How can we know "God" exists?

[Tiberius]

Make denial until the hour of your last breath....view results.

I love the vague threats. "You'll find out when you die, and then you'll be sorry!" The cry of someone with no evidence.

 

[Wolke]

By testing it. And by seeing if that testing is verifiable and repeatable.

For example, you want to test gravity. You can perform an experiment and tell me how you did it. I can perform the same experiment and I should get the same result.

In order to accept the validity of such an experiment, you would have to assume the existence of an external universe to which the results of the experiment would apply, including the existence of minds other than yourself who can repeat the experiment, as well as the immutability of the laws of nature without which the conditions of the experiment could never be replicated and hence no experiment could ever be repeated; and finally the universal validity of the principle of causation, which states that if a particular cause A is followed by a particular effect B, one has explained why cause A is followed by cause B.

None of the above assumptions can be tested, but you think the existence of God should be tested. I perceive God every day of my life, but I have never perceived another mind; so if I am willing to grant the existence of other minds, I should be even more inclined to grant the existence of the divine.

With that said, let's grant your assumptions for the sake of argument. The unitive mystical experience does satisfy the criteria of testability, viz. repeatability, public verifiability, and orderliness. Anyone can become a witness to God if he sincerely and with his whole heart follows a path to enlightenment. With respect to testability, the only difference between scientific experiment and intellective religious experience is that science operates on the horizontal plane of causation (physical phenomena), while religion operates on the vertical plane of causation (eternal realities unconditioned by space and time), but both, on their own level, equally satisfy the criteria of "testability" - religion offers testability through the pure vision of the Intellect, which is a direct perception of truth itself; while science is testable through the application of the principles of Reason (which is but the slave of the Intellect). Religious truths are ontologically "higher" than scientific facts and theories. The problem with modern science is that by "studying" the physical world it has so fixated itself upon illusory phenomena that it cannot acknowedge any causes operating on the vertical dimension without undermining its own premisses.

Finally, there is no reason why eternal principles which operate on the vertical plane of causation should be required to "prove" their validity by way of phenomena operating on the horizontal dimension. You don't find the Real in the illusory; you see through the illusory and into the Void beyond it. Unfocus the eyes, stop fixating on illusory things. The real is known only through the real - the vision of the pure Intellect reflected upon itself.

How does one test God?

By cultivating a God's eye perspective on things. Detach yourself from all worldly concerns. A man dreams he is a butterfly, says a Chinese legend. How could the butterfly know that he is a man dreaming of being a butterfly? What sort of "test" could the butterfly devise to "verify" the existence of the dreamer? Obviously, the only way the butterfly could know that he is the man, is if the man remembered himself and thereby revealed himself to the butterfly...this is Revelation... or if the butterfly forgot himself and remembered being a man.... this is "annihilation of the ego", the subjective counterpart to the objective Revelation. God can reveal himself to you, or you can "forget" yourself and discover you're God.

 

[Thief]

I love the vague threats. "You'll find out when you die, and then you'll be sorry!" The cry of someone with no evidence.

I'm not crying.
You wanted to know.

Faith needs no proving....see Webster's.

 

[Tiberius]

In order to accept the validity of such an experiment, you would have to assume the existence of an external universe to which the results of the experiment would apply, including the existence of minds other than yourself who can repeat the experiment, as well as the immutability of the laws of nature without which the conditions of the experiment could never be replicated and hence no experiment could ever be repeated; and finally the universal validity of the principle of causation, which states that if a particular cause A is followed by a particular effect B, one has explained why cause A is followed by cause B.

None of the above assumptions can be tested, but you think the existence of God should be tested. I perceive God every day of my life, but I have never perceived another mind; so if I am willing to grant the existence of other minds, I should be even more inclined to grant the existence of the divine.

First of all, I doubt any sane person actually believes that there is nothing more in the universe than his brain.

Secondly, even if there was nothing but my brain and everything I experience is an illusion of some kind, it would mean there is no God.

With that said, let's grant your assumptions for the sake of argument. The unitive mystical experience does satisfy the criteria of testability, viz. repeatability, public verifiability, and orderliness. Anyone can become a witness to God if he sincerely and with his whole heart follows a path to enlightenment.

