I read a lot of books I I believed some day in any kind of religion From Plato to Nietzsche, from Spinoza to Buddhism and Christianity and Judaism, Islam and Eastern religions.

Half of my life I was looking for this question
there is God or Not?
at the end I found Rumi .
And everything changed.
I cant explain what was his philosophy now but he said don't search for God outside find it in yourself inside you and just read your book.

 

Last edited: Aug 23, 2016

No, I did not ask if something may exist outside of consciousness.
My question, my challenge remains;
Can you personally prove that you personally know anything besides your mind and consciousness?
and it isn't impossible to answer, actually it is very easy to answer. Either you can prove it or not.
It is a very personal and practical question within the reach of every scientist or wish to be scientist.
A few example of relevant and non relevant answers;
Answer a: "I can't" and then this is very important answer because it carries consequences on how one shall treat proofs and demands about proofs about the world.
Answer b: "I can" in which case I am waiting to see the proof.
Answer c: "Your question is logically not valid because ____________"
Answer d: "I am not understanding what you are asking"
Answer e: "You are kidding me, go fish somewhere else"

 

i mean it's impossible to answer because your question itself gives the answer, it's a tautology cause you are basically asking "do you know something that cannot be known?", knowing itself REQUIRES consciousness (at least memory and senses).

Yet, it's not a scientific question or subject cause as you say "it's a very personal", and science must be the opposite, objective, not personal.
Still it's a very interesting phylosophical question, but the problem with it is that we don't need to prove there is something outside of consciousness cause you can claim evrything consciousness without assuming you know everything, and this is an assumption that can't be proven for the same reason of your question, you can't know something that is something outside of your consciousness therefore your everything is limited and may not be everything cause you can't know if there is something outside of ur knowledge

 

God's, Religions, Not in need of.
A world without gods or religions.
I could live with that,
But a world without music.
I couldn't imagine that.
I couldn't imagine that at all.

 

I used "personal" as; you don't need to study it in books to find out, the answer lies there with you.
Personal doesn't mean you can't analyze it and look at question from different angles and question and bounce ides with others and try to find better answers.

How can science be non personal when it demands so much mental constructions, imagination and belief that most people give up and rather follow a simpler dogma or just let their wrong conclusions pop out around randomly and on the fly pick those which they want to believe based on their current mental or physical needs. Sadly scientist do that as well to secure their positions in labs, or to get government grants and what not just to advance their careers.
What we see with farma lobbies, climate change lobbies or any other highly industrialized groups, they all did more harm (in terms of killed living beings) than almost all religions combined and majority of their scientists and inventors remain silent.
Very few are different, similar to religious group where a very few are honest seekers among others who are in business of securing their interests. The failures of mind.

Also the claim is that everything you know is consciousness. There might be something else but until somebody proves it how can we know? Because you imagine there is something that you or I don't know that doesn't mean that this unknown is outside and even if it is the only way we'll found about it is when we internalize it through sensory reconstruction, cross referencing with known (memory) and attaching words and ideas around it to form a new belief.

You simply can't just jump over the first step (which is what is the instrument of knowing, it's limitations and flaws) and wherever you land proclaim "this is outside, this is real world, this is science".
If everything that we know is consciousness that doesn't mean we can't try to find out what kind of consciousness are there or if there are impacts in consciousness that are indication of something else. It also means we shouldn't spread scientific dogmas or scientific beliefs as if they are reality because we find out about whatever might be outside of what we consider to be ourselves only when it comes within scope of our minds and we form an idea of what that might be. But still it is an idea and it remains an idea even when you scientifically check it and it works.

Wouldn't it be better to admit that all those scientific proofs are just more or less "working" interpretations about unknown world. "Working" in terms of ability to relatively consistently produce desirable results or predictions. Wouldn't it be better to admit that ideas form our realities so much more than scientist, religious and political groups want you. We better develop self-improving mental antivirus program for multiple checks of ideas that pop to our attention weather they are coming from inside or through sensory organs. As far as I can see towards the horizon human society suffers from severe, even deadly infection.

 

Why don't you post a song you can't live without?

But beware, here we have Agent Smith (you'll recognize his terminator avatar), you might find that the song you can't live without doesn't exists anymore or at least not how you remember it.
He often checks here, provokes ideas by creating glitches in the matrix so that he can fix us while we are still obediently sleeping.

