Probability of God's Existence.

[Tenzin Javid]

In this area of life in which we find ourselves, unless something can be seen, weighed, measured or felt, then it cannot be real. We accept that there is gravity. We accept that we cannot see gravity, and even if we choose not to believe in gravity, gravity will not punish us by releasing us and letting our bodies float up and out into the atmosphere. So we ask ourselves is there a big patriarchal God that sits in judgement of us? Some people act like God is there own personal attack dog that they can angrily set on non believers. This is my own personal opinion of what GOD is. I believe in the notion of 'Immanence'. We are all a part of God re experiencing itself through a myriad of life forms, both here, on other planets in a myriad of ways. A thought can't be measured. A brain wave can be viewed on a cat scan, but a linguistic thought cannot be hacked into. I think that the Gods that Hinduism relates to, were once here and were probably aliens fron another planet. Sent to Earth to help us on our way.

 

[paarsurrey]

Well interestingly a lot a of people are convinced reality we experience is subject subjective to the mind and the human mind is the objective determination of it.. In a sense yea it exists for many but it's virtual. A bit like a reality of a reality of reality on and on till they arrive at a reality that suits them. Silly but that mental phenomena is literally real.breathing takes a back seat to that.

Actually humans are not equipped with faculties to understand God as they could understand other created "things" by Him, they can only understand Him from His attributes amply exhibited in the Universe, or He Himself mercifully reveals to a person with His Converse, like Moses and or Muhammad. Please
Regards

 

[paarsurrey]

Probability of God's Existence

Since God's attributes are spherical, so more appropriately the proper word in English would be "Evident" needing no evidence. Evident has the spherical notion as "Hidden", nobody could find Him unless He Reveals Himself to a person.
The sphere or circle stands for 1 or ONENESS of GOD and the created ones have only virtual existence, hence they are zero or don't exist in reality.

Please
Regards

 

[Tenzin Javid]

We do not have the ability to understand or know God. It would be like using a bucket of water to receive radio waves. Like the Native Americans who looked out to sea and saw the Pilgrims arriving in sailing ships. They could not process what these ships were, because they had nothing to compare them to. This is God. Those who smugly say that they don't believe in God because you have to be either brainwashed or primitive to be a believer are racked in ignorance. I accept that there are things I cannot and will not ever be able to understand. I think there is a plan of sorts, but it is changeable and evolving and moves around our freewill.

 

[David T]

Actually humans are not equipped with faculties to understand God as they could understand other created "things" by Him, they can only understand Him from His attributes amply exhibited in the Universe, or He Himself mercifully reveals to a person with His Converse, like Moses and or Muhammad. Please
Regards

The obvious question becomes how do you know That?

 

[paarsurrey]

The obvious question becomes how do you know That?

The truthful religion mentions that reasonably.
Regards

 

[godnotgod]

We do not have the ability to understand or know God.

At least not with the rational mind. God can never be an object of knowledge or understanding. Authentic realization of the divine nature is the experience of divine union, in which there is no longer a subject/object split in consciousness.

 

[godnotgod]

From a Buddhistic POV with regards to a creator-god that relieves man of his metaphysical anxiety:

'The fundamental difference between Buddhism and other religions is that Buddhism has no God or gods before whom people bow down in return for peace of mind. The spirit enmeshed in the Buddha’s teachings refuses to offer a god in exchange for freedom from anxiety. Instead, freedom from anxiety can only be found at the point where the Self* settles naturally upon itself.'

from: 'From the Zen Kitchen to Enlightenment', by Dogen/Uchiyama

*Self: Universal Consciousness, not the ego-self called 'I'

 

[David T]

The truthful religion mentions that reasonably.
Regards

Better

 

[Sanmario]

Evie said: ↑

Something cannot come out if nothing. What existed in the beginning to which all else owes their existence

[Curious George says] Please prove that. But what does that have to do with the OP? Shouldn't this be in the OPs "first cause" thread, not here?


#49 from George
Yesterday at 8:18 AM​

Dear George, I think I have found what is the impasse from your part between you and me, namely, in effect you hold that nothing, absolutely, completely, totally and literally nothing is the origin of everything, and you want people to prove that that is not true, otherwise it is true for you.

