[QUOTE=YogiAdam;37564]What exactly is it about us that doesn’t make sense to you? I think we are very fortunate to live in an age where we can make very good sense of so much.[/QUOTE]
well we are of and are, the very essence that makes life possible, that which is beyond understanding.
This is not true many scientific fields are addressing these things as well such as consciousness studies, neurophenomenology, transpersonal psychology and scientific research into OBES, NDE’s and reincarnation.
Atoms are visible (and quarks as well, but not directly). You can shoot photons at atoms. Some of them will be reflected back - so you are able to see it. I don’t think you can see prana this way. And also I don’t think you can shoot photons at God hoping some of them return with information about how God looks like
Atoms have never been seen by anybody, let alone quarks. They are theoretical entities:
A very good question. The answer is Yes. And No. The reason
for No is that it is actually impossible for anybody to “see” an individual
atom, since all atoms are thousands of times smaller than the smallest light
waves we can see using our eyes. The reason for Yes is that, even though they
cannot be seen directly with our eyes there is so much evidence for atoms, and
we know so much about them, that it is impossible to say they do not exist.
http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov/newton/askasci/1993/physics/PHY118.HTM
Atoms therefore inferred from the effects of our measurement. In the same way we infer an invisible “force” called gravity through the effects of falling objects. This is known as instrumentalism in philosophy of science, and it a highly criticised thesis. We cannot be certain of the nature of a cause of something from the effect.
Somebody mentioned Quantum mechanics earlier. Well, according to Quantum mechanics atoms do not actually really exist. They are just waves of possibility.
If we are willing to accept entities that we cannot physically observe based on inferences, then we should be just as willing to accept prana, which is also an entity that we cannot observe, but can infer it exists. Besides the existence of prana has been proven by QM already with the casimir effect which proves hidden quantum forces.
Pray? I do a few mantras to some Hindu Dieties and rarely a Christian Saint. Some meditations, Zen, etc.
Ask for Forgiveness? No, although I try to live Sattvic. If theres a judgement day, I will smile and be interested and caring.
Believe Destiny? No, but in a way, I feel we are Gods to many little creatures, bacteria, insects, babies, elements, etc., so I try to treat them as I would hope a God would treat me.
Find God? In the way I view things, simply value some common things differently, maybe like the way the Yoga Sutras suggests darana, dyana, samahi. Often types of Pantheism will often be in my thoughts.
Thank God? I often thank the sun for rising each morning and try to smile in it’s direction. I practice some ‘mindfulness and enlightenment’ so I tend to appreciate many things that are taken for granted.
Best Wishes, Gil.
[QUOTE=gilyoga;38194]
Thank God? I often thank the sun for rising each morning and try to smile in it’s direction. I practice some ‘mindfulness and enlightenment’ so I tend to appreciate many things that are taken for granted.
[/QUOTE]
Nicely said.
I believe that the Earth is the God of all life as we know it. It is our creator and it sustains us. That does simplify things a bit, considering the vastness of the universe. However, in my mind, that only solidifies my belief. The universe is so vast it is beyond our comprehension, and as far as modern science can tell there is no other planet that can sustain life.
The Earth is a very special place in the maelstrom that is the universe, and that to me is God.
[QUOTE=theliving;38384]I believe that the Earth is the God of all life as we know it. It is our creator and it sustains us. That does simplify things a bit, considering the vastness of the universe. However, in my mind, that only solidifies my belief. The universe is so vast it is beyond our comprehension, and as far as modern science can tell there is no other planet that can sustain life.
The Earth is a very special place in the maelstrom that is the universe, and that to me is God.[/QUOTE]
I just have to correct you there on the bit about modern science asserting that there is no possibility of life anywhere else in the universe. Many reputable modern scientists (including Stephen Hawking) believe that it would be unreasonable not to speculate on the possibility of life elsewhere in the universe. It would be far more probable that there would be other life out there, then not.
There is nothing I know about God and I would like to share it -
[QUOTE=YogiAdam;38601]I just have to correct you there on the bit about modern science asserting that there is no possibility of life anywhere else in the universe. Many reputable modern scientists (including Stephen Hawking) believe that it would be unreasonable not to speculate on the possibility of life elsewhere in the universe. It would be far more probable that there would be other life out there, then not.[/QUOTE]
How can the word probable be correct, it is not Scientific that it is probable that there be other life out there. It is guess work and guess work is not Scientific, as you have echoed in many posts…I NEED PROOF to believe this, Show me the proof I dont want weightless probable conclusions.
You cant see these other worlds, therefore it is illogical to suggest they are there
[QUOTE=YogiAdam;38601]I just have to correct you there on the bit about modern science asserting that there is no possibility of life anywhere else in the universe. Many reputable modern scientists (including Stephen Hawking) believe that it would be unreasonable not to speculate on the possibility of life elsewhere in the universe. It would be far more probable that there would be other life out there, then not.[/QUOTE]
I think we’ve come to a misunderstanding of my statement. I’ll rephrase: There is no scientific evidence that there is life beyond Earth. I do not consider speculations and probability to be scientific fact.
