"Finding" "God"

[Gadget nee Jemcheeta]

I mean, from the definition of faith, once you can prove it, faith becomes meaningless? That's what I'm hearing from a lot of people, and I've been hearing it for a long time.

What about the second coming, if there is one?
Or when God was speaking directly to mortals, if you are a christian?
Would you say that Moses had no faith because the existence of the Lord was proven, carved into his face like years on the earth?

just curious

[The Laughing Man]

thats a PERFECT point, Jem!(and pretty too!) heh. Wouldn't God, knowing we distrust the "words" of other men, and rightly so, speak to every single one of us, at the same time, so there would be no question as to his will? Not just to Moses, so we'd have to take "his word" for "His Word"?

[Gadget nee Jemcheeta]

That goes straight to hell, literally. If there's a hell, and there's a chance that my soul will burn for all eternity, and he cares about my wellbeing, and he is omniscient, wouldn't he want to help me out? I don't want to hear about the 'tough, fatherly' love of God that would send me to the inferno, either...

[The Laughing Man]

He may be Pure Evil, did you consider that? Maybe he wants you to go to Hell, because thats all there is. It's possible, isn't it?

[The Laughing Man]

hello?

[Cail]

I've said from the get-go that I believe that God exists to me, and that I would never expect anyone to se Him the way I see Him.

But Esmer, your're dodging the question. What made you believe, and why do you demand proof?

[The Laughing Man]

because it's possible, cail, it really is that simple. Something must have created this, and there must be a way to find It. Standard religion could not provide those answers, so I had to look elsewhere. If It gave me common sense, then that should be all I need to find It (Him,etc, et al). Believing isn't enough, cuz you can do that in your chair.

I then "heard" that there is a way to "see" the underlying fabric of Reality, and that this is one way to approach the "problem". So "God" became It, an incomprehensible force, and it is this "force", or "Force", that I seek to verify.
Why? Because I believe It "personally" challenged me to find It, and I heard about a good place to start, that doesn't allow for "misunderstanding", because it cannot be "described", only "perceived". No description to get in the way, all there is is pure perception, therefore no disagreement possible, because it is not a "verbal" experience. This is acknowledged by those who have "claimed" to have such experiences, they all agree on what they say cannot be "described", only "experienced" (beyond words). This experience is what I seek, and I believe from there I can continue my journey of discovery, to stand in front of my maker, and dare It to acknowledge me. This requires of me all that I am, all that It made of me, every step of the way.

(I just heard this on ESPN and had to add it, it was by a HS Football coach..."One man believes he can, one man believes he can't. Both men are right. Which one are you"?)

[Prebe]

The answer to you question the-esmer:
Religion.

Why? Because if you search using science, and find out, that everything is created by natural forces, you would be left without a God and without intent. And we can't have that.

If you search meditatively, you can - on the other hand - create images so clear and vivid to your self, that you will consider them proof. At the same time, you can put a face and an intent on whatever the creating force was. THAT's why you must search using meditative means.

Using a theological approach will get you just about the same result; only here the images and intents you find, will be limited to what someone else thought before you.

[The Laughing Man]

The answer to you question the-esmer:
Religion.
If you search meditatively, you can - on the other hand - create images so clear and vivid to your self, that you will consider them proof. At the same time, you can put a face and an intent on whatever the creating force was. THAT's why you must search using meditative means.
Using a theological approach will get you just about the same result; only here the images and intents you find, will be limited to what someone else thought before you.

heh. as in the former thoughts of Creator? That sounds good. but really, that sounds like a pretty crappy way to "meditate", there Prebe. Pretty unreliable, not to mention "mentally mastubatory" in some weird way. I prefer to try to apprehend the energy of the universe as it flows, not after I warp and twist it trying to interpret and describe it. And you and I share an "image" of the sun. Is it real?
Your "definition" of "meditate", and the associated practices, is the "standard" one, and a piss poor one at that. There are better ways, and you and I would be fools not to "inquire" of it.

BTW, "snidery" is unbecoming.

[Prebe]

You are an angry one these days aren't you Esmer?

