Shoe is on the other foot: Prove there is not God.

[AK4]

Honestly, I would be delighted to hear of your experiences. Every time the issue of personal experience or revealed knowledge has come up on these forums the experiencer has refused to reveal them, or has given some convenient reason why they cannot be recounted, which makes me rather sceptical. I will say no more on this matter until I have your response.

Honestly, to explain it is very hard to do but I will try. I didn’t forget about you and Im not avoiding answering but its like a person is right in the middle of experiencing something and is in a state of awe trying to explain whats happening right before their eyes to someone else. Ive tried writing a post for this several times and I get stuck on how to say what I experienced. But I will let you know. Just need to find a way to say what I experienced.

 

[McBell]

Honestly, to explain it is very hard to do but I will try. I didn’t forget about you and Im not avoiding answering but its like a person is right in the middle of experiencing something and is in a state of awe trying to explain whats happening right before their eyes to someone else. Ive tried writing a post for this several times and I get stuck on how to say what I experienced. But I will let you know. Just need to find a way to say what I experienced.

Might I suggest that you use a word processor program like Word or Works or even notepad.
That way you can make whatever adjustments, add and or delete from it over several days until it is just right and then just copy/paste it to the forum.

At least you won't have to start completely over every time.

 

[AK4]

Might I suggest that you use a word processor program like Word or Works or even notepad.
That way you can make whatever adjustments, add and or delete from it over several days until it is just right and then just copy/paste it to the forum.

At least you won't have to start completely over every time.

Yeah ive been doing that and i got about four incomplete paragraphs that need paragraphs between them to make it all make sense. Plus i dont want it to be a book and i want to put it in a way to where someone may relate to it [if they experienced something like it]. I have an idea how to do it but struggling to put it all together. [Also trying not to make it seem like im some sort of kook even though there may be some who already may think i am].

 

[godnotgod]

If you're trying to prove a point, there is none to prove.
You cannot prove there is a God.
We cannot prove there is one.
So there's no winner or loser here, and this argument just gets old

Once again, a God that can be proved is a dead God. The Infinite cannot be encapsulated in conceptual thought.

Here we have solid belief going head to head with solid scepticism, with neither making any headway (no pun intended, tee, hee). So I would like to suggest that we all take a breather, and try a new tack. Instead of trying to prove or disprove the unprovable, how about looking at the premises that believers maintain as the basis for their belief in God. In other words, let us examine the reasons for the doctrine rather than what the doctrine says. This brings the discussion down to the human level on both sides, hopefully. Please try this for a few posts, and if you get nowhere, then you can all go back to getting nowhere.

Just remember that insanity is thinking the same things over and over and expecting different results.

Thank you very much!

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Once again, a God that can be proved is a dead God. The Infinite cannot be encapsulated in conceptual thought.

Why would you need to "encapsulate" God to prove God?

You wouldn't need to map all of God to prove that he exists... you've only need a metaphorical glimpse of a very small part of him.

As an analogy, Columbus didn't need to explore the entire continent to confirm that the New World existed; once he spied his first bit of coastline, that objective was accomplished.

 

[godnotgod]

Why would you need to "encapsulate" God to prove God?

Just the word "God" is already an encapsulation. Even the thought of what God is, is an encapsulation. That is how the rational mind works: by idea and concept. Any move forward as a step to prove God is based upon encapsulation.

You wouldn't need to map all of God to prove that he exists... you've only need a metaphorical glimpse of a very small part of him.

Mapping God is encapsulation; containment. Metaphor is further removed. There is no such thing as a 'very small part of him', as the nature of the Infinite is immeasurable. Again, 'part' is an encapsulation as well. All such imagined 'parts' are complete divine natures, 'part' being only conceptual.

As an analogy, Columbus didn't need to explore the entire continent to confirm that the New World existed; once he spied his first bit of coastline, that objective was accomplished.

