What I meant by that was more along the line of "we as humans seem to need to think there is a god". We know we exist at some level, but I have no way of knowing that god exists at any level in my experience. God is man's creation is my personal opinion. I know many that don't agree with that, and that's okay.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Mickiel's proof of God.
- Thread starter mickiel
- Start date
- Status
I know this is off topic and I apologize, but what you just posted reminded me of something. There was a bus driver somewhere in Africa that was transporting people from a mental insitution. He left the bus to go do something and they all escaped and so he was scared he'd lose his job when he found them all gone. So he went to the next bus stop and told all the people they could ride for free. He then took them to the insitution and told the doctors and nurses that his particular bunch was very delusional with many wild fantasies. It took them 3 days to sort it out and find out what happened. Don't know if it's true, but if it is, that would be someone's nightmare!!
PureX
Veteran Member
Yes, but "man" is also man's creation. That's the point I am trying to make. In this way "God" and "mankind" is the same. We exist only as an idea. Dismiss these ideas, and all you have left is a monkey with no imagination. And monkeys don't need gods or self identities. But then they don't need art, or love, or justice, either.
I think we have to take ourselves as the whole package, or not at all. And that package includes "God".
MSizer
MSizer
I am a monkey, yet monkeys don't ask whether god exists?
No I'm not a monkey, I'm an ape, species homo sapien to be more granular. And thanks to descart's evil deceptional demon filter (who tricks us into thinking that everything is not really what it is), I know that I exist by my capacity to think, even if my perception of myself is not in any way like my true self.
Thief
Rogue Theologian
Okay, so maybe the Genesis Narrative won't fly here.
On a more personal level......
I've been blind seven days.(accident)
I know what it's like to have my limbs numb and unresponsive. (accident)
I've been rendered unconscious, and upon waking was unable to feel pain, for about an hour. (accident)
It is possible to be partially aware.
Losing one's physical senses, is one form of unconsciousness. You cannot be aware of your physical existence when your input has been reduced, or completely removed.
Death will take me there again....altogether.
However, I do expect to survive my death. The physical experiences noted, did not destroy the person I am.
Loss of the physical senses does not destroy the person.
What remains to be seen is whether or not, I remain the person I am beyond the total loss of the body.
Unfortunately, unlike some prophets gone before me, I don't think I will return to the body and bear testimony of life after death.
So there will be no personal affirmation of such.
Of course the lack of testimony does not lead to denial.
I regained my eyes and my hands. I still feel pain. I still bleed.
When dead, none of this will continue.
But I will.
On a more personal level......
I've been blind seven days.(accident)
I know what it's like to have my limbs numb and unresponsive. (accident)
I've been rendered unconscious, and upon waking was unable to feel pain, for about an hour. (accident)
It is possible to be partially aware.
Losing one's physical senses, is one form of unconsciousness. You cannot be aware of your physical existence when your input has been reduced, or completely removed.
Death will take me there again....altogether.
However, I do expect to survive my death. The physical experiences noted, did not destroy the person I am.
Loss of the physical senses does not destroy the person.
What remains to be seen is whether or not, I remain the person I am beyond the total loss of the body.
Unfortunately, unlike some prophets gone before me, I don't think I will return to the body and bear testimony of life after death.
So there will be no personal affirmation of such.
Of course the lack of testimony does not lead to denial.
I regained my eyes and my hands. I still feel pain. I still bleed.
When dead, none of this will continue.
But I will.
I don't think man and god are the same in my eyes. I have physically seen man and have never physically seen god. Yes we all have a different idea of what each man is based on our experience, but I don't see how god and man existing as "ideas" are quite on the same level. Yes there is imagination and we humans are good at it. But I don't have to imagine that I have seen a physical person but I do have to imagine if I want to conceive that there is a god. That is the difference for me.
PureX
Veteran Member
There is the monkey, and there is the monkey's collective conscious imagination. Questions about "true selves" belong to the collective imagination. So do the questions about "God". That's why I don't believe that offering up the monkey's physical body as evidence against "God", stands. God doesn't belong to the physical realm. God belongs to the realm of conscious collective imagination, where all the ideas reside. Including even the monkey's idea of self.
Even if that were true, it would not prove the existence of deity. The mere fact something is unknown does not necessarily imply deity.
MSizer
MSizer
If we can't trust our concious perceptions about monkeys, we shouldn't trust our perceptions about god either. In fact, we shouldn't trust our thoughts in any way for that matter. By that logic, I should run right off the next bridge I see, as my thoughts tell me that would be dangerous, but apparently I can't trust them. No?
