173 replies to this topic

[drus]

what is the fascination with disproving god's existence? the atheist assertion that there is no scientific evidence for god's existence, in and of itself should be sufficient, and leave it at that, i can respect that. but to go out of your way to try and prove god does not exist is an exercise in futility. the experience of god is of a personal nature and can never be objectively quantified. god is very real for some people, and for others it has no conscious relevance. you either get it, or you don't. those who attack or dissect organized religion and discover it's many flaws, then use this as ammunition to try and shoot down the idea of god, are extremely ignorant on the matters of deeper spirituality. 'Religion' for the most part has very little to do with 'god'. organized religion is almost always a political/social institution in the false guise of god, that employs laws, rituals, traditions, superstitions and so forth. to come to any reasonable understanding, the religious angle/argument should never be used, it will always fall apart because it is a social-power construct. constructive and worthwhile discussion on the deeper realities of the nature of god can be found in works like 'the bhagavadgita', 'dark night of the soul', 'seeds of contemplation', ascent to truth' etc... most works by thomas merton, cs lewis, john of the cross, as well as many hindu and buddhist texts are some the best works on the subject of higher spirituality. but there is a deeply instrinsic nature to these works that an atheist may have trouble comprehending. anyhow, to even begin to touch the tip of the iceberg on this subject i would recommend reading these books first. to attack organized religion is child's play, anyone with half a brain can see the problem there and it accomplishes nothing of real value, the latter however is not so easy and may actually open the mind to a greater spiritual-life wisdom.

[mentatpsi]

what is the fascination with disproving god's existence? the atheist assertion that there is no scientific evidence for god's existence, in and of itself should be sufficient, and leave it at that, i can respect that. but to go out of your way to try and prove god does not exist is an exercise in futility. the experience of god is of a personal nature and can never be objectively quantified. god is very real for some people, and for others it has no conscious relevance. you either get it, or you don't. those who attack or dissect organized religion and discover it's many flaws, then use this as ammunition to try and shoot down the idea of god, are extremely ignorant on the matters of deeper spirituality. 'Religion' for the most part has very little to do with 'god'. organized religion is almost always a political/social institution in the false guise of god, that employs laws, rituals, traditions, superstitions and so forth. to come to any reasonable understanding, the religious angle/argument should never be used, it will always fall apart because it is a social-power construct. constructive and worthwhile discussion on the deeper realities of the nature of god can be found in works like 'the bhagavadgita', 'dark night of the soul', 'seeds of contemplation', ascent to truth' etc... most works by thomas merton, cs lewis, john of the cross, as well as many hindu and buddhist texts are some the best works on the subject of higher spirituality. but there is a deeply instrinsic nature to these works that an atheist may have trouble comprehending. anyhow, to even begin to touch the tip of the iceberg on this subject i would recommend reading these books first. to attack organized religion is child's play, anyone with half a brain can see the problem there and it accomplishes nothing of real value, the latter however is not so easy and may actually open the mind to a greater spiritual-life wisdom.

bravo .

Though one point to make, attacking religion might benefit people who acknowledge only a book for truths greatly. It's not a matter of whether religion is true, or false, it is a matter that they must learn to think for themselves. If spirituality is really a truth, then they too will benefit greatly from looking into their belief structure and finding flaws. The end result isn't whether truth can be found, but the exercise in logic that is crucial for any individual desiring progression.

Edit:
Grammar

Edited by mentatpsi, 20 June 2009 - 04:14 PM.

[drus]

'zen and the birds of appetite' is another great book on the subject. when one really digs, searches and reads between the lines, it's amazing just how much similarity there is between christian mysticism and buddhist mysticism. i find myself questioning whether christianity even came from judaism lol, it has far more in common with buddhism on so many levels.

[Singularity]

drus, thanks for bringing this thread back on topic and, although I agree with your general perspective of the meaning and origins of religion and spirituality, I am suspect as to why you don't see the simple need to argue about the existence of god. This is just a simple reality that takes two seconds to understand if a child were left alone to make up his/her own mind. And, when you call it a "facination", I wonder why you choose that word.

But, you also obviously hold the view that God only exists in the mind of the beholder when you say...

the experience of god is of a personal nature and can never be objectively quantified. god is very real for some people, and for others it has no conscious relevance. you either get it, or you don't.