The difference is that the small bit of coastline can be mapped with tools of the thinking mind, so the existence of the New World is provable by such means. The nature of the Infinite cannot be accessed with the thinking mind. It must be abandoned and another kind of mind, but this other mind cannot prove nor disprove. There is no need to.

My question for you is: why do you require a need to prove the existence of God? If you think you must prove God's existence, it demonstrates the fact that you truly do not know God. You are nibbling around the edges.

BTW, the inhabitants of the so called 'New World' might have laughed at Columbus. They already knew, without proof, that the land where they lived already existed.

Likewise, when you finally arrive on the 'other shore' of the spiritual experience, there is no need to prove anything, simply because living on the other shore is just your ordinary, everyday life. The difference, however, between you and others is that you know you are living on the other shore. In reality, there is no 'other shore'. There is only here, now. You just resume your life.

"Before Enlightenment, sweeping the floor;
after Enlightenment, sweeping the floor."
Zen

 

[AK4]

Quote:
Originally Posted by cottage

Honestly, I would be delighted to hear of your experiences. Every time the issue of personal experience or revealed knowledge has come up on these forums the experiencer has refused to reveal them, or has given some convenient reason why they cannot be recounted, which makes me rather sceptical. I will say no more on this matter until I have your response.



Ive tried many times to put my experience in type, but it just wont flow right. In 1 Peter it explains it

1Pe 1:8 - [In Context|Read Chapter|Original Greek] and though you have not seen Him, you love Him, and though you do not see Him now, but believe in Him, you greatly rejoice with joy inexpressible and full of glory,

But i am not content with not giving you what you asked for. I could take the easy route and say it felt like an out of body experience similar to what Paul said about the "third heaven" but i doubt mine was on that same level and i am not happy with just saying this to ya. When i find a way to type it and it flows right i will post it.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Just the word "God" is already an encapsulation. Even the thought of what God is, is an encapsulation. That is how the rational mind works: by idea and concept. Any move forward as a step to prove God is based upon encapsulation.

Mapping God is encapsulation; containment. Metaphor is further removed. There is no such thing as a 'very small part of him', as the nature of the Infinite is immeasurable. Again, 'part' is an encapsulation as well. All such imagined 'parts' are complete divine natures, 'part' being only conceptual.

Here's the problem I see with this explanation: it renders the term "God" meaningless, and by extension it renders phrases like "God exists" unknowable. If God is immeasurable, then no person could be said to have any valid basis for believing in God.

My question for you is: why do you require a need to prove the existence of God? If you think you must prove God's existence, it demonstrates the fact that you truly do not know God. You are nibbling around the edges.

I don't require it. I just find the question interesting.

BTW, the inhabitants of the so called 'New World' might have laughed at Columbus. They already knew, without proof, that the land where they lived already existed.

No, they knew with proof. They were surrounded by proof.

 

[VeganCrustAtheist]

Prove I'm not god.

I can't prove that you're not god. But if you're making the claim you need to supply the evidence. If you make the claim without supplying the evidence, I just won't listen to you. It's as simple as that. Just like I discard christianity, islam, judaism, hinduism and all other religions I shall discard you.

 

[godnotgod]

Here's the problem I see with this explanation: it renders the term "God" meaningless, and by extension it renders phrases like "God exists" unknowable. If God is immeasurable, then no person could be said to have any valid basis for believing in God.

There is no valid basis for belief in God if you already are in union with God. Belief means you are still viewing God as an object, and God can never be known as an object. You must become one with God, like dye dissolved in water, in order to know God.

I don't require it. I just find the question interesting.

What is the cause of your interest?

No, they knew with proof. They were surrounded by proof.

Therefore there was no need for any such proof.

If we are all surrounded, within and without, by proof of the essence of God, then what proof does anyone need? The only reason that question would come about would be because we doubted the existence of God.

We don't need to prove there is air, do we, yet we all know it exists.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

There is no valid basis for belief in God if you already are in union with God.

