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

[Jeremiah]

Nonsense.

Perhaps you should ask for an explanation instead of being rude.

 

[Sunstone]

It is not. Perhaps you should ask for an explanation instead of being rude.

Your statement, as made, is simple nonsense. If you meant there's a possibility mystical experiences are delusions, then that's one thing. But that's not what you said.

 

[rojse]

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?

 

[Jeremiah]

If you meant there's a possibility mystical experiences are delusions, then that's one thing. But that's not what you said.

" But that's not what you said."

Go look at the post again. Do you understand what the word "entertain", in that context, means? I think you just read a little too fast.

Edit* I adjusted for your ninja edit.

 

[Sunstone]

" But that's not what you said."

Go look at the post again. Do you understand what the word "entertain", in that context, means? I think you just read a little to fast.

OK. I stand corrected.

 

[blackout]

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?

Yer just FULL O QUESTIONS aren't ya. :cover:

I'll answer later when I can go a bit more in depth.
If I don't, Obviously, yer just gunna be back with more questions.

 

[autonomous1one1]

.....But...how can you "be" something and "experience" it at the same time? Who is experiencing the Universe? The Universe is both the observer and the observed? Can a hammer hit itself? The law of identity comes into play here. That sentence is logically incorrect.

Greetings Apion. You raise an excellent question which is at the heart of difficulty in explaining THE mystic experience. THE mystic experience is not 'something' experiencing 'something else;' that implies two 'things.' Rather, it is the realization that there is One and that there always was One, just not known as such. It is being that thought itself to be only finite realizing identity with the Source of all being and that the being is not what it thought it was before that realization.

Many try to explain THE mystic experience to others in a way that a dualistic mind can grasp a 'glimpse' of what it means. Some say - that sought is realized to be identical with that seeking, subject (human) and object (God) merge to one, the True-Self is realized, there is union with God (Consciousness-itself, the Ground of Being, the Source) in direct awareness, rising to the awareness of oneness with god, attained the direct realization of absolute Unity, etc. In attempting to conceptualize This 'experience' for others we error into the use of dualistic sentences. Perhaps a more beneficial statement would come from the perspective 'above' - God realizes God through h/she/it's form of human consciousness. The Mystic Experience defines a new sense of Self and a new perspective.

Best wishes,
a..1

 

[Apion]

Hello autonomous,

The One in your example has been around way before "you" (your personality/mind/ego/memories) ever existed. That means you are unimportant, Oneness never needed you. It is already there, and unconscious. Here's a shortcut that accomplishes the same thing: A gun to the temple and pulling the trigger. The mystic experience can be experienced through brain death, sensory deprivation (see John Lilly's The Deep Self), magnetic resonance (see Michael Persinger's research in this area), and street drugs. It is disabling the part of the brain that maintains identity boundaries that help you make the distinction between your sense of self and the environment. The mystic goal is suicidal in this light.

When you take away the Self, there is nothing doing the experiencing. When you take away experience, there is no feedback or mirror for the Self to maintain awareness. Consciousness is a process that works from this irreducible process of self and other or you get the opposite: unconsciousness. Sensory feedback is also required for conscious awareness.

Oneness, union with the cosmos, ceasing to exist, death. These are interchangeable in their meaning.

I hope I clarified my point of view somewhat.

 

[Riverwolf]

Hello autonomous,

The One in your example has been around way before "you" (your personality/mind/ego/memories) ever existed. That means you are unimportant, Oneness never needed you. It is already there, and unconscious. Here's a shortcut that accomplishes the same thing: A gun to the temple and pulling the trigger. The mystic experience can be experienced through brain death, sensory deprivation (see John Lilly's The Deep Self), magnetic resonance (see Michael Persinger's research in this area), and street drugs. It is disabling the part of the brain that maintains identity boundaries that help you make the distinction between your sense of self and the environment. The mystic goal is suicidal in this light.

When you take away the Self, there is nothing doing the experiencing. When you take away experience, there is no feedback or mirror for the Self to maintain awareness. Consciousness is a process that works from this irreducible process of self and other or you get the opposite: unconsciousness. Sensory feedback is also required for conscious awareness.

Oneness, union with the cosmos, ceasing to exist, death. These are interchangeable in their meaning.

I hope I clarified my point of view somewhat.

Indeed, many religions teach that oneness is not fully achieved until death. Which is why Vedanta, as well as others teach that certain conditions need to be met first, otherwise you will simply be reincarnated.

Not to mention, in my opinion, we are already one with the cosmos, without needing to die. It's just a matter of recognizing it.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Perhaps more exploration of your label of 'hallucination' for THE mystic experience is worthy. Although most 'mystics' would not care what one who has not had the experience labels the 'experience,' hallucination is not appropriate from my perspective. This is due to two reasons: A. hallucination has a negative connotation and B. THE mystic experience cannot necessarily be called a sensory perception.