This is not what I am arguing against. Sure, I very much support the idea that god-like entities or Jungian archtypes are the sole source of god-power and influence and while spirituality is certainly real in every sense of the word, it still only exists within the confines of our skulls. This, therefore, is basically an atheistic viewpoint of spirituality. Most people do not even know that Buddhism is essentially atheistic as many guru's are.

I am arguing against the theists that believe in an external authority figure, as well as all the other baseless nonesense for which there isn't even a rational reason to even pose the question in the first place. Yes, it's a hard sell against the brainwashed masses, but it's far from futile; and I like to think that the more people accept this the better this world would be. Think of it this way, we were all sold this bill of goods when we were young and impressionable. In a sense, we were abused. I'm just doing my part to try and save a few lost souls. Spiritually speaking, I am an instrument of truth knocking on everyone's door once again. The truth is very persistent and it's worth pointing out... once again.

Edited by Singularity, 22 June 2009 - 02:25 AM.

[drus]

i would not go so far as to say that buddhism is atheism, in the western-world sense of the word, that would be misleading. if you are talking about anthropomorphic deity or 'creator god' (in the abrahamic sense), buddhism does not engage these concepts because they distract from enlightenment. it would be more accurate to say buddhism is closer to agnosticism when it comes to matters of 'GOD'. also, i didnt mean to make it sound as though i am a spiritual solipsist, because i am not.

[Singularity]

i would not go so far as to say that buddhism is atheism, in the western-world sense of the word, that would be misleading. if you are talking about anthropomorphic deity or 'creator god' (in the abrahamic sense), buddhism does not engage these concepts because they distract from enlightenment. it would be more accurate to say buddhism is closer to agnosticism when it comes to matters of 'GOD'. also, i didnt mean to make it sound as though i am a spiritual solipsist, because i am not.

Some of the earlier developments of Buddhism worshiped deities, but those traditions are generally considered less refined. Buddhism is based on the scientific observations of the Buddha himself. If you want to talk about ranges, there are certainly atheist Buddhists.

BTW, why would I think you were a solipsist???

Edited by Singularity, 23 June 2009 - 03:38 AM.

[Imminst = pro murder (omega)]

Rev. X:

get the poor, fatherless and widows up out of them penitentiaries. Are you down with that? If you aren’t down with that… shut up!

I am down with that but the vast majority of your communications I have seen so far mentions little of such principles while mostly relating symbology. No need to get bogged down in the symbols that many interpret in many ways. Not only does it detract from sharing the higher path, it is often used to hide being unprincipled and puts a big question to whether or not you are really down with your own stated goals. Just an observation. Me thinks you would better serve good work by communicating what they might be rather than all the indirect references.

[drus]

to singularity,
i only brought up the solipsist comment to shed further light on the idea that the experience of god is of a personal nature. spiritual experience is certainly of a personal nature, yes, but it is not entirely without objective reality. generally speaking, i would not agree with you when you say that ".....it still only exists within the confines of our skulls." yes, this statement is true in a sense, but false at the same time. most people would infer from your assertion here, that spiritual experience is merely a simple psychological state, when in fact it is so much more than that. also, buddhism is certainly based on the teachings of Siddhartha Gautama, yes, but i wouldnt define them as 'scientific observations' per se. as far as buddhism having some atheistic qualities, yes, in a manner of speaking you are correct, but it is misleading/wrong to say/think that buddhism is synonomous with atheism, in the western sense of what 'atheism' has come to represent. a strict atheist chooses not to believe in god because they see no scientific evidence for god's existence, and thusly they see no relevance in any pursuits of a spiritual nature. from a spiritual perspective this would be construed as a form of pride and ignorance, in relying on the material senses to come to a spiritual understanding of that which cannot be completely understood by reason alone. and usually further than that, many atheists are vehemently anti-god and anti-spirituality, in any form. this ideological concept (atheism) in itself has nothing to do with buddhism, which is essentially the 'emptying of the self'. since atheism is derived from 'self' through interpretation of the material world only, using limited knowledge and limited senses, it can never give rise to any higher understanding. this is why buddha himself was silent when asked if he believed in 'GOD'.

