PROOF that GOD Exists......

[crazyhazey]

Not that this is proof or anything, but some dmt researchers are postulating about the fact that all living things have dmt--plant and animal--meaning it may be the molecular basis for some kind of interspecial communication; now that's probably not really what you'd call "God" but it may be a link to some kind of notion that all carbon based life is connected in some way--even a neutral way.

Also, lets be clear here, it isn't kind to lambast someone because he may or may not know about the physiological realities of the pineal gland, but, in fairness, we, as a species, don't know everything about ourselves, much less our world and universe. Also, you haven't read every piece of philosophy, religious or otherwise, which has a great deal to bear on the discussion of the existence of God; so, all i'm saying it isn't necessary to use knowledge aggressively
be easy

well it certainly isnt trying to prove anything through youtube videos. drJ, you always have a problem with my posts lol, but i somehow find what you have say is almost offensive, yet helpful. almost confusing. but back to the subject, i didnt say ive read every piece of philosophy, religion, etc. i dont think anyone could cover every piece of knowledge if they dedicated their lives to it, so i dont see how that had to do with anything i said but oh well.
it is fitting to know DMT is found in everything, after i go into a DMT trip i find myself at peace with all surroundings, as if im part of it. its almost impossible to put into words, if you know what im talking about im sure you could explain it in better terms. i did not begin to "lambast" him until he started to act arrogant, i dont respect those people with an unappreciative attitude, rather offensive attitude nonetheless. he did deny many facts however, such as the fact that we all possess DMT in our body and the pinneal gland is responsible for most visions seen during something like a near death experience. im sorry if my reasoning comes off as aggressive to you, i dont mean it in anyway offensively and most things i could say shouldnt be taken too seriously, after all we are just on a forum. also, this user had a particularly dickish attitude, and he was very close minded. i need not explain anything, just read some of his posts.

 

[eye exaggerate]

My point is exactly this: Religion/spirituality/metaphysics/theology, these subjects all require belief in order for them to be true (in some way shape or form). Science does not, gravity does not, math does not.

Hey, zs I have this natural tendency to ask what really is so bad about belief. Could it be that it is the only thing that provides a non-tangible framework for science? If no one believed that things were 'possible, but not guaranteed', would we bother trying to make things better? For me, I'd have to say that the purpose of science is to benefit the lives of people, regardless of their beliefs about God. Science, per se, does not have 'a mind of its own', and will not judge the 'user'.

 

[Dr.J20]

Im not sure if this is a question or a statement. Science allows me to appreciate beauty to the fullest. Understanding just how a rainbow works with the bending of light and prisms in water. Being able not only to see the beauty of the flower, but also understanding what exactly is going on inside this biological structure fills me with a sense of appreciation and wonder.

My point is exactly this: Religion/spirituality/metaphysics/theology, these subjects all require belief in order for them to be true (in some way shape or form). Science does not, gravity does not, math does not.

My point is exactly this: if religion, spirituality, metaphysics, and theology all require belief in order for them to be true--a point which i would contend, as well I would contend the conflating of these as not really fair but anyway-- and you thereby relegate these as less valuable than science and math, then where do you place art? I mean, you don't have to believe in art at all, nor does it have to be true, is it therefore exempt from the system of hierarchical valuation in which you place math and science above religion, metaphysics, theology, and spirituality?

I am NOT discussing the beautiful or sublime in nature, but created art. art has no truth value, no need for proof at all. it, as you say, is a subjective creation of man and we all have individual tastes, but you cannot deny that artistic productions have effected individuals and societies on a scale comparable to that of science. our political existence is very real, and the aesthetic has motivated people to do great things like overthrow unjust, repressive theocracies that were keeping science down, for example. Is art only good insofar as it can advance science? if a religious artist inspired a scientist's adventure into exploration would that be enough of a reason to accept the idea that a homogeneously anti-belief society may not actually be the best?

 

[kpmarine]

Hey, zs I have this natural tendency to ask what really is so bad about belief. Could it be that it is the only thing that provides a non-tangible framework for science? If no one believed that things were 'possible, but not guaranteed', would we bother trying to make things better? For me, I'd have to say that the purpose of science is to benefit the lives of people, regardless of their beliefs about God. Science, per se, does not have 'a mind of its own', and will not judge the 'user'.

There is nothing inherently wrong with belief. It's what you believe in, that can be good or bad. Beliefs can be built on fact, feelings, or fiction. The important thing is to evaluate them to make sure they are valid. Most importantly, one must make sure to constantly question unproven beliefs. Otherwise, you risk ending up with beliefs that are at best, incorrect, and at worst, hazardous to you and others around you. That's how I look at it.

 

[Doer]

Faith IS unnatural. It's not some opinion I hold. And you're confusing secular home with Atheist home. I was raised without practicing religions, not being taught to disapprove of them. The doctrine I received was to value education, use critical thinking, and base my decisions on facts. Lore can coincide with science, but lore is communication, science is observation. Science can be trusted because the results have been determined by ALL backgrounds. No one ever asked me what side of science I'm on. I disagree we can not "escape" nature or nurture. Is religion Natural? Does any other species on earth practice it? Has it ever been done before? No. Imagine a Tuna having faith that the shark won't eat him. Ha! Every other animal makes decisions based on experience and observation. It's already been proven Religion doesn't instill nobility or transitivity. When we as a species can stop talking to ourselves in corners wearing fancy night gowns, we might progress.