Given that so many people have done this and gotten different results, I think it fails the testing and verifying part.

With respect to testability, the only difference between scientific experiment and intellective religious experience is that science operates on the horizontal plane of causation (physical phenomena), while religion operates on the vertical plane of causation (eternal realities unconditioned by space and time), but both, on their own level, equally satisfy the criteria of "testability" - religion offers testability through the pure vision of the Intellect, which is a direct perception of truth itself; while science is testable through the application of the principles of Reason (which is but the slave of the Intellect).

Firs tof all, this is just one sentence. Long rambling sentences like this are very difficult to follow. Please consider breaking your sentences up in the future.

Secondly, this is psychobabble. There is nothing but your claim that this is true, or perhaps the claims of others. You cannot prove to me that this is the case.

Religious truths are ontologically "higher" than scientific facts and theories. The problem with modern science is that by "studying" the physical world it has so fixated itself upon illusory phenomena that it cannot acknowedge any causes operating on the vertical dimension without undermining its own premisses.

More technobabble.

Finally, there is no reason why eternal principles which operate on the vertical plane of causation should be required to "prove" their validity by way of phenomena operating on the horizontal dimension. You don't find the Real in the illusory; you see through the illusory and into the Void beyond it. Unfocus the eyes, stop fixating on illusory things. The real is known only through the real - the vision of the pure Intellect reflected upon itself.

What nonsense is this? You don't have to prove it? How is this difficult? If it is real, then it will have predictable effects in some way. Heck, you guys can't even get prayer to work any better than blind chance.

By cultivating a God's eye perspective on things. Detach yourself from all worldly concerns. A man dreams he is a butterfly, says a Chinese legend. How could the butterfly know that he is a man dreaming of being a butterfly? What sort of "test" could the butterfly devise to "verify" the existence of the dreamer? Obviously, the only way the butterfly could know that he is the man, is if the man remembered himself and thereby revealed himself to the butterfly...this is Revelation... or if the butterfly forgot himself and remembered being a man.... this is "annihilation of the ego", the subjective counterpart to the objective Revelation. God can reveal himself to you, or you can "forget" yourself and discover you're God.

A little common sense will show that a butterfly lacks the cognitive power to wonder if it is a butterfly dreaming it is a man. hence, if you are able to ask yourself the question, you are not a butterfly. Or do butterflies regularly have deep philosophical thoughts?

 

[Tiberius]

I'm not crying.
You wanted to know.

Faith needs no proving....see Webster's.

So therefore it is correct? Please.

If you can claim faith is correct without providing proof, I will dismiss it due to a lack of proof.

 

[Thief]

So therefore it is correct? Please.

If you can claim faith is correct without providing proof, I will dismiss it due to a lack of proof.

Don't run off without discussion of reason.
There may not be 'proof'... but there is reason.

 

[Tiberius]

Don't run off without discussion of reason.
There may not be 'proof'... but there is reason.

Reason requires evidence. And you've said faith requires none.

All you are doing is stringing together buzzwords and cliches in an attempt to sound wise. I'm not buying it.

 

[Thief]

Reason requires evidence. And you've said faith requires none.

All you are doing is stringing together buzzwords and cliches in an attempt to sound wise. I'm not buying it.

Nay....
and if what you believe is based solely on 'evidence'....
you are a leaf on water.

With every generation yesterdays belief is fallacy now.

Note my signature.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

I love the vague threats. "You'll find out when you die, and then you'll be sorry!" The cry of someone with no evidence.

Not to mention the fact that saying this to people who don't buy this fantasy of a life after death is comparable to telling grown-ups that Santa Claus won't be leaving them any presents.

 

[Thief]

Not to mention the fact that saying this to people who don't buy this fantasy of a life after death is comparable to telling grown-ups that Santa Claus won't be leaving them any presents.

More like death is final?.....could be....for lack of faith?

 

[Wolke]

First of all, I doubt any sane person actually believes that there is nothing more in the universe than his brain.

Secondly, even if there was nothing but my brain and everything I experience is an illusion of some kind, it would mean there is no God.