[Singularity]

drus, I will have to take you to task on a few things.

Firstly, you are speaking very vaguely and putting too much nuance and personal opinion where none is needed. The assertion that I make with this thread is that God does not exist. Not, whether or not the *experience* of God is real or not. This thread is about cold hard facts; not how some person may or may not define something, or what someone may or may not say about something.

Secondly, you are dead wrong when you say

and usually further than that, many atheists are vehemently anti-god and anti-spirituality, in any form.

That's black-and-white thinking and just plain ill-informed. It's very common to find people who have had spiritual experiences, but do not believe in an external authority figure... that just so happens to live in that spiritual world. One doesn't necessarily have anything to do with the other.

Thirdly, therefore, Buddhism is mostly atheistic. And, that doesn't mean anti-spiritual... apples and oranges.

Lastly, you are just giving the usual baseless opinions. Opinions are useless. Why??? Because the question as to whether or not God actually exists is REAL IMPORTANT! It's time to stop wasting your whole life in La-la Land. The facts hitting you square in the face tells you that there is no God. Period.

Instead of editorializing in the middle of my thread, why don't you address the points I set forth in my opening post? Don't tell me they aren't worth addressing. I'll paste them again for your convenience:

1.) Too much suffering in the world: Every single day, for thousands of years, each and every one of your worst nightmares is experienced by at least one person, if not thousands, on this planet... EVERY DAY! Mutilations, disembowelments, rapings, dismemberments, betrayals, broken hearts, psychosis, etc.; it's all par for the course... EVERY DAY! That's a whole lot of suffering going on. Would an all loving God allow such daily horrors to continue just so he can conduct his test of our free will? If so, then this god is no better than Hitler, Stalin, or any other sadistic asshole.

2.) Not a SHRED of evidence: An omnipresent god would have to leave his mark somewhere, if not EVERYWHERE! Show me his footprint! Show me a miracle! Show me an event that violates the laws of physics! There is more evidence for the Easter Bunny than there is for an omni* god.

3.) Absent parent: It would seem to me, than any ALL LOVING god would stick around and nurture and help raise his children to become happy and peaceful beings and help us to learn from our mistakes. If there is a God, then he surely doesn't care to lift a FINGER to help. If there is a god, then he has utterly abandoned us; he doesn't not love us, and does not care and, thus, will probably destroy us when he gets around to it.

Edited by Singularity, 25 June 2009 - 03:34 AM.

[drunkfunk]

2.) Not a SHRED of evidence: An omnipresent god would have to leave his mark somewhere, if not EVERYWHERE! Show me his footprint! Show me a miracle! Show me an event that violates the laws of physics! There is more evidence for the Easter Bunny than there is for an omni* god.

you gotta be kidding, right? how many more miracles do we need?

[Hagazussa]

There might not be evidence that once can dissect in a lab, but many people have experienced the Divine, myself included. I know withing myself that the Divine is there, It exists. And while I do not ask you do believe something that to you can not be proven, remember that in science absence of proof is not proof of absence.

As for people suffering, perhaps it is not God's desire to protect us from every harm like an overprotective mother, perhaps the Christians are not right, perhaps God is not a being the way we know the word, perhaps He is Energy floating around, a creative Energy we can tap into, or perhaps He is more like a human beside an anthill, the human might desire to protect the anthill, but the suffering of individual ants are hardly significant, or perhaps it is like the Christians say that God have some grand plan, and sometimes someone have to suffer for Him to implement this plan. We know very little about what God is and what God want, but from that to draw the conclusion that He do not exist. I do not see any evidence for that either.

[drunkfunk]

There might not be evidence that once can dissect in a lab, but many people have experienced the Divine, myself included. I know withing myself that the Divine is there, It exists. And while I do not ask you do believe something that to you can not be proven, remember that in science absence of proof is not proof of absence.