Well, you define your world as if your parents were not involved in your pre-verbal upbringing. And these statements that you make with such weight of conviction are not facts. Emphasis alone IS!!!! not enough. That's the beef with religion, fancy night gowns for emphasis. And you know very little of the religions and beliefs of other animals as you seem to know very little about this topic. Religion seems quite the natural order of things for humans.

To just deny that fact is somewhat thoughtless, in spite of your secular upbringing, as wonderful as it may have been. Obviously secular humans are made, not born. Yet, Religion has been here "forever." And you don't know what is a religion to humpback whales , do you?

So, you have opinions, only. So what?

 

[Doer]

^and even so, these concepts you hold without facing up to the burdens of proof, are not true... they are only true through your own individual subjective perceptions, nothing more, nothing less.

these experiences or concepts are what we make of them, and are all dependent on the environment we grew up in, how we were raised, and the culture that was instilled in us as we grew from babyhood to adulthood.

as you experience "self" these experiences will be different depending on all of the factors stated above.

But, they are true, my forum mate. Only in your group defined subjective illusion do I have any burden of proof. Prep first. I'm not trying to relate my Objective experience to your Subjective hyper-analytically thought. HLT has to stop. Prep has to occur.

If I say, in the Uncertainty experiments, OK, let's prep. Turn on the electron beam.
A- Oh, prepping? My preconception is we don't need that.

Q- My preconception is you don't want to be part of this experiment, perhaps?

It's two different worlds. If you can't get how quantum science and matters of Self coincide then, you would want do the prep (i.e. suspend your dis-belief)

It's work. Not as easy as Science. And the works of Science do not discount the works with Self. Religion is only the question, not the answer. But, like science, without seeking there is no finding. Without prep, there is no result.

And please believe me, when the hyper-analytical thinking can be controlled and then ignored... well, how many can say they have mastered the science of Self? I assure we would realize without agreeing or disagreeing, the experience is the same. It is what is here and now, for Us, when we are prepped well enough to ignore the mind cloud.

 

[eye exaggerate]

There is nothing inherently wrong with belief. It's what you believe in, that can be good or bad. Beliefs can be built on fact, feelings, or fiction. The important thing is to evaluate them to make sure they are valid. Most importantly, one must make sure to constantly question unproven beliefs. Otherwise, you risk ending up with beliefs that are at best, incorrect, and at worst, hazardous to you and others around you. That's how I look at it.

...that's totally fair. Thanks.

 

[Legolandon]

Here's the problem, so many attributes, human attributes, have been assigned to IT. Then we use that Abrahmic logic, to banter these traits. "What loving God...?" "Would not a Just God...?" Well, already the speech pattern assumes multiple gods. Worse, it assumes these human traits, Loving and Just are attributes of IT.

Since IT is essential un-knowable except through Self, all assignments of characterizations to IT are man-made, not Objective, since they are uttered into this Subjective soup we call Reality.

I appreciate that correction, I couldn't agree more!

 

[Mindmelted]

Nice fantasy........

 

[tyler.durden]

Hey, zs I have this natural tendency to ask what really is so bad about belief. Could it be that it is the only thing that provides a non-tangible framework for science? If no one believed that things were 'possible, but not guaranteed', would we bother trying to make things better? For me, I'd have to say that the purpose of science is to benefit the lives of people, regardless of their beliefs about God. Science, per se, does not have 'a mind of its own', and will not judge the 'user'.

Hey, Eye! I'm going to try to field this one, assuming I am understanding you correctly. You ask what is so bad about belief, I assume you mean belief in religion/deities. Belief directly influences one's thoughts and actions; if the belief is grounded in reality this is a good thing, if not beliefs can lead one astray from reality. Speculation is a huge part of science, one speculates on what may be true, then goes about acquiring data to try to prove the assumption incorrect. If they cannot prove it incorrect, the hypothesis starts to gain a foothold as others try to prove it incorrect, and so on. Religious speculation goes about this in reverse; it claims to have answers first, then goes about attempting to find any data to solidify its presupposed truth. We never see theists working arduously to disprove their dogma and ideas, but this is what it takes to responsibly attempt to understand objective reality...

 

[afrawfraw]

Well, you define your world as if your parents were not involved in your pre-verbal upbringing. And these statements that you make with such weight of conviction are not facts. Emphasis alone IS!!!! not enough. That's the beef with religion, fancy night gowns for emphasis. And you know very little of the religions and beliefs of other animals as you seem to know very little about this topic. Religion seems quite the natural order of things for humans.

To just deny that fact is somewhat thoughtless, in spite of your secular upbringing, as wonderful as it may have been. Obviously secular humans are made, not born. Yet, Religion has been here "forever." And you don't know what is a religion to humpback whales , do you?