From my part, there exists always something even in the status of things in which status of things the universe the one we live in had not begun yet.

That position of yours, namely, that literally nothing is the origin of everything, that is all purely in your mind, for outside and independent of your mind there exists always something, so that nothing, literally nothing has never ever been the default status of things in the totally of reality.

You see, George, when you hold that literally nothing is the origin of everything, then logically you should already stop talking and self-extinguish into nothingness.

On the other hand, that thought and position which is all in your mind, in effect you are using the word nothing, literally nothing as really not literally nothing but something; so it is all just a self-abuse of the original meaning of nothing, literally nothing.

That is what I have noticed about you since way back, that you have the awful habit of conjuring up unrealistic and totally impossible status of things, which therefore can only dwell in your mind, but outside your mind and independent of your mind, there is no status ever where nothing, literally nothing is the status and hence origin of reality.

What I want you to know is that there is the distinction between valid thoughts and invalid thoughts in our mind, what you have are invalid thoughts in your mind, all in your mind.

Valid thoughts have components which are coherent and consistent among themselves even just in our mind, while invalid thoughts like yours, that literally something is the origin of everything in existence, that kind of a thought in your mind, it is an invalid thought, because its components are not coherent and not consistent among themselves, already in your mind.

What you should do is imitate Bertrand Russell, when he finds any concept though valid to be the death of his position that there is no God, he will declare that for him the concept is illegitimate, in effect he will not factor it into his thinking.

See the debate between him and Copleston, in part one, on the cosmological argument, he declares toward the end that the concept of a cause of the word is illegitimate to himself, so Copleston tells him in that case it is impossible to talk with you about it, and Russell proposed that they go into another area of discourse on the issue God exists or not, and they went into next the proof of God from man's religious experience.

Transcript of the Russell/Copleston radio debate

[...]
C: It may be that the scientist doesn't hope to obtain more than probability, but in raising the question he assumes that the question of explanation has a meaning. ]

But your general point then, Lord Russell, is that it's illegitimate even to ask the question of the cause of the world?

R: Yes, that's my position.

C: Well, if it's a question that for you has no meaning, it's of course very difficult to discuss it, isn't it?

R: Yes, it is very difficult. What do you say -- shall we pass on to some other issue?

RELIGIOUS EXPERIENCE [...]​

[End of except from debate, Russell - Copleston]

 

[Sanmario]

The present thread is to my mind totally all in the mind of the author, and also thus in effect for amusement of idle minds who are into self-abuse of their minds, like the author.

It has no useful purpose outside of our mind, except if that be a purpose at all, confusing folks to the effect that they fail to distinguish between the objectival realm of reality outside our mind and independent of or mind, and the conceptival realm of thoughts even silly absurd thoughts in our mind.

 

[Sanmario]

There are things which almost cannot be proven to exist by means of words and concepts with us humans, because these things are already part and parcel of the default status of things in the totality of reality which is existence.

For examples: we exist, the universe where we exist in and move in and have a life in, it exists, and our mind exists - unless we have lost it and wherefore society will consign us to mental asylums to await our earthly demise.

As regards things which can be proven to exist by way of words and concepts, before anything else, there is the first and foremost ground of all discourses by way of words and concepts, namely: that the default status of things in the totality of reality is existence.

When instead you want to start with the default status of things in the totality of reality as nothingness literally, you have already extinguished yourself from the realm of existence, so logically you don't exist, not anymore as to be using words and concepts to what? prove that the default status of things in the totality of reality is literally nothingness, i.e. non-existence?

That is why it is inane and vacuous from the part of any human insisting that he wants another human to prove that literally nothingness is NOT the default status of things in the totality of reality.

How then are we humans ever certain when we cannot use words and concepts to prove that the default status of things in the totality of reality is existence? That you and I we exist, as we are talking in a forum?

Simple, by our conscious experience of direct and immediate reciprocally conducted between us of our talking to each other.

Now, when in a group of humans, one human is insisting that humans cannot be ever certain that they really exist, for they could be in a dream, or in a delusion, or in an illusion, this is the way to ascertain to him so that he can be and will be certain that he exists and we exist as we are talking together.