As for people suffering, perhaps it is not God's desire to protect us from every harm like an overprotective mother, perhaps the Christians are not right, perhaps God is not a being the way we know the word, perhaps He is Energy floating around, a creative Energy we can tap into, or perhaps He is more like a human beside an anthill, the human might desire to protect the anthill, but the suffering of individual ants are hardly significant, or perhaps it is like the Christians say that God have some grand plan, and sometimes someone have to suffer for Him to implement this plan. We know very little about what God is and what God want, but from that to draw the conclusion that He do not exist. I do not see any evidence for that either.

well said, and once we can get over the human-made, white-beard-sitting-on-a-throne-in-the-clouds-God things might get clearer and not so dogmatic, that it will turn people away from what they are anyway.

and as cruel as it might sound, i believe that suffering is the reason we know, we are ALIVE, the reason we do what we do, as everything in this life and dimension is based on polarity. take that away, would you know that you are not suffering and happy all the time? would all this here even make sense?
as soon as we can accept that this life is a struggle, things get easier and if (when) we can use our genius brains (miracle?) to learn from our mistakes and work towards betterment of humanity, all this might have really made some sense.

[drus]

singularity, i would love to fully engage you on this subject, but it will take too long and probably not accomplish anything. perhaps you should consider looking into 'mysticism', and see firsthand for yourself what i am talking about. give mysticism an honest go, and i have no doubt you will change your attitude.

[Singularity]

2.) Not a SHRED of evidence: An omnipresent god would have to leave his mark somewhere, if not EVERYWHERE! Show me his footprint! Show me a miracle! Show me an event that violates the laws of physics! There is more evidence for the Easter Bunny than there is for an omni* god.

you gotta be kidding, right? how many more miracles do we need?

C'mon drunkfunk... what, are you too cool to care to leave a decent response that other kids might learn from your wisdom? Some poor soul searcing for truth is going to look at your avatar and get excited, and then look at your response to my very depressing and bubble-bursting opines and be sorely dissappointed. It's funny how some people turn from serious to sarcasm or humor whenever they start seriously getting beat in an argument.

[Singularity]

singularity, i would love to fully engage you on this subject, but it will take too long and probably not accomplish anything. perhaps you should consider looking into 'mysticism', and see firsthand for yourself what i am talking about. give mysticism an honest go, and i have no doubt you will change your attitude.

What the??!!! LOL, wow, that's the first time I've ever seen THAT! You are actually going to back-peddle out the door after getting involved in a direct challenge... and you even posted this, like, WTF, why did you even bother commenting in this thread then?

On top of that, I'm amazed at your blatant assumptions. So, because I am an atheist, you have me all sized-up that I have Zero experience with the mystical??? Haha, what a laugh. Lemme guess, I probably worship the devil too! Because, atheism is the same as satanism!

But, hey, you don't have time to have a serious debate, just to make a few off-handed comments here and there. Look, if you're bored man, just go dump on some other forum.

Does that sound hostile?

[drunkfunk]

2.) Not a SHRED of evidence: An omnipresent god would have to leave his mark somewhere, if not EVERYWHERE! Show me his footprint! Show me a miracle! Show me an event that violates the laws of physics! There is more evidence for the Easter Bunny than there is for an omni* god.

you gotta be kidding, right? how many more miracles do we need?

C'mon drunkfunk... what, are you too cool to care to leave a decent response that other kids might learn from your wisdom? Some poor soul searcing for truth is going to look at your avatar and get excited, and then look at your response to my very depressing and bubble-bursting opines and be sorely dissappointed. It's funny how some people turn from serious to sarcasm or humor whenever they start seriously getting beat in an argument.

argument? haha. getting beat?? bwahahaha.

but seriously, now that i got the sarcasm out of the way, i'm just surprised how many people are taking this thing called life for granted whit all the 'miracles' it has to offer.
i don't wanna toot my wisdom, toot toot, but it doesn't take a rocket scientist to realize that we live in an unbelievably complex, ultra-intelligently DESIGNED universe, starting from lowest organisms to cosmic proportions, and everything in between. and yet, we need more 'miracles', breakin the law of physics, lol
what are the law of physics and who designed them? are we really ready for them to be broken? can't we just enjoy them?
i think, if we just kick back sometimes and really acknowledge the world around us, God will show itself in many different ways, nothing short of miraculous.
no church needed.
i'm not a scientist, i'm an artist, but if i was a scientist, i would be in constant awe of the grand artist, that has created whatever i'm researching at the moment, because no human being i know of was ever that great. and i hate it to break it to ya, but....THERE'LL NEVER BE!

and yes, my avatar is cool, because it's another example of grand design

[Singularity]

There might not be evidence that once can dissect in a lab,...

