Gisteron

Khaos wrote:

I cant prove Africa is where it is either, for those of you who wonder what is proveable... We take the words of others and that it exists...

Actually, this is a bit of a stretch, as had I the money, I could fly you there.

I can show you video of what is going on there.

There is alot more to the proof Africa exists than others words for it.

There is a great deal of our history as well in dealing with Africa.

You can in fact prove where Africa is.

As for the burden of proof, well no, you dont have to prove anything, and yet....I think in a place that is a learning environment, spiritual or otherwise, it would be best if one is going to make claims of any kind that they are prepared to back it up with something.

Switching the burden of proof is a poor method of dealing with questions asked in the search to learn from what one themself has presented as fact no less, is a poor way to go about in any type of learning environment.

You could fly me Arizona, and take me to the middle of the desert area and tell me it is as well...

Never having been ther, how would I know?

My friend Khaos wouldnt jack with me? Would he? (Answer, the closer the friend, the more the likelihood, :lol:...)

But, right now, all we have are the words of others on what is there...

Granted, the science behind it proves it so, but, only because we want to trust the science, and see no reason to doubt it at this time... (the science is geography)....

Actually, there is a case to be made that absense of evidence is indeed evidence of absense, but I don't think I need to make that case unless prompted

But, the case would be a losing one, as the theory cannot be proven true...
\
If not 'losing', weak...

lol...

Gisteron wrote: As for the line you quoted, we have a name for the universe. It is "universe". If your reason to rename it to "god" is only so that you can smuggle in the word and claim god exists, you are doing our language a disservice and are begging for misunderstandings.

I believe he was using the 'universe' as his "proof" for God, not as a "symbol" for God...

Just as to some, a baby being born is a miracle, and proof of God...

Yes, there is a science to it, and we understand so much of it...

But not every aspect of it... But we are trying...

Khaos wrote: So yes, I ask for you to "show your work" to enhance my understanding.

Some people cannot 'show their work....

And it leads to this circles...

Some of us are comfortable with the 'feeling' that 'this' is right, and we 'know' it in our guts...

I cant let you in my head to see how and why I know what I know, only that I know...

I makes sense...

I see the evidence...

lol, and I am not even talking about GOD, lol....

ANd, some find the answer they are happy with, such as GOD, and set about reaffirming their theory... They cant prove it to you, because you see different answers...

I am working up a post on "science and Jeddism quoting the Dalia Lama, and hope to have it posted soon, but these conversations are a lot of fun for me too, lol...

If Scott says a cherry blossom is proof God exists to him, and you can trace its path, all the way back to the first spec of life, and say, see, here is your scientific proof of where that flower came from, Scott can go, "Yea, aitn that proof of God's miracles?

And you would both be right, for where you are, and how you think...

Arcade wrote: A general question to everyone reading this... Why is it important that anyone else believes the same things you do or thinks about things in the same way?

It isn't. It is only important that what we believe is as true as possible, because beliefs inform our actions and our actions have consequences for us and everything around us. Because no man is an island. Nobody lives in a bubble, and no beliefs reside in bubbles such that they have no effect on anything. And because we care about more than just ourselves. We care about each other, about other people and about future generations. Beliefs matter.

If your thinking then you're changing and creating.

Not necessarily.

If you are thinking about anything I've said then I am having an influence on you. OMG you might even have learned something. Like it or not.

No, I have not learned something. Other than what you think, of which the value is essentially 0 if you intend to go no further. Certainly, you have got me thinking, and yes, there is an influence, that influence is to question. The questioning is in the hopes of learning.

We obviously don't think along the same lines or the same way. We're different. I don't need proof for everything and you do or at least it seems that way.

I dont know if we think along the same lines, or in the same way, as you have no intention of explaining yourself. Obviously were different, which is why I am asking questions to begin with, because I am approaching it from an angle that isnt yours. In questioning, I am trying to see where you are coming from, as the statements, the conclusions are just that, and I am trying to work back along the lines of your process for more understanding, as again, this a forum for discussion.

Apparently, thats too much to ask for.

