Is there solid, verifiable proof that there is a god?

[logician]

The problem is there is no need for a panthesitic, or any other god for that matter, as matter and energy have always existed according to the latest theories of cosmology. No creative force is thus needed, and unless you need a "tinkerer" god that fiddles with things, god concepts are really superfluous to the workings of the multiverse.

 

[slave2six]

Unless the the big bang was god being fragmented.
or
The universe is just one of gods many dreams.

Like Mark Twain's "No. 4 - The Mysterious Stranger"? I really liked that book... even when I was a Christian.

 

[slave2six]

The problem is there is no need for a panthesitic, or any other god for that matter, as matter and energy have always existed according to the latest theories of cosmology. No creative force is thus needed, and unless you need a "tinkerer" god that fiddles with things, god concepts are really superfluous to the workings of the multiverse.

Dude, I love your avatar. It goes perfectly with your username. Cracks me up every time.

 

[Riverwolf]

Man, there are some really smart people in here. What an great thread.

I have a question though about your above remarks; "he's so close to the universe he must surely permeate it utterly or actually be the universe."

The latter seems somewhat confining to me so it's hard for me to grasp that god is the universe unless you imply that god is also created. If he is the creator if the universe, it seems like this statement would be like saying that I am this sweater that I made or that the sweater is me. I don't understand how something created can also be a part of the creator. Isn't that like intentionally growing a sixth finger?

As to "permeating it utterly" are you saying that the universe is merely a part of god in the same way that neurons are part of a person? Again, I am struggling with this idea of a creator and the thing that it creates being a part of the creator itself. Surely the act of creating occurs outside of the creator. And if the universe is god, who created god?

Great points.

As far as I know (and certainly for me), the idea of God being the Universe comes with the idea that God is not Created, but Eternal. Let's not forget that the Singularity that eventually exploded in the Big Bang contained the entire Universe. It is Eternal, yet constantly changing forms. Such is the way of all things.

 

[Apion]

Autonomous1one1,

Thank you for your clarification. Thumbs up on the Plotinus, he was a fascinating character. Language is also certainly a cumbersome avenue for communicating abstract ideas. Looking back at my previous posts, I was giving the impression of denying the possibility of the mystic experience of Oneness. I don't deny or accept the claim as I can see how it is possible in theory and testimonials of others past and present. However, I suggest we are both working from different ontological and pragmatic positions; I do not see the dual state as a problem to be transcended--rather as a useful tool to be used and enjoyed, while you take an approach along the lines of "duality=bad/limited/to be escaped from." Niether is "right" or "wrong" though, just a different goal in mind.

I maintain that consciousness is not an inherent quality, but a process requiring interaction with the environment as feedback (I wish to point you to Alva Noe's presentation as one example). To be conscious is to be conscious of something. The (S)ubject without experience is outside the domain of conscious awareness. I take the perspective that experience is desirable to maintain and extend.

Great thought-provoking discussion.

 

[blackout]

Quote:
Originally Posted by UltraViolet
grande Open design

grand Open design? (or is grande deliberate, and we are talking about coffee sizes here?) And why is it capitalised in this manner, with an obvious emphasis on open?

Ok rojse, just for you.

Here is a post I wrote in another forum
under a thread discussing 'the Circle'.

I just ran across it, and thought it might answer your question.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

gOd

the grand design Open in the "center"
for you to enter>> dive in/to.

Kinda like finding (your) center,
and jumping in/to the portal
that empowers you,
as co-creator in/of your REALity
with/in the Grand Design...
that is the Living Sentient UniVerse.

The One >>The Mystical All.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

The only reason I even pursue this is that I know you are capable of being intellectually honest, and usually are.

A video was presented to "prove" the existence of one of the --trons.
then a picture of of god was asked for.
Two pictures of god were presented.

To drive the point home a few other relevant pictures were presented.
So using the same logic AS PRESENTED (but NOT properly explained), that post just "proved" that fairies, werewolves, vampires, sasquatch, and unicorns exist.
How?
Because pictures of them have been presented.

Now instead of going down this particular boo hoo road, how about you properly present your argument?