PureX
Veteran Member
Once you understand that these are all human ideas, you can understand that you've been seeing God all your life. Everytime you witnessed love, art, kindness and justice, you saw "God". "God" is just the name we give to those aspects of life that transcend living: that create and sustain life. Some people even give "God" a personality, to make it easier for them to conceptualize. Whatever. It's just different experiences by different people with different ideas.
If you want "God", God is there. If you don't, God will remain "invisible" to you. It's up to you. There is no sin or shame of condemnation, regardless.
PureX
Veteran Member
We do the best we can with what little wisdom we have. And we have to trust that that will be good enough. Living ends up being an act of faith.
mickiel
Well-Known Member
It is true, study any science journal on the topic. Something unknown can imply deity, not necsssarily , but deity can be implied. I have implied it. I only view the unknown as comming from a definte source. Consciousness has no place in the body, it is not solid or gasses, and it cannot be seen or felt. How any thought can exclude a deity from that is beyond me.
Peace.
So basically god is all the things that I have labelled "good" in my life? But I have heard people say that God is everything. That would also mean that god is cruelty, poverty, crime, jealousy, and all the other characteristics we humans have labelled as "bad". If I understand you correctly then, god is just another name for life?
Tiberius
Well-Known Member
Oh, bloody hell, not this again.
Is this objective proof? If so, then show us the hard evidence. Explain to us how the desire to be loved can only exist if there is a god.
Is this just subjective "proof"? Then tell us that it is just your opinion and be done with it.
Last edited:
PureX
Veteran Member
Well, my definition would be not just "good", or "life", but "transcendent". Those aspects of life that transcend living. Love, art, heroism, and like that.
I think I understand what you are calling god. I just don't see those things to be god I guess. This is a question that has puzzled me for a long time. Everyone who believes in god says god is love. How do we know that? How do we even know love is the important thing? Why do people just naturally equate god with love? No one can ever answer that question for me. I agree that love is a wonderful state to be in for the most part, but that doesn't mean there is an all loving god. I think we hope there is a being that transcends everything physical for obvious reasons, but wishing doesn't mean it's true. That is why, for me, there is no god. At least not one like the Judeo-Christian one.
Humanistheart
Well-Known Member
Even the title of this thread is false. For there to be another proof of god there'd have to be at least one other. Who comes up with this bull?
Amill
Apikoros
Yet what we do to our BODY alters our consciousness...lol. It is most definitely a manifestation of the brain, because we can do certain things to block neurotransmitters, and cause consciousness to cease while someone is having surgery.
And another thing, I don't think my consciousness would be that different from other intelligent organisms if I didn't know language. What would consciousness consist of then? Sure we'd have maybe more complex emotions, better intelligence and certainly better problem solving skills than other mammals and apes, but other than that, what would the difference be?
Last edited:
Thief
Rogue Theologian
Let me throw the word proximity into this discussion.
It may not be possible to accurately locate your consciousness in the confines of your body.....but it's in there somewhere.
You can be in only one place at a time. You are contained in your flesh, and regardless of stress, strife, and difficulty.....you are stuck in your personal parcel of meat.
It may not be possible to accurately locate your consciousness in the confines of your body.....but it's in there somewhere.
You can be in only one place at a time. You are contained in your flesh, and regardless of stress, strife, and difficulty.....you are stuck in your personal parcel of meat.
ManTimeForgot
Temporally Challenged
While I appreciate the value of arguments from absurdity, and I would tend to agree that the posited idea you are parodying is of unsound structure that there is a related argument that is much harder to undermine.
Consider:
1) If something is bounded, then it is imperfect. (premise)
2) All things are imperfect. (follows from 1)
3) All imperfect things are subject to exception. (premise)
4) Step 3 is imperfect because according to step 2 all things are imperfect. Therefore step 3 has an exception...
This actually leads to a contradiction of sorts; how can something be both bounded, but also without exception? I don't actually use this or related arguments any more since the use of a null set does not properly allow for positive attribution in the absence of an "excluded middle." But in order to posit an "excluded middle" we would have to examine everything...
MTF
Consider:
1) If something is bounded, then it is imperfect. (premise)
2) All things are imperfect. (follows from 1)
3) All imperfect things are subject to exception. (premise)
4) Step 3 is imperfect because according to step 2 all things are imperfect. Therefore step 3 has an exception...
This actually leads to a contradiction of sorts; how can something be both bounded, but also without exception? I don't actually use this or related arguments any more since the use of a null set does not properly allow for positive attribution in the absence of an "excluded middle." But in order to posit an "excluded middle" we would have to examine everything...
MTF
- Status