Don't think of this as criticism, challenge or who is right or wrong. I feel one way and you think another. Think and feeling are complemantary. I believe people need to do more thinking and feeling to better the world.

This has no bearing on anything. Obvious that we think and feel differently, which again, is why we are conversing. I would think the fact that we are different is self evident. Though again, by your conclusion, we are also one...Interesting how we are also....singular.

Some things can be known directly but have no evidence. If you haven't experienced this then you haven't. Some things can be understood without explanation and can't be explained, maybe never will be. Some people are short and some tall.

This, is nonsense.

Some people connect with the: intangable, creative, imaginative, intuitive, unlearned and untaught. I try and I believe and feel (with no proof to offer) there is more and I desire to open my mind to the possibilities.

No idea what your talking about here, and I suppose its pointless to ask for a clarification, as it cant be learned, o taught...

There is more...more what?

This is vaguery for the sake of it, and offers nothing to anything.

Unless you just like to sound cryptic.

Some people would mistake it as wisdom, and snake oil salesman have been using that approach for a long time.

What I have learned Rickie, is that to engage you in conversation will reap no value to me, as you do nothing but evade in depth discussion at all cost.

So my conclusion based on the evidence gathered, or in this case, your refusal to reciprocate in any real meaningful conversation, is to no longe attempt to have one with you.

Whats interesting is that you insinuate that I am close minded, when it is you who has refused to open up to me.

Why do you and Gisteron often questions others beliefs, but put not theories of your own out for inspection...

Do you have your own theories?

Or just science?

Not thoughts?

Nothing to test?

Khaos wrote: What I have learned Rickie, is that to engage you in conversation will reap no value to me, as you do nothing but evade in depth discussion at all cost.

So my conclusion based on the evidence gathered, or in this case, your refusal to reciprocate in any real meaningful conversation, is to no longe attempt to have one with you.

Whats interesting is that you insinuate that I am close minded, when it is you who has refused to open up to me.

Sorry I can't answer your question as concretely as you desire. Maybe someday we'll connect better. Peace

PS I don't call what you say nonsense and snake oil.

When arriving in either Cairo or Pretoria, one doesn't see Africa, only Cairo or Pretoria. Africa is a word used to label a continent, it is a universal, a concept, and as such, is neither sensed or experienced; it is thought. That which is sensed or experienced is a particular. Proving Africa requires assent to some standard of truth and agreement regarding what the concept means. Is it true because one sees the word Africa on an authoritative map? Concepts like Africa are relatively recent inventions even though the land mass pre-existed the concept. In conclusion, Africa is an example that can be applied to other concepts, though not all concepts are like Africa. Finally, consensus regarding the meaning of concepts changes over time and from place to place.

Alan wrote: When arriving in either Cairo or Pretoria, one doesn't see Africa, only Cairo or Pretoria. Africa is a word used to label a continent, it is a universal, a concept, and as such, is neither sensed or experienced; it is thought. That which is sensed or experienced is a particular. Proving Africa requires assent to some standard of truth and agreement regarding what the concept means. Is it true because one sees the word Africa on an authoritative map? Concepts like Africa are relatively recent inventions even though the land mass pre-existed the concept. In conclusion, Africa is an example that can be applied to other concepts, though not all concepts are like Africa. Finally, consensus regarding the meaning of concepts changes over time and from place to place.

See, I was totally gonna say that. Except my examples were gonna be somewhere in Yemen and Tripoli.

Ok that was quite an interesting read.

This was a google search on the word agnostic.

a person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God or of anything beyond material phenomena; a person who claims neither faith nor disbelief in God.

So my next question is:
2nd Question: Do you consider yourself agnostic under that definition?

I ask because I no longer want to assume you believe this or that anymore. Plus the way you have always come off to me is as an atheist, but your last reply makes me question that.

Thank you for taking time with me to answer my question, and answering any in the future, if you do.

Gisteron wrote: Actually, there is a case to be made that absense of evidence is indeed evidence of absense, but I don't think I need to make that case unless prompted. Jestor, the thing is that if you are making claims, the onus is on you to back them up (again, when prompted), as Khaos already said. Of course they may be true or false, but I will care what you believe only in so far as it affects what you do and I will care why you believe things because that may help me discover a truth I didn't know before.