First off, I'm not saying that mystical experiences are hallucinations, I'm just saying that this possibility shouldn't be simply excluded out-of-hand without reason to do so.

That being said,

A: Negative connotations don't determine whether something is true or false. If mystical experiences aren't based on real external stimuli, then they're hallucinations; if they're not, they're not. Any offense that anyone takes at this prospect is their own business.

B: It can't? Then what is it? And it might be helpful to point out that I'm using the term "perception" broadly to include not only the five senses but things like balance and proprioception.

MedicineNet medical dictionary online:
Hallucination: A profound distortion in a person's perception of reality, typically accompanied by a powerful sense of reality. An hallucination may be a sensory experience in which a person can see, hear, smell, taste, or feel something that is not there.

If mystical experiences aren't based on something external, then it seems to me that would be a good description of them.

When the average person sees the label 'hallucination' it is interpreted with all those negative associations. THE mystic experience should never be labeled an hallucination and when it is the individual so labeling is often trying to degrade THE experience to others by associating it with the negative insinuations.

It seems to me that your issue isn't so much with the term "hallucination" but the implication that mystical experiences aren't based in truth, but if this is really the case, then this implication would be there no matter which word you used.

And again, I haven't necessarily labelled mystical experiences as hallucination; all I'm saying is that we should allow the possibility that the term might be applicable until we have reason not to.

B. THE mystic experience is not a "sensory perception."

I didn't say it was.

Although it is impossible for one to explain it in a way that most others could understand it, one might say it is more like an immediate expansion and shift of awareness. Some say it is an awakening involving intuition. But no words are sufficient and these are just 'pointers.' It is often said that one must experience it to understand it.

But in all cases, something is perceived, correct? Otherwise, how would a person realize that they were having a mystical experience?

There is a perception involved in a mystical experience. If the perception is not reflective of reality, then it's a hallucination; if it is, then it's not a hallucination. I don't understand the difficulty here, unless it just comes from personal offense at the idea that I'm not automatically assuming that some experience you've had is definititely not hallucinatory. Is that it?

You see, as Riverwolf has noted, most individuals have a dual perspective on reality and look for God as an object; that is, an object within existence which implies a 'thing' along side all other things. On the other hand, in the case of THE mystic experience, nondual reality has broken through into the human consciousness and one has difficulty understanding this from a dualistic perspective. The very word 'exist' comes into question because of the perspective that most individuals have on it.

So... your issue is really a philosophical dispute about the definition of "existence", upon which depends the definition of "hallucination"?

 

[Mr Cheese]

One has to define what God is. I consider all things to be God. Thus, yes I have proof that God exists, I have nipples and feet. Thus God exists.

 

[autonomous1one1]

Hello autonomous,

The One in your example has been around way before "you" (your personality/mind/ego/memories) ever existed. That means you are unimportant, Oneness never needed you. It is already there, and unconscious. ....

Greetings Apion. Thank you for responding to earlier comments. From one perspective your comment is not in disharmony with 'THE mystic experience.' You see, in the mystic realization you are realized not to be the "you" (your personality/mind/ego/memories) but rather, the One.

....Here's a shortcut that accomplishes the same thing: A gun to the temple and pulling the trigger. The mystic experience can be experienced through brain death, sensory deprivation (see John Lilly's The Deep Self), magnetic resonance (see Michael Persinger's research in this area), and street drugs. It is disabling the part of the brain that maintains identity boundaries that help you make the distinction between your sense of self and the environment. The mystic goal is suicidal in this light....

One point seems to have been missed here, Apion. THE mystic experience is often said to involve an enhanced awareness, an expanded consciousness. That one descriptor eliminates the gun and the brain dead approaches - they don't work. As to the other approaches, they are outside experiences brought to my being and my path was totally different and involved none of those. Readings have indicated that some enlightened ones have tested somewhat and have indicated experiences derived by those means is not the same.

...When you take away the Self, there is nothing doing the experiencing. When you take away experience, there is no feedback or mirror for the Self to maintain awareness. Consciousness is a process that works from this irreducible process of self and other or you get the opposite: unconsciousness. Sensory feedback is also required for conscious awareness.

Your point here is not clear from my perspective because of the use of Self (capital S) and self (lower case s). Perhaps if you wish to clarify a response could be provided. It does seem an important point worthy of discussion.

Oneness, union with the cosmos, ceasing to exist, death. These are interchangeable in their meaning...

