does god exist

[Willamena]

thats it then i am convinced and shall prostrate myself immediately :yes:

Or... you could just ask him what he means by that.

 

[kai]

Or... you could just ask him what he means by that.

do i have too?

 

[Runewolf1973]

Does God exist?
The singularity that was in the beginning has become all that is and is the divine animating principle that pervades the entire Cosmos, and it has become 'Who I Am."

The fact that 'I AM,' proves that there is a God.

Now that, my friend, is wisdom. We are all "animated" by something, no matter what anyone wishes to call it. In that we are all ONE with all "animation". Agreed?

 

[Runewolf1973]

That contradict the Lord’s teachings.
Mat 5:8 Blessed are the pure in heart! For they shall see God.
Also consider: Job 19:26 and even after they corrupt my skin, yet this: in my flesh I shall see God,

Please define "pure of heart", for to me it is "stillness of mind". An animal or an infant is "pure of heart" so to speak because all it knows IS heart. An animal or baby or child does not know nor do they care to know hate or evil. All they know is love. The metaphorical "tree of knowledge" is from where we gained the knowledge of "evil". We for the most part as humans are unable to control true knowledge. In that way we end up manipulating it into something it was never meant to be. Knowledge used for the wrong purpose is evil. Only in "stillness of mind" or "purity of heart" do really understand true knowledge for what it was truly meant to be.
How ironic it is! In eliminating what we "think" we know, we find what we "truly" know.


When we look up to the sky at night and we see a dark sky with many stars, is it truly darkness? Not to me. For if it was all truly darkness we would not be able to see the stars in the first place. We see the light the stars give off. From any point we look, we see it and know the Universe is full of Light.

 

[logician]

Does God exist?
The singularity that was in the beginning has become all that is and is the divine animating principle that pervades the entire Cosmos, and it has become 'Who I Am."

The fact that 'I AM,' proves that there is a God.

It doesn't even prove "I am".

 

[Runewolf1973]

It doesn't even prove "I am".

What ARE you then?

 

[Willamena]

What ARE you then?

A social construct (though the question is a leading one).

 

[Runewolf1973]

A social construct (though the question is a leading one).

Constructed by our own imaginations? True in a sense. But what caused that imagination to be there in the first place? What created the body to give you the mind to even think of that? To me it's not necessarily a creation of what people call "God". It is a creation of the ever moving, ever changing, animating force which is energy and all it's forms. Existence is Animation.

One animal in itself is not ALL of what ALL is, nor is one tree, but it has the "stillness of mind" to know it is part of that ALL and the "stillness of mind" to not have to question it. It still see's the world differently through it's own different eyes or perspective. Does it see things wrong? Any more or less than we do? Our own mind is the only thing that deceives us. It is our false sense of knowledge that is flawed. Our own minds are capable of manipulating bits of the energy of the "ALL KNOWING" and turning it into evil. Man created to conception of evil.

 

[Autodidact]

This is very typical of pseudoskepticism.

Once again, the arguments against theistic ideas fall into several categories:

1. The burden of proof is on the other side.
2. Entities shouldn’t be multiplied beyond necessity.
3. Scientific naturalism is a sufficient explanation.
4. There is no need to posit God since there are natural explanations for why people historically evolved belief in God.
5. Philosophically, the problem of evil has to be dealt with to the critic’s satisfaction.
6. Since there is no positive evidence for God’s existence, there is no rational reason to believe in whatever God or gods you may believe in.
7. One might as well believe in the flying spaghetti monster since no on can disprove its existence, either.

As I said, all of this sounds perfectly logical, but it deals only with the lack of evidence coming to us through the physical senses.

Yes. I don't think there are any non-physical senses.

Critics like Autodidact beg the issue by taking the view that evidence of God’s existence must be similar to the kinds of evidence science deals with, and this even though all religious traditions have teachings that say this isn't so

They say so, but fail to demonstrate that it is so.

Anyone who's seen The Power of Myth interviews with Joseph Campbell are probably snickering at the "primitive myths" comment. :biglaugh:

I doubt it. I've enjoyed them all. Psychological resonance is not the same thing as factual truth, and I don't think Professor Campbell would take issue with that.