I was trying to answer your question from my (obviously limited) knowledge of meditation.

I prefer to try to apprehend the energy of the universe as it flows, not after I warp and twist it trying to interpret and describe it.

So your kind of meditation will be completely un-tainted by your subconscious? If this is indeed so, it would seem that you have answered your own question: Meditate. Please.

Whatever you do, don't use science. You will be disapointed.

[The Laughing Man]

I prefer to try to apprehend the energy of the universe as it flows, not after I warp and twist it trying to interpret and describe it.

So your kind of meditation will be completely un-tainted by your subconscious? .

That is the best way, don't you agree? And if you're way is so unproductive, why would you do it?
And I'm not angry, heh, I was just pointing out your obvious sarcasm, which alludes to a "superiority complex" you seem to have to want to try to belittle me by comparing myself to you as if I were a fool. It's an "unpleasant" quality of humans here on Earth, heh.

[Prebe]

I think there is no intent and no God. There may well be forces of nature, that we have yet to discover. (now you made me say it )

However, everything you have been saying so far points to that you want a God and need a God. So therefore I will not want you to search like me, because I have found (searching with science) that there is no reason to believe that there is a God. In fact (in my view), there is every reason to believe there isn't.

Science can't put a face and an intent on whatever the creating force was. And it is clear that this is your desire. Hence the discouragement to use science.

I think meditation can do that. So I think you should meditate. Whether the things you find are univeral energy waves, or figments of you subconscious is immaterial, as long as you consider it irrefutible evidence. If you want something that you can show others to prove the existence of your deity, there is really nothing you can turn to but science, which will leave you empty handed. Religion is personal because truth is subjective.

What might have seemed like condescension was mere concern. I don't want you to lose faith. I am sory that you misunderstood me.

[The Laughing Man]

I think there is no intent and no God. There may well be forces of nature, that we have yet to discover. (now you made me say it )

It's a start!

However, everything you have been saying so far points to that you want a God and need a God. So therefore I will not want you to search like me, because I have found (searching with science) that there is no reason to believe that there is a God. In fact (in my view), there is every reason to believe there isn't.

I wanted to hear what you guys think! WHAT?

Science can't put a face and an intent on whatever the creating force was. And it is clear that this is your desire. Hence the discouragement to use science.

maybe it can? can't we consider the possibilities or implications of that? Isn't that what this whole board is about? WHAT?

I think meditation can do that. So I think you should meditate. Whether the things you find are univeral energy waves, or figments of you subconscious is immaterial, as long as you consider it irrefutible evidence. If you want something that you can show others to prove the existence of your deity, there is really nothing you can turn to but science, which will leave you empty handed.

I need science to verify that what I am seeing is actually real. We already use those procedures, and I can't "verify" without it. I need BOTH.and by both I don't mean "hippie kooks burning incense" when I say "meditating". and by "verifying" I don't mean thinking about what someone told me they think I should do. You are given a description of what you may expect to perceive, and the "verifiable" means to achieve it. This "allegedly" does not allow for "misinterpretation", which fascinates me to no end!
like this! can we trace the audio waves of the universe back to their location? echo-locating? eh?

Religion is personal because truth is subjective.

beautiful. but truth can be shared, the same way we do now. Any thoughts on how?

What might have seemed like condescension was mere concern. I don't want you to lose faith. I am sory that you misunderstood me.

The Esmer apologizes for any misunderstandings, as well. (you know its been a pile on today! )

[Avatar]

Personally, I'm of the opinion that proof directly negates faith. Indeed, faith exists in the absence of proof.

Religion cannot prove the existence of a god, and science doesn't try to.

Science has so far not produced any evidence that points toward a god, a creator, a will if you like. That is not to say that they one day won't, although I doubt it, but how do you even look for evidence of something when nobody knows either what that something is, or how it would work?

In the unlikely event that science ever proves the existence of a god, it won't be deliberate. It'll be a side-effect of something else.

Science cannot verify what you "see" unless it is measurable and tangible.

--Avatar

[Prebe]

but how do you even look for evidence of something when nobody knows either what that something is, or how it would work?