Even if there is life beyond Earth, it doesn’t change our origins or the importance of the Earth to our lives.
[QUOTE=YogiAdam;38601]I just have to correct you there on the bit about modern science asserting that there is no possibility of life anywhere else in the universe. Many reputable modern scientists (including Stephen Hawking) believe that it would be unreasonable not to speculate on the possibility of life elsewhere in the universe. It would be far more probable that there would be other life out there, then not.[/QUOTE]
Okay …so its okay for Stephen Hawkings and yourself to say it [B]would be [U]unreasonable [/U]not to speculate on the possibility of life elsewhere in the Universe[/B]
Strikes me Yogiadam that you have hung yourself (hook, line and sinker!) with this statement and just entered into my world of what cannot be seen or proven Scientifically.
So, you Scientists are allowed to speculate when it suits you? and that you recognise it is unreasonable not to consider what cannot be seen or currently proven…this means that all that you have discounted and derided on all of the posts/threads applicable are [B][U][I]unreasonable[/I][/U][/B] oops
[QUOTE=kareng;38716]Okay …so its okay for Stephen Hawkings and yourself to say it [B]would be [U]unreasonable [/U]not to speculate on the possibility of life elsewhere in the Universe[/B]
Strikes me Yogiadam that you have hung yourself (hook, line and sinker!) with this statement and just entered into my world of what cannot be seen or proven Scientifically.
So, you Scientists are allowed to speculate when it suits you? and that you recognize it is unreasonable not to consider what cannot be seen or currently proven…this means that all that you have discounted and derided on all of the posts/threads applicable are [B][U][I]unreasonable[/I][/U][/B] oops[/QUOTE]
I don’t remember writing this (how embarrassing, I’ll never drink again!!), however let me clarify how speculation is OK in science. There are defiantly different ways we can speculate. We can speculate blindly, for example when my dad died my mum would speculate on where dad has gone, and what things mean. She would say ‘don’t you feel that nan, pop, and dad are still here, like they have gone somewhere good and there still around?’ Now, although I did not say to mum ‘no mum that’s just speculation, there’s no reason to believe that’. This is obviously what it was ,and is, to a certain degree what I thought at the time. On the other hand we can speculate based on the nature and laws of our universe. For example, if I found out I had both bone and brain cancer, and it was at a very advanced stage. and three very good doctors told me that I have under two months to live, this is their speculation based on research, experience, and an understanding of how things in our world work. This does not mean that the doctors has evidence that I will die. It’s based on probability. Probability is a HUGE part of science. I clearly remember when my brother did rocket science at University, he did a whole unit on statistics and probability. So when we say that it is unlikely that there is not life out there besides us, it is based on what we understand about the nature of our universe and the incredibly, unfathomable vastness of this universe. It’s a speculation based on probability.
I have to agree with Kareng, you have hung yourself with your statement endorsing one speculation of life existing elsewhere in the universe(I agree with you on this by the way, but I use another kind of reasoning than the probability argument) but reject other speculations coming to metaphysical conclusions.
Why is the speculation based on empirical research into reincarnation where past life memories are independently investigated and explained by reincarnation any less scientific than what you posit about speculating from empirical research that there is life elsewhere in the universe?
[QUOTE=Surya Deva;38728]I have to agree with Kareng, you have hung yourself with your statement endorsing one speculation of life existing elsewhere in the universe(I agree with you on this by the way, but I use another kind of reasoning than the probability argument) but reject other speculations coming to metaphysical conclusions.
Why is the speculation based on empirical research into reincarnation where past life memories are independently investigated and explained by reincarnation any less scientific than what you posit about speculating from empirical research that there is life elsewhere in the universe?[/QUOTE]
OK, well I’ve clearly answered that question above. I honestly don’t know if I’m bothered with this forum anymore. I’m restricted to a forum I don’t care for, and I’m going round in circles explaining very, very simple things that I would have thought were fundamental. Fortunately there is an wonderful science, psychology and philosophy forum I am enjoying very much. Not only do I not have to waste my time explaining painfully simple concepts, but I am learning so much AND everyone is entitled to their own opinion. There are no restrictions, you learn from healthy debate!
Yogiadam in fairness, you have said yourself that you have been wasted on booze…I came back to this site and hadn’t had any previous posts ever with you, so the ones you have had with me have been whilst you are wasted, I knew something was wrong and echoed that to you, more than once. Dont forget the restriction was made whilst you were wasted. I dont mind the fact you were wasted and dont feel that you need to be embarrassed, we are all grown ups and my goodness, as an ex vocalist working with bands from 15 to 42 years I have partied hard at times. I couldnt possibly judge you.
I dont believe for one second that Science has dismissed the practices you have dismissed as being nonsense. I feel that it is you that are dismissing them and saying it is Science and you.
