Guest Valk0010 Posted June 19, 2012 Share Posted June 19, 2012 But are unjustified beliefs worth believing in. I don't see how science or history could ever prove a miracle, or there being a valid fine tuning or cosmological arguement, but does that mean I should believe in the supernatural as a default position. No. There at least should be a good reason for belief. Even if you can't put in a test tube or test it by the scientific method. I'm not talking about the god of the Jews or Christians or Muslims. I'm not talking about miracles other than just the miracle of creation as I see it. I agree, there should be a good reason for belief. Einstein likens the reason for believing there is a creator to being able to hear "the music of the spheres". I can what your saying, and support it. I just hope you live by alot of pretty nature to really experience it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sjessen Posted June 19, 2012 Author Share Posted June 19, 2012 This sorta sums up my thoughts and feelings about God: Albert Einstein said, "My religion consists of a humble admiration of the illimitable superior spirit who reveals himself in the slight details we are able to perceive with our frail and feeble minds. That deeply emotional conviction of the presence of a superior reasoning power, which is revealed in the incomprehensible universe, forms my idea of God." 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FeelHappy Posted June 19, 2012 Share Posted June 19, 2012 I toyed with the idea of a panenthistic deity for a while (following Spinoza in a way), it was a nice thought all nature and everything we see is an extension of some magnificent god force, surely this marvelous god which the universe is just a small extension of him is an amazing thought. Then one day it kind of hit me that while this deity is great to think about we have nothing to show it really exists and the said deity doesn't care if I worship it (although I myself might care or find enjoyment in it). In any case this panenethistic god isn't a theistic god and sure doesn't intervene for anyone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FeelHappy Posted June 19, 2012 Share Posted June 19, 2012 But are unjustified beliefs worth believing in. I don't see how science or history could ever prove a miracle, or there being a valid fine tuning or cosmological arguement, but does that mean I should believe in the supernatural as a default position. No. There at least should be a good reason for belief. Even if you can't put in a test tube or test it by the scientific method. I'd argue that sometimes unjustified beliefs ARE worth believing in, at least if this makes you happy and doesn't interfere with someone else's happiness. Its nice to think about something else out there, to connect with something or nature to feel some spiritual presence, to think there is more to life than us. I think its pretty apparent that humans are somewhat spiritual beings (I think this is caused by evolution), I don't see the reason why to ignore this part of humanity if it makes you happy even if the said deity likely doesn't exist. Its not like we're talking about basing our life and politics around this imaginary deity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Antlerman Posted June 19, 2012 Share Posted June 19, 2012 I'm not so much looking for a personal connection, although I would not reject that. I think I had my fill of having a "personal relationship" with God in Christianity and it went so badly that I'm not really looking for that now. Sort of a "fool me once, shame on you..." thing. I am very slow at attributing qualities to this creator such as love and interest in human affairs. Most certainly I get that whole extreme reservation in opening oneself up to experiencing "God", as it were. Believe me, that was a very hard thing for me to be open to that after the whole Christian thing and their way of looking at it. Ultimately I needed to find a way to as it would repeated be experienced by me and I had no home for it in atheism, nor Christianity. I actually felt hypocritical where I would experience "God" like that in various arbitrary moments, yet claim to be some rationalist. Of course I am highly rational and critical thinking as well, so it was a matter of what would allow me to be both, without either violating reason or denying 'spirit'? That's why I guess I ask that question of you about experience. I don't quite get the whole idea of everything being one. I'm a little skeptical of meditation. I prefer to be in my "normal" mind when I make decisions. I think any evidence worth accepting has to be repeatable and observable by anyone, and the reports of people who say they have meditated and had the sensation of everything as being one are interesting, but I haven't seen that for myself yet. I guess I'm too analytical. A few things in this are worth discussing. As far as everything being one, it really is less of an idea, a concept, a metaphysical thought, as it is much more an actual experienced realization. It is a sense that one "knows" beyond reasoning it out theoretically. You can call that an apprehension of our being. You say you are skeptical of meditation, in that you prefer to be in your "normal mind" when you make decisions. I'm actually unaware of making decisions within meditation itself. In fact it is best described as simply being an open observer of your thoughts, not at all engaged in active reasoning as you would do in making decisions. If you're doing that in meditation, then you aren't meditating. You'd need to bring yourself back to not being engaged in active thought. So the question is then what is the value of meditation that would in fact aid in the active thought processes of the "normal mind"? The purpose/value of meditation is many. It would take a lot to lay it out in this thread but to keep it simple, we could consider it as gaining insight. It offers a perspective and an awareness that is in fact unavailable to the penetrating stares of the rational reasoning mind. What is seen is not irrational, but simple