How can we know "God" exists?

[Sha'irullah]

Physical, non-physical...whats the difference?

His location? I'd say here, maybe now. It all depends...on how open to reception you are

Major difference between physical and nonphysical. Any being that is physical is limited by the laws of this universe/dimension. That being would be weak and bound by the laws of science. God is not shackled or restricted and if he is then surely he is not worthy of worship, adoration or prayer of any kind. Technically such a being would be considered a demigod according to basic definement.

 

[Sir Doom]

Major difference between physical and nonphysical. Any being that is physical is limited by the laws of this universe/dimension. That being would be weak and bound by the laws of science. God is not shackled or restricted and if he is then surely he is not worthy of worship, adoration or prayer of any kind. Technically such a being would be considered a demigod according to basic definement.

That seems a bit restrictive. I'm pretty sure most people will worship, adore or pray to all sorts of things without your consent. Even if you can semantically decline someone's god the title of 'god' in what way does this alter their worship of it? Why would a demigod be unworthy of adoration?

Anyhoo, enough nit-picking. If a non-physical God is able to adopt any form it wishes (from your previous post) and decides it will adopt one particular form for what we might consider a long, long time and that form is physical, would it then not be correct to describe it as a physical being precisely because it is both physical and non-physical?

Further, are we considering the soul in this equation? If we are ultimately a non-physical entity 'wearing' a physical existence or something similar to this, could we not then say that any and indeed every being is both physical and non-physical and the distinction is a nothing more than a perceptual limitation grounded in circumstance?

 

[Sha'irullah]

That seems a bit restrictive. I'm pretty sure most people will worship, adore or pray to all sorts of things without your consent. Even if you can semantically decline someone's god the title of 'god' in what way does this alter their worship of it? Why would a demigod be unworthy of adoration? Anyhoo, enough nit-picking. If a non-physical God is able to adopt any form it wishes (from your previous post) and decides it will adopt one particular form for what we might consider a long, long time and that form is physical, would it then not be correct to describe it as a physical being precisely because it is both physical and non-physical?

It would be different if god could assume a physical form but it would also be entirely different if god IS a physical form. If the basis of god's presence is physical that wold be quite restrictive unlike a transcendent form. Greeks for example portrayed the Olympians as extremely physical and the notion of the soul was very vague. The Titans and Olympians in all myths intervened in a very materialistic and human form. There was very little concept of omnipresence and spiritualism. God was highly limited and could (just like previous myths told) defeated. This is the issue with physical gods and don't forget the story of how Brahma was cursed by Maharishi along with Shiva.

Further, are we considering the soul in this equation? If we are ultimately a non-physical entity 'wearing' a physical existence or something similar to this, could we not then say that any and indeed every being is both physical and non-physical and the distinction is a nothing more than a perceptual limitation grounded in circumstance?

Indeed I am not considering the soul because if a non-physical god took physical form obviously he would not be limited in power because his power would still transcend physicality of this dimension. For indeed every being is physical and non physical, both body, mind and spirit. The distinction is not individual perception but whether or not the entity or deity is grounded in physical or nonphysical reality. There is a reason why Abrahamic religions won the war on this debate a long time ago and spread across the earth.

 

[Sir Doom]

It would be different if god could assume a physical form but it would also be entirely different if god IS a physical form. If the basis of god's presence is physical that wold be quite restrictive unlike a transcendent form. Greeks for example portrayed the Olympians as extremely physical and the notion of the soul was very vague. The Titans and Olympians in all myths intervened in a very materialistic and human form. There was very little concept of omnipresence and spiritualism. God was highly limited and could (just like previous myths told) defeated. This is the issue with physical gods and don't forget the story of how Brahma was cursed by Maharishi along with Shiva.

I don't see why that is an issue. At least I don't see why that is an issue pertaining to whether or not a being is worthy of worship, adoration or prayer.

Indeed I am not considering the soul because if a non-physical god took physical form obviously he would not be limited in power because his power would still transcend physicality of this dimension. For indeed every being is physical and non physical, both body, mind and spirit. The distinction is not individual perception but whether or not the entity or deity is grounded in physical or nonphysical reality.

So, if I am currently grounded in the physical and then die where am I grounded now that the physical is dead?

There is a reason why Abrahamic religions won the war on this debate a long time ago and spread across the earth.

What war on which debate have they won?

 

[Wolke]

How can we know "God" exists?

1. Meditation, yoga, and shamanism (direct experience)
2. Philosophical and scientific arguments

Which would you like to discuss?

 

[Sha'irullah]

So, if I am currently grounded in the physical and then die where am I grounded now that the physical is dead?

