PaulS

I'm not sure I'd call it a 'God' hypothesis, maybe a "perhaps there's more to this life and universe and what we call natural, than we understand presently" hypothesis! Maybe people 'sensing' significance or something 'more' is grounds to consider such a hypothesis and yes, perhaps we will still be ruminating about it in 2000 years time too! Again, I'm not suggesting hypothesizing God as in some sort of master creator, but rather I question whether there could be God in the sense that there is something 'beyond' our physical understanding of life and this universe. Some things that make me question such possibilities: - I can't explain how I believe I communicated with spirits during a seance - I believe I had a spirit (possibly my uncle) being near to me for months following his death - The accuracy of a psychic who was so accurate about all sort sorts of things including my future wife who at the time I didn't even know existed - Something that Bishop Shelby Spong wrote once along the lines of questioning just ‘why’ living things have this desire to live, even weeds which seek to grow in a crack in the pavement. I too wonder just why there is this will to live in things that contain living cells. BUT, I accept there could be other very physical explanations as well. I just don't know is all. That's fair enough - but I wonder if the word 'God' gets in our way with all the baggage that comes with it. I don't have a clue what realistically God means either, but neither do I realistically understand why things existed before the big bang either, or where they came from for that matter. And I understand like the 3yr old that that might be a never ending question, but maybe it's not too. My twist to your favourite author: "I don't have to believe there are fairies at the bottom of my garden to enjoy its beauty, but I am curious why my garden exists at all".

I think we largely agree, but I am taking it one step further and saying that hypothesizing about things we can't presently prove might just lead to corroborating evidence one day. It seems to me that the cart is before the horse if we say we shouldn't hypothesize about something if we can't already demonstrate its existence. Sure, there are lots of things said in this 'God' space that are claimed as evidence which I think you and I would argue against, and perhaps humankind has postulated on a reason for existence ever since it gained self-consciousness without ever demonstrating an empirically demonstrated answer, but that doesn't mean the thinking in this space should cease. I don't see a need to go out and bat for what I haven't dreamt of yet either, but there is plenty of claims of 'intuition' (for lack of a better word) that there is more to our existence than meets the eye - so I don't rule it out entirely. If anything, I don't mind speculating about it, but I don't bat for it either.

I understand that may be a Christian 'position', but I don't see why God would not be testable and/or can't be testable, if God (whatever that means) existed. I'm not suggesting anybody invoke God because something is beyond our understanding. I'm saying that 'God', whatever that means, can't be ruled out. If people suggest they feel there is a purpose to our existence, who am I to say 'wrong', if I can't prove. I know we can think they are mistaken, but that is just opinion. Me personally - not an awful lot, but I might look into 'The Grand Design'. Thanks for the suggestion.

I reckon lots of things would have been regarded as 'not testable' when they were first postulated. I'm not saying we start with the postulation that there is a God, but rather continue the question "where does everything come from"? Of course the 3yr old sees through the charade, but still the question remains - where does everything come from? Why do things exist?

Yeah, I agree it's okay to not know and also that we can have fun finding out - which is where hypothesizing about fairies or 'God' comes into it I guess. Which for me, questioning Derek's point about 'significance' goes straight to nowhere if I answer it by saying "I don't know". I mean I don't know, that is true, so my only choice is to not ask that question, or hypothesize about it. What other possible way forward is there to try and answer these questions, if one should want to ask them?

Let's run with 'what' causes certain configurations then. And once we answer what causes those certain configurations, can we then answer what causes those causes to cause configurations, and once we answer that, can we answer what causes those causes to cause other causes to cause configurations. I won't disagree that it could be an infinite question, but until we have have the finite answer, perhaps there could be a significance that we are unaware of, couldn't there be?

Rom, could there be a 'why' question in there though - as in "Why do atoms and molecules have certain configurations? Why do some atoms like one thing and other atoms another?"

Once you see it, you can't see it any other way!

Apparently Jesus used air transport towards the end of his stay on Earth

David, this isn't my first rodeo so please don't waste your time trying to gaslight me and others about what you are really typing. Please take a week off from here to consider your actions and if you choose to return, please do so in a less antagonistic manner.

It shouldn't be lost on people that more has been said about 'soul' in a few posts here than is ever attributed to Jesus teaching or talking on the matter! David - Belittling others who challenge your point of view or otherwise answer you in a manner that you don't find satisfactory, is not aligned with Member Expectations here. Some tolerance was initially granted - no more will be offered. You will be suspended from this Forum if I see this behaviour repeated.

If it was in the context of humour, quite likely I would. But just saying the words 'Satan Worship' isn't particularly rib tickling. Have you heard the one about the dyslexic Satan worshipper? He sold his soul to Santa!

I see no erosion of any true value, other than religious folk perhaps being 'offended' (another issue at large these days) because somebody jokes about something that their religion tells them they shouldn't.