 

I said music not songs, but even-though I've just posted this in another thread, I do believe it's quite fitting for this one.

 

that's why it can't be science, science must be objective, the answer is outside of you and that's why we have a peer reviewed system

cause mental construction need empirical verification, and the empirical act destrys the "personal" side you talk about, then peer review makes sure the system is objective, the second part is actually the opposite of what we do, we don't believe in what we need but we have to adapt what we know to what the facts show, that's the point of the empirical part of science, physicist didn't like relativity at all, yet they had to accept it cause it was proven correct.

oxymoron, a dogma can't be scientific, your argument would work with scientism, but not with science, 2 very different concepts, if you mean scientism, i agree, its a "religion"

 

Last edited: Aug 23, 2016

Man, you have no clue about how to conduct a proper debate or about how the scientific investigative method works, do you?

Can you personally prove that you personally know that actually we aren't bacteria living inside the intestinal flora of a Martian hippopotamus?

It's not up to me or to anyone else to prove that your hypothesis isn't correct. It's up to you, and only you, to prove that you are correct.

Otherwise, you could simply go on and say that Santa Claus or the Easter Bunny exist because no one can disprove their existence...And yes, no one can prove that Santa Claus actually does not exist or that we aren't actually made of extraterrestrial fart, but the fact that some far fetched delusional hypothesis can't be disproved doesn't give it any more credibility.

R.

 

Last edited: Aug 23, 2016

No it wouldn't because it's already what science claims, a scientist will always tell you that a scientific theory is the best working interpretation of facts with the greater but not complete degree of certainty possible, take newton gravitation, still used even if we know is an aproximation, and when the aproximation is too sloppy we use general relatvity and it is still an aproximation.

Being able to make accurate prediction is the purpose of and the best way to test science and it's what makes the greatest difference between science and politics or religion.

The thing is, i see a lot of people talking as if religion and science are fighting each other, that's wrong, science and religion have different subjects and different method, you don't need to refuse science to be religious, being religious or spiritual is matter of faith. Science has more in common with music than with religion or politics to be honest..

 

What I meant by my statement was in order for god to exist you have to have faith , believe in him in the first place and if you don't then there is no God . That's fact , there's more evidence in aliens than there is of God . And for people to sit there praying to someone they can't see or get an answer from is just crazy , people have been locked in mental institutes for less .

 

http://www.masjidtucson.org/quran/miracle/

 

Why is it so difficult to answer a question. You keep focusing on irrelevant and ways to avoid discussion about the subject of this thread. If you had to wait in your life for anything to get proven to start accepting it in your life you'd run back from your dipers into the womb the minute you were born. Why you have to be so condescending?
I don't know what you are imagining this forum is but certainly not every discussion is about theories and proofs yet you insist on them so I follow and all that in an audio forum man...

I'll try once again from another angle although I think I got your pattern you'll probably find a way to avoid giving direct answer. And this is perfectly OK but then why did you join this thread.
Original poster requested our personal feeling and opinions on god detached from any religion. You keep showing off on the subject of historical questions and opinions about the institutionalized God. I'm impressed with your answers yet they are a bit off topic.
Don't get me wrong we are on same page regarding religion and my concern in this discussion is how much faith you put in a science so why wouldn't we challenge that a little bit.
You said;
"God used to be huge just a few centuries ago. Earthquakes, storms, diseases, meteorites and countless other natural phenomenas used to be considered a direct manifestation of god's will. Now we know exactly how and why all those things happen.
Nowadays, theologians have nowhere else to place their hopes except on the origin of the universe and the origin of life on Earth, but it's also just a matter of time until these gaps are filled with solid scientific explanations as well. Both research fields are rapidly and steadily evolving; There's a new exciting discovery practically every day...
Science is an ever evolving field, while theology, well, theology is basically stuck in the same place for thousands of years.
So, honestly, is there any real reason to believe in god besides cultural childhood indoctrination?"

Forget God for now and let's focus on how do you exactly know why all those things happen, the things that science gave you the answers for... and I don't care which one thing will you chose or if you'll give a general answer valid for many things that you know exactly. And yes you can pick up any one that you can most easily prove.
I am not asking to prove or disprove anything I said. This is your claim, back it up with the proof and I'll continue from there. Is it better now MasterR.?