I love when I hear/see someone use the word "dissect". When I hear it I know exactly who I'm talking to and that I'm about to enjoy a nice treat of flavorful sentences ripe with rhetoric. They use the word 'dissect' to refer to some anal-retentive geek who worries too much or a control freak... someone who is anti-social, or just not "cool". It's not cool to use your head and analyze anything.

Ok... go on!

... but many people have experienced the Divine, myself included. I know withing myself that the Divine is there, It exists. And while I do not ask you do believe something that to you can not be proven, remember that in science absence of proof is not proof of absence.

Ok, why are you assuming that there is no scientific evidence of spiritual phenomena? You aren't really being that reasonable. No one denies spiritual experiences!!! Even before I had one I had no reason to doubt them. Obviously, people are having experiences and there are perfectly plausible scientific theories as to their causes. What does that have to do with the existence of an external omni-* god?

As for people suffering, perhaps it is not God's desire to protect us from every harm like an overprotective mother...

What??? Are you serious man? You're just going to spin the suffering I describe from 'nightmarish' to 'overprotected mother'? You are seriously hiding your eyes my man/woman.


How about this quote, something like, an extraordinary theory requires extraordinary evidence. You guys aren't even taking this seriously. You all should be ashamed of yourself for giving in to wishful-thinking. Yes, it's human, but you're at imminst.org. You're basically in Purgatory... you've got one foot in the future and one in the Dark Ages. Choose a side already. $hit or get off the pot.

Did that sound rude?

[Singularity]

2.) Not a SHRED of evidence: An omnipresent god would have to leave his mark somewhere, if not EVERYWHERE! Show me his footprint! Show me a miracle! Show me an event that violates the laws of physics! There is more evidence for the Easter Bunny than there is for an omni* god.

you gotta be kidding, right? how many more miracles do we need?

C'mon drunkfunk... what, are you too cool to care to leave a decent response that other kids might learn from your wisdom? Some poor soul searcing for truth is going to look at your avatar and get excited, and then look at your response to my very depressing and bubble-bursting opines and be sorely dissappointed. It's funny how some people turn from serious to sarcasm or humor whenever they start seriously getting beat in an argument.

argument? haha. getting beat?? bwahahaha.

but seriously, now that i got the sarcasm out of the way, i'm just surprised how many people are taking this thing called life for granted whit all the 'miracles' it has to offer.
i don't wanna toot my wisdom, toot toot, but it doesn't take a rocket scientist to realize that we live in an unbelievably complex, ultra-intelligently DESIGNED universe, starting from lowest organisms to cosmic proportions, and everything in between. and yet, we need more 'miracles', breakin the law of physics, lol
what are the law of physics and who designed them? are we really ready for them to be broken? can't we just enjoy them?
i think, if we just kick back sometimes and really acknowledge the world around us, God will show itself in many different ways, nothing short of miraculous.
no church needed.
i'm not a scientist, i'm an artist, but if i was a scientist, i would be in constant awe of the grand artist, that has created whatever i'm researching at the moment, because no human being i know of was ever that great. and i hate it to break it to ya, but....THERE'LL NEVER BE!

and yes, my avatar is cool, because it's another example of grand design

Hey man, I liked that response. One, because it didn't have no God in it. And two, because it spoke a lot of truth about the infinite diversity of the universe. Yes, there is every extreme, and you can choose (some more than others) to live in heaven or hell. I'm just saying, Hell is definitely included in this world and is most likely here to stay and for those who have no choice but to live in hell, well, they're hurtin real bad. And this reality just doesn't jibe with the Christian version of an all-loving God. AND, this simple observation is enough to cast doubt on the whole freggin story.

[Connor MacLeod]

How are we defining God for the purpose of this discussion?

[Singularity]

How are we defining God for the purpose of this discussion?

The typical omni* god concept:

- Omnipotent, aka all-powerful
- Omnibenevolent, aka all-loving, of human beings here on this planet
- Omnipresent, aka, everywhere in the universe
- Omniscient, aka all-knowing

Plus, a God who interferes and/or interacts with human society on this planet, presently and in the past.