Right... because "being in union with God" implies the existence of God.

Belief means you are still viewing God as an object, and God can never be known as an object. You must become one with God, like dye dissolved in water, in order to know God.

But you do agree that in the system you present, belief in God is unreasonable?

What is the cause of your interest?

Partly, I have an interest in history, and my interest in religion flows from that. Also, I find it fascinating that people can be so certain of their positions on this issue, but be so diametrically opposed to each other. I'd like to find out what's caused this to happen. I'll probably never figure it out, but I find it interesting to try to figure out.

Therefore there was no need for any such proof.

No, there was no need for any more proof, because they already had ample proof.

If we are all surrounded, within and without, by proof of the essence of God, then what proof does anyone need?

None more than what they already had, certainly.

The only reason that question would come about would be because we doubted the existence of God.

Which you wouldn't do because of the mountain of evidence and proof that you had already received, right?

We don't need to prove there is air, do we, yet we all know it exists.

However, if anyone feels the need to test whether air exists or not, it's easily done. And IMO, if the existence of God were as apparent as the existence of air, then people would be no more inclined to question God's existence than they would air's existence... yet a sizeable portion of the world's population don't believe in any God at all, and even more believe in gods that don't correspond to what you describe.

"It's obvious" (which is what I think what you're saying boils down to) is a poor argument, especially when it's invoked for non-obvious things.

 

[AK4]

9/10ths Penguin
Partly, I have an interest in history, and my interest in religion flows from that. Also, I find it fascinating that people can be so certain of their positions on this issue, but be so diametrically opposed to each other. I'd like to find out what's caused this to happen. I'll probably never figure it out, but I find it interesting to try to figure out.

Here is the answer from the scriptures, from Jesus, which is the opposite of what those stuck in the christian religion teach.


Mt 10:34 - Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword.

Christ also said He came to set father against son, daughter to mother etc etc. Christ came to set the world afire or as it states "start a fire". How He did this is by bringing the absolute truth and truth battling against the lies taught by the world and its religions causes this sword or fire to come about.

Thats why religions clash. Even traditional and orthodox christianity clash because they have let the truth from Jesus be intermingled with paganism and other egyptian practices. Its so bad that even when they [all religions and non-religions] pray for world peace they are going against the scriptures.

 

[godnotgod]

Right... because "being in union with God" implies the existence of God.

No. You are adding too much to it. Being in union with God is simply being who and what you are right at this moment, without any idea (or implication) of God. The moment there is "implication", there is otherness, and God cannot be an object. Within the realm of divine union, There is no thought of either "God or not-God". In other words, God is just the ordinary state of affairs. It is Nothing Special; no calling attention to itself.

But you do agree that in the system you present, belief in God is unreasonable?

Belief is always based on rational thought. That is the problem. The nature of God is non-rational (though not irrational). Belief in God is always about having an idea of God, and that is not God. The rational, thinking mind cannot grasp the Infinite. Therefore, all rational thought, all belief, all idea, concept, conjecture, notion, etc. must be dropped. There must be complete and total surrender of the "I" before one can begin to see. Divine union is not about belief; it is about seeing.

Partly, I have an interest in history, and my interest in religion flows from that.

History and religion are both about the past, one being a study of the traces of past events, and the other about the traces of the spiritual experience. But neither is about what is occurring right at this moment, and what is occurring right at this moment is what determines the course of history and religion. This is in sharp contrast to what we have been indoctrinated to believe: that the past creates the present. The wake of a ship does not create the ship; it is the ship that is on the cutting edge which creates the wake. History and religion are about the study of artifacts. The spiritual experience occurs outside of time, and therefore, outside of history and religion.

Also, I find it fascinating that people can be so certain of their positions on this issue, but be so diametrically opposed to each other. I'd like to find out what's caused this to happen. I'll probably never figure it out, but I find it interesting to try to figure out.