 

Well, is it really possible to talk about any conceptualized model of god without borrowing at least a bit from organized/institutionalized theological ones, specially considering that 54,9% of Earth's population believe in one single deity? I don't think so.

Storm: A disturbance of the normal condition of the atmosphere, manifesting itself by winds of unusual force or direction, often accompanied by rain (water that is condensed from the aqueous vapor in the atmosphere and falls to earth in drops),snow, hail, thunder, and lightning, or flying sand or dust.

Disease: A disordered or incorrectly functioning organ, part, structure, or system of the body resulting from the effect of genetic or developmental errors, infection, poisons, nutritional deficiency or imbalance, toxicity,or unfavorable environmental factors; illness; sickness; ailment. Any abnormal condition in a plant that interferes with its vital physiological processes, caused by pathogenic microorganisms,parasites, unfavorable environmental, genetic, or nutritional factors,etc.

Meteorite: A meteorite is a solid piece of debris from an object, such as a comet, asteroid, or meteoroid, that originates in outer space and survives its passage through the Earth's atmosphere and impact with the Earth's surface. When the object enters the atmosphere, various factors like friction, pressure, and chemical interactions with the atmospheric gases cause it to heat up and radiate that energy. It then becomes a meteor and forms a fireball, also known as a shooting/falling star; astronomers call the brightest examples "bolides." Meteorites that survive atmospheric entry and impact vary greatly in size. For geologists, a bolide is a meteorite large enough to create a crater.

There you go. This should be a good starting point for you. Just a grab a dictionary.

However, if you want to know exactly how these things happen, you can start by picking up a few specialized books at the library or, better yet, pursue an academic career in a related field. Then you'll surely end up with a fairly accurate notion about how these things happen.

The point is, I don't need to write a book explaining any of these things. There's a mountain of readily available studying material out there, in case you're really interested.

Anyway, Did you know how they used to explain these things in the past?

Storm: God is angry.

Disease: God is angry.

Meteorite: God is angry.

If you ask me, we're much better now.

Now, of course you could say that any of these phenomenons aren't really happening anywhere else but inside my consciousness? Or would it be your consciousness? Because if there isn't any external reality, then either you or me is nothing but a construct of yours or my consciousness.

Why don't you make a test to prove your theory? Shoot yourself in the head. If I'm still here after that, well, that's because you're wrong...Unless you're just a product of my consciousness, which, in this case, it wouldn't prove anything...Either way, don't do that. Don't shoot yourself in the head. I'm just kidding.

Anyway, seriously, I know there's not such thing as absolute certainty. Any scientist is aware of that. Science works with approximations, in other words, what's most likely to be right and what is most probably wrong. In a scale from 0 (absolutely wrong) and 100 (absolutely right), there's no 0 nor 100.

If I say, for example, that Santa Claus exists, it could very well be considered a 1. This is very very very very improbable.

On the other hand, if I say that Earth's orbit revolves around the Sun, it most likely could be considered a 99. This is very likely to be a correct affirmative.

That being said, your Solipsist hypothesis, I can't say it's not possible. However, I can safely say that it's very very very very unlikely to be an accurate representation of reality.

Why? Well, because there's an overwhelming amount of evidence and a massive amount of accumulated knowledge, from countless different fields, pointing that we, humans, have been here for about 200.000 years (give or take) while Earth itself is about 4,5 billion years old, and the universe itself is calculated to be about 14 billion years old...

Just as a starter, wouldn't it be very selfish, narcissistic and anthropocentric to even suspect that there wasn't anything out there before you? Or that there won't be anything left after you go? When I say "you", I mean it. If there isn't an outside reality, then there's only "you". Nothing else.

Einstein, Tesla, Bach, Chopin (just to name a few)...They are all products of your consciousness. Yet, you, the chosen one, the sole protagonist of the universal supreme consciousness is like a chimpanzee compared to their genius...Come on, man...

Of course, you could say that it doesn't matter, this could all be a construct of the mind. It could indeed, but it's very unlikely. It's so unlikely that it could very well be considered the very practical definition of unlikeliness. It's so unlikely that, in practical terms, one could say it's not possible at all.