The omni* god outlined above is probably closest to the Christian/Abrahamic/Judaic God, but is also a good catch-all for many who consider themselves spiritual, but not religious.

[Connor MacLeod]

i don't wanna toot my wisdom, toot toot, but it doesn't take a rocket scientist to realize that we live in an unbelievably complex, ultra-intelligently DESIGNED universe, starting from lowest organisms to cosmic proportions, and everything in between. and yet, we need more 'miracles', breakin the law of physics, lol
what are the law of physics and who designed them? are we really ready for them to be broken?

The "laws of physics" were created by human beings and, as they are nothing more than approximations, are being broken constantly. The actual laws that govern the physical universe, assuming such laws exists in the sense that we typically mean, i.e. expressible through logic/mathematics, are ultimately unknowable through science.

[Connor MacLeod]

How about this quote, something like, an extraordinary theory requires extraordinary evidence.

It is only extraordinary for a soul which has grown frigid from long disuse.

[drunkfunk]

i don't wanna toot my wisdom, toot toot, but it doesn't take a rocket scientist to realize that we live in an unbelievably complex, ultra-intelligently DESIGNED universe, starting from lowest organisms to cosmic proportions, and everything in between. and yet, we need more 'miracles', breakin the law of physics, lol
what are the law of physics and who designed them? are we really ready for them to be broken?

The "laws of physics" were created by human beings and, as they are nothing more than approximations, are being broken constantly. The actual laws that govern the physical universe, assuming such laws exists in the sense that we typically mean, i.e. expressible through logic/mathematics, are ultimately unknowable through science.

dig that

[Singularity]

...
The "laws of physics" were created by human beings and, as they are nothing more than approximations, are being broken constantly. ...

Do you even know what an outlier is? Did you ever consider before your post that perhaps I wasn't talking about events that only cause us to fine tune our physics formulas, but, rather, events that GROSSLY fall outside the norm of what is even possible? Or, do you consistently miss the point all the time? Seriously.

[Connor MacLeod]

...
The "laws of physics" were created by human beings and, as they are nothing more than approximations, are being broken constantly. ...

Do you even know what an outlier is? Did you ever consider before your post that perhaps I wasn't talking about events that only cause us to fine tune our physics formulas, but, rather, events that GROSSLY fall outside the norm of what is even possible? Or, do you consistently miss the point all the time? Seriously.

I think you need a hug.

[drus]

singularity, i would love to fully engage you on this subject, but it will take too long and probably not accomplish anything. perhaps you should consider looking into 'mysticism', and see firsthand for yourself what i am talking about. give mysticism an honest go, and i have no doubt you will change your attitude.

What the??!!! LOL, wow, that's the first time I've ever seen THAT! You are actually going to back-peddle out the door after getting involved in a direct challenge... and you even posted this, like, WTF, why did you even bother commenting in this thread then?

On top of that, I'm amazed at your blatant assumptions. So, because I am an atheist, you have me all sized-up that I have Zero experience with the mystical??? Haha, what a laugh. Lemme guess, I probably worship the devil too! Because, atheism is the same as satanism!

But, hey, you don't have time to have a serious debate, just to make a few off-handed comments here and there. Look, if you're bored man, just go dump on some other forum.

Does that sound hostile?

Singularity, what exactly would constitute proof of god's existence for you? and if you had this proof, what then? what would you do with it? sometimes it's the search that matters more. have you ever read 'the physics of immortality'? by the way, i would've got back to you sooner, but i was too busy partying in chicago...looking for god myself, and apparently he's not in illinois lol!

here is a question for you to ponder, "what proof do you have that your great-great-great grandfather ever existed?"

[Singularity]

Singularity, what exactly would constitute proof of god's existence for you? and if you had this proof, what then? what would you do with it? sometimes it's the search that matters more. have you ever read 'the physics of immortality'? by the way, i would've got back to you sooner, but i was too busy partying in chicago...looking for god myself, and apparently he's not in illinois lol!

here is a question for you to ponder, "what proof do you have that your great-great-great grandfather ever existed?"

omg, you're killing me... i hope you're happy now.