 

[Autodidact]

I would modify that to the traditionally named physical senses. But countless people feel God. Sometimes it's a feeling of being loved, sometimes something harder to describe. But it's undeniably there.

It's a feeling, but deciding that the feeling is a super-powerful intellectual magical being is not.

 

[Autodidact]

whats there to agree. and why would i need to be right, are you saying that im wrong.

Ding!

we cannot feel Allah physically but a smart person feels Him mentaly, spiritually and from his sorroundings, you see nature die (during dry seasons) and come to life(during wet seasons) how do you think it happens and please don't say rain (that would be a very lame answer) because rain is only the cause.

See: entire science of botany.

if im wrong and you want me to spare you from my "primitive myths" then please be my guest and you tell me your "evidence" that Allah doesn't exist because if you cannot convince someone with the truth then let then convice them selves with lies

So all non-Muslims are stupid then? Are you familiar with the burden of proof problem you're getting into here? Is it your practice to believe in everything until it's proven otherwise?

 

[Storm]

It's a feeling, but deciding that the feeling is a super-powerful intellectual magical being is not.

You're moving the goalposts again. The fact remains that countless people feel something they describe as God. How they explain what's behind that feeling is superfluous.

 

[Runewolf1973]

It's a feeling, but deciding that the feeling is a super-powerful intellectual magical being is not.

That is true. For we can't possibly know there is even such thing as a "supernatural" being. Some could only "believe" it. But there is SOMETHING, perhaps not as supernatural as we think. We only see it as supernatural because we are unable to explain it. To me the "supernatural" does not exist, ALL is natural except for the manipulations of truth we create in our minds. Evil would not have power if it were not for the energy people put into "believing" it exists.

See? Even atheists understand something of the truth in things. Oh the irony!

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

You're moving the goalposts again. The fact remains that countless people feel something they describe as God. How they explain what's behind that feeling is superfluous.

Hang on. Here's what you originally said:

Isn't God defined as a being that cannot be perceived with any sense?

I would modify that to the traditionally named physical senses. But countless people feel God. Sometimes it's a feeling of being loved, sometimes something harder to describe. But it's undeniably there.

The original question was phrased in terms of perception of an actual thing. If your feelings that you associate with that thing aren't caused by it, then they can't really be considered perception of that thing, can they?

A person doesn't really perceive God unless that person's perceptions are actually caused by God.

 

[Willamena]

Constructed by our own imaginations? True in a sense. But what caused that imagination to be there in the first place? What created the body to give you the mind to even think of that?

The mind that "thinks of that", the body that houses it, and the imagination that constructs it are all part of the same social construct as "I am".

What lies beyond all of them is (deep voice) the unknown.

To me it's not necessarily a creation of what people call "God". It is a creation of the ever moving, ever changing, animating force which is energy and all it's forms. Existence is Animation.

While I agree with your first sentence, in the second bit you seem to have just replaced "God" with "energy and all its forms". Is there a significant difference between saying "God made it" or "animating force made it"? My own direction when facing this question was to replace the unknown with (deep voice) ...unknown.

One animal in itself is not ALL of what ALL is, nor is one tree, but it has the "stillness of mind" to know it is part of that ALL and the "stillness of mind" to not have to question it. It still see's the world differently through it's own different eyes or perspective. Does it see things wrong? Any more or less than we do? Our own mind is the only thing that deceives us. It is our false sense of knowledge that is flawed. Our own minds are capable of manipulating bits of the energy of the "ALL KNOWING" and turning it into evil. Man created to conception of evil.

I enjoyed your thread that replaced "God" with trees. But still, seems you're just replacing "God" with something else.

On the other hand, if we just let the idea of a "God" drop away, I can see much to agree with in your ideas of "stillness of mind". As I indicated earlier, in another thread, it approaches Zen Buddhism.

All the world is One Bright Pearl, turning and turning, ever showing us its changing face; and we, in watching it, are One Bright Pearl.

