• 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!

circumstantial evidence to Gods existence

David T

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
It would not be the first time. Plants poisoned the planet with their waste product: oxygen. This is what allowed animals to evolve.

Well then, according to logic and your theology ... where did your god come from. "Always was" is not a vaild answer unless you are willing to accept "always was" with respect to the mass and energy that make up the universe.

Much like god(s) there is a complete absence of evidence when it comes to Moses and the Exodus.

I don't need absolute proof, all I need is to point to the complete absence of any evidence. The burden of proof is yours.

Face it, you are, in the main, an atheist too ... I just extend my atheism to one more god than you do.

I have. What I discovered is that it is highly improbable that there is a god since there is no evidence of one that stands up to critical examination. As far as absolute proof is concerned ... that is impossible. In a construct that is akine to Zeno's paradox (you can never get to a wall since you appoach it in halves and there is always a distance remaining that can be further halved) there is always one more rock, over the next hill, on the nex planet, that god might just be hiding under.

Why not? That's is just an unprovable assumption. It is like the difference between Euclidean geometry and Non-Euclidean geometry with respect to parrell lines.

But the two constructs are not, as I have already show, co-equal.

I don't yet know and am looking is very different than I don't know so God-did-it.

No. You don't understand what a theory is.

A scientific theory is an explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can, in accordance with the scientific method, be repeatedly tested, using a predefined protocol of observations and experiments. Established scientific theories have withstood rigorous scrutiny and are a comprehensive form of scientific knowledge.

It is important to note that the definition of a "scientific theory" (often ambiguously contracted to "theory" for the sake of brevity, including in this page) as used in the disciplines of science is significantly different from the common vernacular usage of the word "theory". In everyday non-scientific speech, "theory" can imply that something is an unsubstantiated and speculative guess, conjecture, idea, or, hypothesis; such a usage is the opposite of the word "theory" in science. These different usages are comparable to the differing, and often opposing, usages of the term "prediction" in science versus "prediction" in vernacular speech, denoting a mere hope.

The strength of a scientific theory is related to the diversity of phenomena it can explain. As additional scientific evidence is gathered, a scientific theory may be rejected or modified if it does not fit the new empirical findings; in such circumstances, a more accurate theory is then desired. In certain cases, the less-accurate unmodified scientific theory can still be treated as a theory if it is useful (due to its sheer simplicity) as an approximation under specific conditions (e.g., Newton's laws of motion as an approximation to special relativity at velocities that are small relative to the speed of light).

Scientific theories are testable and make falsifiable predictions. They describe the causal elements responsible for a particular natural phenomenon, and are used to explain and predict aspects of the physical universe or specific areas of inquiry (e.g., electricity, chemistry, astronomy). Scientists use theories as a foundation to gain further scientific knowledge, as well as to accomplish goals such as inventing technology or curing disease.

As with other forms of scientific knowledge, scientific theories are both deductive and inductive in nature and aim for predictive power and explanatory capability.

Paleontologist, evolutionary biologist, and science historian Stephen Jay Gould said, “...facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world′s data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts.”
(thanks wiki)

Asked and answered.
No, scientific reductionist is based on evidence, theism does not even make it to hearsay, it is, by and large, stuck in what is at best historical fiction.
Religious fundamentalism says, religious reductionism is based on the evidence in the bible emperically. So the question what's the problem? A scientific reductionist will insist one must see nature reductively not the bible reductively. My question which half wit is correct? Do religious reductionists actually understand the topic they claim they understand even? Scientific reductionists all say yes because it justified their reductionism in context to nature itself as being fundementalistisms. Iff you want a clear picture of bozo the clown look in the mirror of religion in funtementalism in religious reductionism.
 

Segev Moran

Well-Known Member
I can, at least when it comes to their religious beliefs. Religion is not about intellect, but about emotion. It's about feeling your way through life. That is, by definition, not rational.
I Disagree.
There are many theists who use the exact logic they use in a lab to explain their theism.
As was I.
Cheers ;)
I know that, in retrospect, my thinking at the time was irrational, just as all theists are irrational when it comes to their beliefs.