You have missed the point entirely. The point is: there are some things that can be known without first conducting a scientific experiment. These include the existence of other minds, the laws of logic, and God. This isn't to say that these things don't prove themselves in other ways; it's to say that for some things there are other forms of proof than that of experimental science (which itself only pertains to phenomena operating on the horizontal plane of causation). If your brain can't grasp this simple point, then this entire discussion is futile.

Given that so many people have done this and gotten different results, I think it fails the testing and verifying part.

It does not differ from person to person, but shows remarkable unanimity across cultures, only the symbols used to describe it are different; but that is irrelevant, because it is a self-experiment. You "verify" God by having the experience, not by interpreting reports of other people's experiences.

Firs tof all, this is just one sentence. Long rambling sentences like this are very difficult to follow. Please consider breaking your sentences up in the future.

I am sorry for the long sentences. I am used to having discussions with people who can grasp in their mind more than one or two ideas at a time, hence longer sentences. But I have noticed that the English sentence has been steadily shrinking over the last hundred years (at roughly the same rate at which the average intelligence has been in decline), so I will try to get with the times.

Secondly, this is psychobabble.

If you like to tell yourself that whenever you don't understand something, the fault must lie in the message and not in your understanding, then so be it. Perhaps it is not for you to know at this time in your life.

There is nothing but your claim that this is true, or perhaps the claims of others. You cannot prove to me that this is the case.

The proof is already latent in your mind.

More technobabble.

This is the third time you have dismissed an argument on the grounds that you don't understand the language. It must be convenient to respond only to isolated fragments of my post, while ignoring all my arguments.

What nonsense is this? You don't have to prove it?

That is not what was said. You are being insincere.

If it is real, then it will have predictable effects in some way.

Again you are confusing horizontal causes with vertical causes.

Heck, you guys can't even get prayer to work any better than blind chance.

Do you know what prayer is?

A little common sense will show that a butterfly lacks the cognitive power to wonder if it is a butterfly dreaming it is a man. hence, if you are able to ask yourself the question, you are not a butterfly. Or do butterflies regularly have deep philosophical thoughts?

Again you missed the point entirely. Part of the difficulty here is that you and I belong to two very different psychological types. I think in symbols and abstractions, while you have a very literal, concrete and autistic perspective on things - people of your psychological type who happen to be religious tend to be dogmatic literalists. But I will try to spell it out for you. For the butterfly to forget itself, the dreamer had to remember he was dreaming, and vice versa. In other words, the subjective and objective revelation or two aspects of the same process.

 

[NobodyYouKnow]

Greetings.

As usual, I have only skimmed, and concentrated on the OP, but I shall go back and have a more thorough re-read later...

From reading the thread title, my immediate gut feeling was that those 'inverted commas' were placed around the wrong word there.

Instead of "God" they should have been placed around "know".

The empirical study of 'knowledge' is called Epistemology (yeah, I have been reading other things about all this stuff instead).
Epistemology - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

According to this (and other sources), there are many other ways we can 'know' things apart from our limited, critical mind. Our emotions, experiences and other factors contribute to an overall sense of 'knowing' on different levels of being/awareness.

Thus, we can at least see there are other ways of 'knowing', right?

What if something went beyond all these ways of knowing, yet we still somehow knew it?

We knew it without actually knowing it maybe? but this was a much bigger deal than just 'feeling it' too, because somehow, 'feeling it' went beyond all ways possible to even feel something.

Well, I know this is true and this also goes way beyond believing in it too, in that for a 'belief' to occur, the believer and the object/predicate 'believed in' must be separate and distinct (dvaita).

To a rational mind, this would make no sense and I agree it is totally irrational, illogical, non-existent etc and no wonder Atheists don't believe there's such a thing....but then, there's that word again...'believe'.

Is it just my say vs your say in the end? yup, it is, because one can never know God through the mind/brain/senses and one can never 'feel' God either, in the way that any feeling would be describable so as to be understood by another.

The only advice I can give is 'look within your Heart, look within after dropping your thinking/rational mind.'

 

[Wolke]

GreetingsThe only advice I can give is 'look within your Heart, look within after dropping your thinking/rational mind.'

Above the rational mind is the Intellect, which is an infallible means of knowledge, because it is a direct vision of truth itself. Reason and emotion rely on the intermediaries of logic and feeling respectively, while the Intellect knows God by an act of direct perception. The Intellect can use rationality and emotion as supports for its actualisation, but it is higher than both. So instead of "dropping" the rational mind, I think it is better to rise above it.