As for the line you quoted, we have a name for the universe. It is "universe". If your reason to rename it to "god" is only so that you can smuggle in the word and claim god exists, you are doing our language a disservice and are begging for misunderstandings.

Anyway, neither of this is what I was asked, so I shall move on to address the original post.
Scott, you asked whether I believed there was a god or not. Now, there are two ways of interpreting that question. Judging by your subsequent question, it seems that my options are as follows:

- Either I believe there is a god, or
- I believe there is not a god.

I shall illustrate my answer with an analogy. Let's say I have a jar full with marbles. The exact number of marbles is either odd or it is even. Your question would be analogous to asking whether I believed it was odd or even. I cannot answer this. My answer is "neither". I don't believe the number is even, because nothing makes me think that. Neither does anything make me think that it is odd, however, so I cannot say I believe that either. In the same way, I don't beileve there is a god, and there are a number of gods I have reason to even believe don't exist, like the one version of Zeus that visibly and physically resides on mount Olympus or that is internally contradictory. At the same time however, I have no reason to actively believe that all and every god doesn't exist, so I don't believe that either.
I believe that the time to believe anything at all has come only when and no sooner than there is reason to believe the proposition. Now that reason may not be sufficient or watertight, which is why we always have to reexamine our own beliefs, but at the end of the day I cannot say I believe something and also mean it unless there was something, that, for better or worse, convinced me to some degree or another.

So the second part of your question remains unanswerable from a strictly semantical point of view since it relies on a dichotomy that isn't a given one. But I don't have to be strictly semantical here and may as well say, that the reason I disbelieve is that I have no reason to believe and I cannot make myself believe things because I deem that dishonest and counterproductive in any quest for truth.

Jestor wrote:
I believe he was using the 'universe' as his "proof" for God, not as a "symbol" for God...

Jestor actually for me. The universe is both proof for god and symbol for god. To me that is the universe is the physical manifestation of god. I believe that God is the underlying principle of energy that all things are made up of. This underlying energy I also believe is conscious and aware. Sort of like how we are aware of our skin we know we have skin but we do not direct its growth or shedding, likewise god (universal energy) is aware of all its parts but does not direct all its parts. But like we can take active part in changing our skin, tats, cutting it, bandaging it, etc. so too can god take an active part in its parts. When god takes part in itself what happens is what many call magic or miracles. These are points in time that seem to defy science, but really do not if closer examination is done. Like when any family member gets that phenomenal strength to lift a car off their family member. Many will just lump all that to hormones and leave it there, I believe it is more. I believe that is god taking active participation in its parts. Like a body builder who lifts weights, that is god lifting its weights.

I do not believe any single part can be called god alone the same as if you cut your finger off and were to call that finger you, that would not be true. To separate any part of god and say this is god would be wrong. To me god is everything that is and everything that is not. There is no where that is not god, there is no time that is not god. God is the perfect paradox to me.

I asked Gisteron if he was agnostic. I shall answer that too. I am not, I believe you can know and experience god. I believe you can know and experience god through meditation, and through prayer. I believe god is that still voice within your head that meany call your conscience, letting you know what is good to do and what is not good to do. I believe god is that voice of warning that so many report telling them not to go somewhere then all hell brakes loose where they would have been. I believe god to be the field of energy where all thought, and memory is stored and comes from. I believe everyone hears from god, but the message gets damaged way too often. God's message in my opinion is always perfect, but it must come to us through thought in our mind first. Our mind receives god's messages then transmits it into and through the process of our brain causing us to think. Our brains are likened to a computer we all have certain programming or lines of code that we have come to accept as true. God's message goes through said filter and we get our feelings from said filtration. Our thoughts lead to thinking which lead to certain feelings. These thoughts, ways of thinking, and feelings lead us to act in certain ways. Those thoughts, ways of thinking, feelings, and acting in certain ways will bring about certain results. Every cause has an effect. The cause of the physical manifestation of the universe to me is the invisible conscious energy of all.

Now some peoples filtration system can be broken. Autism for example will change the message one understands. Each of us has our own filtration system that we process conscious energy through, or in other words each of us has our own filtration system that we process god through.

I do not believe god to be just the (god) as portrayed in the bible, or koran or whatever other holy book. Each of those were created by mankind and through their belief systems and understanding of the world around them. Does that make them wrong, no. But does that make any of them the absolute truth of all, no.

I believe in god because god is the only thing that make sense to me. I can not understand how anyone can not believe in god, that completely baffles me and sends my mind reeling. I get the thoughts of like, "really, how can you not believe in god. Its the only thing that makes logical sense."

It is almost a pointless endevor when one says:
Prove god exists.
The universe to me is proof, and I am like,
Prove god does not exist.
Everything around me that I see, read, hear, taste, smell, etc. only reinforces my belief in god. I have tried before to find fault with my belief in god. I set out to actually disprove god to myself. I actually hated the whole idea of there being a god. It disgusted me and made me furious. But the more I studied, and the more I have experienced only cemented my belief in God.

I personally can see god in suffering, while many can not. I can see god in suffering when you get another person who sees that person who is suffering lend a helping hand to them trying to lift the other up out of the mire of depression or homelessness or whatever the case may be. Suffering to me is proof that there is a god. Suffering allows others to be charitable and caring for those who suffer. To me this is direct evidence of god.

I personally can see god in times when people get that nudge to help another, like pulling someone out of harms way even if that is putting their own selves in harms way. The nudge is god speaking to them, act, do, now. The person does not think about themselves or their programming in their brain. They just obey the cosmic command of god and do it, irregardless of harm to self. The outcome many times is the saving of the person in danger and an uplifting of the "HERO". God is that which gives us the ability to go beyond our programming and become a "HERO."

God is the only reason you even exist. Without god you would not exist. Without god consicious energy coming together and forming the cell and sperm that you came from you would not exist. When does life begin, it doesn't, life always is. Even a rock has its own consciousness. The atoms are doing what they are doing because they are conscious of what they are doing.

There are some who claim that this consciousness has a sound, and I agree with them. This sound is the OHM, the sound of creation. This also is another reason I believe in god, for I have heard this sound while meditating. Then at the same time my entire body started to vibrate. It was crazy.

Then there are the two near death experiences I have had where I believe I have seen in a sense god, or conscious energy. At that time I did not hold any particular belief system of god. So the 1st NDE was experienced as a dark void, the 2nd NDE was experienced as a bright light.

Then there was another time I was meditating. I had been reading this book by Charles F Hannel, called the Master Key System. At the end of the first three chapters were simple instructions for meditating.

Week One: sit still for 15 minutes.
Week Two: same as above but focus on one thought.
Week Three: same as above but try to blank or empty your mind.

So anyways I was like somewhere around chapter 12 to 15 not sure which exactly when I decided, "OK lets try week one." So I sat down with the intent to sit still for 15 minutes. I was aware of my self in my surroundings for about 10 minutes, then my mind somehow focused down to one thought, then no thought. It was then that the same light I saw in my NDE came flooding in my minds eye down from above my head, entering at the crown of my head and through my forehead. I could literally feel this light flowing into my head then down through my entire body. Then I was not. I was not just me, I was everything. I could see the entire universe, I kid you not, I completely understood it all. It was amazing. I could not only see the universe, I was aware of all things and all beings that are aware. I was seeing through the eyes of everything that could see at one moment. It all made sense, it was not scary, and it was all good. Then it was over, and all that was left was the memory of the experience, not the complete understanding. I remember understanding it all, but I do not remember the understanding itself. This above all other reasons is why i say this.

I personally 100% equivalently believe in god. I have no doubt at all that there is a god, I have no doubt that one can experience god either. This is why I say I am an Eclectic Jedeoitic Mystic. To me everyone is right. You have to come to understand god in your own way, if science is the only way for one to understand god (the universe) then that is fine, if it is Christianity, Buddhism, or even Atheism it matters not. You are still coming to your own understanding of god (the universe.)

If you took the time to read all this thank you.


This post should give you more of an idea what I mean when I say this.
May the force(GOD) be with(in) you.