Do you believe in God?

[l0ck]

i relate god to energy, thus everything
energy being one homogeneous thing that cannot be created nor destroyed
energy having quality is the infinite expression of the absolute
both god and subatomic particles exist though but my point wasn't believe in god because you believe in subatomic particles.. i didnt mean it that way but i guess u could interpret it that way =/
i was trying to imply that deductive reasoning isnt what is responsible for belief
your ability to believe is inviolable and nothing can make you believe something against your own will and that syllogistic logic shouldnt be the only form of logic you use to arrive at your beliefs because the absolute expresses itself on an infinite magnitude and oneness and implicative thinking is necessary in order to understand the entire expression of the absolute
but electrons do defy nature pokemasterat
this is why quantum mechanics is used to study subatomic particles and its not used to study the larger macro objects like planets inside the universe and cannot explain things like gravity
and also an electrons position is never exactly calculated as described above.. this is what quantum mechanics attempts to explain.. only a general area, or probability statement, of the electrons position can be determined, known as a "cloud"

[btsears38]

I am new on the Forum, so I don't know where to put my ideas. Reading the above messages, I think my first message belongs here.

I’m being asked by the Philosophy Forum to introduce myself to the Forum. Who am I? Where am I going? I don’t have all the answers, but I am searching. It will be a long trip, but to start off with, I see life as a puzzle waiting to be unraveled. This puzzle has a background of Energy, and as you know by the Law of Conservation of Energy, Energy can not be created nor destroyed. To me that is the definition of the Creator (God). How does the Creator enter our lives, or how do we communicate with It (Him), or how does It (He) communicate with us? I’m looking for the answer. We read in the Bible, that Moses was told by God from the Burning Bush, “I am that I am!” I’m not sure that ever happened, but if it did, I think that it was a bad translation. I think that translation should read “I am all that is!” That gives my puzzle a better background for us to create reality. Let’s start our search with the background to my puzzle first.

Bill Harris, Director of Centerpointe Institute, talks about this all encompassing Energy.

How can I see Reality?

There is one energy in the universe, that the universe and everything in it is the play, the dance, the vibration, of that one energy. Underneath the seeming multiplicity, they say, everything is made of the same substance. This energy, they say, is everywhere, and "everywhen." This principle is sometimes described as Omnipresence, or God. The Hindus and Buddhists call this principle, Sat-one energy, everywhere, making up everything, always, past, present, and future.

The mystics, however, went one step further. In addition to noting that this one energy is omnipresent, they also said something else that I think is rather startling. They said that this one energy is aware of itself being everything and everywhere and everywhen: that it is conscious, that it has consciousness. The mystics called this second characteristic of reality Chit.

So, we have this one energy, this oneness, this unity, that is in and behind and over and around and through everything, and this energy of unity, this Oneness, is aware of itself being everything. Now, just for a moment, pretend that you are this one energy. If you were everything, there would be nothing outside of you to fear. That would be like fearing your own hand. If everything is you, and you're everything, there's nothing to fear.

There would also be nothing to get, nothing you would lack, because you're everything. There would also be no where to go, since you're already everywhere. So, here you are, everything, always, everywhere, with nothing to want, nothing to fear, no where to go.

If you had this awareness of who you are, you would be...happy, peaceful, and blissful. So the third characteristic of reality, according to the mystics, is called Ananda, which means bliss.

So the mystical explanation of reality is called "satchitananda", which means one energy, everywhere, out of which everything is made and everything comes, aware of itself being everything and everywhere and everywhen, and as a result it is blissful, happy, peaceful.

Why, then, if I'm this one energy of everything, do I feel so isolated, so separate- and why am I so unhappy so often?

Well, the mystics have an answer for this question, and you've heard it before, and you may not like it, but here it is: you aren't happy and peaceful and in touch with the fact that you are all and everything, everywhere, eternally peaceful and blissful, because of your mind. Your mind is in the way of your experience of who you really are.

In fact, your mind is creating an alternate reality, that is, in a sense, like dust covering a mirror and keeping you from seeing who you really are.

Seeing that the mind gets in the way and obscures your true nature from you, the mystics came up with some methods for perceiving reality directly, without the filter of the mind, and the most effective and most popular of those is meditation. Meditation is designed to still the mind, until eventually you gain enough control that you can look directly at reality, rather than filtering reality through the mind.

