Do you Belive in a God or Not?

[Logic]

/me shoots thread

DIE THREAD DIE!!!

Aw, I've enjoyed this thread More so than any in recent memory... a bit of brain activity makes a nice change from pop music and reality TV (I don't try to expose myself to it, but it's hard too escape when your family is into it :| )

 

[Sprafa]

Logic, you should really post more!

 

[Logic]

I just might do that

 

[Sprafa]

You really do look like a smart guy.

I'm on MSN, will you care to join in ?

 

[Logic]

You really do look like a smart guy.

I'm on MSN, will you care to join in ?

(added to contacts)

 

[Tork]

yes i do.

 

[Matthias]

yes i do.

Sorry, what was the question?

 

[clarky003]

I still think science is too material based, trying to solve answer's by studying purely the 'effect's' of everything,

we still dont know what anything really is.

only a set of preconceptual rules that outline the apparent effect's.
yes the effect's can give you a clue as to what's going on behind the scenes, but main science , over the last 100 year's, suprisingly have never touched on this. Only now do we have Inomoto's Mass Energy Conciousness Triangle.

The one vital ingrediant science has been missing when trying to address the why's and the how's, is stairing them right in the face, when they look in a mirror, their perception.. as it is this that has a direct bareing and link into physical reality.

Many Scientist's are being ignorant in their own sense's and think all the answer's are without.

why can we not answer some fundamental question's of the way our universe works

' I dont know how people can claim that perpetual motion isnt possible. A perfect example: I didnt start the electron spin, and by damn I dont know how to stop it.. do you? perpetual motion seems to be an intrinsic part of nature.'

Most apparently is the very grounding's of this fact, 'The electron cant be getting it's energy from nowhere' conservation is very true, obviously no energy can be created or destroyed , but can you 'see' energy with your eyes? in most cases , no.

So where is it getting it's energy from, not only for it's momentum but for it's very presence of being, what keep's it , what makes it that way. what is acting on it that we cant see. Someting is there as it makes itself apparent in the effect's.

Some People say it just 'Is' which is ludicrous, (brilliant scientific mind there )

this is exactley how the notion of zero point energy arised. The electron uses it. They are connected, we are all made up of atoms and electron's , we/ everthing are/is all connected to zero point.

all you have to do is feel the wind on your skin to know that there are forces's you cant see (in this case atoms), applying that thought to Zero point and the electron makes for more clarity (zero point is the electron's wind, a wind of energy), seeing isnt everything.









.

 

[Matthias]

' I dont know how people can claim that perpetual motion isnt possible. A perfect example: I didnt start the electron spin, and by damn I dont know how to stop it.. do you? perpetual motion seems to be an intrinsic part of nature.'

When scientists talk about the 'spin' on an electron they don't mean it's actually revolving, the 'spin' is just an arbitrary term used to describe an abstract quantum property. The electron itself is not a small sphere as is illustrated in many textbooks but a probability distribution of energy.

 

[clarky003]

When scientists talk about the 'spin' on an electron they don't mean it's actually revolving, the 'spin' is just an arbitrary term used to describe an abstract quantum property. The electron itself is not a small sphere as is illustrated in many textbooks but a probability distribution of energy.

that was quoted from Dr John Thomas Searl, of course it's only term'd as a spin, its just a description, as the limit's of the english language allow. Microscopes have seen atoms, and have seen the effect on the atom which lead's to the obviousness of the electron's presence, what it looks like we dont actually know , but it could well be spherical or a transmitance of energy, found traveling in a wobbling orbit around the atom. Weve only seen evidence of it from electricity and it's viewable effect upon the atom.

 

[Logic]

I still think science is too material based, trying to solve answer's by studying purely the 'effect's' of everything,

Too 'material based' for what? In order to explain anything about how the the physical universe works, the composition of physical things must be studied. The road to understanding what's happening "behind the scenes" first requires this study and understanding, and only then can you look even deeper into how things work. Are you suggesting that rather than pursue knowlege of how the universe works by studying what's in it, we should just forget about that and approach things from purely theological points of view?