 

[illykitty]

How do you view God?

Both energy that transcends all, pan(en)theism, and also some other things I worship, which I deem to be sacred to me. I call the former described divinity or origin or the source. I don't like using the word god anymore, there's too much assumptions and baggage.

Is there any evidence for God? Scientific, anecdotal, philosophical or otherwise?

I'd imagine there's anecdotal and philosophical ideas that may support it, but it doesn't matter to me. I'm not looking to prove my idea of the divine. I haven't looked much into outside evidence.

I think that the possibility of God is great, considering how organized and precise the universe is; but I wouldn't go so far as to say that I believe in God.

I feel the existence of greater energy. Nature and living beings are intertwined. These things are enough, for myself, to believe in something greater, regardless of the term used to describe these. I don't however pretend to have The Truth.

But even if I'm wrong and there is no divinity, there is energy, the universe and nature and these things are, to me, worthy of worship/reverence. They are powerful and amazing forces. They put most people in awe... Just look at a sky at night.

 

[Tiberius]

You have missed the point entirely. The point is: there are some things that can be known without first conducting a scientific experiment.

I can't wait to see.

These include the existence of other minds,

Brain activity can be measured. You haven't shown that the mind is anything more than the interactions between brain cells.

the laws of logic,

Which are expressible mathematically.

and God.

You haven't shown God exists. Besides, lots of people "know" that many different gods exist. They can't all be right, can they? Therefore, some of these people who "know" God exists are wrong.

This isn't to say that these things don't prove themselves in other ways; it's to say that for some things there are other forms of proof than that of experimental science (which itself only pertains to phenomena operating on the horizontal plane of causation). If your brain can't grasp this simple point, then this entire discussion is futile.

You have yet to show that these "horizontal" and "vertical" planes of causation are real. You've just claimed they are and made more unsupported claims to attempt to prove it.

It does not differ from person to person, but shows remarkable unanimity across cultures, only the symbols used to describe it are different; but that is irrelevant, because it is a self-experiment. You "verify" God by having the experience, not by interpreting reports of other people's experiences.

Ah, yes. A desperate attempt to argument from personal experience up to the level of actual evidence.

I am sorry for the long sentences. I am used to having discussions with people who can grasp in their mind more than one or two ideas at a time, hence longer sentences. But I have noticed that the English sentence has been steadily shrinking over the last hundred years (at roughly the same rate at which the average intelligence has been in decline), so I will try to get with the times.

It's not sentence length. It's clarity.

If you like to tell yourself that whenever you don't understand something, the fault must lie in the message and not in your understanding, then so be it. Perhaps it is not for you to know at this time in your life.

Just because I don't agree with you doesn't mean I don't understand. Seriously, what's up with this? I've seen it countless times. Whenever I don't agree with someone, they instantly think that the only answer can be that I just don't understand, because of course, they must be correct!

The proof is already latent in your mind.

Wow, that's a convincing argument.

This is the third time you have dismissed an argument on the grounds that you don't understand the language. It must be convenient to respond only to isolated fragments of my post, while ignoring all my arguments.

No, I am dismissing it on the grounds that the terminology you are using is designed to sound impressive but is ultimately meaningless.

That is not what was said. You are being insincere.

What you said was, "there is no reason why eternal principles which operate on the vertical plane of causation should be required to "prove" their validity by way of phenomena operating on the horizontal dimension." Are you not here saying that the stuff you are claiming is real is not required to prove itself in any objective way?

Again you are confusing horizontal causes with vertical causes.

And you have yet to show that any of this stuff about vertical causes even exists in reality.

Do you know what prayer is?

Given that I've heard different definitions of prayer from lots of different people, I;d say that not even religious people know what prayer is. Some people treat it as a way of asking God for something - "Dear God, please let my team win." - In which case it is a vending machine (which delivers no more often than random chance. Other people use it as a way of expressing their thoughts - "Dear God, I'm so frustrated at the way Joe's been acting lately." - In which case it's just using your imaginary friend as a psychotherapist.