It would imply you would then be moved to a spiritual dimension but that does not change the point. If god is grounded in the physical then he has no control over the spiritual or hearsay afterlife. That would make god mortal and constitute a form of anthropolatry. A physically based deity is essentially powerless and becomes less worthy of any worship since one can do the same for any creature. The end result would be nothing since the deity at hand is physical.
I shall leave you with a phrase I often say. I always say when the topic of a physical deity comes up and I am sure you will understand it.
"Never forget the Titans"

What war on which debate have they won?

The debate on an immanent transcendent god or a physical god that can be killed, castrated, imprisoned, or cast down.

 

[Sir Doom]

It would imply you would then be moved to a spiritual dimension but that does not change the point. If god is grounded in the physical then he has no control over the spiritual or hearsay afterlife. That would make god mortal and constitute a form of anthropolatry. A physically based deity is essentially powerless and becomes less worthy of any worship since one can do the same for any creature. The end result would be nothing since the deity at hand is physical.
I shall leave you with a phrase I often say. I always say when the topic of a physical deity comes up and I am sure you will understand it.
"Never forget the Titans"

If all beings are both physical and non-physical I don't see what is 'grounding' any being in either one. Please explain.

The debate on an immanent transcendent god or a physical god that can be killed, castrated, imprisoned, or cast down.

You mean the "My-God-can-beat-up-your-God" debate? I'm not sure if you are aware of this, but some of us aren't participating in that debate.

 

[Sha'irullah]

If all beings are both physical and non-physical I don't see what is 'grounding' any being in either one. Please explain.

Not everyone accepts this notion. Greeks being the perfect example did not believe in the spirit as a whole. They believed the Gods were physical beings who although mortal could die and perish.


You mean the "My-God-can-beat-up-your-God" debate? I'm not sure if you are aware of this, but some of us aren't participating in that debate.[/QUOTE]

No I do not mean "my god can beat up your god". That is very far off basis. I mean the debate on formless god or physical god. A physical god as is often depicted by Greeks, Romans, Hindus and Wathaniyya Arabia has sex (meaning he is human), can be killed (meaning he is not truly immortal), has finite form (meaning he is not powerful), and intervenes in a human fashion (meaning he is only human and powerless).

Chronos the all mighty Titan was imprisoned according to Greek view and castrated according to Roman view. God was castrated and imprisoned essentially. So what sort of god is this? According to rival hindu sects Shiva was cursed and so was Brahma. Neither of these gods sound very powerful. They had wives, had sex, bore children, made mistakes and were not perfect. Shiva killed his own son not knowing it was his by mistake leading to the Ganesh mythos. All of these cultures made god human by giving him form and removed the purpose of god.

Would you really worship a god who is just as pitiful as a human being? This is why Hindus reformed their religion so many times because after later understanding they realized they were diminishing the definition and purpose of having a god in the first place. This lead to inclusive monotheism amongst various sects and the rest is history.

 

[Sir Doom]

Not everyone accepts this notion. Greeks being the perfect example did not believe in the spirit as a whole. They believed the Gods were physical beings who although mortal could die and perish.

But you do, so why don't you answer the question? If all beings are both physical and non-physical I don't see what is 'grounding' any being in either one. Please explain.

No I do not mean "my god can beat up your god". That is very far off basis. I mean the debate on formless god or physical god. A physical god as is often depicted by Greeks, Romans, Hindus and Wathaniyya Arabia has sex (meaning he is human), can be killed (meaning he is not truly immortal), has finite form (meaning he is not powerful), and intervenes in a human fashion (meaning he is only human and powerless).

Finite = not powerful? Human = powerless? How do you make these leaps?

Chronos the all mighty Titan was imprisoned according to Greek view and castrated according to Roman view. God was castrated and imprisoned essentially. So what sort of god is this?

The castrated and imprisoned sort? I don't see the problem.

According to rival hindu sects Shiva was cursed and so was Brahma. Neither of these gods sound very powerful. They had wives, had sex, bore children, made mistakes and were not perfect. Shiva killed his own son not knowing it was his by mistake leading to the Ganesh mythos. All of these cultures made god human by giving him form and removed the purpose of god.

Ah, here is the crux of the issue. What purpose of god do you mean?

Would you really worship a god who is just as pitiful as a human being?

If that is what gods are, then of course I would.

This is why Hindus reformed their religion so many times because after later understanding they realized they were diminishing the definition and purpose of having a god in the first place. This lead to inclusive monotheism amongst various sects and the rest is history.

Purpose again.

 

[Orias]

Major difference between physical and nonphysical. Any being that is physical is limited by the laws of this universe/dimension. That being would be weak and bound by the laws of science. God is not shackled or restricted and if he is then surely he is not worthy of worship, adoration or prayer of any kind. Technically such a being would be considered a demigod according to basic definement.

