-
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!
Theists: Does God Exist?
- Thread starter Rival
- Start date
Comradio251
Member
You know, you are asking this like I have the authority of being certain with what I would say to this particular inquiry. I am not certain of anything. I believe in a single higher power, yes.
Yes, they certainly do, in my experience.
If I didn't think so, I wouldn't be a theist. 
As I understand it, a theist is one by definition who believes in the existence of God or gods. I am a theist and believe in a single Creator God so am a monotheist. Of course, just because I believe in God does not mean God exists. I could be mistaken. Why do I believe in God? Do I have proof? Does it really matter to anyone other than me?
Congratulations on embracing the Christian Faith btw.
I am very happy for you.
From my Pov
God is existence itself.
I think not enough people here are familiar with Mediaeval theology and Denys the Carthusian.
God does not exist in any way in which we can describe him. He is outside of every known field; outside of time, outside of space, form, physicality, need, want, mood et al.
'Always the hopeless attempt to dispense with images and to attain “the state of void, that is mere absence of images,” which only God can give. “He deprives us of all images and brings us back to the initial state where we find only wild and waste absoluteness, void of all form or image, for ever corresponding with eternity.”
The contemplation of God, says Denis the Carthusian, is more adequately rendered by negations than by affirmations. “For, when I say: God is goodness, essence, life, I seem to indicate what God is, as if what He is had anything in common with, or any resemblance to, a creature, whereas it is certain, that He is incomprehensible and unknown, inscrutable and ineffable, and separated from all He works by an immeasurable and wholly incomparable difference and excellence.” It is for this reason that the “uniting wisdom” was called by the Areopagite: unreasonable, insane and foolish.'
Denys is a Thomist who uses negations for God, and believes it is better to say that God does not exist, rather than he does, because God simply does not exist in any way we can concieve or in any way we use the word 'exist'.
If we say God is something, we've brought God down to our level.
It is better to say God is no-thing.
God is beyond existence for him.
God does not exist in any way in which we can describe him. He is outside of every known field; outside of time, outside of space, form, physicality, need, want, mood et al.
'Always the hopeless attempt to dispense with images and to attain “the state of void, that is mere absence of images,” which only God can give. “He deprives us of all images and brings us back to the initial state where we find only wild and waste absoluteness, void of all form or image, for ever corresponding with eternity.”
The contemplation of God, says Denis the Carthusian, is more adequately rendered by negations than by affirmations. “For, when I say: God is goodness, essence, life, I seem to indicate what God is, as if what He is had anything in common with, or any resemblance to, a creature, whereas it is certain, that He is incomprehensible and unknown, inscrutable and ineffable, and separated from all He works by an immeasurable and wholly incomparable difference and excellence.” It is for this reason that the “uniting wisdom” was called by the Areopagite: unreasonable, insane and foolish.'
Denys is a Thomist who uses negations for God, and believes it is better to say that God does not exist, rather than he does, because God simply does not exist in any way we can concieve or in any way we use the word 'exist'.
If we say God is something, we've brought God down to our level.
It is better to say God is no-thing.
God is beyond existence for him.
Last edited:
RestlessSoul
Well-Known Member
I think not enough people here are familiar with Mediaeval theology and Denys the Carthusian.
God does not exist in any way in which we can describe him. He is outside of every known field; outside of time, outside of space, form, physicality, need, want, mood et al.
'Always the hopeless attempt to dispense with images and to attain “the state of void, that is mere absence of images,” which only God can give. “He deprives us of all images and brings us back to the initial state where we find only wild and waste absoluteness, void of all form or image, for ever corresponding with eternity.”
The contemplation of God, says Denis the Carthusian, is more adequately rendered by negations than by affirmations. “For, when I say: God is goodness, essence, life, I seem to indicate what God is, as if what He is had anything in common with, or any resemblance to, a creature, whereas it is certain, that He is incomprehensible and unknown, inscrutable and ineffable, and separated from all He works by an immeasurable and wholly incomparable difference and excellence.” It is for this reason that the “uniting wisdom” was called by the Areopagite: unreasonable, insane and foolish.'