Scientific tests have been done on Buddhists who can dry wet robes on their Bodies by raising the heat in their bodies with meditation…
Scientific longterm tests have been done with a particular Hindu who feeds his body and quenches his thirst using the Sun, only. Both have been filmed for all to see.
I could go on and on and on where Science is seeing the marvels that the Hindus and Buddhists can achieve and do achieve.
I am not a nut, I see myself as a very logical person, my experiences are phenomena that has been known for centuries…it cannot be dismissed and you have set out to do this. The opposition is because I personally cannot find you right but I haven’t silenced you. Your opinion matters but I will debate my point as you have yours.
I do understand fully what you have written but again you are suggesting that the probability that life exists outside of the earth is strong in its probability, and therefore it is acceptable in believing it.
For thousands of years the Hindus and Buddhists Sikhs have been working on something fantastic that all humans can seriously gain from, don’t you think there is enough strong probability there? that there just might be something in it?
I know you said that you were a Buddhist and gave it up. I know someone in England who spent 12 years of his life in India practicing Buddhism as a monk, he has the same approach to you and cannot bear to hear anyone talk of the wonders of Buddhism simply because he didn’t experience the wonders and feels he wasted all that time for nothing…nothing happened. But I also know an English Buddhist who has been practicing for 8 years and can communicate phenomena genuinely and I know he is experiencing what he is experiencing. Why one has and one hasn’t is not something I cant answer.
If you do decide to leave this site I want you to know that I have enjoyed your sparring for the most part. You have been a good sparring partner and I will miss you
I would like to have discussions in the Quantum Physics, String Theory areas with you.
I hope you don’t leave and maybe you can enlighten me in these areas.
You can belong to more than one forum so don’t leave us…
From what I learned is that God is everything and dwells within the soul of every living being and is omnipotent and omnipresent. You can’t move or do anything unless he wills it, he controls the universe and everything in it. And above all else I know 1 fact…and that is there is only 1 god and no name or image is worthy of God, and God is not male or female because God is beyond the sexes.
Just some food for thought.
You realize that God is not he or she, but in your second sentence you mentioned “… unless [B][U]he[/U][/B] wills”. It is not a small slip. We are all constrained to use images all the time when we think. We are captivated by images of Superman and “super-hero” very deep down and our concept of power is miracles in the physical world.
God’s omnipresent existence is like electric power (though a crude analogy) which enables everything in our lives but remains unseen. I think, God doesn’t will, we do. Our will is driven by desires compelling us to make choices that lead us astray and so far away from God within, that we forget it’s existence. Then following the spiritual path we return home, to God. On this path, we learn how to go beyond thinking, that frees us from images, names and need to see God as he or she.
[QUOTE=Suhas Tambe;42039]Just some food for thought.
You realize that God is not he or she, but in your second sentence you mentioned “… unless [B][U]he[/U][/B] wills”. It is not a small slip. We are all constrained to use images all the time when we think. We are captivated by images of Superman and “super-hero” very deep down and our concept of power is miracles in the physical world.
God’s omnipresent existence is like electric power (though a crude analogy) which enables everything in our lives but remains unseen. I think, God doesn’t will, we do. Our will is driven by desires compelling us to make choices that lead us astray and so far away from God within, that we forget it’s existence. Then following the spiritual path we return home, to God. On this path, we learn how to go beyond thinking, that frees us from images, names and need to see God as he or she.[/QUOTE]
LMAO! MAN!!! I tried so hard to not do that, matter of fact I had to go back a few times and delete he and write “God” Im still young so I hope when I get older I can learn to correct myself. I guess that is why we have idols we have to focus our mind on something, I dont know about you guys but if I was Christian and praying I would keep an image of Christ in my head while I prayed. I tried once to not think of anything but when I did the color black or space came into mind and that still is something so it is difficult. I love the last sentence you wrote and totally believe and agree with it.
To me, God is everything that I am not…
Sort of the exact opposite of ‘neti neti’…(I tried empirical reductionism and that did not work)…lol
From my understanding, God is genderless, but for sake of argument, I will say ‘He’.
He is the lightning during a thunder storm…
He is the sound of deafening thunder…
He is the rain that nourishes all living things…
He is the sun that shines through the clouds…
He is the clouds that obscures the sun…
He is the moon that shines at night…
He is all the stars too…
He is in every animal and person…
He makes things live, breathe and grow…
He is in the earth…in all the trees and plants…
He is the scent of a beautiful flower…
He is the pungent odor of obnoxious weeds…
He rides like foam on the ocean waves…
He lives in the depths of the ocean with all the fish…
He makes all the hills and mountains…
He folds the earth…
He is love…
He is beauty…
He is truth…
He is absolutely everything and
He is also in my heart.
yeah, I know Science explains all that, but God made Science to explain it all 
Nice x
The one I should believe? But sometimes I don’t.