Part of the answer is that they are approaching the question from the point of view of conceptual thought coupled with a strong identification with the self.

No, there was no need for any more proof, because they already had ample proof.

When did they ever embark on the path of proof at all? The thought of proof or no-proof never entered their minds.

Divine union is like a fish being born into the sea. His being in the sea and the sea being inside him is just his ordinary state of existence. He does not know of the sea because it is not an object for him; he was born into it so he is unaware of it. And so it is with man. Man is always in union with the divine, but he does not realize it, and so he formulates beliefs and opinions about the divine as if it were something Special and separate from him. So he embarks on a path of seeking in order to unite with something that he already is in union with. Because of this fallacy of separation, Buddhists say: "That which you are seeking is what is causing you to seek".

 

[godnotgod]

However, if anyone feels the need to test whether air exists or not, it's easily done. And IMO, if the existence of God were as apparent as the existence of air, then people would be no more inclined to question God's existence than they would air's existence... yet a sizeable portion of the world's population don't believe in any God at all, and even more believe in gods that don't correspond to what you describe.

The existence of air can be determined via of instrumentation that are extensions of man's sense apparatus.

So can invisible TV signals which are not readily apparent as existent.

But the divine essence cannot be tested via of any such means, either directly by any of the five senses, nor by any scientific instrumentation to date. All of these methods are based on rational thought. The spiritual experience is beyond the senses, beyond reason, beyond time and space, and yet, it is as close as your very next breath. In fact, it IS your very next breath, but you do not realize it because that is not where your seeking mind thinks it can find it. In fact, science has eviscerated the Greek idea of breath as spirit, which they referred to as pneuma, via analytical methodology. Today, moderns see breath only as a function of biology and air only as a gas.

What I am getting at is that ancient man actually had a better immediate connection with the divine essence because he experienced things directly, rather than through the filters of acquired knowledge. We are now undergoing an awakening of the intuitive mind which is the pathway to the divine. We have never actually lost it, but we have put it to sleep, and placed our emphasis instead on the intellect, the brain, and science, which, while useful tools, have led us down a blind alley in terms of spiritual fullfilment.

Once this universal intuitive mind is awakened, it remembers its connection with the divine. It realizes there is nothing to seek, nothing to prove, nothing to figure out, nothing to believe in nor disblieve in, because it is already there; always has been; always will be. One simply picks up and carries on where one left off, and that is the Ordinary and Everyday aspects of our existence.

"Before Enlightenment, sweeping the floor;
after Enlightenment, sweeping the floor."

 

[AK4]

To cottage (or anyone else interested)

You asked me to explain one of my experiences with God a couple weeks back. I still cant come with a direct answer on how to explain it, but i will just wing it right now.

Its not just a single point of time i experienced, it was more like a experiencing ones past present and future at once, but the big difference to my experience [imo] is that i think everyone has experienced this is some form or another, even i have before yet now since i have been shown the truth of God and came to know the truth of the doctrines of christianity and the world, when i experience the past not only do i see my errors, but i see the errors of other as well who were searching for the truth and they came to a truth but forgot to apply that truth with all the other truths without contradicting any other truth spelled out by the scriptures. In otherwords i experience not only my past but in a way i experience and see how others who came to a truth and then let their imaginations just run wild and not stay grounded on the foundation of Gods word. I am able to see why they came to their thoughts and then God shows me there error or reminds me of a scripture or precept that they broke in their imaginings. This also applies back to me.

Let me interject here. One of the major principles of the Word is contrast. To know the truth, you have to know whats false. I was just as duped into a lot of the false doctrines of not just christianity but the world. I know the false or the lies or half lies of the world (not saying i know them all, but on major ones God has shown me the light). Thats why we have verses like Ecc 1:13 and 2 Th 2:11 to learn and understand whats happening around us.