This is a crucial question Avatar, because science can't work without a strict hypothesis. And the hypothesis: "there is some kind of higher power" is no way near strict enough, because it doesn't allow you to design any precise experiment.

but truth can be shared, the same way we do now. Any thoughts on how?

Not without people shouting INDOCTRINATION/LECTURING I'm afraid.

[kevinswatch]

(btw, what do you, or hope to, do? I've "esmerized" that you are in college, and have fantastic web design skills and talent, but....?)

Sorry. Delayed Response Syndrome. Heh.

Right now I'm a graduate student who's an engineering/computer science nerd. Mainly focusing on Environmental Engineering.-jay

[The Laughing Man]

Cool! We need more of that, and people like you, Jay. Rock on!

[Kinslaughterer]

Societies worse off 'when they have God on their side'
By Ruth Gledhill, Religion Correspondent



RELIGIOUS belief can cause damage to a society, contributing towards high murder rates, abortion, sexual promiscuity and suicide, according to research published today.



According to the study, belief in and worship of God are not only unnecessary for a healthy society but may actually contribute to social problems.

The study counters the view of believers that religion is necessary to provide the moral and ethical foundations of a healthy society.

It compares the social peformance of relatively secular countries, such as Britain, with the US, where the majority believes in a creator rather than the theory of evolution. Many conservative evangelicals in the US consider Darwinism to be a social evil, believing that it inspires atheism and amorality.

Many liberal Christians and believers of other faiths hold that religious belief is socially beneficial, believing that it helps to lower rates of violent crime, murder, suicide, sexual promiscuity and abortion. The benefits of religious belief to a society have been described as its “spiritual capital”. But the study claims that the devotion of many in the US may actually contribute to its ills.

The paper, published in the Journal of Religion and Society, a US academic journal, reports: “Many Americans agree that their churchgoing nation is an exceptional, God-blessed, shining city on the hill that stands as an impressive example for an increasingly sceptical world.

“In general, higher rates of belief in and worship of a creator correlate with higher rates of homicide, juvenile and early adult mortality, STD infection rates, teen pregnancy and abortion in the prosperous democracies.

“The United States is almost always the most dysfunctional of the developing democracies, sometimes spectacularly so.”

Gregory Paul, the author of the study and a social scientist, used data from the International Social Survey Programme, Gallup and other research bodies to reach his conclusions.

He compared social indicators such as murder rates, abortion, suicide and teenage pregnancy.

The study concluded that the US was the world’s only prosperous democracy where murder rates were still high, and that the least devout nations were the least dysfunctional. Mr Paul said that rates of gonorrhoea in adolescents in the US were up to 300 times higher than in less devout democratic countries. The US also suffered from “ uniquely high” adolescent and adult syphilis infection rates, and adolescent abortion rates, the study suggested.

Mr Paul said: “The study shows that England, despite the social ills it has, is actually performing a good deal better than the USA in most indicators, even though it is now a much less religious nation than America.”

He said that the disparity was even greater when the US was compared with other countries, including France, Japan and the Scandinavian countries. These nations had been the most successful in reducing murder rates, early mortality, sexually transmitted diseases and abortion, he added.

Mr Paul delayed releasing the study until now because of Hurricane Katrina. He said that the evidence accumulated by a number of different studies suggested that religion might actually contribute to social ills. “I suspect that Europeans are increasingly repelled by the poor societal performance of the Christian states,” he added.

He said that most Western nations would become more religious only if the theory of evolution could be overturned and the existence of God scientifically proven. Likewise, the theory of evolution would not enjoy majority support in the US unless there was a marked decline in religious belief, Mr Paul said.

“The non-religious, proevolution democracies contradict the dictum that a society cannot enjoy good conditions unless most citizens ardently believe in a moral creator.

“The widely held fear that a Godless citizenry must experience societal disaster is therefore refuted.”

www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-1798944,00.html

[The Laughing Man]

yea, that definitely supports my "standard religion sucks" position....

[Prebe]

I think in all fairness Kins, that many states remain fiercely religious because they are poor, and do not become poor because they are fiercely religious.