marzipan and beers, too.

 

Both make me very happy.  

Happiness can sometimes be found in simple earthly things.

[sirineou]

15 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

Belgian, of course.  I'll take Marzipan over chocolate any day, though.  Niederegger from Lübeck, please.

 

BTW, may as well ask because one never knows . . . anyone have a source for Marzipan in Thailand.  I'll pay in gold for that information.  

 

Edit:  Damn, you beat me to the punchline, Luckyluke.  Must be due to your nick?  If it wasn't the random universe perhaps it was it God who helped you out?  LOL  Just kidding.

 

Edit the edit:  You ain't reading my thoughts, are you?  That would not be polite.

 

As long as it is not this little fake chocolates, just a little shell of Chocolate filled with all short of sweet stuff inside. I am a chocolat purist.  

Dark chocolate melting  in my mouth . if the religion side wanted to make a good case for the existence of God Chocolat should be at the center of their argument. 

Have not found a good place for chocolate in Thailand, That along with Kalamata olives are the two things I bring with me to Thailand, If you do keep it in your carry on, Last time I put it in my checked in luggage and it melted. Come to think about it , that;s probably the worst thing about going to hell.........

[Sunmaster]

3 hours ago, ThaiBunny said:

That is the only thing that will prove the existence of God. Everything else is conjecture. Your argument reminds me of my loopy niece who follows the "Organic Produce" religion. Her argument is that "it's obvious" organic produce is better than ordinary produce because of quantum entanglement - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_entanglement

It's funny, because that's exactly what happened to me. I was an atheist and there was nothing anyone could tell me that would have changed my mind. In my eyes, believers were a bunch of naive losers that deserved only my deepest contempt.
Then Spirit came knocking on my (inner) door of perception. Actually, it was more like it ran the door down and barged into my house, along with his huge cosmic orchestra and heavenly dance ensemble, and decided to have the mother of all parties in my modest 4 walls.
Once they all left, there was absolutely no way I could deny the existence of what until then I considered utter BS, and not for a single second did I doubt that what just happened was more real than anything I experienced until then.
I was left with rearranging all my furniture (my belief system) and throw out the old and useless stuff (old beliefs).

But whether God comes to you unannounced or after you've called out to him for years, the experience will always be subjective. If you're lucky enough that one day it will happen to you, I guarantee that you too will have no doubts to the truth of your experience. Even though your atheist friends will laugh at you or call you crazy, you will know better and not give a sh!t. ????