Here, like this:

1. We who are certain that we exist, we get a pair of scissors, even a small one.
2. I will volunteer to cut a small slit in one of the nostrils of the human not certain that he exists, as the rest of us grab him and hold his head steady so that he cannot move his head and not his body either.

3. When he does not resist at all as I proceed to cut a nick in his nose, then we are ascertained that he is not a human but a robot.

3. So he cannot be into any consciousness that he is in very clear and present danger of getting a cut in one of his nostrils, in particular because his inventor has not programmed him to resist humans who are grabbing his body and holding tight his head as to totally and fully immobilize him.

4, But when he resists and hollers loud with fear, shouting: "I exist, I exist, I was just trying to sound so smart, but actually acting idiotic."

5. There, that is the way to ascertain such an idiot that he exists.​

Wherefore: Beware of humans who want to play smart but are actually idiots, because they do not insight into their consciousness as to ascertain to themselves that they do interact with other conscious humans, that is how they are certain that everyone interacting iwth everyone else, they or we all exist.

 

[Jeremiahcp]

The present thread is to my mind totally all in the mind of the author, and also thus in effect for amusement of idle minds who are into self-abuse of their minds, like the author.

It has no useful purpose outside of our mind, except if that be a purpose at all, confusing folks to the effect that they fail to distinguish between the objectival realm of reality outside our mind and independent of or mind, and the conceptival realm of thoughts even silly absurd thoughts in our mind.

Actually what happened is you could not understand my OP, so you asked me if I believe in your God. When you found out I didn't you decided to disagree, but seeing how you do not understand the OP you fell back on your default (even though it does not apply here) solipsism.

 

[Jeremiahcp]

There are things which almost cannot be proven to exist by means of words and concepts with us humans, because these things are already part and parcel of the default status of things in the totality of reality which is existence.

For examples: we exist, the universe where we exist in and move in and have a life in, it exists, and our mind exists - unless we have lost it and wherefore society will consign us to mental asylums to await our earthly demise.

As regards things which can be proven to exist by way of words and concepts, before anything else, there is the first and foremost ground of all discourses by way of words and concepts, namely: that the default status of things in the totality of reality is existence.

When instead you want to start with the default status of things in the totality of reality as nothingness literally, you have already extinguished yourself from the realm of existence, so logically you don't exist, not anymore as to be using words and concepts to what? prove that the default status of things in the totality of reality is literally nothingness, i.e. non-existence?

That is why it is inane and vacuous from the part of any human insisting that he wants another human to prove that literally nothingness is NOT the default status of things in the totality of reality.

How then are we humans ever certain when we cannot use words and concepts to prove that the default status of things in the totality of reality is existence? That you and I we exist, as we are talking in a forum?

Simple, by our conscious experience of direct and immediate reciprocally conducted between us of our talking to each other.

Now, when in a group of humans, one human is insisting that humans cannot be ever certain that they really exist, for they could be in a dream, or in a delusion, or in an illusion, this is the way to ascertain to him so that he can be and will be certain that he exists and we exist as we are talking together.

Here, like this:

1. We who are certain that we exist, we get a pair of scissors, even a small one.
2. I will volunteer to cut a small slit in one of the nostrils of the human not certain that he exists, as the rest of us grab him and hold his head steady so that he cannot move his head and not his body either.

3. When he does not resist at all as I proceed to cut a nick in his nose, then we are ascertained that he is not a human but a robot.

3. So he cannot be into any consciousness that he is in very clear and present danger of getting a cut in one of his nostrils, in particular because his inventor has not programmed him to resist humans who are grabbing his body and holding tight his head as to totally and fully immobilize him.

4, But when he resists and hollers loud with fear, shouting: "I exist, I exist, I was just trying to sound so smart, but actually acting idiotic."

5. There, that is the way to ascertain such an idiot that he exists.​

Wherefore: Beware of humans who want to play smart but are actually idiots, because they do not insight into their consciousness as to ascertain to themselves that they do interact with other conscious humans, that is how they are certain that everyone interacting iwth everyone else, they or we all exist.

Please stop derailing my thread.

 

[Jeremiahcp]

Let's be clear here, this thread is not about if God does exist. The OP is not an argument in anyway for or against the existence of God.