So, you have opinions, only. So what?

So you really believe what you just wrote!? That religion is natural? You obviously have no idea...And you point the finger and call me ignorant. Classic.

I just have to ask. Since your claiming My "opinion" that religion would not occur unless taught and children raised without any religion never suddenly "find god", surely you could site some sources? Like, a controlled experiment? Perhaps a theory of "Animal Spirituality"? Or "Universal Spirituality Theory"? Without indoctrination, every one would be an Atheist. Period. Again, sources please.

Indoctrination is the process of inculcating ideas, attitudes, cognitive strategies or a professional methodology (see doctrine).[SUP][1][/SUP] It is often distinguished from education by the fact that the indoctrinated person is expected not to question or critically examine the doctrine they have learned.[SUP][2][/SUP] As such the term may be used pejoratively, often in the context of education, political opinions, theology or religious dogma. The term is closely linked to socialization; in common discourse, indoctrination is often associated with negative connotations, while socialization refers to cultural or educational learning.

"Expected not to question."

Am I debating using wiki? Oh, ya. I forgot. Your trying to prove something you can't. So I don't care.

 

[drive]

Well, you define your world as if your parents were not involved in your pre-verbal upbringing. And these statements that you make with such weight of conviction are not facts. Emphasis alone IS!!!! not enough. That's the beef with religion, fancy night gowns for emphasis. And you know very little of the religions and beliefs of other animals as you seem to know very little about this topic. Religion seems quite the natural order of things for humans.

To just deny that fact is somewhat thoughtless, in spite of your secular upbringing, as wonderful as it may have been. Obviously secular humans are made, not born. Yet, Religion has been here "forever." And you don't know what is a religion to humpback whales , do you?

So, you have opinions, only. So what?

Doer what do you suppose a philosophy/ religious disscusion with a whale is like DUDE you just BLEW my mind

 

[Doer]

So you really believe what you just wrote!? That religion is natural? You obviously have no idea...And you point the finger and call me ignorant. Classic.

It's classic in that I never called you any names and never pointed any fingers. Since religion has been part of the human experience always and there has never been a time when it has not, just stamping your foot and claiming it's unnatural is a joke.

It's like the joke of claiming whales have no religion. You don't know. And now your speech is becoming riled. So, it's a rhetorical device to lash back like this. There is no right fight here.

Just submit your proof that religion is unnatural, if you can. Just restating it is.....not useful?

As for the rest, let us calmly approach it this way. Are you actually saying that indoctrination is not necessary to reject the entire notion of a spirit world? You must have had secular upbring to suggest that, right? How can a baby survive without indoctrination? You don't know that either, do you?

You're beliefs are being challenged, so what? We do that for all non-denominations alike.

 

[mellokitty]

this thread just keeps getting better and better........

 

[Doer]

Doer what do you suppose a philosophy/ religious disscusion with a whale is like DUDE you just BLEW my mind

With themselves, not us. Let's not be so homo-centric for a second. They have language. Whale song. An oral tradition. Seems to be based on vast memory. We just can't decode it. I think it would be astounding! What a conversation.

 

[Dr.J20]

tyler, I would only say that by using rhetoric which privileges "objective reality" you have already limited yourself to a specific epistemology and perspective on existence that is questioned by some very intelligent people indeed.

 

[TogTokes]

Is magic real?

Do reindeer fly?

Can santa jump down a smoke shoot?

when did wizards really exist?

what date were the dragons killed?

If gods real, why aren't any of those lol...............................

Seems pretty plain and simple to me.

 

[afrawfraw]

It's classic in that I never called you any names and never pointed any fingers. Since religion has been part of the human experience always and there has never been a time when it has not, just stamping your foot and claiming it's unnatural is a joke.

It's like the joke of claiming whales have no religion. You don't know. And now you speech is becoming riled. So, it's a rhetorical device to lash back like this. There is no right fight here.

Just submit your proof that religion is unnatural, if you can. Just restating it is.....not useful?

You stated I knew very little about animal behavior. But with your next breath you state religion is natural. OK then. Plastic is natural. Global warming is natural. When I say natural, I mean it does not occur in the wild.

And to state just because religion is almost as old as our species as grounds to define it as natural. I guess ignorance is our nature too? Why do we question everything? It's in our nature. But indoctrination by definition can not be questioned. Which is it. We are curious by nature, or we're not. I don't hate religion, just the logic required to obtain it.

 

[afrawfraw]

With themselves, not us. Let's not be so homo-centric for a second. They have language. Whale song. An oral tradition. Seems to be based on vast memory. We just can't decode it. I think it would be astounding! What a conversation.

Probably either, "Invisible what? WTF are you talking about" or "There are demons who ride the air above. When EEEEEEEEEEEEWWWWWWWWWWWWOOOOOOOOOO (Whale deity) calls you, he commands a demon to spear you and drag you onto a demon vessel."

Since whales are intelligent and don't dive onto the beaches every year at the same time, or sing as they slaughter each other, I'm going with option 1.

 

[Heisenberg]

Pantheism is atheism without the appreciation for parsimony.