Again you missed the point entirely. Part of the difficulty here is that you and I belong to two very different psychological types. I think in symbols and abstractions, while you have a very literal, concrete and autistic perspective on things - people of your psychological type who happen to be religious tend to be dogmatic literalists. But I will try to spell it out for you. For the butterfly to forget itself, the dreamer had to remember he was dreaming, and vice versa. In other words, the subjective and objective revelation or two aspects of the same process.

Well, since you freely admit that your ideas are based on abstractions and mine are based on observable reality, which of us is likely to be closer to reality?

 

[NobodyYouKnow]

You haven't shown God exists. Besides, lots of people "know" that many different gods exist. They can't all be right, can they? Therefore, some of these people who "know" God exists are wrong.

I like to think of it this way...God is just so freaking massive, that all most will ever get in this lifetime is just a glimpse of only part of It...but which part? That is the question.

In India, there's a story...an anecdote, if you will...

Blind men and an elephant - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is how I see it.

Above the rational mind is the Intellect, which is an infallible means of knowledge, because it is a direct vision of truth itself. Reason and emotion rely on the intermediaries of logic and feeling respectively, while the Intellect knows God by an act of direct perception. The Intellect can use rationality and emotion as supports for its actualisation, but it is higher than both. So instead of "dropping" the rational mind, I think it is better to rise above it.

Too true. Any kind of 'transcendence' will suffice though.

 

[Thana]

I like to think of it this way...God is just so freaking massive, that all most will ever get in this lifetime is just a glimpse of only part of It...but which part? That is the question.

That's actually a really beautiful way to see it,
Thanks for sharing it.. I'm enlightened

 

[Enai de a lukal]

You have missed the point entirely. The point is: there are some things that can be known without first conducting a scientific experiment. These include the existence of other minds, the laws of logic, and God.

You couldn't have found 3 less similar cases. One can know the laws of logic without a scientific experiment, because the laws of logic include no empirical content; they can be seen to be true a priori. The existence of other minds may not be able to be strictly known, but it is a practically valuable (indispensable, really) hypothesis. The existence of God, on the other hand... has nothing speaking for it; it is not logically true (like the laws of logic) and it is not a practically valuable hypothesis, and all the relevant evidence corroborates God's non-existence, if it speaks to the matter at all.

 

[NobodyYouKnow]

That's actually a really beautiful way to see it,
Thanks for sharing it.. I'm enlightened

The appreciation is all mine.
I'm just glad you got to experience it, in whatever way that relates to your own beliefs.

 

[Thief]

I can't wait to see.



Brain activity can be measured. You haven't shown that the mind is anything more than the interactions between brain cells.



Which are expressible mathematically.



You haven't shown God exists. Besides, lots of people "know" that many different gods exist. They can't all be right, can they? Therefore, some of these people who "know" God exists are wrong.



You have yet to show that these "horizontal" and "vertical" planes of causation are real. You've just claimed they are and made more unsupported claims to attempt to prove it.



Ah, yes. A desperate attempt to argument from personal experience up to the level of actual evidence.



It's not sentence length. It's clarity.



Just because I don't agree with you doesn't mean I don't understand. Seriously, what's up with this? I've seen it countless times. Whenever I don't agree with someone, they instantly think that the only answer can be that I just don't understand, because of course, they must be correct!



Wow, that's a convincing argument.



No, I am dismissing it on the grounds that the terminology you are using is designed to sound impressive but is ultimately meaningless.



What you said was, "there is no reason why eternal principles which operate on the vertical plane of causation should be required to "prove" their validity by way of phenomena operating on the horizontal dimension." Are you not here saying that the stuff you are claiming is real is not required to prove itself in any objective way?



And you have yet to show that any of this stuff about vertical causes even exists in reality.



Given that I've heard different definitions of prayer from lots of different people, I;d say that not even religious people know what prayer is. Some people treat it as a way of asking God for something - "Dear God, please let my team win." - In which case it is a vending machine (which delivers no more often than random chance. Other people use it as a way of expressing their thoughts - "Dear God, I'm so frustrated at the way Joe's been acting lately." - In which case it's just using your imaginary friend as a psychotherapist.



Well, since you freely admit that your ideas are based on abstractions and mine are based on observable reality, which of us is likely to be closer to reality?

You really did miss the point.
and your sense of reality goes as far as you can reach.