 

[Curious George]

​

Dear George, I think I have found what is the impasse from your part between you and me, namely, in effect you hold that nothing, absolutely, completely, totally and literally nothing is the origin of everything, and you want people to prove that that is not true, otherwise it is true for you.

From my part, there exists always something even in the status of things in which status of things the universe the one we live in had not begun yet.

That position of yours, namely, that literally nothing is the origin of everything, that is all purely in your mind, for outside and independent of your mind there exists always something, so that nothing, literally nothing has never ever been the default status of things in the totally of reality.

You see, George, when you hold that literally nothing is the origin of everything, then logically you should already stop talking and self-extinguish into nothingness.

On the other hand, that thought and position which is all in your mind, in effect you are using the word nothing, literally nothing as really not literally nothing but something; so it is all just a self-abuse of the original meaning of nothing, literally nothing.

That is what I have noticed about you since way back, that you have the awful habit of conjuring up unrealistic and totally impossible status of things, which therefore can only dwell in your mind, but outside your mind and independent of your mind, there is no status ever where nothing, literally nothing is the status and hence origin of reality.

What I want you to know is that there is the distinction between valid thoughts and invalid thoughts in our mind, what you have are invalid thoughts in your mind, all in your mind.

Valid thoughts have components which are coherent and consistent among themselves even just in our mind, while invalid thoughts like yours, that literally something is the origin of everything in existence, that kind of a thought in your mind, it is an invalid thought, because its components are not coherent and not consistent among themselves, already in your mind.

What you should do is imitate Bertrand Russell, when he finds any concept though valid to be the death of his position that there is no God, he will declare that for him the concept is illegitimate, in effect he will not factor it into his thinking.

See the debate between him and Copleston, in part one, on the cosmological argument, he declares toward the end that the concept of a cause of the word is illegitimate to himself, so Copleston tells him in that case it is impossible to talk with you about it, and Russell proposed that they go into another area of discourse on the issue God exists or not, and they went into next the proof of God from man's religious experience.

It would make life so much easier if you actually quoted me or tagged me. But no. I do not think you have this pegged correctly. What I was resistant to was the conclusive statement that something cannot come of nothing. It is an internally inconsistent statement. I have no objections to one saying that God has always existed or even the thought that God exists, though I do not believe such to be the case. Nor would I sit here demanding proof of god. However, if you make a conclusive statement to which I do object, I expect you to at least have a rationale for that statement.

 

[Sanmario]

Dear George, let us clear up what is nothingness in regard to somethingness, i.e. existence.

1, There is the altogether nothingness at all, no existence, period.

2. Then there is the nothingness of something, like as I said in another thread, nothingness of money.


So, what is your point when you use the word nothing in regard to existence.

 

[Curious George]

Dear George, let us clear up what is nothingness in regard to somethingness, i.e. existence.

1, There is the altogether nothingness at all, no existence, period.

2. Then there is the nothingness of something, like as I said in another thread, nothingness of money.


So, what is your point when you use the word nothing in regard to existence.

LOL, I have no idea what you said in another thread so the allusion to that..."the nothingness of money" makes zero sense at this point.

Do you not understand what I mean when I suggest that you tag me or reply? I visit these threads and lo and behold you have replied. I think we should work on that. Let us try again. I will do my best to answer the next question you send my way, iff I receive a notification. Either a reply or a tag will work.

 

[Sanmario]

@Curious George

Hope this gets to you.

So, what is your point about nothingness, see my immediately preceding post here.

 

[Sanmario]

I have to apologize to everyone, because I expect posters to visit the threads they have reacted to, to follow up on their earlier contributions there.

Now, I just learned from Columbus that I have to put a @ before the name of the poster I have in mind to get him to react to my post.

So, I hope that works, with the @ before the name of the poster I want to get to.

@Jeremiahcp
As you say that I am derailing your thread, the fact is that the title of your thread is Probability of God's Existence.

Suppose you just revise the title of your thread, please?

Or just write less than a 100 words what is the point you are driving at?

And I really have to learn how to get to link up with posters I want to interact with, like with using tags.

I came to this thread because it was at the end of a page where other new threads are listed, same also with the thread on Challenge to Theists and Atheists, which I find to be also as with the present one, all speculative to the core.