(lost my train of thought again, trying to recover) Experiencing the present and (possible) future is what is truly to the experience because it can feel as if you are in the future yet you know you are in the present like Paul stated, and of course i doubt mine was on his level.

Well i got interrupted again so i guess to make a long story short, learning the truth about freewill and reading and actually believing what the scriptures say and knowing the reason why Jesus only spoke in parables and how that makes peoples imaginations flow, some stay grounded in the scriptures when this happens but most dont, this is the experience. You can almost let your mind go free as long as you notice the what can be true and what is false.

The best way to explain it i guess would be like having the feeling that those who are still immersed in the delusion of freewill feel, where they feel as if they are in control of everything. Take that feeling minus the myth of freewill and input God there and its like being one with God.

Sorry i know my thoughts were everywhere but I tried to explain it the best way i could. If it comes to me better i will try again.

 

[nrg]

The spiritual experience is beyond the senses, beyond reason, beyond time and space, and yet, it is as close as your very next breath.

How do you know that? If there isn't any evidence for it, how come you don't accept the un-proven statement that "god does not exist"? Why are they both not equally valid, what makes your statement more valid than the other?

What I am getting at is that ancient man actually had a better immediate connection with the divine essence because he experienced things directly, rather than through the filters of acquired knowledge.

How does these different things work? Have you proven that through these methods you do come closer to god through rational means, such as the scientific method? While your at it, could you explain the science and/or the evidence behind this statement as well:

Once this universal intuitive mind is awakened, it remembers its connection with the divine.

Thanks in advance.

You can almost let your mind go free as long as you notice the what can be true and what is false.

How do you know it was true? Did you experience evidence you could test, and let other independent people test those evidence as well, or did you just assume it from page one?

 

[Agnostic75]

Well prove it.

It is impossible to disprove a negative. Can you prove that flying pigs do not exist in remote regions of the Amazon rainforest? Of course not. There is a widely accept burden of proof, not a burden of disproof.

Any follower of any religion could use your argument, which would leave you with the task of disproving all other worldviews.

You might as well ask defendents in lawsuits to prove that they are innocent.

 

[Agnostic75]

The spiritual experience is beyond the senses, beyond reason, beyond time and space, and yet, it is as close as your very next breath.

Sure, as the followers of many religions will also testify.

If Jesus performed miracles, some people partly used reason to conclude that he was from God. That is what the texts indicate.

 

[nrg]

It is impossible to disprove a negative. Can you prove that flying pigs do not exist in remote regions of the Amazon rainforest? Of course not. There is a widely accept burden of proof, not a burden of disproof.

As a non-theist myself, I feel the urge to inform people about the myth that you cannot prove a negative. It stems from the real fallacy that you cannot prove an absolute, but there is such a thing as falsification, it happens in science everyday.

Let's take your example of the flying pigs in the Amazon. In order to make a valid claim that follows the scientific method, you have to list what is possible and not possible with your statement. For example:

1. Flying pigs are still pigs, it's possible to see them.
2. Pigs are, like any animal, limited to habitats. They drink in their designated water hole, they eat in their designated area of salvaging food and they mate in their designated play area, and finally, they sleep somewhere too.

If you wait at anyone of these habitats, and don't observe them, they have been falsified.

However, the problem is theists don't list anything that's falsifiable. How the hell does omnipotence work, and how can we observe it? How the hell does omnipresence works, and how can we observe it? How come neither of these attributes are proven to be able to exist at all, but god can still posses them? What laws makes it possibly for he, and only he, to have them?

Until they've answered these, and many other questions I don't have the willpower to list, disproving god is impossible.

A more in depth explanation: Proving a Negative

You might as well ask defendents in lawsuits to prove that they are innocent.

This, however, is a 100% right analogy. Nothing to comment on here.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

No. You are adding too much to it. Being in union with God is simply being who and what you are right at this moment, without any idea (or implication) of God. The moment there is "implication", there is otherness, and God cannot be an object. Within the realm of divine union, There is no thought of either "God or not-God". In other words, God is just the ordinary state of affairs. It is Nothing Special; no calling attention to itself.