Those that master this ability to see reality directly report some rather startling things about it.

In my next search for putting the puzzle together, I will talk about how meditation can help, some call it Enlightenment.

[thinking through sounds]

well . in my mind , i belive in something. cant put my finger on it. maybe its God. I belive in something good tho. i have loads of Buddhas home.
And they kind of gives the room a Good vibe. maybe hes out there God
I do hope so

[elizabeth]

Okay. So I've been battling this question for years now, and it's what drove me into philosophy in the first place. I'm not really that knowledgable of philosophical teachings and such, but I do find it very interesting and thought provoking.

so I'm taking a philosophy class right now entitled religions of the east. And it got me thinking. An argument for the existance of god is that every group of people since the beginning of time have held a belief in some sort of afterlife, even if in different forms. Well, I'm wondering if there aren't other ideas humans have had since the beginning of time as well. Perhaps the idea that women are subordinate to men? That seems to be historically universal as well, even if it is beginning to change.

And there are many good arguments out there for and against the existence of god, such as Descartes, Jon Locke, etc. But here are two things I was wondering if anyone could reply to, for and against. (while trying to put specific religions aside)

One. If there is a god, and he does exist, and has existed. Why not prove it to us? Why not come down and make an appearance? One person I knew said that God isn't like a birthday clown who has to show up every day to each newborn person to prove his existance. And IF Jesus was the son of god, he did show up and make an appearance, and one that has satisfied many people to this day. However, it seems to me that the majority of folk simply believe in whatever afterlife that was provided them as they were brought up. And the phrase "it's a matter of faith" gets thrown around rather luxuriously. But when does time become God's greatest enemy, and faith is no longer a good enough support system? I say that time is God's greatest enemy for the living because the more time that elapses that God is not proven 100%, the more, it seems that he is not real. And for God to be disproven or proven 100% is nearly impossible, except, I think perhaps with time. Think if the world were around for another 2,000 or more years, would and there was still no, well, cameo, from God, would people still believe?

Two. One thing I can not get past about our existence as human beings, is the fact that we have the ability to feel and have feelings. This is also something, that for the most part, seems to escape other creatures. Sure, they are a product of our brains and the innerworkings of our bodies, and it could just be something that came along with evolution for the survival of our species. But why? Couldn't we have the intelligence we already have and survive the same, if not better? If it were not for emotions, we might discard the sick and the elderly, wouldn't we? And we might not be so inclined to find cures for cancer and other illnesses. So, I guess what I'm asking is, are emotions an indicator of something more? We have the capacity to feel such an aray of emotions that impact our everyday and long term decisions. What other purpose might emotions have other than to connect us with something larger than just survival of the species?

I'm new here, so sorry if these things have already been discussed! I would really appreciate some good insights to them however! thanks

[Pythagorean]

Originally Posted by elizabeth

One. If there is a god, and he does exist, and has existed. Why not prove it to us? Why not come down and make an appearance? One person I knew said that God isn't like a birthday clown who has to show up every day to each newborn person to prove his existance. And IF Jesus was the son of god, he did show up and make an appearance, and one that has satisfied many people to this day. However, it seems to me that the majority of folk simply believe in whatever afterlife that was provided them as they were brought up. And the phrase "it's a matter of faith" gets thrown around rather luxuriously. But when does time become God's greatest enemy, and faith is no longer a good enough support system? I say that time is God's greatest enemy for the living because the more time that elapses that God is not proven 100%, the more, it seems that he is not real. And for God to be disproven or proven 100% is nearly impossible, except, I think perhaps with time. Think if the world were around for another 2,000 or more years, would and there was still no, well, cameo, from God, would people still believe?

If God made an appearance before the world or some part of the world, then wouldn't he be joining himself with the world? And wouldn't that change the nature of the world? Such as creating a total unity out of a sensible plurality? And even after he did so, if he then left, if there were no empirical proof of His visit to the world people thousands of years later would still begin to disbelieve. So we would be back where we started.

It is my belief that the natural world in its characteristic depths, is an expression of God and that God really does make an appearance of sorts to those who, truly and out of a sense of inner necessity, seek him out. The way I see it God can be found only through an internal investigation and I wonder if rising technology, rising standards of living and health will lead to an evolutionary progression that would allow for a greater immanent connection between the psyche of the individual and the soul of nature which is God.