Guess I was wrong.

 

[rojse]

Guess I was wrong.

Mestemia answered your question as it was literally asked.

Now, how about asking the question you would have asked had you anticipated the response it originally drew?

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Mestemia answered your question as it was literally asked.

Now, how about asking the question you would have asked had you anticipated the response it originally drew?

a) Because I have no interest in intellectual hand-holding.

b) I've already explained the error with his answer to the question.

 

[Erebus]

Man, there are some really smart people in here. What an great thread.

I have a question though about your above remarks; "he's so close to the universe he must surely permeate it utterly or actually be the universe."

The latter seems somewhat confining to me so it's hard for me to grasp that god is the universe unless you imply that god is also created. If he is the creator if the universe, it seems like this statement would be like saying that I am this sweater that I made or that the sweater is me. I don't understand how something created can also be a part of the creator. Isn't that like intentionally growing a sixth finger?

As to "permeating it utterly" are you saying that the universe is merely a part of god in the same way that neurons are part of a person? Again, I am struggling with this idea of a creator and the thing that it creates being a part of the creator itself. Surely the act of creating occurs outside of the creator. And if the universe is god, who created god?

Some very good questions, I'll do my best to answer them.

This image of God is somewhat confining simply because it's my own personal view of what "God" would be and to this extent it will naturally not include certain other images of god. Like many atheists I have trouble accepting the notion of an anthropomorphic, sentient god without proof of it's existence and so I take the basic principles used to describe a "supreme" being and looked for something that they can be applied to and proved to exist... hence my notion that "god" is an apt description of the universe as a whole.

As for the creation of the universe and therefore the creation of God, I tend to agree with the big bang theory as it seems to be one of the more sensible theories. Now I don't know if this means that God (as I describe it) existed prior to the big bang as the space that the "big bang ball" expanded into or whether the big bang literally started space and time, thus causing god to have essentially created himself via the natural process of existence as we know it "starting".

I consider this God to be a creator in the sense that all life begins within the universe and thus begins within god. I reject the notion that a separate entity called god created the universe as we know it as this notion would suggest that god and the universe are not one and the same, thereby negating a pantheistic view.

The panentheistic view that God permeates everything without literally being everything is one that I posed hypothetically, it tends to describe God as being a "life force" or natural energy. This isn't saying that the universe is part of God, more that God is a part of the universe. The idea of atoms composing a human is more pantheistic when used to describe God, this argument would usually suggest that everything within the universe "forms" god in the same way that cells and atoms form an animal.

It's a difficult concept to grasp at first and the creation of the universe is something that I can only theorise (I'm inclined to accept scientific theories for this). Some of the key points to remember are that if God literally is the universe then he's also literally everything that happens within it, space, time, everything and so it's entirely possible that God is eternal if the universe itself has always existed and always will exist. If the universe is finite however, then God too would be finite.

 

[Erebus]

The problem is there is no need for a panthesitic, or any other god for that matter, as matter and energy have always existed according to the latest theories of cosmology. No creative force is thus needed, and unless you need a "tinkerer" god that fiddles with things, god concepts are really superfluous to the workings of the multiverse.

This is a very common criticism of pantheistic beliefs and it is also entirely justified. Many people tell me I'm simply an atheistic hippy when they hear about my beliefs, which is fair enough really. There is a reason I take a pantheistic viewpoint rather than an atheistic viewpoint. The concept of God as an anthropomorphic figure was never particularly comfortable for me and neither was the concept that God didn't exist and so I looked for something else. The most obvious choice was nature, nature doesn't condemn and judge in the way an anthropomorphic god does, but it's still powerful, ancient and all encompassing as a god should be. It was a small step to say that nature (which in my opinion encompasses all of existence) may as well be my god.

I don't worship nature and I don't pray to it, but the idea of having something to call my God provides me with some comfort. In my mind it doesn't matter whether you have an anthropomorphic god, an abstract god, or no god at all, so long as your beliefs benefit you and make your life more enjoyable. It's all down to personal preference.