It was rational for you at the time.
Its irrational for you today because you lost your beliefs to a different kind of rationalism.
For some people it is completely rational that love is something more than chemicals.

So Although i share your rationality, I can't rule out other peoples' rational.

What seems reasonable to you doesn't seem reasonable to them.
What I hope is, that theist will try and understand the atheistic p.o.v and that atheist will understand the theistic p.o.v better.

This will make the discussions much more valuable to all sides.
 

Segev Moran

Well-Known Member
Can anyone measure infinity?

How would you go about that without stepping outside infinity? And if you could do that, then whatever you would be measuring could not any longer be infinite, because you're outside of it.
:)
Is God infinity?
Or is it beyond infinity?
Or maybe there is no infinite at all?

infinite is like nothing. :)
Is God infinity?
This is why arguments to prove God as something outside ourselves, will never succeed.
Agreed.
God cannot be an object and still be God
The same as an object cannot be a God and still be an object.
:)
To know yourself is to know God. To know God is to know yourself.
Yet to me it works just the other way around...
to know yourself is to know a god is not controlling humans, rather we do.
to know a god...humans is to know yourself :)

I only started getting to know myself, my true natural self, only after I stopped believing in a god.

When we truly peel back the layers of the onion of who we imagine we are to find the one looking at the whole thing, then the question is answered. All that's left is finding ways to talk about it.
Imagination is awesome :)
In this case, personal experience, or better put, personal Awareness is that evidence.
Which might explain why each have a personal god.
Not an absolute entity.
I Can't argue a personal god.
But the question is if that personal god of yours can act on me?
You can't look outside to find God, while exclude yourself.
It begins with self awareness down to the very Source itself.
What do you mean Source?
That's God is the Subject of all being, the One looking out through your eyes. Think of it like trying to find your eyes while looking out through them imagining you'll find them somewhere "out there".
Sorry.. can't quite understand the analogy.
So, "Theism" then is simply one way to talk about the experience of that Infinite. So is atheism for that matter. Neither can define the Reality of it however, as both as putting an objective face on infinite Reality through excluding the subject, the one looking.
 

Cephus

Relentlessly Rational
I Disagree.
There are many theists who use the exact logic they use in a lab to explain their theism.

No, you're simply wrong. Because "in the lab" requires objective evidence. Theists have zero. None. Zip. Zilch. Nada. They have nothing that they can present that can be objectively examined.

It was rational for you at the time.
Its irrational for you today because you lost your beliefs to a different kind of rationalism.

There is no such thing as "rational for you". It is either rational or it is not. People do not get their own personal version of reality.

For some people it is completely rational that love is something more than chemicals.

Then they're wrong. It doesn't matter how people feel, it matters what is objectively true. Anyone who believes something that is at odds with what is objectively true is wrong.

So Although i share your rationality, I can't rule out other peoples' rational.

Then you don't understand what being rational means.

What seems reasonable to you doesn't seem reasonable to them.

I don't care what "seems" reasonable. I care what *IS* reasonable. I'm not remotely interested in their feelings, I'm interested in their facts.

What I hope is, that theist will try and understand the atheistic p.o.v and that atheist will understand the theistic p.o.v better.

I don't care about someone's point of view. I care if what they believe is true. I care if they can produce objective evidence to support their claims. Reality isn't about your opinion. Reality is about what actually is. You can't just say "I reject your reality and substitute my own". Either you deal with reality as it actually is, or you're wrong. There are no other options.

This will make the discussions much more valuable to all sides.

The only thing that is going to make these discussions valuable is if the delusional people grow the hell up and deal with the facts. I don't see that happening any time soon.
 
Of course there is evidence for God:

Tangible/material: Biological, Cosmological, History, Prophecy, Biblical Accuracy

Intangible/immaterial: Logic, Teleology, Ontology, Love, Justice, Absolutes

What is also clear IMHO is that propensities/biases lean BOTH ways--a person open to God (most people) says, "God's existence is self-evident to me" and skeptics say, "I have no evidence for God--oh, wow, look how 15B Light Years of Universe formed inside a stretched void!"