non-rational, like the experience of love itself. Through such suspension of active thought, you "see" what is otherwise obscured by the busy, buzzing chatter of the active "normal" mind. In fact, what you see makes you realize how that all that chatter that goes on in our "normal" mind is in fact a bit of an illusion that we assume is what in fact reflects reality. Believe me, it isn't. So what occurs then is seeing yourself, who you are, the nature of mind and the nature of your very being itself, is more than what we see in the so-called normal mind (I think the best description of the "normal mind" is is 'consensus consciousness'). We experience altered states of consciousness all the time, and all of those in fact become a part of who we are in that normal state of mind we call the waking mind. Consider this just more data that you add to your considerations of truth. That's not a bad way to put it. As far as it being repeatable and observable by anyone, it is! All you have to do is learn how to do it yourself. Someone who doesn't know how to use an electron-microscope will first need to learn how to before they can look for themselves. So in that sense not just "anybody" can do it. They have to know how to perform the experiment first. Once trained and qualified, then 'look and see'. Yes, the experiences are in fact well known by those who do the research, as actually performing the experiment themselves. We all say the same things, in different language of course because there is cultural symbolic differences and all that. As for repeatable, I'll say every single time I meditate I have the same types of experiences and results. It's not just some arbitrary anomaly. So, there's the 'science' side of it. And yes... being analytical... you and me both!! In fact in meditation that was something very distracting to me at first. I would be going, "What is that about, where is that coming from, what is...?" All of which is the busy mind trying to understand what is simply what it is beyond analytical thought. And the result for me personally once I learned how to practice not doing that? What I 'learned and gained in that 'inner knowledge', I will say in no uncertain terms it took all those highly systematic and analytical models of knowledge and paled them by comparison. As powerful as they are, they can't touch this! It felt like my IQ suddenly shot up 15 points, through clarity of mind and its processes alone, let alone the degree of insight gained. Anyway, I digress. I'm rather passionate about this, if you can't tell. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sjessen Posted June 19, 2012 Author Share Posted June 19, 2012 And NDEs are bad examples since they (if they're really true) are temporal and would have to be some form of physical (the ability to see is a reaction and process of light, light is physical). I would differ on this statement. I think of our "mind's eye" that can "see". We see images when we remember, when we daydream, when we sleep, when we imagine when we have flashes of insight. None of these are physical. I do not find it difficult to fathom that if we do have a spirit or energy body of some kind that can leave the body that it would be able to see what is going on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ouroboros Posted June 19, 2012 Share Posted June 19, 2012 And NDEs are bad examples since they (if they're really true) are temporal and would have to be some form of physical (the ability to see is a reaction and process of light, light is physical). I would differ on this statement. I think of our "mind's eye" that can "see". We see images when we remember, when we daydream, when we sleep, when we imagine when we have flashes of insight. None of these are physical. Sure. But, aren't the NDE people seeing real people and real objects? Or are they just seeing dream objects of a dream world they made up? I do not find it difficult to fathom that if we do have a spirit or energy body of some kind that can leave the body that it would be able to see what is going on. Agree. Because we do now for a fact is that we see objects in this world because those objects reflect light. We don't see things in a spiritual "light". And even if we did, that spiritual "light" would have to be traveling... in time... in other words, a scaffolding is required. And if a scaffolding must exist in the spiritual world, then that scaffolding must be consistent and reliable, i.e. "perfectly tuned", which means... the spiritual world must have been created. But that means that God must be of a super-spiritual nature, which requires a scaffolding, which requires a God, which requires a ... So the question is, can consciousness exist without finites and terminal parameters? I don't see how. That's why I can't imagine a God-being. I can imagine "God" as a thing which isn't thinking or reasoning, like the Universe, or a super-universe beyond our universe, but I can't imagine a personal God. Also, "person" or "being" already express a thing that is finite and temporal, because those are the only kind of definitions of "person" and "being" we know of. Anything else only obfuscate the meaning. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Valk0010 Posted June 19, 2012 Share Posted June 19, 2012 But are unjustified beliefs worth believing in. I don't see how science or history could ever prove a miracle, or there being a valid fine tuning or cosmological arguement, but does that mean I should believe in the supernatural as a default position. No. There at least should be a good reason for belief. Even if you can't put in a test tube or test it by the scientific method. I'd argue that sometimes unjustified beliefs ARE worth believing in, at least if this makes you happy and doesn't interfere with someone else's happiness. Its nice to think about something else out there, to connect with something or nature to feel some spiritual presence, to think there is more to life than us. I think its pretty apparent that humans are somewhat spiritual beings (I think this is caused by evolution), I don't see the reason why to ignore this part of humanity if it makes you happy even if the said deity likely doesn't exist. Its not like we're talking about basing our life and politics around this imaginary deity. So its worthwhile to believe in a lie? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sjessen Posted June 19, 2012 Author Share Posted June 19, 2012 Anyway, I digress. I'm rather passionate about this, if you can't tell. Wow, that's beautiful! I think it is cool you are passionate about this! You've convinced me to start meditating. I have considered trying it many times. I see the logic in what you are saying and the benefits of the practice sound very appealing and interesting. Thanks. Something else you brought up made me realize that I have a hard time imagining God as matter. I see him as more of a spirit/energy being. Although I guess they say when you keep going smaller and smaller in matter you end up with "nothing", no matter seems to make up matter (if I understood what I read correctly). Is this how you see things? Part of God makes up the matter that everything is made of? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
par4dcourse Posted June 19, 2012 Share Posted June 19, 2012 The brain is fully enclosed and sealed from the outside world. Either some sort of 'god ray" is penetrating the skull and causing emotions and awe by some unknown form of undetectable energy, or it's our own thoughts. What is free will beside the brain agreeing with itself? I'd argue that sometimes unjustified beliefs ARE worth believing in, at least if this makes you happy and doesn't interfere with someone else's happiness. I'm beginning to understand this concept. I don't think personal belief in a deity is harmful in and of itself. I'm still against religion in government and most organized religion in general, but the important thing for the OP is that thought is involved, not just blind faith in childhood teachings. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sjessen Posted June 19, 2012 Author Share Posted June 19, 2012 And NDEs are bad examples since they (if they're really true) are temporal and would have to be some form of physical (the ability to see is a reaction and process of light, light is physical). I would differ on this statement. I think of our "mind's eye" that can "see". We see images when we remember, when we daydream, when we sleep, when we imagine when we have flashes of insight. None of these are physical. Sure. But, aren't the NDE people seeing real people and real objects? Or are they just seeing dream objects of a dream world they made up? Okay, I am not versed in the whole scaffolding idea, so I'm going to start with this here. It is my understanding that in a NDE a person's spirit (which I conceptualize as conscious energy) exits the body and then is able to perceive events going on around them. They can see their body, doctors, family members and what they are doing and hear what they are saying. They have the sensation of floating while this is going on. So are you saying that conscious energy would not be able to perceive light energy and sound energy? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sjessen Posted June 19, 2012 Author Share Posted June 19, 2012 Question: What does "OP" stand for? I know it has something to do with the first post or poster, but am unclear as to what it is specifically. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderator TrueFreedom Posted June 19, 2012 Moderator Share Posted June 19, 2012 Question: What does "OP" stand for? I know it has something to do with the first post or poster, but am unclear as to what it is specifically. I didn't know either, so I googled it--looks like it means "original poster." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sjessen Posted June 19, 2012 Author Share Posted June 19, 2012 Question: What does "OP" stand for? I know it has something to do with the first post or poster, but am unclear as to what it is specifically. I didn't know either, so I googled it--looks like it means "original poster." Ah, thank you. Didn't think of that. Love Google! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ouroboros Posted June 19, 2012 Share Posted June 19, 2012 So are you saying that conscious energy would not be able to perceive light energy and sound energy? Right. Because light energy and sound "energy" (a wave of air particles being compressed and decompressed), and a "spirit" or "conscious energy" would have to have a physical part to it to sense light and air (which are physical). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sjessen Posted June 19, 2012 Author Share Posted June 19, 2012 Agree. Because we do now for a fact is that we see objects in this world because those objects reflect light. We don't see things in a spiritual "light". And even if we did, that spiritual "light" would have to be traveling... in time... in other words, a scaffolding is required. Do I understand you correctly in that you are saying that the spirit world is totally outside of/separate from our world? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ouroboros Posted June 19, 2012 Share Posted June 19, 2012 Agree. Because we do now for a fact is that we see objects in this world because those objects reflect light. We don't see things in a spiritual "light". And even if we did, that spiritual "light" would have to be traveling... in time... in other words, a scaffolding is required. Do I understand you correctly in that you are saying that the spirit world is totally outside of/separate from our world? Well if God exists and created this world, doesn't God's spiritual existence have to be outside and separate from this world? If he/she/it's not, then God (the Creator) must be part of this world, and we're not talking deism or theism anymore. God as part of this world is pantheism or panentheism, not the other two. And NDE was my point of showing that NDE is a bad example of a disconnected God spirit since NDE must be part of this world and not separate. Do you see the point? If God is separate, and the only evidence of spiritual force (if true) was NDE, then NDE is a bad example since it's not separate. My point is not about if NDEs are true or not. My point is not if NDEs are spiritual or not. Whatever they are, they would not be helpful to give proof of a spiritual world that is disconnected, separate, and/or outside of this world. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sjessen Posted June 19, 2012 Author Share Posted June 19, 2012 So are you saying that conscious energy would not be able to perceive light energy and sound energy? Right. Because light energy and sound "energy" (a wave of air particles being compressed and decompressed), and a "spirit" or "conscious energy" would have to have a physical part to it to sense light and air (which are physical). Okay, I'm not a physicist, so I might need some help here, but it seems to be that you are still referring to how light and sound are perceived by a physical organism, not necessarily by an energetic being. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ouroboros Posted June 19, 2012 Share Posted June 19, 2012 So are you saying that conscious energy would not be able to perceive light energy and sound energy? Right. Because light energy and sound "energy" (a wave of air particles being compressed and decompressed), and a "spirit" or "conscious energy" would have to have a physical part to it to sense light and air (which are physical). Okay, I'm not a physicist, so I might need some help here, but it seems to be that you are still referring to how light and sound are perceived by a physical organism, not necessarily by an energetic being. I think you're getting stuck on the wrong thing. The NDE was just a side note and not the point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sjessen Posted June 19, 2012 Author Share Posted June 19, 2012 So are you saying that conscious energy would not be able to perceive light energy and sound energy? Right. Because light energy and sound "energy" (a wave of air particles being compressed and decompressed), and a "spirit" or "conscious energy" would have to have a physical part to it to sense light and air (which are physical). Okay, I'm not a physicist, so I might need some help here, but it seems to be that you are still referring to how light and sound are perceived by a physical organism, not necessarily by an energetic being. I think you're getting stuck on the wrong thing. The NDE was just a side note and not the point. Okay, I'll drop the NDE. I need to look some stuff up before I can respond. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rev R Posted June 19, 2012 Share Posted June 19, 2012 "If there is a universal mind, why must it be sane?" ~usually attributed to Charles Fort Why is it that when we conceive of a god, that god is usually wise, benevolent and orderly? Has anyone else pondered a god that is madness? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sjessen Posted June 19, 2012 Author Share Posted June 19, 2012 Consciousness, intelligence, cognitive functions, decisions, free will, all of it requires a structure or scaffolding, which means a couple of things: a sort of physical structure by matter and energy, a temporal structure, and some form of space to be in. And the reason is that the things of the mind needs a process. We think because we process. The process is the thinking. But a process needs a scaffolding. But this also means God must also be this way. Therefore, I think a God with a consciousness, etc is a poor explanation for the universe, unless it can be proven that intelligence and decision making can be done without a process (time, space, matter, energy). I am going to beg out of this part of the discussion due to ignorance on my part. I do not understand the scaffolding analogy. The statement that "God must also be this way" hits me wrong, but it is because I am not following the first part. To me there is no conflict and God doesn't have to be any certain way. I see God as being intelligent and totally capable of interacting in space-time or out of space-time. Our rules don't apply to him. I will agree to disagree with you on this point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rev R Posted June 19, 2012 Share Posted June 19, 2012 The natural world operates on a set of principles. If God is so separate from these principles that the investigation of them will lead us no closer, then it is not "Nature's God" that you speak of. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ouroboros Posted June 19, 2012 Share Posted June 19, 2012 "If there is a universal mind, why must it be sane?" ~usually attributed to Charles Fort Why is it that when we conceive of a god, that god is usually wise, benevolent and orderly? Has anyone else pondered a god that is madness? Exactly. One problem I see with perfect order is that it can't really exist. Perfect order is static. Only a balance between chaos/disorder and order can "create" anything. It's the flow and constant change and struggle between those two opposites that produce things. In the lining or edge between chaos and order. This is one of the oldest beliefs of religions. Except that religion anthropomorphizes those forces. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ouroboros Posted June 19, 2012 Share Posted June 19, 2012 Our rules don't apply to him. I just can't see why he exists based on the argument that he's something that we don't know what it is. It's nothing but making up our own concepts and give them a name. I can't see how a God can have reason without having a process of reasoning. Put it this way, if God created time, then we can't say that he had the idea before the creation since "before" indicates that something existed before time. If 0 (zero) is the first number in a set, you can't say -1 is part of it too. God can't be temporal (having time) if time didn't exist before time was created. So God can't be said to think or reason or plan or feel or create or ... before time. In other words, if God--Creator--exists, then he/she/it didn't create time. Time must've come before God. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts