Do you believe in God?

Do you believe in God?

  • Yes

    Votes: 71 34.6%

  • No

    Votes: 122 59.5%

  • Maybe

    Votes: 12 5.9%
  • Total voters
    205
SageFromZen

SageFromZen

Well-Known Member
eye exaggerate said:
Slight point of contention with the notion that 130 and below is a "god" category. I've known multiple-PhD scientists who didn't worry much about Mensa because they were concerned with solving world-wide health issues with WHO, UNRWA, etc etc etc. These folks were also concerned with what lies behind empirical reality - call that what you will.

I don't care to talk about what being a part of something "could" mean, but you brought the M word in lol.
Click to expand...
Hehehehe... yes I did. Hope I didn't offend anybody.
 
eye exaggerate

eye exaggerate

Well-Known Member
SageFromZen said:
Are you making reference to Casmir Force and/or Zero Point Field within a vacuum state?
Click to expand...
Sounds like a Rodin / Haramein lead-in.

Funny thing, Rodin coils came up in my FB after reading your post.



I was referring to our interactions with each of them. I suppose the next question to ask would be - what is the point between quantity and quality.

*intersted to hear about the stuff you work on.
 
Heisenberg

Heisenberg

Well-Known Member
While there have been quite a few studies conducted over several decades suggesting that higher intelligence correlates with lower tendency toward religiosity, I don't think it's fair to suggest there is some stark demarcation line between 129 and 130. Studies have also shown that factors like culture, family upbringing and status have considerable influence as well. What seems to transcend all these factors, to a certain degree, is education. If a person is willing and able to learn about nature, they tend to see less and less value in the explanation of a deity. I'm not aware of any data suggesting this is a phenomenon only seen with Mensa members.

It really shouldn't be about who believed what, it should be about the belief it'self and the reasoning behind it. If a person admits they have no good reason to believe in god, yet they believe anyway, then any conversation about why they believe becomes trivial. What becomes important to me, at that point, is the understanding that a personal belief held on faith, by definition, can only have value to that person. You cannot expect others to pay any attention to it unless they so choose. If that understanding is there, then I really don't have a problem with individuals believing whatever they please.
 
eye exaggerate

eye exaggerate

Well-Known Member
Heisenberg said:
[...] If a person admits they have no good reason to believe in god, yet they believe anyway, then any conversation about why they believe becomes trivial. What becomes important to me, at that point, is the understanding that a personal belief held on faith, by definition, can only have value to that person. You cannot expect others to pay any attention to it unless they so choose. If that understanding is there, then I really don't have a problem with individuals believing whatever they please.
Click to expand...
Here again is the personification of *god. If we can get out of that rut and get to the root of the issue (neither *side can objectively define the relationship between consciousness and matter) then maybe there's a chance at a *third thing (the whole point is to find it - and both *sides know that it shows itself in representations of nous (number)).

By your standard neither should talk to either, or do I have that mixed up? (Cheers, btw.)
 
jonsnow399

jonsnow399

Well-Known Member
eye exaggerate said:
How so?
Click to expand...
eye exaggerate said:
Here again is the personification of *god. If we can get out of that rut and get to the root of the issue (neither *side can objectively define the relationship between consciousness and matter) then maybe there's a chance at a *third thing (the whole point is to find it - and both *sides know that it shows itself in representations of nous (number)).

By your standard neither should talk to either, or do I have that mixed up? (Cheers, btw.)
Click to expand...
Is your real name Deepak Chopra?
 
TheLadyPale

TheLadyPale

Member
I am religious but i do not follow Christianity so the question "do you believe in God?" Is a yes and a no. Yes I believe in a god but probably not the one your refering too.
 
jonsnow399

jonsnow399

Well-Known Member
TheLadyPale said:
I am religious but i do not follow Christianity so the question "do you believe in God?" Is a yes and a no. Yes I believe in a god but probably not the one your refering too.
Click to expand...
I believe in Odin, when I die I get to join Thor and the other Gods in Valhalla to fight Ragnarok against the Frost Giants. Which god do you believe in?
 
Heisenberg

Heisenberg

Well-Known Member
eye exaggerate said:
Here again is the personification of *god. If we can get out of that rut and get to the root of the issue (neither *side can objectively define the relationship between consciousness and matter) then maybe there's a chance at a *third thing (the whole point is to find it - and both *sides know that it shows itself in representations of nous (number)).

By your standard neither should talk to either, or do I have that mixed up? (Cheers, btw.)
Click to expand...
I'm not sure what "side" any of us are supposed to be on. Some of us believe, some of us don't, and all for our own reasons. The topic of how matter gives rise to consciousness is worth pursuing, but the fact that we cannot currently explain it would seem to have no bearing on the existential state of God. Whether personified or not, it's strange how God always ends up hiding inside another mystery. While he used to lurk behind stars and planets, the rivers and mountains, he seemed to move on around the same time humans gained a reasonably thorough understanding stars, planets and mountains. God was once the explanation for drought and disease, until we stumbled upon meteorology and germ theory. I guess we know why god works in mysterious ways, because he apparently needs mystery to exist. Once the mystery is gone, God exits along with it fleeing into the unknown. As science provides us with an ever more accurate and comprehensive map of reality, the amount of mystery in the world shrinks, until we have apparently left God with no other choice than to shed his persona, shrink into the quantum, and hide in the space between thought and matter. Fortunately for God, that's probably going to be a safe space to hide for quite some time.
 
eye exaggerate

eye exaggerate

Well-Known Member
Heisenberg said:
I'm not sure what "side" any of us are supposed to be on. Some of us believe, some of us don't, and all for our own reasons. The topic of how matter gives rise to consciousness is worth pursuing, but the fact that we cannot currently explain it would seem to have no bearing on the existential state of God. Whether personified or not, it's strange how God always ends up hiding inside another mystery. While he used to lurk behind stars and planets, the rivers and mountains, he seemed to move on around the same time humans gained a reasonably thorough understanding stars, planets and mountains. God was once the explanation for drought and disease, until we stumbled upon meteorology and germ theory. I guess we know why god works in mysterious ways, because he apparently needs mystery to exist. Once the mystery is gone, God exits along with it fleeing into the unknown. As science provides us with an ever more accurate and comprehensive map of reality, the amount of mystery in the world shrinks, until we have apparently left God with no other choice than to shed his persona, shrink into the quantum, and hide in the space between thought and matter. Fortunately for God, that's probably going to be a safe space to hide for quite some time.
Click to expand...
You're correct about the changing god. In my own study I'd get a little caught up in some stuff and had to stop thinking about it. After enough study of related materials an answer would start to form in my mind. I think that's how most conceptual things are learned, not by looking directly at them.

This brings me to the God-Image. In the same way standard physics delves into matter, depth-psychology digs into matters of the mind. There's a thought in d-s that we're born with an imprint of a god in mind. It changes with our collective perceptions, and vice-versa. I'm not sure that this is just a way to visualize how every part informs the next one, but it makes a lot of sense to me.

It'll still take the rest of my life to figure out, though, god or no god lol
 
New Age United

New Age United

Well-Known Member
But is there actually a gap between thought and matter. I mean aren't our thoughts the product of brain activity and we are just made aware of them as they occur? Is there actually a part of consciousness that has volition over matter? Or is every action the effect of a previous cause?

@eye exaggerate @Heisenberg
 
eye exaggerate

eye exaggerate

Well-Known Member
New Age United said:
But is there actually a gap between thought and matter. I mean aren't our thoughts the product of brain activity and we are just made aware of them as they occur? Is there actually a part of consciousness that has volition over matter? Or is every action the effect of a previous cause?

@eye exaggerate @Heisenberg
Click to expand...
What could be beyond thought and matter together? It's apparent that both rely on each other, but a really tough question as you look beyond that.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top