What evidence for God

[Ben Masada]

i wonder how much man will actually try to pull reality out of imagination?

The fact that man can imagine, that's reality. Perhaps the kind of imagination which goes on in his mind may escape reality. But you cannot state that he is pulling reality out of imagination as if imagination does not exist.

 

[atanu]

Alright, so consousness=existence.
---
If you replace consciousness with existence in this sentence it does not make any sense, but I will continue anways.

Hello Orbital

That is not correct. Consciousness and Existence are not two things but nature of a thing which says "I am".

Universe-Universe=consciousness.

Universe-Universe still leaves the one who is writing the equation. By the spiritual exercise/meditation of Neti-Neti by which the experienced objects are negated as not Self, at the pinnacle, the one who is negating all objects still remains.

(Though not accepted as such, but this is a way to the shunyata -- emptyness-- which is yet replete with power of cognition.)

I'll have another go: consciousness (or existence) allows to you expereince the world. Makes sense.

What then can experience the one who is experiencing the world. How can the knower be known?

No, because one still expereinces the world, even in sleep.

Yes, you still exist when you sleep.

Yes, one exists in deep sleep and comes back and asserts "I slept". But one cannot assert that "I see the world" in deep sleep. The world is not seen not because matter gives rise to subtle consciousness but because mind is homogeneous in deep sleep.

One can argue forever that by natural selection a piece of porcelain can develop the power to be aware but there is no evidence for that.

yet you cannot define consciousness without makeing it a limited lie... I hope you see the contradiction in that.

I agree. Even consciousness is a name or an attempt at explanation. But it is the nearest one.

Since you made a couple of contradicting and confusing statements I'm going to assume that consciousness is the ablity to experience the existence of other objects. If that is the case then consciousness is dependant on the material world, not the otherway around as you described.

In dharmic language consciousness is prajna, which means that which is prior to awareness --The knowledge principle itself.

One can argue forever that by natural selection a piece of porcelain can develop prajna but there is no evidence for that.

Saying that there is a world which gives rise to the abilty to cognize is putting the cart before the horse. IMO.

Regards

 

[Orbital]

@atanu
You seem to have the opinion that this post is there to explain my views.

It is simply there to try to repeat and understand Onkara's definition of consciousness.

Concerning your post: I agree that one cannot see anything during sleep, that has to do with the fact that most of us close our eyes during this action. But if I hit you in the head you will wake up in no time. You are still taking in information.

 

[chinu]

This shows nothing in favor, nor against, the existence of a diety.

To see anything in this you have to use your internal Eye not outer Eyes.

Its simple, try again.

_/\_ Chinu.

 

[atanu]

@atanu
It is simply there to try to repeat and understand Onkara's definition of consciousness.

Hello Orbital

Thanks. Same purpose here.

Concerning your post: I agree that one cannot see anything during sleep, that has to do with the fact that most of us close our eyes during this action. But if I hit you in the head you will wake up in no time. You are still taking in information.

Yes. So what seems unconsciousness is not actually unconsciousness. And again that is not due to the fact that the world or the hammer is intelligent.

Thanks again.
...

 

[Orbital]

We don't seem unconsciousness when we sleep... we just have our eyes shut.

 

[atanu]

We don't seem unconsciousness when we sleep... we just have our eyes shut.

I am shutting my eyes now but I do not think I am sleeping.

...

 

[Orbital]

... *facepalm

We have our senses set to minimum if you will. We still take in information and process it.

 

[nonbeliever_92]

To see anything in this you have to use your internal Eye not outer Eyes.

Its simple, try again.

_/\_ Chinu.

Again, you've presented no evidence.

 

[KennethM]

If the universe exists, what created the universe? If you choose that it randomly just created, you are in a contradiction.

To satisfy the logic necessarily something eternal exists by its own nature, if that isn't posited, you lead into contradiction, because nothing (prior to big bang) cannot create something (big bang).

However, belief in a creator simply creates a more convoluted problem as something would have to create that creator if you are assuming that "being" is reliant on "creation." As you said "nothing cannot create something" and of course that raises the further question of what created the creator of the creator... you can continue this line of reasoning ad nauseum.