Denis is a Thomist who uses negations for God, and believes it is better to say that God does not exist, rather than he does, because God simply does not exist in any way we can concieve or in any way we use the word 'exist'.
If we say God is something, we've brought God down to our level.
It is better to say God is no-thing.
God is beyond existence for him.
In the Bhagavad Gita, Krishna refers to Himself as transcendent and manifest. I believe there are verses in the Koran where Allah is similarly introduced as transcendent and manifest. The Christian equivalent might be implicit in the Trinity, with the Father being God transcendent (Denis the Carthusian's God perhaps), and The Holy Spirit, God manifest in the world; while the deified Son, being God made man, is a product of Christianity's Hellenic as opposed to purely Judean roots.
For myself, I believe the true nature of God is a mystery beyond human comprehension; but I also believe in a personal God, with whom we are all invited to establish a relationship. Something tangible, we can rely on for comfort and guidance, should we sincerely seek it.
Last edited:
The way to know is to see God. He is there in the clear horizon, believers travel to it while disbelievers run away from it while God ecompasseses them from behind.
If you don't see God, you can easily remember he sees you, and then you should see God through recalling you exist in his vision.
If the question is being asked, the answer is already yes.
Existence-as-concept is still existence. If something is truly outside of human experience or knowledge, it will never be described by humans ever in any way.
Existence-as-concept is still existence. If something is truly outside of human experience or knowledge, it will never be described by humans ever in any way.
I think some Christians would call this the difference between essence and existence.
This reminds me a little of the concept in Hinduism of God with forms and God without forms(nirguna and saguna). Niguna is indescribable and is outside of all things comprehendible, while saguna is God in his/her/its myriad forms.I think not enough people here are familiar with Mediaeval theology and Denys the Carthusian.
God does not exist in any way in which we can describe him. He is outside of every known field; outside of time, outside of space, form, physicality, need, want, mood et al.
'Always the hopeless attempt to dispense with images and to attain “the state of void, that is mere absence of images,” which only God can give. “He deprives us of all images and brings us back to the initial state where we find only wild and waste absoluteness, void of all form or image, for ever corresponding with eternity.”
The contemplation of God, says Denis the Carthusian, is more adequately rendered by negations than by affirmations. “For, when I say: God is goodness, essence, life, I seem to indicate what God is, as if what He is had anything in common with, or any resemblance to, a creature, whereas it is certain, that He is incomprehensible and unknown, inscrutable and ineffable, and separated from all He works by an immeasurable and wholly incomparable difference and excellence.” It is for this reason that the “uniting wisdom” was called by the Areopagite: unreasonable, insane and foolish.'
Denys is a Thomist who uses negations for God, and believes it is better to say that God does not exist, rather than he does, because God simply does not exist in any way we can concieve or in any way we use the word 'exist'.
If we say God is something, we've brought God down to our level.
It is better to say God is no-thing.
God is beyond existence for him.
I believe in both.
I think this can apply to the Incarnation of Christ, too.
Reading a bit, I see that it can even be considered that individual divine forms can have both a nirguna and saguna side.
How do you apply it to Christ?
Christ is a visible form. There's a duality in Christianity with,Reading a bit, I see that it can even be considered that individual divine forms can have both a nirguna and saguna side.
How do you apply it to Christ?
No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.
and
Jesus saith unto him, Have I been so long time with you, and dost thou not know me, Philip? he that hath seen me hath seen the Father; how sayest thou, Show us the Father?
This duality is because of the distinction you also mention. You can see and not see at the same time.
Enai de a lukal
Well-Known Member
What else belongs to the class of objects "outside of every known field", who exist "outside of time, space, form, or physicality"?
If the definition of 'Existence' is 'Change' (Cause+Effect) then outside of Existence is a Constant. A Constant is not necessarily a void.