 

[Storm]

Hang on. Here's what you originally said:


The original question was phrased in terms of perception of an actual thing. If your feelings that you associate with that thing aren't caused by it, then they can't really be considered perception of that thing, can they?

A person doesn't really perceive God unless that person's perceptions are actually caused by God.

A fair point, but I can turn it around on you. If a thing can be perceived, whether through the physical senses or something more subtle, then it is logical to believe in that thing. I believe in God because I have perceived it.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

A fair point, but I can turn it around on you. If a thing can be perceived, whether through the physical senses or something more subtle, then it is logical to believe in that thing. I believe in God because I have perceived it.

I think I'd still have to take issue with that statement in one regard:

I think that when we say that we "perceive" a thing, we implicitly claim that the interpretations of our senses are accurate. For example, if I "perceive" a person moving in the bushes, but it turns out just to be a bag blowing in the wind, then I didn't really perceive a person at all.

I think that your choice of language somewhat begs the question. I do agree that if a thing can be perceived (which I would define as accurately sensing or experiencing that thing), then it's logical to believe that the thing exists... but we end up with a tautology: if the experiences of a thing are accurate, then it's implied that the thing exists, and therefore it's obviously logical to believe it to exist.

In declaring that your experiences that you attribute to God are perceptions of God, I think that you avoid the question of the quality and accuracy of those experiences, which I think is key in deciding whether basing belief in the God in question on them is logical.

 

[Storm]

I think I'd still have to take issue with that statement in one regard:

I think that when we say that we "perceive" a thing, we implicitly claim that the interpretations of our senses are accurate. For example, if I "perceive" a person moving in the bushes, but it turns out just to be a bag blowing in the wind, then I didn't really perceive a person at all.

Fair enough. However, with God, there's no way to check and see what's in the bushes. That's why we call it faith.

If there were evidence that God does not exist, whether in the form of scientific discovery or philosophical reasoning, there would be reason for the believer to question their perceptions. If there were similar evidence that God does exist, there would be reason for the irreligious to accept believer's perceptions as reality. But as it is, all any of us have to go on is our own perception.

Am I making any sense at all, or was that gibberish?

I think that your choice of language somewhat begs the question. I do agree that if a thing can be perceived (which I would define as accurately sensing or experiencing that thing), then it's logical to believe that the thing exists... but we end up with a tautology: if the experiences of a thing are accurate, then it's implied that the thing exists, and therefore it's obviously logical to believe it to exist.

I'm not arguing that perception is accurate, though. You're adding that. We can't know whether perceptions of God are accurate. I grok that.

My point is, there's no compelling reason for believers to doubt their perceptions.

In declaring that your experiences that you attribute to God are perceptions of God, I think that you avoid the question of the quality and accuracy of those experiences, which I think is key in deciding whether basing belief in the God in question on them is logical.

No, I accept that doubt. I could go on, but you're using "perception" in a different way than I am, and I'd like to see your reaction to my clarification first.

 

[Autodidact]

You're moving the goalposts again. The fact remains that countless people feel something they describe as God. How they explain what's behind that feeling is superfluous.

Well, I've asked a few, and they say things like "a feeling of peace." I don't doubt that they experience a feeling of peace, but God is not a feeling of peace, is He? See how this is different from pain? It may be someone smacked me on the knee, or maybe I'm having something purely internal, but the pain cannot be doubted. The pain is similar to the feeling of peace, and the hammer or arthritis would correlate to God.

 

[Autodidact]

A fair point, but I can turn it around on you. If a thing can be perceived, whether through the physical senses or something more subtle, then it is logical to believe in that thing. I believe in God because I have perceived it.

The physical perception exists and indeed cannot be doubted. To go from there to anything more, even a material object, we normally require some kind of agreement from other people.

Here's what I mean. A guy says he sees a 6' tall white rabbit. O.K., I believe him. The perception of the rabbit exists. But for us to call the rabbit "real," we require that we all be able to see it. Otherwise we suggest upping the dose on his medication.

So someone might have a feeling of peace or whatever, but for us to call it God and real, we would all need to be able to share that experience.