 

[Orias]

Simple, what evidence is there of there being a god, a higher being, or any of the like?

Us?

Our ignorance?

The evidence could be right in front of you, you just have to know what it is your looking for.

To many times have I heard people deny "God" because of lack of "evidence" when they don't even know what the "evidence" they are looking for really is.

Any one could pinpoint anything and label it as "evidence" for the existence of a "God".

It's truly a proper form of ambiguation, our only true knowledge is that of ourselves.

 

[atanu]

Yeah that was my thought but i was too polite to say it

Hello Quaxotoic

I apologize for creating that kind of thought in you and thanks for your politeness, although the following is not very polite from my perspective. I would have simply asked you if I did not understand a comment of yours. Your mileage may vary.

Does anyone get what he's saying?

Assuming that the air is clear of misgivings can we continue to communicate as allies?

I am a creator, i created a fairly decent meal tonight.

But as far as "THE" creator, well i think i'm pretty awesome but even my ego isn't that big.

It is apparent that you acknowledge "THE" creator and see yourself separate from it.

This assumption of separateness does arise in us all, due to our sense organs telling us that we are all separate from one another and from the world we live in. It is simply like wearing a red eye glass and declaring the world is red. Animals who have different perceptive powers may sometimes appear to be omniscient to us and vice versa.

The action of your hands and mind created the food and action of your seeing brings the world in view. (At this momemt I am not arguing that world exists separate from your vision or not). But world does not come and tell any one "I exist". It is we who cognise it. What I wish to emphasize here is that nothing in this world is separate from you. And we who are parts of this nature are trying to decipher the nature. That is almost like a book trying to understand its author.

As a wave on ocean may think itself as separate from other waves and on account of separateness it will create many beautiful and/or fearful thoughts (such as of other bigger waves crushing it), each of us are creators with our thoughts and subsequent actions. Yet, the same wave, as water and the ocean is creator of all waves.

Yet, the ocean is not any willful creator (in contrast to our individual creations), but creation or joy is very nature of it. All waves and songs exist because the ocean exists.

And yet, we can only speak meatphorically and experience the truth in our own way and in own time.

I request that we may directly communicate if doubts are there.
...

 

[atanu]

... *facepalm

We have our senses set to minimum if you will. We still take in information and process it.

Hello Orbital

Thank you for your inputs. With reduced sensual input I may still engage in sex or do many things. Or I may desire something particular to the point of almost extinguishing all other desires.

Deep sleep is characterized by absolute lack of desire, lack of thoughts, peace, infinitude, refreshment, lack of time and world; and apparently not knowing anything. This not knowing anything is considered in Vedanta to be due to lack of any boundaries in mind -- due to absolute homogeneity. If there is no second smell then you cannot smell. If there is no second touch you cannot sense any touch. If there is no second taste you cannot taste. If there is no second then you do not sense yourself also because of lack of contacts and boundaries.

The deep sleep realm, which we call the gound of prajna (awareness) gives rise to the creative states of dream, wherein Mind-the Creator, creates with light; and further to waking state, wherein the Mind creates with matter. We do not really know that Mind so we tend to say "There is no Creator".

On contemplation, the deep sleep will be known as that shunya ground of the being, that yet is replete with all life, intelligence and joy.This is the Hindu understanding, noted here for record, and not for debate. If any one derives any benefit from this understanding that will be good.

...

 

[Orias]

It is apparent that you acknowledge "THE" creator and see yourself separate from it.

It does seem like a common view.

This assumption of separateness does arise in us all, due to our sense organs telling us that we are all separate from one another and from the world we live in. It is simply like wearing a red eye glass and declaring the world is red. Animals who have different perceptive powers may sometimes appear to be omniscient to us and vice versa.

Of course, that's why there is thousands of religions that all try and explain the same thing.

The action of your hands and mind created the food and action of your seeing brings the world in view. (At this momemt I am not arguing that world exists separate from your vision or not). But world does not come and tell any one "I exist". It is we who cognise it. What I wish to emphasize here is that nothing in this world is separate from you. And we who are parts of this nature are trying to decipher the nature. That is almost like a book trying to understand its author.