 

[Willamena]

The problem is there is no need for a panthesitic, or any other god for that matter, as matter and energy have always existed according to the latest theories of cosmology. No creative force is thus needed, and unless you need a "tinkerer" god that fiddles with things, god concepts are really superfluous to the workings of the multiverse.

That doesn't cut it, for a time that exists now.

 

[Mr Cheese]

The problem is there is no need for a panthesitic, or any other god for that matter, as matter and energy have always existed according to the latest theories of cosmology. No creative force is thus needed, and unless you need a "tinkerer" god that fiddles with things, god concepts are really superfluous to the workings of the multiverse.

Well, sad to say....not al of us "believers"

beieve in a cosmic puppet master.

For me, this is a gross over simplification, akin to saying all pants have buttons.

 

[slave2six]

Some very good questions, I'll do my best to answer them...

Thanks for taking the time to explain this. Certainly interesting ideas. I appreciate it.

 

[Erebus]

Thanks for taking the time to explain this. Certainly interesting ideas. I appreciate it.

Anytime

 

[autonomous1one1]

Autonomous1one1,

Thank you for your clarification. Thumbs up on the Plotinus, he was a fascinating character. Language is also certainly a cumbersome avenue for communicating abstract ideas. Looking back at my previous posts, I was giving the impression of denying the possibility of the mystic experience of Oneness. I don't deny or accept the claim as I can see how it is possible in theory and testimonials of others past and present. However, I suggest we are both working from different ontological and pragmatic positions; I do not see the dual state as a problem to be transcended--rather as a useful tool to be used and enjoyed, while you take an approach along the lines of "duality=bad/limited/to be escaped from." Niether is "right" or "wrong" though, just a different goal in mind.

I maintain that consciousness is not an inherent quality, but a process requiring interaction with the environment as feedback (I wish to point you to Alva Noe's presentation as one example). To be conscious is to be conscious of something. The (S)ubject without experience is outside the domain of conscious awareness. I take the perspective that experience is desirable to maintain and extend.

Great thought-provoking discussion.

Greetings Apion. Thank you for your followup comments. One did get a slightly wrong impression from your previous posts and it is nice that you took the trouble to update us. It seems that my posts, too, have left an incorrect message. Probably, in zest to offer the nondual perspective the 'dual' was under stressed. A perspective of duality is good and necessary. We all have it and it serves us well although this view is within the finite and has fear, transient happiness, birth and death, and suffering. My point was that one can transcend (but still use it) this finite view into the nondual perspective with realization of oneness with God and also, realization of eternal life, an underlying joy throughout, no fear, and a love solution through oneness with all (which were not mentioned). One who has realized union with God can speak from either perspective as Jesus did (some of us believe).

Thank you for sharing your views on consciousness and the link to Alva Noe's presentation. It was interesting and the whole 53 minutes offered no uninteresting periods. He, of course, was addressing 'perception consciousness' in his own terms which would seem to fit nicely with your view. His proposal that consciousness and 'we' are not to be defined by the brain only and totally within the skin resonates. Please note that my previous posts were not meant to indicate much about what consciousness actually is, or what God actually is for that matter, and one wishes that no impressions of 'quality' or 'process' were given.

Best Wishes,
a.1

 

[Chookna]

Regardless of whatever "evidence" there may be, you could deny it all day long.

There is an enourmous amount of geographical, archeological and historical evidence to prove many stories of the Bible, the discovery of Sodom and gomorrah are one example, check it out.

 

[Riverwolf]

There is an enourmous amount of geographical, archeological and historical evidence to prove many stories of the Bible, the discovery of Sodom and gomorrah are one example, check it out.

But doesn't the Bible say that they were COMPLETELY destroyed?

How could they have been rediscovered if they were destroyed like they were in the Bible?

 

[Anti-thesisofreason]

There is an enourmous amount of geographical, archeological and historical evidence to prove many stories of the Bible, the discovery of Sodom and gomorrah are one example, check it out.

I would rephrase that to read, there is some archealogical and historical evidence to prove that some or many of the places in the Bible existed at one time.

 

[slave2six]

But doesn't the Bible say that they were COMPLETELY destroyed?

How could they have been rediscovered if they were destroyed like they were in the Bible?

Good point.