There are so many problems, of both philosophic and scientific nature, that you would have to confront in order to convert this hypothesis from 1 to 99...

If we're talking exclusively about pure beliefs here, then it's ok. You can believe whatever you want. But if you want to pass this as a theory, then you better get back to the drawing board, otherwise you're insulting the intelligence of countless geniuses who have spent their entire lives actually trying to understand reality and explain it with more than conjecture and rhetorics.

R.

 

Last edited: Aug 23, 2016

Really, will they?
Maybe after a few decades when it isn't possible anymore to hold the position.
Why are scientist silent about farma and climate change fraud?
For example:

and

I'll make one unscientific prediction;
there is going to be a total destruction of western societies and it's values within 20 to 40 years and that majority of scientists (who were most benefited by tolerant western civilization) will bow down, hide in their labs or behind their desks and computer screens or piles of papers and will do what they are told to do. They will let all those frauds pass by and will even provide "facts" for those lies in media and institutions.

Are you a scientist, my friend?

I agree.
Man is a physical, mental, spiritual and social being, neglect any of those aspects in individual or collective and you got yourself a personal or social distress.

 

Human's mind is like a vagina. You can preserve it pristine till the marriage or let it be a safe oasis for any d**k.

What do I mean by that? There are unlimited questions that finding the answers for some of them is rather easy but for the others, alot of time is needed. What does a healthy mind do? It never lets the difficult questions be answered by believing because it's kind of poison for the mind. It also does not let the gaps be filled by religious imaginations. If it'd be strong enough just waits for the better answers not the ones that have been answered by the people that their mouth works more than their brain.

 

cause there is no fraud, facts tell us climate change is real, having a colder year doesn't mean global warming isn't true, Milankovic cycles are endemic to Earth's movement , yet that colder year in't as cold as it has to be given Earth's position, this difference is where you see the effects of climate change. Given how basically 99% of scientists agree on the subject, it's much more realistic to think that 1% is dishonest than thinking about a world spread conspiracy with no real purpose (i don't see any economical gain in climate change, while i see one for deniers)

it doesn't work like that, u may use a dishonest interpretation of data, and u may even fake your data on a paper, but peer review will try to replicate your work and your reputation will be gone forever when you get caught faking data, it happened already. Scientists are not saints, you will find dishonest people in scientific community, but the good thing about peer review is that you actively work to replicated data from other scientists and when you confirm those, no one is gonna notice you, when u refute instead, you will be much more relevant, just look how many scientists came to the news media for confirming relativity (next to none) and how much noise they made for a possible expiriment refuting special relativity (and in the end it didn't)

 

Last edited: Aug 23, 2016

Thank you for very enjoyable response.

I really appreciate that you put so much effort in addressing the question and proved my prediction wrong and already I am happy to see that we moved from "know exactly" to "most probable" and "there is no absolute certainty", really very very good progress so far.
However, are you really just 99% (or less) sure that you exist? Do you really doubt that for even a one point?
Be honest please.

BTW I just went to shoot my self in the had and I am checking if I am still here.
If I receive your reply I probably am and the experiment proved us both wrong, I don't know how and I don't know why.

I already told you I am not negating the existence of the world and that we are on same page regarding religion.
So as much as I enjoyed detailed answers, most of it was unnecessary.
You might find surprising that I am aware of online and offline dictionaries, only I didn't know you would consider them a science, a lists of exact and proven knowledge.
In that case here is a word from online dictionary just for you;
God: the perfect and all-powerful spirit or being that is worshiped especially by Christians, Jews, and Muslims as the one who created and rules the universe

It doesn't say imagined being nor even a being that some believe to exists
consequently you'll have to accept God as fact, will you Master R.?
If you do, here is the prayer for you: Oh God please don't let me be misunderstood

Back to the point of how you exactly know a thing or now how you probably know a thing.
You know dictionaries deal with words and words are generalizations and you don't need me to point out or prove that terms, words and generalizations are 100% mental stuff while we have to deal with matter of science here.

So far it seams that for you "knowing" means categorizing words in nice definitions.
There is difference between knowing stuff and having a vague mental definition (knowing about).

From the online dictionary:
Kung Fu - an ancient Chinese method of self-defense by striking blows at vulnerable areas of an attacker's body using fluid movements of the hands and legs.

