Originally Posted by hayabusa8

Objectively, God is a subjective & omnicient thing we cant rationaly find or sight.
Something can be interpreted as God for some, but not for some others, depending over every religion background people can be related to.

The question isnt to know if God exists, the true question is if "you believe in God".
This is the primary value religions are all based from : "Faith"
"Believe without having the need to verify the truthness of it"

Originally Posted by Karstnator

I dont know if there is a god but I think that they came up with "religion" to keep someone's insanity.

Religion : Example

Show

---

heaven and hell

good people go to heaven and bad people go to hell

there may be things that might be good for me but will be bad for you ; that is why we have "rules" to keep order.

not only rules in religion but we also have the law that gives us more rules

so I think "bad" would mean "directly interfering with a person" ( i guess )

Murder Example

Show

---

A murders B , A is bad

A murders B because B got into a fight with C (the wife of A ) ; this could have had been prevented if B did not fight C so B is bad and so is A

My teacher in the subject UCSP (Understanding Culture, Society & Politics) said that if a person does not have an explanation for something, he will go crazy. That might be the reason why religions are made :^) to keep a persons sanity.

Originally Posted by xero901

I think many people carry this misconception of the idea of 'God'.

Originally Posted by xero901

I think people believe the idea of God to be some sort of tangible entity that exists within a higher realm of existence, in all omnipresence, omniscience, and omnipotence. Watching, judging, and creating. That the devil is an evil being that resides within the lowest realms and is responsible for the ills of mankind.

Originally Posted by xero901

And I believe it to be an illusion that there is a cycle in the first place. I believe that all of life is a projected hologram inside our conscious. A voice that tells us what we are seeing, hearing, tasting, feeling, thinking, moving, interacting. When in reality, it is all in our head. For what reason? I believe it to be a lesson in attempting to learn how to be an architect in training. We as humans are very powerful beings. The spirit of human innovation, condition, and manifestation has created many great things. Our thoughts literally become reality through the aide of light-workers, energies, whatever you want to call it, existing within the universe. This connection is accessed through a higher presence or consciousness.
I believe Yahweh, God, Krishna, Nirvana, whatever you wish to call this higher power is something that ever-present in ourselves as we ourselves are Gods in training. It may appear in forms of pure white light, violet fire, or whatever. But it is strong, it is there, and it is love. Be it called the collective unconscious, Christ-consciousness, or mass consciousness, we are all connected through this presence.

Originally Posted by xero901

But I can't really prove this with literal evidence. I can only attempt to convey what I have seen, experienced, felt, and used in my life before in a manner that doesn't seem too crazy.

Originally Posted by Lazors

I think that with the empirical knowledge system we started to value knowledge over experience, as paradoxical as it might sound

Originally Posted by Lazors

. By proving more and more phenomena objectively, we've lost contact with what we feel. This is mostly a good thing, because it's an antidote to pseudoscience. Knowledge from experience is very bad at determining why something has an effect.
My problem with it is that it makes us blind to knowledge that isn't based on scientific research.

Originally Posted by Lazors

Religious experiences, artistic feelings, and general faith is shunned for this reason. I'm not proposing we go back to putting faith above knowledge, but that we see that some knowledge can only be experienced and observed. To fully understand something you must experience it, not be taught it. There is a hierarchy in communicating thought, where text is very low on the list because it requires a translation into images. Images are the most powerful means of expression, and are the closest we can get to an understanding of things that are beyond text.

Originally Posted by Lazors

The way I see it, there's a top-bottom and bottom-up faith system. The bottom-up is the scientific knowledge, that breaks everything up in small parts and tries to go to the bottom of explaining the universe.
The top-bottom faith is that there is one origin point that cannot be split into seperate parts and observed without losing the quality of the whole. You can learn more about the whole object by observing the parts, but the objective existence of the whole changes once you split it up.

Originally Posted by Lazors

I'm not advocating one system over the other, I think both are legitimate ways to look at the universe. Although one is definitely preferable in some situations. Where I'm going with this is about the nature of the universe and how we percieve it. By realizing that the universe as a whole is something we will never observe or experience, one has to accept only having knowledge of its parts. Every understanding and observation of the universe and its parts is summarized in a model that is approachable by us humans. One therefore has to accept that different models that are logically dissonant are two different ways of observation.

Originally Posted by Lazors

Apologies if this is nothing but a confused ramble from a philosophically illiterate person.

Originally Posted by Vin786

Yes god exists. God is consciousness itself.

Originally Posted by Ezeth

No, I'm pretty sure people still value experience as well, even tho this is probably as vague of a statement you can possibly get.

Originally Posted by Ezeth

how is making yourself less acceptable to knowledge that can't be backed up by evidence a bad thing? I also think just by doing so you can be more knowledgeable because you don't look at something amazing and say "this is great, it must be the work of god" rather than trying to understand what it is and what it does.

Originally Posted by Ezeth

Depends on the subject really. How would you explain mathematical formulas through images? Also science and reason doesn't do shit to art, you can still express how you feel through imagery without science standing in the way. You can still have mindfullness and be at one with yourself without mixing in religion as well.

Originally Posted by Ezeth

One could argue that science is not really a faith system. One one end you can say "you need to believe the research scientists have done" but if thousands of tests are all pointing towards one direction with 99.9999% accuracy you don't really have to make all that much of a leap of faith.

Originally Posted by Ezeth

Yes, since we don't know everything, we can't disprove that there is a god....

Originally Posted by Ezeth

I'm just gonna quote all the statements in here and make a shitstorm kk?
I'm pretty sure most people know what a god is.
Yes, the textbook definition of a god is what people believe a god is yes. Odd.

Originally Posted by Ezeth

Is this what you REALLY believe tho, or are you just telling yourself this to ease your mind or appear knowledgeable. Religions makes people believe they got the answers to everything, that is why they are so appealing.

Originally Posted by Ezeth

And in court this is the lowest form of testimony.

Originally Posted by Ezeth

how is making yourself less acceptable to knowledge that can't be backed up by evidence a bad thing? I also think just by doing so you can be more knowledgeable because you don't look at something amazing and say "this is great, it must be the work of god" rather than trying to understand what it is and what it does.

Originally Posted by Ezeth

Depends on the subject really. How would you explain mathematical formulas through images? Also science and reason doesn't do shit to art

Originally Posted by Ezeth

One could argue that science is not really a faith system. One one end you can say "you need to believe the research scientists have done" but if thousands of tests are all pointing towards one direction with 99.9999% accuracy you don't really have to make all that much of a leap of faith.

Originally Posted by Ezeth

Yes, since we don't know everything, we can't disprove that there is a god....
god......