Yes, 'Oneness' is a term that is consistent with THE mystic experience. 'Union with the cosmos' might be too limiting in that most people interpret cosmos as the physical universe and THE mystic experience involves a dimension that transcends the physical universe - 'prior' to the conditions of finitude. Ceasing to exist and death, yes. Many say THE mystic experience involves death of the finite self and the self-oriented ego, and birth or rebirth of the True Self. But please make no mistake - THE mystic experience is for the living, not the dead, nor any life after death.

Best wishes, my friend.

 

[Mr Cheese]

something puzzling to ponder, if mystical experiences are "more" then consider this:

"I gained nothing at all from supreme enlightenment
It is for that very reason it is called supreme enlightenment"

--Buddha

This also begs the question do we need to prove God?

In fact, I would argue, if we could "prove God exists" there would be no God, for the act of "proof" would be an act of limiting the limitless. The height of absurdity...

In Kabbalah we have AIN or AIN Sof, which is a term meaning endless.... which can be experienced but not expressed.

 

[autonomous1one1]

Greetings Penguin. Thank you for sharing your excellent thoughts.

First off, I'm not saying that mystical experiences are hallucinations, I'm just saying that this possibility shouldn't be simply excluded out-of-hand without reason to do so.

Good. A Mystic would make the same assertion.

That being said,

A: Negative connotations don't determine whether something is true or false. If mystical experiences aren't based on real external stimuli, then they're hallucinations; if they're not, they're not. Any offense that anyone takes at this prospect is their own business.

No offense has been or ever will be taken. And one is offended that you would even imply that there has been offense. (haha, just kidding)

B: It can't? (Referring to 'THE mystic experience cannot necessarily be called a sensory perception.') Then what is it? And it might be helpful to point out that I'm using the term "perception" broadly to include not only the five senses but things like balance and proprioception.

Ahh, a very good question and one for which the answer is difficult to put into words into a dualistic world. It is often described as a direct awareness in consciousness. You might say that God realizes God within the human consciousness. Some address what it isn't. Your link to wikipedia indicates: "Unlike the six exteroceptive senses (sight, taste, smell, touch, hearing, and balance) by which we perceive the outside world, and interoceptive senses, by which we perceive the pain and movement of internal organs, proprioception is a third distinct sensory modality that provides feedback solely on the status of the body internally." THE mystic experience need not involve any of these.

If mystical experiences aren't based on something external, then it seems to me that (hallucination) would be a good description of them.

No, because of the way that most will interpret the term hallucination. Most will not interpret 'hallucination' in the limited since that you have defined it; they will interpret it in the negative senses that are given by the dictionaries. But, it does not seem worth debating so whatever you respond will be the final word.

It seems to me that your issue isn't so much with the term "hallucination" but the implication that mystical experiences aren't based in truth, but if this is really the case, then this implication would be there no matter which word you used.

Well, my intention was on specifically addressing the term hallucination applied to THE mystic experience which you didn't. If someone frames another question that implys THE mystical experience (my posts address only one specific mystical experience) isn't 'based in truth,' perhaps one could respond to it.

And again, I haven't necessarily labelled mystical experiences as hallucination; all I'm saying is that we should allow the possibility that the term might be applicable until we have reason not to.
.....
I didn't say it was.

From my view your assertions in this post are all reasonable and acceptable. My interpretation of your previous post was that you were implying that it was a hallucination - my bad (as my granddaughter says).

But in all cases, something is perceived, correct? Otherwise, how would a person realize that they were having a mystical experience?

There is a perception involved in a mystical experience. If the perception is not reflective of reality, then it's a hallucination; if it is, then it's not a hallucination. I don't understand the difficulty here, unless it just comes from personal offense at the idea that I'm not automatically assuming that some experience you've had is definititely not hallucinatory. Is that it?

Boy, this is difficult to address. You ask an excellent question from the perspective of 99% of the population and one does not expect that any answer in words will suffice. This is why many say that THE mystic experience must be before understood or known. Let the following be offered however. One would not say 'something is perceived' because some 'thing' is not involved and 'perception' as noted in the discussion above need not come into play. Also let it be offered again that there is no offense possible when your points are being received and addressed from a transpersonal perspective.

So... your issue is really a philosophical dispute about the definition of "existence", upon which depends the definition of "hallucination"?

Ha, one wishes that it was that simple. One usually does not use the word existence, nor say that 'God exists,' because the normal interpretation of 'exist' implies within the physical world - the world of manisfestation of form. According to the mystic, God is not a thing along side other things. Even the great Theologian-philosopher Dr. Paul Tillich wrote that one should not say that 'God exists;' one should say that 'God is.'

 

[Apion]

This is a fun theoretical discussion.

Greetings Apion. Thank you for responding to earlier comments. From one perspective your comment is not in disharmony with 'THE mystic experience.' You see, in the mystic realization you are realized not to be the "you" (your personality/mind/ego/memories) but rather, the One.