Alright, so how are non-physical things not limited by the laws of thisuniverse?

Is an idea a non-physical "thing"? A thought? What, in all of our capable imagining power, is truly a "non-physical thing"?

 

[Visionary28]

God exists for those who believe or desire him to exist. God does not exist for those who do not trust or desire his existence. That is if one believes something to exist, it does within his own personal reality. The belief in God can impact all human thoughts and behaviors causing the individual to attempt to discover his "God" on all levels of perception and understanding. Since we cannot prove God to others on an objective level in the way that we prove the existence of a tree, we are left with only our own reality.

 

[Tiberius]

God exists for those who believe or desire him to exist. God does not exist for those who do not trust or desire his existence. That is if one believes something to exist, it does within his own personal reality. The belief in God can impact all human thoughts and behaviors causing the individual to attempt to discover his "God" on all levels of perception and understanding. Since we cannot prove God to others on an objective level in the way that we prove the existence of a tree, we are left with only our own reality.

So god is not an objective truth the way, say, Germany is.

Got it.

 

[Tiberius]

Physical, non-physical...whats the difference?

His location? I'd say here, maybe now. It all depends...on how open to reception you are

The difference? The difference is that you said that God can be measured by any method which can be used to measure me. Specifically, you said, "I'd assume you can measure [God's] height the same way you can measure mine. I mean we are very similar in structure anyways."

Now you are telling me that God may not be physical.

So, how is it that the same methods can be used to measure aspects of both you and God if God does not have those aspects? Are we talking about a non-physical aspect? If so, please tell me:

1. What is the aspect that is shared by both you and God;
2. How do we measure this aspect in you, and;
3. How has this aspect been measured in God to show that he exists and posesses this aspect?

Until you can answer these questions, I'm going to assume you're just making this up.

 

[John Martin]

The proof for the existence of God lies in the desires that human beings have. Everyone desires happiness. So there must be happiness somewhere. What we call God is supreme bliss or supreme happiness. There are two types of happiness:external and internal. External happiness makes one dependent on others or objects outsides. Internal happiness makes one independent.
We can speak of two types of Gods,external or internal.
My God is that on which my happiness depends. What we call God is the ground of our being which is pure joy, happiness or bliss.
In this sense we cannot say that there are atheists. If one's happiness does not depend on others then that person is atheist. In that case that person himself or herself is God.
There are people who believe in temporary gods( external objects and people) and there are people in permanent Gods and there are people who believe that their true self is God.

 

[Dr TJ Eckelburg]

All gods exist within our imaginations and our art and our stories and that doesn't make them any less real.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Imaginations are merely mental constructions associated with brain neuron firings and thus only serve as conceptual representations for that for which they stand, they have no true reality other than being a mental artifact.

The actual non-conceptual reality of God can't be known through a brain that functions on neuron firings in sequential time. Nothing less than being in here and now without thought allows the realization of the non-dual reality/God that is forever on the other side of the concept of non-dual reality/God.

 

[Dr TJ Eckelburg]

I have a friend who believes that if there is a god, the word is not in any vocabulary and transcends human thought and doesn't begin to describe the concept of a god.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

I have a friend who believes that if there is a god, the word is not in any vocabulary and transcends human thought and doesn't begin to describe the concept of a god.

Yes of course the reality of God transcends human apprehension, but note also that thoughts/concepts are merely mental constructs, symbols if you will, to represent some reality or other, not that they are that reality.

For that reason, if one has a desire to know if there is an actual reality existing represented the concept of God, one must understand that it will never be realized by human thought. However it may be possible to realize the reality, if any, represented by the concept of God by stilling the mind so that thoughts cease to arise in the mind to drown out/mask the subtle reality otherwise present. Iow, non-conceptual reality can only be realized by a mind that is free from trying to interpret the reality otherwise present by thought.

 

[Dr TJ Eckelburg]

Yes of course the reality of God transcends human apprehension, but note also that thoughts/concepts are merely mental constructs, symbols if you will, to represent some reality or other, not that they are that reality.

For that reason, if one has a desire to know if there is an actual reality existing represented the concept of God, one must understand that it will never be realized by human thought. However it may be possible to realize the reality, if any, represented by the concept of God by stilling the mind so that thoughts cease to arise in the mind to drown out/mask the subtle reality otherwise present. Iow, non-conceptual reality can only be realized by a mind that is free from trying to interpret the reality otherwise present by thought.

Ah, so that explains the concept of enlightenment!

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Ah, so that explains the concept of enlightenment!

Quite so, but easier said than realized...