If that's the case, then why use the term "God" to describe this at all? What reason do you have to use it?

Belief is always based on rational thought.

It is? :sarcastic

That is the problem. The nature of God is non-rational (though not irrational). Belief in God is always about having an idea of God, and that is not God. The rational, thinking mind cannot grasp the Infinite. Therefore, all rational thought, all belief, all idea, concept, conjecture, notion, etc. must be dropped. There must be complete and total surrender of the "I" before one can begin to see. Divine union is not about belief; it is about seeing.

Hmm. It seems to me that you're talking about knowledge, but while taking away any tool we have to obtain knowledge. To me, this is contradictory.

History and religion are both about the past, one being a study of the traces of past events, and the other about the traces of the spiritual experience. But neither is about what is occurring right at this moment, and what is occurring right at this moment is what determines the course of history and religion. This is in sharp contrast to what we have been indoctrinated to believe: that the past creates the present. The wake of a ship does not create the ship; it is the ship that is on the cutting edge which creates the wake. History and religion are about the study of artifacts. The spiritual experience occurs outside of time, and therefore, outside of history and religion.

I take it you're not a fan of history, then. That's fine - different strokes for different folks. I do disagree with your idea that "spirituality" is distinct from religion, though.

Part of the answer is that they are approaching the question from the point of view of conceptual thought coupled with a strong identification with the self.

And what's wrong with either of these things?

When did they ever embark on the path of proof at all? The thought of proof or no-proof never entered their minds.

Right - there's no point "embarking on a path" for something that's readily at hand.

You're trying to make a false equivocation here, and I'm not buying it. There's a big difference between accepting something because the evidence is so overwhelming that you never bother to question it and accepting something simply because you never bother to question the complete and utter lack of evidence for it.

Divine union is like a fish being born into the sea. His being in the sea and the sea being inside him is just his ordinary state of existence. He does not know of the sea because it is not an object for him; he was born into it so he is unaware of it. And so it is with man. Man is always in union with the divine, but he does not realize it, and so he formulates beliefs and opinions about the divine as if it were something Special and separate from him. So he embarks on a path of seeking in order to unite with something that he already is in union with. Because of this fallacy of separation, Buddhists say: "That which you are seeking is what is causing you to seek".

Fine; so we're "immersed in water". This doesn't imply we can't measure the water.

The existence of air can be determined via of instrumentation that are extensions of man's sense apparatus.

So can invisible TV signals which are not readily apparent as existent.

But the divine essence cannot be tested via of any such means, either directly by any of the five senses, nor by any scientific instrumentation to date.

IOW, all your fancy analogies about being immersed in evidence weren't really correct, were they?

All of these methods are based on rational thought. The spiritual experience is beyond the senses, beyond reason, beyond time and space, and yet, it is as close as your very next breath.

Great - then it's beyond knowledge as well. Any concept of God, including the one you've described here, can be rejected as being totally without foundation.

After all, if you can know about a thing enough to talk about it at all, then it's not "beyond the senses" or "beyond reason".

In fact, it IS your very next breath, but you do not realize it because that is not where your seeking mind thinks it can find it. In fact, science has eviscerated the Greek idea of breath as spirit, which they referred to as pneuma, via analytical methodology. Today, moderns see breath only as a function of biology and air only as a gas.

In contrast with the ancient Greeks, "moderns" also don't see earth, air, fire and water as elements. Guess what? The ancient Greeks were wrong and the "moderns" are right.

What I am getting at is that ancient man actually had a better immediate connection with the divine essence because he experienced things directly, rather than through the filters of acquired knowledge.

That's a foolish statement. "Ancient man" had just as much acquired knowledge as we do; it's just that their acquired knowledge was more often of poor quality.