Science is merely the search for answers through study, experimentation and observation. How else would you suggest we find such information?

why can we not answer some fundamental question's of the way our universe works

A few hundred years ago, there were even more questions about the universe we could not answer. We're gradually figuring them out, digging deeper and deeper as we go. That's what science is. There are unanswered questions, simply because our understanding of the universe is not yet complete - we haven't figured it out yet. Are you suggesting we should stop trying to figure it out, and just accept an easier answer (like "God made it that way")?

Edit: I don't know if you actually are suggesting religion over science, but I would like to know what you're getting at by saying science is too 'material based' to explain the nature of the universe.

 

[clarky003]

Too 'material based' for what? In order to explain anything about how the the physical universe works, the composition of physical things must be studied. The road to understanding what's happening "behind the scenes" first requires this study and understanding, and only then can you look even deeper into how things work. Are you suggesting that rather than pursue knowlege of how the universe works by studying what's in it, we should just forget about that and approach things from purely theological points of view?

If you read properly and not jump to conclusion's I was suggesting the use of appropriate amounts of both physical, theological and mystical (your delusional if you think you can just find the answer's in the physical our senses dont allow for us to find all the answer's, because they are limited). Over present time's too much focus has been on the purely physical, but that stems to physcological attenuation of thought.

A few hundred years ago, there were even more questions about the universe we could not answer. We're gradually figuring them out, digging deeper and deeper as we go. That's what science is. There are unanswered questions, simply because our understanding of the universe is not yet complete - we haven't figured it out yet.

Im simply saying that if you look around, Scientist's show sign's ignorance and want to hold onto what has already been 'established'. Hesitation to experiment with zero point, and the complete inertia of old scientific thought is holding us back, so in essence some dont want to dig deeper, either because they are scared, or dont believe, but using the word believe in science is a bit religious, considering the way we go on about it is as if we made the universe.

Are you suggesting we should stop trying to figure it out, and just accept an easier answer (like "God made it that way")?

why do you think im suggesting that?, I'm saying it's as much out there as it is in here. (points to brain)

I think we perhaps are fooled into thinking through our senses that we are seperate from everything, and are isolated in our own body, but infact are as much isolated as we are joined, through the energy that supplies the electron. So in that path of thought everything is infact one, the illusion is perhaps created by the fluctuation's in the zero point domain that manifest into our physical reality :O, if it could be comprehended we could perhaps start to understand what happen's when our physical body expire's, if our conciouness, (being energy) lives on in the ether of the vaccum, and more could be understood about the Etherial body

 

[Logic]

If you read properly and not jump to conclusion's I was suggesting the use of appropriate amounts of both physical, theological and mystical (your delusional if you think you can just find the answer's in the physical our senses dont allow for us to find all the answer's, because they are limited).

It seems our disagreement is primarily in the definition of science. You seem to be limiting science to the study of what our senses can directly interpret. While that certainly does sum up the vast majority of science thus far, the whole idea of science is to reach a point where previously "mystical" and "theological" things are understood in provable terms.

I do know that there is a lot of hesitation and narrow mindedness in the scientific community, and some scientists are laughed out of their careers for researching things that are now considered "mystical", and I strongly disagree with that. There are indeed aspects of the universe not covered in science textbooks, and often ignored by scientists, but that is the fault of those individuals.

Science revolves around the idea that truth can be determined through logical analysis. Scientists gather information and observations using all sorts of methods, and that information is then processed logically in relation to all other information gathered so far. That's all science is. Basically, if something is proven to be true, no matter what it is, it is then a 'scientific fact', so in that sense, science also encompases what you believe to be 'mystical' and 'theological' things. Science is the search for truth, so these 'mystical' things will either one day be proven (right or wrong) by science, or will never be proven at all.

Mysticism and theology are basically just as of yet unprovable explanations for things that we don't yet understand scientifically. Once there is a way to prove those things, they are then in the realm of science.

 

[clarky003]

I do know that there is a lot of hesitation and narrow mindedness in the scientific community, and some scientists are laughed out of their careers for researching things that are now considered "mystical", and I strongly disagree with that. There are indeed aspects of the universe not covered in science textbooks, and often ignored by scientists, but that is the fault of those individuals.

totally agree,

Mysticism and theology are basically just as of yet unprovable explanations for things that we don't yet understand scientifically. Once there is a way to prove those things, they are then in the realm of science.

