I don't know. But 'existence' is not a supernatural intelligence that reveals moral codes to humans, so it seems to me that you are redefining the term 'God' to make the existence automatic. That is called 'moving the goalposts'.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
A Challenge to the Theist and Atheist
- Thread starter Segev Moran
- Start date
I don't know. But 'existence' is not a supernatural intelligence that reveals moral codes to humans, so it seems to me that you are redefining the term 'God' to make the existence automatic. That is called 'moving the goalposts'.
Ben Dhyan
Veteran Member
Do you think your definition of God as a supernatural intelligence that reveals moral codes to humans is a consensus view? For example, do you think this statement wrt Brahman is a case of 'moving the goalposts' and if so why....God can not be limited by any space, God can not be limited by any time, God can not be known by any knowledge, God can not described by any words?
Cephus
Relentlessly Rational
I would say you're misusing the term "God". We already have a perfectly good word for existence, that being "existence". Why use another word?
At the very least, deities are supposed to have some sort of at least consciousness and intelligence. By that, 'existence' does not qualify.
If God cannot be described, how do we even know what is meant by the question 'Does God exist'? The question itself makes no sense because there isn't a well-described reference. Or even an ill-described reference.
Ben Dhyan
Veteran Member
God is omnipresence, God is infinity, God is eternity, God is existence, God is one, I could use many words that apply to God without the words being misused don't you think?
Cephus
Relentlessly Rational
Says who? How do you know any of these things? Where is your evidence that any of these things are true?
No. Those are all quite different concepts. To claim they are all the same as another is simply being perverse.
Ben Dhyan
Veteran Member
Through realization of it...I can provide you with the guidance if you were to aspire to it, but it remains you who would have to devote your life to it to realize it.
In other words, you can believe if you self-delude enough.
Ben Dhyan
Veteran Member
Intelligence can not exist without existence...yes? God is one that is all...pantheism, the physical universe is God manifested.
God can be realized, but not known as that implies duality....god is non-dual.
Last edited:
Ben Dhyan
Veteran Member
Your understanding of English needs attention, realization does not mean belief!
Ben Dhyan
Veteran Member
Who said they were not different concepts, if you understood what was implied, those different attributes apply to God. I hope you are not being obtuse on purpose, but just naturally so..
Yes, intelligence requires existence. But existence does not require intelligence. No deity is required to understand the universe.
Who said they were not different concepts, if you understood what was implied, those different attributes apply to God. I hope you are not being obtuse on purpose, but just naturally so..
Again, if you *define* God to be the same as existence, then you are misusing the word. If, instead, you are claiming that 'God' has the *property* of existence, then God is NOT existence.
Similarly, you can *define* God to be the universe, but that sort of begs the point of all the other supposed properties of 'God'.
Ben Dhyan
Veteran Member
The universe can not be understood, if you think otherwise, provide your evidence. The universe itself though involves intelligence, therefore it is an attribute of the universe...the universe which exists has intelligence!
Ben Dhyan
Veteran Member
One uses the word 'attribute' wrt the distinctions made by the human dualistic mind as an expedient to convey the correct understanding of the reality represented such terms as God, Brahman, Tao, Cosmic Being, Universal Being, Universal Existence, etc. that it is one, it is non-dual and the apparent attributes are not actually separate aspects at all, but only appear so to dualisitc minds of limited intelligence. God can not be defined, but certain logical things can be said, there is no God without existence, and there is no existence without God!
Well, by making hypotheses and testing them, we learn more about the universe every day. We understand a LOT more than we did 100 years ago. And we understood a lot more 100 years ago than we did 200 years ago. That seems like good evidence that the universe can be understood.
The only intelligence involved in the universe, as far as we know, is us. So, your statement that the universe has intelligence is true: we are the example!
Well, that is your claim. I disagree. Existence is all around us. We know it exists. We have no proof of the existence of a God.
Ben Dhyan
Veteran Member
Science does not even fully understand what an electron is yet, not alone an Atom, or a human being, but thanks for admitting that the Universe is not understood.
Cephus
Relentlessly Rational
In other words, through making it up, or blindly believing other people who made it up.