This is akin to twin fetuses in a uterus saying to each other, "Mom, what mom? I've never had evidence of a mom?"

Material evidence for the existence of a god-thing:
-Biological: Never heard or read of biological evidence for a godthing. Are there some biological godremains somewhere I don't know of?
-Cosmological: has some astronomer seen some gods floating around in the universe? I'm curious, why hasn't NASA told us yet?
-History: even stranger. I know a bit of history but I've never read of historical facts proving a godthing walking around performing supernatural acts or whatever a god does. There are many religious books claiming a lot that hasn't been confirmed by independent sources. That a person like Descartes existed who wrote a book is confirmed by a hundred independent sources. If that wasn't so anyone would be right in doubting his existence or his words. For the veracity of supernatural claims there is no historical 'evidence', no or not enough reliable independent sources. In other words: no historical evidence.
-Prophecy: show me one real prophecy that has come true. Please do, you'll get world-famous for it. Not a typical astrology one that's so vague it could be in any year, in different places etc. A specific date (day/month/year), a unique name, a city, a clear event (not 'violence' or 'catastrophy' but 237 people died or a train was derailed; a Boeing airplane crashed would be a good prophecy in the year 1837)
-Biblical accuracy: have you read the Bible? Apostles even have different versions of events they were supposed to have been present at! Before any present-day court they would be scrapped as witnesses

Foetuses in a womb? Extremely bad example.
 
Proof is defined as the amount of evidence necessary to convince someone that something is true. The threshold of evidence is highly individual. Some would like to apply the scientific theory to God, but I suggest that we need a new set of rules to explore intelligence. We all know that intelligence exists, but it is not a "thing" in the normal sense of the word. We can't bombard it with radiation to discover its properties. Penrose took a stab at it with his popular book Shadows of the Mind, A Search for the Missing Science of Consciousness, where he delved deeply into human intelligence.

Whether one believes that God is everywhere present and eternal, or physically existing in space and time, and subject to universal laws, all agree that God is intelligent. How does one prove whether an intelligent being occasionally interferes with earth history? The only evidence that we are left with is eye witness testimony and the intelligence that seems to guide mankind. In my mind, the only evidence worth pursuing, is some event that is fairly recent, with many witnesses, and established revelations from God. It turns out that we have just such an example.

Joseph Smith's fame and infamy is such because of the wealth of eye witness testimony and revelations given in modern times. The miracles and visions were not cloaked in obscurity, dating to some ancient past, but part of the fabric of US history. Nor were they confined to Joseph Smith himself, but experienced by a broad swath of people, both members and non-members. We literally have hundreds of thousands of pages of testimony to the events that took place from 1830 to 1845.

As one studies the life of Joseph Smith, one is slowly drawn to one of two conclusions; that he was either the greatest conman who ever lived, or that he was exactly what his followers claimed - a prophet of God. Sadly, most of the popular literature about Joseph Smith is designed to show him as a fraud, with no attempt at fairness; hatchet jobs by ministers of other churches, angry that they have lost members of their fold to the Mormons. Two evangelical seminarians did an indepth study of Mormon apologetics and came to the conclusion that the Mormon apologetics were more credible than the rash of books claiming to expose the Mormons. (Mormon Apologetic Scholarship and Evangelical Neglect: Losing the Battle and Not Knowing It?)

Despite the efforts of many to quickly dismiss Mormon claims, the evidence is such that only a long drawn out investigation of those claims can adequately cover all the areas. There is no silver bullet to discredit Mormonism. In fact, many of those who have made long drawn out investigations have eventually converted to Mormonism.

All would agree God is intelligent? I don't. So that alone is enough to prove your premise wro. An important part of humanity does not believe in your godthing and we have yet to see the first evidence it exists.
It's like saying: everybody agrees that Tolkiens wizzard Gandalf is intelligent. So this proves Gandalf exists. Does it? Do you think Gandalf exists now I've 'proven' it?
 