I agree with you there, I honestly think the subject matter will criss cross at some point , perhaps even combine into one, it's just at present we havnt reached that level of understanding. Aslong as science keeps getting deeper, it could meet with theology and the mystical to form a more universal subject.

 

[Logic]

I tend to think of it more from the perspective of science becoming advanced enough to replace mystical explanations, but in a round about way that's basically the same thing as the subjects 'merging', in the sense that the subject matter covered by one will transfer to the other.

So it seems we don't disagree after all

 

[Matthias]

It's funny when you've been arguing with someone for ages and you suddenly realise that actually you both agree, it's just your definitions differ...

 

[Fletch]

I belive that there is a god myself. I believe that the lack of any scientific proof isn't enough to dismiss the possibility.

Science often proves how something works, but not why - it misses the point and there has had to be some sort of guidance or "divine intervention" for such a complex and amazing world to have been created.

Sorry I didn't read through all the pages if someone had already given a similar opinion.

 

[clarky003]

It's funny when you've been arguing with someone for ages and you suddenly realise that actually you both agree, it's just your definitions differ...

I wish everyone could see that , the world would most likely be so much more pieceful,

but your right, in many cases it's just the definition.

 

[CrazyHarij]

I'm surprised there are so few gnostics here, gnosticism is about as logical as atheism, if not more.

It explains pretty much everything related to dreams and religion, it explains christian beliefs and experiences related to near-death and various supernatural events.

As for the ultimate argument atheists use, evidence, yes there is evidence for it if you give it a try. Even the first tries of astral projection give physical and mental effects even if you don't reach the actual split process. I am a very skeptic person, and I doubted the whole thing until my first successful projection, so I don't judge anyone and especially not atheists as they are respectable with the feat of managing to abstain from believing in stuff just because people or books tell you to believe it.

Then again, people probably will suggest all my experiences just might have been placebo and extreme hallucination.

Well, for a start, the astral is just as clear as the physical, at some points it is even more crystal clear. The vision is not restrained by physical eyes, so you can see 360 degrees. The astral is not some magical "heaven", you astral project unconsciously every night and dreams take place there, it's a natural function and the process of conscious projection is about tricking the body into falling asleep with the mind awake, thus being aware to the point of separation and into the astral.

I've gotten many questions answered there, including whether there is a god or not (the answer is very simple and reasonable, nothing near the christian beliefs though, so I prefer to keep it quiet unless someone is interested in hearing it.) and questions such as the meaning of life. (Also very simple, involves alot more than just reproducing though.)

Please forgive me if I sound like I'm trying to advertise or "convert" people, I don't see any point in that, I just want to inform that there are more logic beliefs than christianity for instance if you're looking for solid evidence. It rocks too, astral projecting just for fun and visiting fictious places as in Star Wars and experiencing them as they were completely real with all senses, is awesome.
(However, you usually want to spend the time you manage to be there as constructively as possible, thus you go further into core questions revolving life and general. There are beings there to answer them.)

If anyone would like to debate, be my guest. Alot of people seem to be very good debaters and it'd be interesting.

 

[Matthias]

Then again, people probably will suggest all my experiences just might have been placebo and extreme hallucination.

That certainly is one possible explanation. Everyone has had dreams that seem extremely real. I'm not sure if astral projection counts as evidence of the same caliber of scientific evidence unless you could prove that the conscousness actually leaves the body (as opposed to just feeling like it does) and the results would have to reproducable in controled conditions (to negate the effects of other variables).

 

[Korgoth]

well why don't ya fill us in crayharij, I'd be interested in hearing the answers you've gotten, and even if I don't end up believing that way its still always a good plan to be open minded and hear peoples views.

 

[el Chi]

I'm surprised there are so few gnostics here, gnosticism is about as logical as atheism, if not more

I'm not entirely sure whether logic has a place in a theological discussion. That's not a criticism - just an opinion.
Religion is, obviously, a matter of faith and faith, like our emotions, needn't make perfect sense. Many philosophers have tried to prove the existence of a God of some form or other through some logical sequence of suppositions and I've never been swayed by them. They've always seemed far too base to relate to something as significant and vast as God.

