Are you joking?

[Little Rik]

If by 'the I', you mean the awareness of self, you're dead wrong. This issue is part and parcel of the mind/brain debate.

Who is I?
OM......i am God.
For many thousand years the general mantra has been OM or i am God.
So I represent the awareness that you are God and therefore is not a different issue.
But of course before you realize this it takes a lot of hard work.

Don't limit yourself: It isn't possible to investigate God even WITH knowledge of the mind, brain, and awareness of self.

Have you ever try?

Religions are born out of fear.............

Wrong again.
The primitive that worshiped the sun, the moon and every other physical entity did so out of fear but they did not start the religions.
The caste of priests started the religions in order to control the masses for their own benefit.

and the difference between religion and spirituality is mainly a tax-exemption.

No idea isn't it?
Just as i thought.

Did Shiva, Krisna, Buddha, and Jesus were teaching spirituality or religions?

Accepting for the moment that these myth figures taught anything at all, I'd have to say they were teaching religion.

Wrong again.
They did teach spirituality but if you haven't got a clue what spirituality is then all lost.
Shiva, Krisna, Buddha, Jesus were teaching meditation not the rosary, the masses or old mantras.

How do you understand whether God exist or not?

This the gnomes-in-the-garden problem again. I understand that gods do not exist because there is no reason for them to exist and no compelling evidence for them.

How do you COMPEL evidence?
With the usual PHYSICAL science?
And how do you know that there is no reason for them to exist.
How would you know that the space, the air the light the water and the solid matter are not instead composed of vibration if you never practice self awareness?
You see that is what i am talking about in my OP.
People are over optimistic so they come to easy conclusion even before they build up the foundations into intuitional science which would be able to explain how the system works.

I agree that philosophy isn't going to solve the gods issue, but so what?

Not really.
Philosophy is the theoretical way to know how the system works.

It happens to be a grand way to pass the time when it's too rainy to go out and there's nothing good on the tell.

I wonder why so many people try to pass the time in this forum.
You make me feel like going to sleep!

[Zazzy]

It doesn't seem difficult to understand that god concepts are supernatural, which by definition puts them above and outside of the physical and natural. Science can only study things that abide by the known rules of the physical. Therefore science cannot possibly investigate anything truly supernatural. If we discovered a god who DID abide by natural laws, which we could then study, then it wouldn't be a god, because it would be bound by natural law and would not be supernatural. A god subject to gravity or entropy would be a disappointing god.

[Psykhronic]

Intuition science... yeah, I've heard enough. Rico is a crazy.

[Little Rik]

Science has the goal of figuring out why and how things work. And not wether god exists or not.

Your limitations are very evident.
Again you are convinced that there is only your science or physical science and therefore you have build a wall around it creating a DOGMA and do not allow anything else to penetrate your small world.

There is no proof of anything "non physical" to exist.

Eh, you reincarnate from that crowd that were ridicule the guy who invented the fridge when he was saying that the heat could create cold?

Which is where everything ends. Because when rambling about "non physical" nonsence, you build your entire verbal construction on something of which there is no proof that it even exists. Hence your essential not saying anything let alone making a point.

There was a time that people thought that the smaller parts were what you can see with your eyes.
It took long time to invent the lenses and it took even more time to realize that atoms are not the smaller parts and now it will take even more time to understand where everything come from.
But not for those who work on self awareness.

---

It doesn't seem difficult to understand that god concepts are supernatural, which by definition puts them above and outside of the physical and natural. Science can only study things that abide by the known rules of the physical. Therefore science cannot possibly investigate anything truly supernatural. If we discovered a god who DID abide by natural laws, which we could then study, then it wouldn't be a god, because it would be bound by natural law and would not be supernatural. A god subject to gravity or entropy would be a disappointing god.

Are you saying that God once incarnate could not do whatever he-she like?
How would you know?

[max-greece]

"Are you saying that God once incarnate could not do whatever he-she like?"

More importantly how do you know God was ever incarnate?

An explanation for the universe that does not require the interaction of a yet more complex being than the universe itself is more likely correct than the alternative.

Occam's razor in effect.

[Fidel_Castronaut]

No evidence of the non-physical.

Except the voices in your head, enrico.

Now do your stretches.

[Zazzy]

Are you saying that God once incarnate could not do whatever he-she like?
How would you know?

I meant exactly what I said.

The traditional notion of a god as all-powerful and all-knowing and immortal would make that god supernatural- therefore unstudyable by the scientific method, which relies on natural restraints to limit hypotheses and provide experimental direction. If a god could actually do anything, it would necessarily be outside of the purview of science. If a god became incarnate- that is, in a physical body- it would seem that it would be bound by the limitations of bodies as we know them, since all bodies observed by the scientific method to date have not been incarnate gods and have been subject to natural phenomena. If the body was merely a puppet of a supernatural being, then all bets would be off, because, again, the supernatural being would be, by definition, outside of natural laws.

So it's a pointless thing to discuss, because when you claim a god is supernatural, asking someone to study it using the scientific method is farcical.

[Anomalocaris]

Intuition science... yeah, I've heard enough. Rico is a crazy.

Science is a systematic way to reduce human vulnerability to the human instinct of falling for the pitfalls of intuition.

Without science, there is only assertions that are often held to the last and yet undeterminable as far as whether the are right or wrong.

[Psykhronic]

Intuition science... yeah, I've heard enough. Rico is a crazy.

Science is a systematic way to reduce human vulnerability to the human instinct of falling for the pitfalls of intuition.

Without science, there is only assertions that are often held to the last and yet undeterminable as far as whether the are right or wrong.

I... don't really know what you're saying? I know science is important, I was making fun of enrico for making up a science.

[Tonus]

It seems that a lot of people in these forums are over optimistic.
They seem to know so many things about God existence or God non existence without first having done the hard work and without having established the foundations in which these beliefs are based.
Nothing wrong with being optimistic provide you got something to stand on.

I'm not sure you are referring to optimism. I think you are referring to certainty. As in "some here are certain god does not exist." A person can be optimistic with or without belief in god.

One thing that might affect a person's optimism is reading this thread, though. So I'll preserve my optimism, and my sanity, by leaving it at that.