I Agree, But I think Open mind is the name of the game here.
I am retired now but in my earlier years I was an active scuba diver and wreck hunter who spent hundreds of hours underwater poking around on the bottom and the surface of several oceans. At the time, I was convinced that the beauty I saw down there under the surface, could not possibly be a coincidence of nature but had to be the creation of some superior being,
As I went through life and saw examples of the horrible things being done by so-called Christians, and also examples of the wonderful things that humans, be they artists, writers or scientists, are able to create, I changed my mind. We are capable of creating great things and so is nature,
God is redundant and non-existent, in my view, and an excise for those who are too lazy to go create something of their own..
 
I Agree, But I think Open mind is the name of the game here.
I am retired now but in my earlier years I was an active scuba diver and wreck hunter who spent hundreds of hours underwater poking around on the bottom and the surface of several oceans. At the time, I was convinced that the beauty I saw down there under the surface, could not possibly be a coincidence of nature but had to be the creation of some superior being,
As I went through life and saw examples of the horrible things being done by so-called Christians, and also examples of the wonderful things that humans, be they artists, writers or scientists, are able to create, I changed my mind. We are capable of creating great things and so is nature,
God is redundant and non-existent, in my view, and an easy excuse for those who are too lazy to go create something of their own..
 
I Agree, But I think Open mind is the name of the game here.
I am retired now but in my earlier years I was an active scuba diver and wreck hunter who spent hundreds of hours underwater poking around on the bottom and the surface of several oceans. At the time, I was convinced that the beauty I saw down there under the surface, could not possibly be a coincidence of nature but had to be the creation of some superior being,
As I went through life and saw examples of the horrible things being done by so-called Christians, and also examples of the wonderful things that humans, be they artists, writers or scientists, are able to create, I changed my mind. We are capable of creating great things and so is nature,
God is redundant and non-existent, in my view, and an easy excuse for those who are too lazy to go create something of their own..
 
I Agree, But I think Open mind is the name of the game here.
I am retired now but in my earlier years I was an active scuba diver and wreck hunter who spent hundreds of hours underwater poking around on the bottom and the surface of several oceans. At the time, I was convinced that the beauty I saw down there under the surface, could not possibly be a coincidence of nature but had to be the creation of some superior being,
As I went through life and saw examples of the horrible things being done by so-called Christians, and also examples of the wonderful things that humans, be they artists, writers or scientists, are able to create, I changed my mind. We are capable of creating great things and so is nature,
God is redundant and non-existent, in my view, and an easy excuse for those who are too lazy to go create something of their own..
 
I Agree, But I think Open mind is the name of the game here.
I am retired now but in my earlier years I was an active scuba diver and wreck hunter who spent hundreds of hours underwater poking around on the bottom and the surface of several oceans. At the time, I was convinced that the beauty I saw down there under the surface, could not possibly be a coincidence of nature but had to be the creation of some superior being,
As I went through life and saw examples of the horrible things being done by so-called Christians, and also examples of the wonderful things that humans, be they artists, writers or scientists, are able to create, I changed my mind. We are capable of creating great things and so is nature,
God is redundant and non-existent, in my view, and an easy excuse for those who are too lazy to go create something of their own..
 

Windwalker

Veteran Member
Premium Member
Is God infinity?
Or is it beyond infinity?
Or maybe there is no infinite at all?
I would say God is Infinite, or "the Infinite". Is there no infinite? Well, as an argument I'd say you have to have some paper on which all things are drawn upon. If there is an edge to that paper, then that paper exists only in reference to something beyond itself in order to call it an "it". So yes, if there is the finite, it would have to be against that which is not finite. It's that not-finite we call infinity.

infinite is like nothing. :)
It is not "nothing", but rather it is no-thing. "It" itself is not an object, for if "it" were, it would be finite.