What I mean is I believe that human beings posess a soul, and that perhaps the human soul is an inner substance created and sustained out of the mathematical-molecular-atomic structure of our bodies and impulses in relation to the natural spaces we inhabit in life, or in relation to the time and the activities that we go through in life. And the natural universe is also a body that posesses a soul, a soul that may be revealed to us humans through the tracing or explicit description of its' scientific laws; so that the precise and intangible laws of science may be doorways and pathways into the soul of nature which is God. And that we may in fact find God and live with God by following the perfect laws of science and by moving or existing only in relation to a precise science of time and space. Because the deeper that we venture into nature, I believe, the more enmeshed we therefore become with God.

As to the human emotions I think that if society cultivates them properly and educates the emotions in a high and effective way then people would perhaps be able to find that deeper connection with the natural world from which humanity arose out of. Because I think that human beings were created from the earth (just as earth was in turn created by its stellar nursery) and our task is to educate our souls both emotionally and analyticallly, which would allow us to return to the internal essence of nature on a higher plane of soulful existence, an existence of greater power and beauty. So I agree with you that emotions are to reconnect us with God after we are educated deeper in the nature of existence.

For me, the most important thing to stress regarding whether God exists or not, is that it is a matter of human experimentation on the individual level and not some entirely abstract and theoretical activity that can be done simply at your desk. It is the life which strives mightily towards that which it seeks that will discover a truth or an error, it is not a passive type of question!

[Peter]

Elizabeth is right on many points. The antiquity of an idea is no guarantee of its truth, as is shown by the subordination of women throughout the ages. Her Point One is correct in that there is simply a lack of evidence for the existence of a deity. Those who believe do so as a matter of faith. Reading Pythagorean's contribution, it is clear that he has a prior belief in God and organises his idea system around this assumption

In her Point Two, Elizabeth asks if our social emotions are evidence of God's existence since, if we had intelligence only and no emotions, we would neglect the care of the sick, etc. As a matter of fact, this point was addressed by Charles Darwin who points out that any species which is both social in nature and intelligent would develop morality, since morality is merely the expression of our social impulses in abstract form

Peter

[Pythagorean]

Originally Posted by Peter

Reading Pythagorean's contribution, it is clear that he has a prior belief in God and organises his idea system around this assumption

It seems that you too come with prior belief. Unlike me however you recommend no process of discovery (aside from perhaps reading Darwin), no method that might root out error. I say, go into nature alone and inquire for yourself. It will still be there.

The antiquity of an idea is no guarantee of its truth

The fact that an idea is fashionable also provides no guarantee of its being true.

there is simply a lack of evidence for the existence of a deity.

It is an axiom of the physical sciences that there can be no evidence (proof) that anything exists. The world is open-ended.

[Peter]

[quote=Pythagorean;4304]It seems that you too come with prior belief. Unlike me however you recommend no process of discovery (aside from perhaps reading Darwin), no method that might root out error. I say, go into nature alone and inquire for yourself. It will still be there.

Since the 17th Century, our culture has developed a uniquely effective way of rooting out error in our knowledge of the external world - the Scientific Method, involving hypothesis-generation and empirical testing of our theories.



The fact that an idea is fashionable also provides no guarantee of its being true.

I think we can agree that neither antiquity nor fashion provides any guarantee of truth. That is why the discipline of basing our explanations of the world on rational hypotheses tested by observation is crucial.

[skeptic griggsy]

Peter, right- the presumption of naturalism. To state that a god could hide itself begs the question,eh? DThompson, exactly. People have the mere feeling that a super mind who cares for them and gives them meaning lies behind and beyond the cosmos. That mere feeling sees Yeshua in a tortilla or Allah in an explosion -pareidolia- seeing the man in the moon. That is a mere anthropomorphic feeling.But science,as Victor Stenger shows in"God: the failed Hypothesis" and "Has Science found God?" that science indeed shows that there is probaly no god.

[Peter]

Yes, humanity has a strong tendency towards anthropomorphic interpretations and it is not sufficient to rest our ideas about the universe on a strong feeling. The point is that if you make a statement about the nature of reality, "God exists" or "There are fairies at the bottom of my garden," you need to present some evidence for your assertion if you wish to be taken seriously. It is not good enough to say "There could be fairies at the bottom of my garden and you can't disprove it."