To me agnosticism is an admission/suspicion that there is more to the universe, especially to ourselves, than science can explain but that the organised religions' structures of this aren't quite right either.
But like I've said, I flit between agnostic, slightly religious and atheist...

 

[CrazyHarij]

That certainly is one possible explanation. Everyone has had dreams that seem extremely real. I'm not sure if astral projection counts as evidence of the same caliber of scientific evidence unless you could prove that the conscousness actually leaves the body (as opposed to just feeling like it does) and the results would have to reproducable in controled conditions (to negate the effects of other variables).

The clearness and lucidity of astral projection and dreams vary alot depending on things like awareness (if you dream at day, you dream at night). Sometimes dreams can be very blurry and distorted, at other occasions they can seem as visually real as real life, and sometimes more with a wider color spectrum (I have seen some colors and nuances that are outside the human color spectrum for instance, if there was any way possible to describe the look of them I'd do it).

It does not just feel like your consciousness leaves the physical body, it is also visual and can be feeled. For instance, one theory is that when you dream you're falling it is because the astral body (which is always connected to the physical one) is being pulled back to the physical body to wake up. Pretty much everyone wakes up after the falling incident aswell.

The effects are somewhat reproducable, there have been scientific experiments where they've stimulated certain parts of the brain and people have had an OOBE as a result. This probably adds to the theory that it is partly a natural function even in the brain if we go down to synapses and chemicals.

And you're right on the evidence argument, scientific evidence is public while religious evidence is alot more personal. You cannot prove to other people what is beyond the door, you have to let them walk through it by themselves.

However I might add that I don't dement any scientific theories like Big Bang as it is certainly possible. Scientists have proven themselves able to prove and discover alot and I don't doubt them. Evolution is noticeable even today so why shouldn't it be how it all started out in a much grander scale?

well why don't ya fill us in crayharij, I'd be interested in hearing the answers you've gotten, and even if I don't end up believing that way its still always a good plan to be open minded and hear peoples views.

It appears that all the Masters(people who are significantly experienced in the astral and teach others), are belonging to one force that could be referred as God - collective consciousness.

The astral is just another dimension, just as the physical is the 3rd/4th dimension. The higher the dimension, the higher the vibration and time goes slower. The higher you go, the less of a hold the physical laws, the subconscious and your personality, has on you, and you become more "one" with everything. The highest dimensions that are accessible while you are still alive in the physical, you become more of pure light together with everyone instead of an individual being.

The dimensions theory also explains "hell" and nightmares. The dimensions below the physical are infradimensions in which the physical and everything else has a bigger grip on you, thus you pretty much always run slower/get stuck and sometimes can't scream in a bad dream. There is no hell as a punishment for people not believing in a certain religion. Everyone goes to the astral and sooner or later reincarnates, that's why I don't want to convert people or invade countries to spread this religion (*cough*unlike other beliefs*cough*).

I just want to discuss a little right now, that's all.

Oh, and the meaning of life.
I was told something like this:
To learn. To conquer the self and ascend. To ultimately return to whence we came as a defined Divine Being to become One with the Logos. To ultimately return to whence we came as a Divine Spark to do the bidding of the Logos.

It's abit cryptic for us puuny mooortals but the first two parts are part of my goals right now.

el Chi: Yes, but at the same time religion shouldn't be something inexplicable, it should be something you can explore and learn from. It should be reasonable and not just "testing of faith" or "magic" whenever you can't explain something.

 

[Narcolepsy]

I've always been curious about this:
You speak as if you have discovered the "ultimate truth" through your astral projections. How can you be so sure that your projections aren't simply hallucinations?

Even if you are telling the truth (which I doubt - nothing against you, I'm just a skeptic), is your mind telling itself the truth?

What is the truth anyway?

Narcolepsy has gone too far with that last question...

 

[Gloria]

The majority of people here don't believe and you want me to believe they are good people? No I don't care if they think they have a sense of moral judgement, they can go to hell and you know they will unless they change their ways.

 

[Absinthe]

Oh Gloria. You're just a bag of sunshine and delight.