Is God infinity?
Rather than calling infinity as a thing, an object, I would say God is Infinite - without boundaries or edges, including everything, excluding nothing.

Yet to me it works just the other way around...
to know yourself is to know a god is not controlling humans, rather we do.
to know a god...humans is to know yourself :)
To be clear, I would never use the term "a god", or "a God" for that matter. God just "is". There is no "a" to it. But yes, to understand the nature of Godhead does negate "a God", defined as something outside controlling you; a deity, a guy in the sky sort of anthropomorphic projection. That's just an extension of our own self-image.

I only started getting to know myself, my true natural self, only after I stopped believing in a god.
Indeed. Yes. When you stop looking outside yourself to know yourself, you start to move within, and ultimately beyond even that self-image when you go far enough. Then what you find, is that what you were looking to find in imagining God in heaven, you find in yourself. You find Self. You find God. And that is less "evidence" as it is a realization of what has always been the case.

Imagination is awesome :)
Indeed, but it can also lead to self-delusion, mistaking what we imagine to be true as reality itself. Such is the case in imagining we truly know ourselves as that person looking at himself in the mirror and saying "That is me". It's like looking at your knee and saying "I am that knee", whereas that knee is your body, not the one asking the question or making that statement.

But the question is if that personal god of yours can act on me?
The Face we put upon the Infinite is God to us. I think of it like this. The highest form of that Infinite, Formlessness beyond it, Godhead, is to us unimaginable Love, Light, and Truth. These are not emotions, but conditions of being. That is always present beyond the veil of the limits of our imaginations of truth and reality. Like the presence of heat from the sun, it acts upon us at all times.

But it is not in the magical sense of a Greek god manipulating us by its independent will as a separate person, pulling a thread and cutting it and we drop dead, or something like that. All those are just stories to try to talk about the Mystery of life in fictions that convey certain levels of understanding and appreciation, as childish as those may seem to us at this point.

What do you mean Source?
We all arise from same Source into our myriad forms of existence. We live, we grow, we fade, we pass. And so it goes on and on. You could think of it like the paper on which all circles of life are drawn. Without that paper, the line is nothing. Yet that paper is not the lines; yet not separate from them. Without the paper, the line does not exist.

You can also think of it in terms of music. The foundation of music is not the notes and the rhythms and the melodies. The foundation is Silence. From this Source, the notes arise and are manifest. Form and Formlessness. When you return to Silence, the form becomes clearly and brilliantly heard, taking a myriad directions become distinct songs. So it is with us as human beings. To return to Source, allows all those notes to become clear and distinct, rather than buzzing chainsaw of indistinguishable noise, and not music at all.

Sorry.. can't quite understand the analogy.
We spend our lives trying to find who and what we are through looking outside ourselves, by looking to see ourselves reflected to ourselves through others, to explore this or that interest or talent, to form a self-identity. In the spiritual sense, we may look to the "higher self", God to learn the larger questions of life, those of ultimate meaning. The entire time all this is going on, that Self we seek to know is the one seeking.

Like I said, it's like trying to find your own eyes while you're seeking them looking out of them the whole time. When you enter in Silence, you remove all those objects and projections of self and find it was never anywhere else but right here the whole time. You discover the eyes themselves, and the search is over. Now it's just a matter of seeing through them. :)
 
Last edited:

HeironymusJones

New Member
I Agree, But I think Open mind is the name of the game here.

An open mind is always a good thing. An open mind which is lacking in critical thinking, however, is simply a sieve, collecting nothing, holding nothing. Fact is? The hard truth of the matter? For those of faith is there is no empirical and damn little in the way of circumstantial evidence whatsoever for the existence of God or his son (Himself, or...?).

But, this is why they call it faith, wouldn't you agree? I mean, this is the reason I could never fathom arguments such as these from the self-professed faithful. If they were truly faithful then evidence of any kind is not required nor would even amount to a variable in this question.

Of those of the born-again skeptic stripe, however, I require something far more substantial than a star to wish on.
 