Ah yes, that old chestnut - "following the teachings of Jesus". Of course, exactly 'what' the teachings of Jesus are are extremely open to interpretation. Primarily because most of what was written concerning Jesus didn't get written until decades and decades after his death (Luke around 85CE), and have been altered/amended/added to over centuries, and our oldest 'copies' of any original text of Luke are more than 150 years old. So personally, I am highly skeptical about lots of quotes attributed to Jesus, particularly from the later and personally removed sources such as Luke - somebody who most likely never even met Jesus. My personal approach to following the path of Jesus and how I understand that can lead to awareness and experience of the sacred and oneness and unity of all life, is a very humanist approach to me, and I think simply to trying to love one another and all that goes with that, is more than enough for me. But obviously it can be a challenge. But to your quoted parable - I don't particularly think Jesus said it. Jewish thought in the centuries preceding Jesus didn't promote a soul going to heaven and others to suffering, but rather ALL souls going to a place called Sheol - a shady sort of underworld where souls just milled about bumping into walls. As Jesus was very much a Jew, I suspect he probably voted along the same party lines, but perhaps was experiencing some of the changes Hellenic thought were bringing to Israel. As religious thought changed and the Hellenic influence of Hell crept into Israel, later religious thought started entertaining the idea of some souls being 'rewarded' and others being 'punished' for all of eternity (previously not Jewish thought). I think Jesus expected some souls (and by that I mean people in their physical body) to either rise again or stay on in this earthly life and enjoy the Kingdom of God after it came in its full extent, whilst other souls were destroyed. But that's just me. Perhaps the parable is a religous-ised version of something Jesus actually said around people not being greedy and hogging things to themselves, but sharing them with the community, as Jesus seemed to think the Kingdom of God would soon be arriving on earth in its fullest expression (in his followers' lifetimes) hence no need for them to store up wealth as all would be shared in God's Kingdom. He seemed to preach that elsewhere too.

David, Please don't be pedantic. Whether you used the word 'prevented' or not has no impact on what you were claiming. Whether I "prevent" you getting a fair hearing, or whether you "can't get past my reactivity...to get a fair hearing", all without a single comment from me, is just semantics. I don't have time for it. It won't be tolerated for long on this Forum. Don't do it again. Thankyou. Paul

It is not an 'opinion' David - you said I have prevented you from having a fair hearing. This is simply untrue and you are being disingenuous framing it as a 'point of view'. Not deigning to engage with you for whatever reason I have simply does not prevent you in any way from having a fair hearing on this forum, no matter what you may pretend. As has been previously noted, I allow substantial leeway here in challenging remarks, yours included, but false claims and aspersions won't be tolerated. Please desist.

I would also suggest it is pretty boring - what fun would life be if everybody was 'perfect'!

David, this comment might epitomise why you have difficulty - I am yet to respond to a single post of yours (this is my first response ) yet you claim that my reactivity to idiocy and delusions regarding God, have prevented you from having a fair hearing. This is nonsense, and one doesn't have to be Einstein to recognise that you might be getting in your own way here. In any event, please don't be rude to other members here or your stay here will be short-lived. Take a chill pill, expect that others might disagree with you and debate the points in question or remain quiet. Thanks Paul (As Admin and Site Owner)

I was coming from the angle of religous belief and spirituality. Beliefs about God, Holy Books, beliefs about the afterlife etc - Religions would be much better accepting that theirs is but one view, not concrete evidence. I extended that I guess by suggesting that all of us should be more understanding that just because something is 'right' in our mind, doesn't mean that it actually 'is'.

To be able to genuinely let others be and to not try to convince them that you are right and they are wrong, should be the highest held value of all religions! Indeed, one of the highest held values for everybody. I have come across only one or two Christians in my lifetime who I would also put into this box - people who epitomise what many of us would consider an exemplary human, and they are what they are without even trying. Perhaps Jesus was one of these standouts (just like Buddha), and hence his initial following in ancient Israel. I have also experienced a couple of secular humans who are just a phenomenal pleasure to be with, who you experience and wish you were just like them. These are exceptionally rare birds in my experience.

When I was a boy I had to get up in the morning at ten o'clock at night, half an hour before I went to bed, drink a cup of sulphuric acid, work twenty-nine hours a day down the mill, and pay the mill owner for permission to come to work, and when we got home, our Dad and our mother would kill us, and dance about on our graves singing 'Hallelujah.' But you try and tell the young people today that... and they won't believe ya. Courtesy of The 4 Yorkshiremen

Correct. Currently monitoring. I hope Mrs Rom has a speedy recovery.

Much like Tariki says, I think you might find it difficult to find a group of people who align with each and every one of your beliefs, so some acceptance/tolerance of other points of view may be required, if you feel the need to belong to such a group. Particular denominations all have their own little quirks and beliefs, and even then some denominations within themselves are more progressive than others. Quakers for example may meet your requirements concerning pacifism, but generally are more on the conservative end of biblical interpretation. That said, a particular Quaker Pastor that I read sometimes (Phil Gulley) verges on Atheism I think. Churches, like any group, are only as good as their members and typically, they only feel inclusive if you align with the group think of that Church, which clearly as you have found out - doesn't always work. Progressivechristianity.org offers a worldwide list of progressive churches and I see there are quite a few recommendations in Oregon - https://progressivechristianity.org/global-network/ As an aside, I visited Portland for a few days in 1991. Lovely place!

I'll settle for that too.

I may not be explaining it well - I didn't mean the actual colour is experienced as it is, but rather the reality that light is hitting paint, that the molecules of the selected paint are reflecting light in a certain manner, which is being received by our eyes and being processed by our brain. So the process outside of our head is reality. Yeah, I don't know what I would call it! I think I agree with you and understand why you call it 'illusion', but for me that word has connotations of false representation, or trickery, so yes, a negative thing. Maybe our perception should just be called perception - the term in itself allows for us to regard, understand or interpret the same thing differently.