I am not talking about the fairly ridiculous notion of a omnipotent, omniscient, omnipotent god that men has created. I believe that "god" presents itself (whatever it is) through the way that the universe works or nature. (Pantheism) "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 mind." - Albert Einstein When Buddhists reach "Satori" or enlightenment, and the ego is stripped away a connection with what I would call god is experienced. Those who have reached it have said repeatedly that it cannot be described in words but only understood through direct experience. This is a reason to believe in god. Just because you take the scientific rather than spiritual route in trying to verify gods existence does not falsify the latter.
If they were referring to energy as a potential for change, they would have stated so, instead of saying stuff as "the driving force behind life" and other vague things that can't be used to make scientific predictions. The point is, if one is going to define god as energy or use energy some place in an argument for god, they better have some equations to back it up if they want any credibility.
Yes. GOD MUST FIT INTO AN EQUATION, AND BE SUBJECT TO OUR CURRENT SCIENTIFIC UNDERSTANDING, OR HE IS FALSE! I got your back
Let make it real clear that personal testimony/experience and anecdotal claims do not count as valid forms of evidence because of cognitive biases that may be taking place. If someone is using an anecdote to explain a movie they like, something they bought, or other trivial things, I might let that slide, but when dealing with how the universe operates, analysis of ideas of such needs to be much more rigorous if said ideas are to be taken seriously. If one has no rational method to demonstrate that X exists/is true, why should I believe them when they claim that X exists/is true? One might respond by saying that if one doesn't have a rational method to demonstrate that X does not exist/is false, then why should I believe them when they claim that X does not exist/is false? The problem with the latter is that it implies that one must believe anything, no matter how ludicrous if there hasn't been a way to disprove it, which will lead one to a multitude of contradictory ideas, as well as a really gullible attitude. The point is if there is no rational method to demonstrate that there is in fact a god, why the hell should I believe/agree with people that say that there is a god?
Rarely is it that I see my views so utterly distorted and grossly misrepresented. What I was saying that if people are going to use the idea of energy to describe god or argue for the existence of god, they had better be able to back it up if they want any rational-minded person to take them seriously.
Well, many of us understand what is being said. Many of us have also thought about this stuff to great length, and logically understand a great many things. If you want to consider yourself more rational than us, go ahead. Noone is trying to convert you to anything.
faith and logic are pretty mutually exclusive. logic is what's holding me back from having faith doesnt mean faith in god isn't as valuable as logic to some people but they really dont overlap very much. and one cant be demonstrated.
I think that the way that the universe operates is god presenting itself (whatever it is I have no idea). I also believe this god cannot be defined but rather can only be understood through direct experience. I will repost the quote by einstein "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 mind." - Albert Einstein
Only if you do not see the "big picture," with open eyes. Faith, logic, and science, COME TOGETHER in THE TRUTH.
either that or what people have faith in is just wrong. and i understand your big picture. i just see it with mechanisms that arent called god replacing god. and with the understanding of the notion that "faith" inherently means you might be wrong and with the understanding that the level of faith involved in science is by leaps and bounds less than the measure of faith involved in referring to anything as god.
Science is proving how circumstances of reality are PROBABILITIES, rather than definites. Therefore, believing something in reality is definitely true requires FAITH, since, as science is proving, reality is NOT definite, but rather possibilities. It is not about having faith in what other people have faith in.
If you can't demonstrate it, why should I take it seriously? Direct experience is not a valid form of collecting data about the universe. It can't be replicated by independent researchers and is prone to a shitton of cognitive biases that might be taking place. Speaking of Einstein, here's a better quote that summarizes his religious views, which he said in response to people making him out to be a religious man: "It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it." Although Einstein would not have wanted to have been called an atheist, he fit the definition of one.
I don't think you are trying to convert me. Regardless, why is no one here able to present logical reasons to conclude that there is a god? I'm not claiming to be more rational than anyone here. What I mean by a "rational-minded person" is someone who bases their beliefs on evidence and reason.
I have discussed God in a rational way at length. "He" is not a being at all. He is certainly not that which you are thinking of. The god that you reject, I reject too.
Where have you discussed? I haven't seen it. ""He" is not a being at all." I never said "he" was, but since you claim to know what I am thinking of, what am I thinking of?
It does not matter. Any idea or definition of God which you can come up with, i reject as being ultimately true. God could be looked at as the process of all things. The mechanism through which all things get done. If you believe anything, know anything, or want anything, THAT is God. I do not have a set definition of God in mind when I say God. You don't have to call "it" God at all, in fact.
i respect your definition of god more than most peoples'.. but i'd respect it more if you stopped calling it god since by likelihood it isnt.
I'm not saying it's god. As I say, you don't need to call it God. What I am referring to is nature. Does that word suit you better? The word DOES NOT matter. I merely use the word God because it is what many believe, and want to hear. It is a METAPHOR. Do not get caught up in my words. This truth is for ALL, regardless of their affiliations or belief systems.
if this post is true then i dont disagree with you at all.. except for the fact that i think the word does matter. because it expresses something to me that isn't what you mean (in the event that you actually do just mean nature when you say god and not a nature that necessarily contains a god)
When I say God, Jesus, Buddha, consciousness, singularity, truth, reality, universe, world or whatever other word I may use...IT'S ALL REFERRING TO THE SAME THING. The reason words matter to you, and you like some and don't like others, is because you are attaching to definitions, labels, and concepts. Thus the buddha said Nirvana is reached when you drop all attachments. Without attachments, assumptions, and pre-conceived notions, there is no argument. There is only the appearance of disagreement and argument, because of attachment.