VingThor

New Member
In 1238, Pope Gregory IX denounced the Holy Fire as a fraud and it has been shown to be fraudulent repeatedly ever since.

They still do the ceremony to this day , I had heard. Yet a friend of mine recently went there (3 yrs ago) & I asked her what they said about it when she got home & she told me they didn't even mention it... Now i see why. I still read about many posts of people claim to have been there who say it WAS REAL!! My friend did NOT go during the right day to see it. Anyway , Thanks for that info. I appreciate it.
 
Will on the doomsday when earth and seas shall give up their dead and the dead shall resurrect from the earth and seas, WILL THE DINOSAURS ALSO COME OUT in their huge bodies?

Who shall be their saviour or leader before the Lord of the Doomsday?

Brontosaurus or Tyrannosaurus Rex?
 

Segev Moran

Well-Known Member
No, you're simply wrong. Because "in the lab" requires objective evidence. Theists have zero. None. Zip. Zilch. Nada. They have nothing that they can present that can be objectively examined.
Let me explain myself differently. I Think I wasn't clear.
The emphasys here is not on "on the lab" rather on:

"There are many theists who use the exact logic they use in a lab to explain their theism."

You cannot argue against logic. You can argue that your logic is more accurate... that's a whole other issue.

There is no such thing as "rational for you". It is either rational or it is not. People do not get their own personal version of reality.
Indeed they do.
What you find attractive, I might not.
What you find tasty, i might not.
What you find brutal, i might not.

Your perception of time might be different than mine.
Your actions and reactions might be different than mine.

Every "ability", natural or not, changes your own personal version of reality.
Then they're wrong. It doesn't matter how people feel, it matters what is objectively true. Anyone who believes something that is at odds with what is objectively true is wrong.
I Don't understand what is your basis to claim they are wrong? How do you know what is objectively true?

Then you don't understand what being rational means.
rational: based on or in accordance with reason or logic.

logic: reasoning conducted or assessed according to strict principles of validity.

reason: a cause, explanation, or justification for an action or event.

I think that kinda cover both ways, no?
I don't care what "seems" reasonable. I care what *IS* reasonable. I'm not remotely interested in their feelings, I'm interested in their facts.
That's exactly what you are missing.

I don't care about someone's point of view.
That's a shame. I think you are missing out on some great ideas and wisdom.

I care if what they believe is true.
Me too.
I care if they can produce objective evidence to support their claims.
Me too.
Reality isn't about your opinion.
Well... debatable :)

You can't just say "I reject your reality and substitute my own".
Millions of people will disagree.
They will all tell you their reality has changed since they decided to reject their reality.
Either you deal with reality as it actually is, or you're wrong.
I Agree.
I can assure you their reality for them is as it is actually is. ;)
There are no other options.
Yet there are, Apparently.
The only thing that is going to make these discussions valuable is if the delusional people grow the hell up and deal with the facts. I don't see that happening any time soon.
That was a lovely and settled way of reaching for a debate :/
 

Segev Moran

Well-Known Member
I am retired now but in my earlier years I was an active scuba diver and wreck hunter who spent hundreds of hours underwater poking around on the bottom and the surface of several oceans. At the time, I was convinced that the beauty I saw down there under the surface, could not possibly be a coincidence of nature but had to be the creation of some superior being,
As I went through life and saw examples of the horrible things being done by so-called Christians, and also examples of the wonderful things that humans, be they artists, writers or scientists, are able to create, I changed my mind. We are capable of creating great things and so is nature,
God is redundant and non-existent,

It was lovely written until that point ;)
 

Segev Moran

Well-Known Member
I am retired now but in my earlier years I was an active scuba diver and wreck hunter who spent hundreds of hours underwater poking around on the bottom and the surface of several oceans. At the time, I was convinced that the beauty I saw down there under the surface, could not possibly be a coincidence of nature but had to be the creation of some superior being,
As I went through life and saw examples of the horrible things being done by so-called Christians, and also examples of the wonderful things that humans, be they artists, writers or scientists, are able to create, I changed my mind. We are capable of creating great things and so is nature,
God is redundant and non-existent, in my view, and an easy excuse for those who are too lazy to go create something of their own..
Spamming much?
 

Segev Moran

Well-Known Member
It is not "nothing", but rather it is no-thing. "It" itself is not an object, for if "it" were, it would be finite.
Exactly.
Now the only question is what is a Thing.
Rather than calling infinity as a thing, an object, I would say God is Infinite - without boundaries or edges, including everything, excluding nothing.
Yet we just established that "god" (The god???) is not a thing.. thus he is nothing.. so how can he exclude nothing from the everything?
To be clear, I would never use the term "a god", or "a God" for that matter. God just "is". There is no "a" to it.
NP. I will :)
How do you know there is only one?

You agree???
, to understand the nature of Godhead does negate "a God", defined as something outside controlling you; a deity, a guy in the sky sort of anthropomorphic projection. That's just an extension of our own self-image.
that's not what I was saying...
So i guess its a "But no" ;)
Indeed. Yes. When you stop looking outside yourself to know yourself, you start to move within, and ultimately beyond even that self-image when you go far enough. Then what you find, is that what you were looking to find in imagining God in heaven, you find in yourself. You find Self. You find God. And that is less "evidence" as it is a realization of what has always been the case.
So Atheist are closer to enlightenment???
Lol... then we can finally have a religious atheist :) :)

Indeed, but it can also lead to self-delusion, mistaking what we imagine to be true as reality itself. Such is the case in imagining we truly know ourselves as that person looking at himself in the mirror and saying "That is me". It's like looking at your knee and saying "I am that knee", whereas that knee is your body, not the one asking the question or making that statement.
Kinda lost here.. that whole staring on my knee part...

The Face we put upon the Infinite is God to us. I think of it like this. The highest form of that Infinite, Formlessness beyond it, Godhead, is to us unimaginable Love, Light, and Truth. These are not emotions, but conditions of being. That is always present beyond the veil of the limits of our imaginations of truth and reality. Like the presence of heat from the sun, it acts upon us at all times.
What does it mean?
Sorry. I Can't quite understand your point here.
What is unimaginable Love?
Unimaginable light?
Unimaginable truth?

What about unimaginable fear?

But it is not in the magical sense of a Greek god manipulating us by its independent will as a separate person, pulling a thread and cutting it and we drop dead, or something like that.
All those are just stories to try to talk about the Mystery of life in fictions that convey certain levels of understanding and appreciation, as childish as those may seem to us at this point.
We are on agreement here. All religions are indeed an attempt to explain our reality.

We all arise from same Source into our myriad forms of existence. We live, we grow, we fade, we pass. And so it goes on and on. You could think of it like the paper on which all circles of life are drawn. Without that paper, the line is nothing. Yet that paper is not the lines; yet not separate from them. Without the paper, the line does not exist.
How many papers are there?
You can also think of it in terms of music.
Interesting.
The foundation of music is not the notes and the rhythms and the melodies.
Hmm.. I disagree.
Every thing we consider music is a rhythmic, noted, measurable sound.
It can be the tweeting of birds.
It can be the falling drops of rain in a puddle.
The foundation is Silence.
Again, Disagree.
From this Source, the notes arise and are manifest.
What does that mean? how do sound just arise and manifest?
Form and Formlessness.
Sound is not formless.
When you return to Silence, the form becomes clearly and brilliantly heard, taking a myriad directions become distinct songs. So it is with us as human beings. To return to Source, allows all those notes to become clear and distinct, rather than buzzing chainsaw of indistinguishable noise, and not music at all.
Sorry. Can't understand the analogy.
We spend our lives trying to find who and what we are through looking outside ourselves
Please elaborate

Like I said, it's like trying to find your own eyes while you're seeking them looking out of them the whole time. When you enter in Silence, you remove all those objects and projections of self and find it was never anywhere else but right here the whole time. You discover the eyes themselves, and the search is over. Now it's just a matter of seeing through them. :)
?????
 
Top