I am in perfect agreement with you.

One point seems to have been missed here, Apion. THE mystic experience is often said to involve an enhanced awareness, an expanded consciousness. That one descriptor eliminates the gun and the brain dead approaches - they don't work. As to the other approaches, they are outside experiences brought to my being and my path was totally different and involved none of those. Readings have indicated that some enlightened ones have tested somewhat and have indicated experiences derived by those means is not the same.

Self with a capitalization symbolizes the irreducible innermost Observer, the self with a lower-case denotes the personality and mind, the person or ego you identify with in daily life. In a mystic experience, there is still a duality of Observer and something observed (who's experiencing this mystic experience?). There isn't an escape to this; it's a common error in mystic thought. When you destroy the experience--the necessary "mirror" for the Self, the Self "sleeps" or remains unaware of its existence. Maintaining the object/subject duality is a necessary balance that doesn't go away if you wish to remain consciously aware.

You also speak of an enhanced awareness. Awareness of what? Who's aware of it?
Again, these enlightened ones are experiencing something. Who is aware of that experience? I argue mysticism is a logically flawed method that tries to destroy experience in search of the Self.

 

[autonomous1one1]

This is a fun theoretical discussion.
Quote:
Originally Posted by autonomous1one1
Greetings Apion. Thank you for responding to earlier comments. From one perspective your comment is not in disharmony with 'THE mystic experience.' You see, in the mystic realization you are realized not to be the "you" (your personality/mind/ego/memories) but rather, the One.

I am in perfect agreement with you.

Self with a capitalization symbolizes the irreducible innermost Observer, the self with a lower-case denotes the personality and mind, the person or ego you identify with in daily life. In a mystic experience, there is still a duality of Observer and something observed (who's experiencing this mystic experience?). There isn't an escape to this; it's a common error in mystic thought. When you destroy the experience--the necessary "mirror" for the Self, the Self "sleeps" or remains unaware of its existence. Maintaining the object/subject duality is a necessary balance that doesn't go away if you wish to remain consciously aware.

You also speak of an enhanced awareness. Awareness of what? Who's aware of it?
Again, these enlightened ones are experiencing something. Who is aware of that experience? I argue mysticism is a logically flawed method that tries to destroy experience in search of the Self.

Ahh, Apion! You tackle the heart of the issue! There is not two, but only One. There is not someone experiencing something else nor an observer and something else observed. There is not error in thought and flawed logic but only flawed explanation and understanding.

You wrote 'the object/subject duality is a necessary...'but that is the very point - subject and object merge to One. A reasonable account given by Plotinus puzzled me many years ago. One can read of his explanation in his Sixth Ennead IX on the last page. He writes, "....The man is changed, no longer himself nor self-belonging; he is merged with the Supreme, sunken into it, one with it: centre coincides with centre, for on this higher plane things that touch at all are one; only in separation is there duality; ....This is why the vision baffles telling; we cannot detach the Supreme to state it; if we have seen something thus detached we have failed of the Supreme which is to be known only as one with ourselves.....it was not a vision compassed but a unity apprehended."

Part of our problem comes from language and words that are dualistic in nature. Mystics try to explain it for those of a dualistic view. Take a look at our posts. My post had "... you are realized not to be the "you" (your personality/mind/ego/memories) but rather, the One." Many people cannot see through to the nondual whereby the One is doing the realization within its human form. Or look at your language - ".. if you wish to remain consciously aware." This is definitely dualistic.

This can be discussed from other 'angles' that may give additional 'pointers' for aiding understanding if you wish to pursue further. I would be delighted.

 

[logician]

One has to define what God is. I consider all things to be God. Thus, yes I have proof that God exists, I have nipples and feet. Thus God exists.

If god is defined as "everything", then this also includes everything that constitutes evil.

 

[Erebus]

If god is defined as "everything", then this also includes everything that constitutes evil.

You're quite right there, taking this approach suggests that god is the epitome of "evil" aswell as the epitomy of "good" and everything in between. The theory is however proveable to anybody who accepts that reality is real (there are those who don't of course, but they tend to get extra special medicine for it).
It makes sense really, if God is omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent then by those definitions he's so close to the universe he must surely permeate it utterly (panentheism) or actually be the universe (pantheism). Following this appproach anything that is known by any being in the universe is also known by God and anything that can be accomplished in the universe is also accomplished by God.
In my eyes pantheism is one of the few concepts of God that can actually be proven, however god can not be considered to be anthropomorphic, omnibenevolent or even sentient (not in a conventional sense anyway) if you take a pantheistic viewpoint.

 

[slave2six]

It makes sense really, if God is omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent...

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?

 

[Anti-thesisofreason]

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?

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