Now do we know Kung Fu by reading dictionary or watching a kung fu movie. No, we have jut a vague idea about Kung Fu.
We need to do a lot, regularly, to know Kung Fu.

I need you to take a real experience to challange knowing itself and I doubt that you had encounters with meteors (though I will not accept insurance if I am not covered against meteors falling on me and my property)
So I'll chose: disease and storm which I suppose you do know from your own experience as opposed to know about.

When you experience a real storm I don't believe that you open your mental dictionary and cite those words;
"Storm: A disturbance of the normal condition of the atmosphere, manifesting itself by winds of unusual force or direction, often accompanied by rain (water that is condensed from the aqueous vapor in the atmosphere and falls to earth in drops),snow, hail, thunder, and lightning, or flying sand or dust."

Don't you see how vague this description is. The storm will pick up frogs or cars which are not included in the description.
There are jet streams in the atmosphere that are not considered storms although they fit description.
What about animated storms from disaster movies. Are they storms as well because of appearance or do we need it somehow to be outside of the screen. What if they are on CNN and if it is a montage.
At which point atmospheric disturbance moves from being just a strong wind to a storm.
No need to answer those, it is unimportant just pointing how generalizations will create confusion unless you know stuff so you can't be cheated by vague words.

Tell me how do you know a storm and what it is for you, what is going on in your mental flow before you conclude this is a storm so better move to safer place?

I really doubt that any of your experiences of disease sound like this description;
Disease: A disordered or incorrectly functioning organ, part, structure, or system of the body resulting from the effect of genetic or developmental errors, infection, poisons, nutritional deficiency or imbalance, toxicity,or unfavorable environmental factors; illness; sickness; ailment.

You grow older and you get distortions in skin (wrinkles) on your forehead so you acquired disease instead of older age.
Or a radical muslim mistakes you for being a gay or atheist and guided by religious passion covers your mouth and nose thinking you don't deserve to breathe thus creating unfavorable environment for you and creating disfunction of your lung organ and creating favorable environment for himself with god. So police, known to consult dictionaries too often, come to your family informing them that they are sorry that you had to die from an acquired disease.

OK, tell me how do you know you acquired whichever real disease. What was your internal processes happening prior to you becoming very certain that you have disease?

If you consider yourself to know some other stuff much better (as in I know Kung Fu and I can prove it by self defense) we can switch to that subject instead of storm and disease (unless you are weather scientist or a MD).

Are you a scientist Master R.?

Please make shorter answers so that I can be shorter with mine.

 

Did you not check the videos?
Climate change is ongoing fact and relatively easy to measure. But as a society we need solutions, we need to prepare and we need to know the causes.
Many scientist swear the men impact is the main cause. Other say it is a hoax.
How can you not see economical gains when we all will be additionally taxed for our carbon footprint, as countries, companies and individuals.

Maybe in some utopia of yours.
In real world you have media serve you total bullshit about most important events that are so easily disproven even by youtubers just by being there and recording it and who cares. Did CNN went out of business for serving you stream of lies.
When pharma, chem, agro, oil or any other cartel don't want you to know scientific facts you will not hear about them. You will learn only marginal stuff such as those that you mention which do not have relevant impact on our lives.

In case a brave soul comes out and exposes lies they will serve you with hundreds of scientist opposing and discrediting and eventually economically destroying him all legally.
Let's be at least realistic if not scientific about how information is controlled and kept by those who have other interest than serving us the truth.
Don't you know how pharma industries continually order independent scientific studies and testings that are pure lies packed in scientific jargon. Who cares? Did you see any going bankrupt because of that?
Economy is also a science and how many tell you the truth about the consequences of debt and where you are really going. It is easy to disprove manipulated statistics but who cares. How many try? A hundred of you tubers and that's it. A whistle blower from time to time.
Businesses and governments already own majority of scientists and information streams. Wait a little bit and you'll see the last frontier of freedom - the internet vanish away.
I am all for science however science is dead because it is silent when it's voice is most needed and it is used against people.
I'd call for every scientist to wake up and expose the shit that is going on in their ranks or around the globe if their expertise is relevant for what is going on.

Let me ask you again: are you a scientist?
If so in which field?