[Hagazussa]

To Singularity:

I love when I hear/see someone use the word "dissect". When I hear it I know exactly who I'm talking to and that I'm about to enjoy a nice treat of flavorful sentences ripe with rhetoric. They use the word 'dissect' to refer to some anal-retentive geek who worries too much or a control freak... someone who is anti-social, or just not "cool". It's not cool to use your head and analyze anything.

I always love to meet people with special powers. I have never met someone who know how another use a word just by looking at it on a screen before. Amazing to meet you, where have you learned this wonderous ability?

Ok, why are you assuming that there is no scientific evidence of spiritual phenomena?

Is there? They can prove Spiritual phenomena now? Wonderful. I knew that there had been some successful lab tests of various phenomena, but none of them had been accepted by the mainstream scientific community. I am very glad to hear this have changed, please tell me more about it.

You aren't really being that reasonable. No one denies spiritual experiences!!!

No one? No one in this tread? For I have not said anyone in this tread has, or no one period, for I think I will have to disagree with you on that. I have met quite a few people who denies even the possibility of Spiritual experiences.

Even before I had one I had no reason to doubt them. Obviously, people are having experiences and there are perfectly plausible scientific theories as to their causes. What does that have to do with the existence of an external omni-* god?

Perhaps some of us just do not accept the explanations modern mainstream science presents, but believe that there is an explanation for the experiences that one as of yet can not discover in a lab.

What??? Are you serious man? You're just going to spin the suffering I describe from 'nightmarish' to 'overprotected mother'? You are seriously hiding your eyes my man/woman.

With all due respect. I do not think you are thinking things through here. Let us say we have a all powerful being, now it could control our every move, bring us puppies and daffodils, or it could allow us to live our own lives, making mistakes, harming one another, going though the shit of life. I mean if you had to choose, would you rather have every aspect of your life controlled, but live in comfort and never suffer, or would you like to live free with the risk of suffering?

How about this quote, something like, an extraordinary theory requires extraordinary evidence. You guys aren't even taking this seriously. You all should be ashamed of yourself for giving in to wishful-thinking. Yes, it's human, but you're at imminst.org. You're basically in Purgatory... you've got one foot in the future and one in the Dark Ages. Choose a side already. $hit or get off the pot.

Is there sides here? Is there a war between the Spiritual and science? I am sorry. I do not see that war, nor a need for one. Why can one not have both, perhaps the world need both. Both faith and science.

[Hagazussa]

Singularity

How are we defining God for the purpose of this discussion?

The typical omni* god concept:

- Omnipotent, aka all-powerful
- Omnibenevolent, aka all-loving, of human beings here on this planet
- Omnipresent, aka, everywhere in the universe
- Omniscient, aka all-knowing

Plus, a God who interferes and/or interacts with human society on this planet, presently and in the past.

The omni* god outlined above is probably closest to the Christian/Abrahamic/Judaic God, but is also a good catch-all for many who consider themselves spiritual, but not religious.

This is a rather limited idea of what a God is. And it excludes most alternative religions, Eastern religions and so on. Should not the name of the tread then be. I hate to breake it to you Christianity and the other Abrehamic religions is wrong, not there is no God. For I mean this definition of a God is extremely narrow.

[Singularity]

Singularity

How are we defining God for the purpose of this discussion?

The typical omni* god concept:

- Omnipotent, aka all-powerful
- Omnibenevolent, aka all-loving, of human beings here on this planet
- Omnipresent, aka, everywhere in the universe
- Omniscient, aka all-knowing

Plus, a God who interferes and/or interacts with human society on this planet, presently and in the past.

The omni* god outlined above is probably closest to the Christian/Abrahamic/Judaic God, but is also a good catch-all for many who consider themselves spiritual, but not religious.

This is a rather limited idea of what a God is. And it excludes most alternative religions, Eastern religions and so on. Should not the name of the tread then be. I hate to breake it to you Christianity and the other Abrehamic religions is wrong, not there is no God. For I mean this definition of a God is extremely narrow.

So, you consider the concept of an all-knowing, all-seeing, all-powerful, all-loving God as rather narrow, huh? Well, um, I'm sorry Haga, but if you don't mind, I would like to discuss this particular definition at this time... one step at a time please. There is plenty of time and threads on the Internet to discuss all of the other definitions.