I agree with you 100%.

It is also like an author trying to understand his work.

As a wave on ocean may think itself as separate from other waves and on account of separateness it will create many beautiful and/or fearful thoughts (such as of other bigger waves crushing it), each of us are creators with our thoughts and subsequent actions. Yet, the same wave, as water and the ocean is creator of all waves.

I find it to be more conducive to think of everything as one, rather than everything always trying to get you, though it may be so

Yet, the ocean is not any willful creator (in contrast to our individual creations), but creation or joy is very nature of it. All waves and songs exist because the ocean exists.

Yes, design is proportional to "accident".

And yet, we can only speak meatphorically and experience the truth in our own way and in own time.

I request that we may directly communicate if doubts are there.
...

I have been searching for a way to word that exact meaning for some time now.

It's like a short poem, that may have taken 20 minutes to write, but explains a life time of experiences.

 

[RitalinO.D.]

I can't help but notice, after reading through this topic, that a majority of the posts here serve no purpose to the OP. Most of it seems to be nothing more than useless conjecture to make the poster sound informed and intelligent.

I do not mean this in a disrespectful manner at all, and do not doubt any of the posters intelligence level by any means. It's just that most of the posts have made no real effort to answer the original question. Throwing around a lot of expensive words really adds nothing to the topic, other than making it a chore to read.

The fact of the matter is, there is no "evidence" of any higher power, or creator, or however you wish to describe it. But to be fair, there is also no "evidence" proving that said higher power doesn't exist.

It's all up to the individual person to decide what their personal truth is. I, for example think it is ridiculous to believe that a "God" created a man from dust, then a woman from that mans rib, placed them in a garden, blah blah blah. Can I prove this didn't happen? Absolutely not. But in my opinion, that doesn't make it any less laughable.

Everyone has their own views, but those views have to be respected nonetheless. It's hard to tell someone they are wrong when you cannot prove it.

In the end, its fun to debate topics such as this, when you have so many passionate people willing to share their views. But I ask that we keep it more of a regular forum discussion, and less of a Harvard post-grad lecture.

This of course is just my opinion, and I could be wrong. I like to read other peoples views on things, but when they attempt to make the post as complicated as possible, I just lose interest, and I'm probably not the only one.

Cheers

 

[Orias]

I can't help but notice, after reading through this topic, that a majority of the posts here serve no purpose to the OP. Most of it seems to be nothing more than useless conjecture to make the poster sound informed and intelligent.

That's quite an assumption.

And this post is no different?

I do not mean this in a disrespectful manner at all, and do not doubt any of the posters intelligence level by any means. It's just that most of the posts have made no real effort to answer the original question. Throwing around a lot of expensive words really adds nothing to the topic, other than making it a chore to read.

These words exist, why not use them?

It is my understanding that certain "expensive" words are more easily applied to a scenario than a 3rd grade perspective.

The fact of the matter is, there is no "evidence" of any higher power, or creator, or however you wish to describe it. But to be fair, there is also no "evidence" proving that said higher power doesn't exist.

There is evidence on both sides everywhere, I thought I said that already.

It's all up to the individual person to decide what their personal truth is. I, for example think it is ridiculous to believe that a "God" created a man from dust, then a woman from that mans rib, placed them in a garden, blah blah blah. Can I prove this didn't happen? Absolutely not. But in my opinion, that doesn't make it any less laughable.

Are you sure you read any of these posts?

Everyone has their own views, but those views have to be respected nonetheless. It's hard to tell someone they are wrong when you cannot prove it.

Good thing I'm right handed.

In the end, its fun to debate topics such as this, when you have so many passionate people willing to share their views. But I ask that we keep it more of a regular forum discussion, and less of a Harvard post-grad lecture.

Are you asking us to "dumb it down"?

This of course is just my opinion, and I could be wrong. I like to read other peoples views on things, but when they attempt to make the post as complicated as possible, I just lose interest, and I'm probably not the only one.

I don't know if it is so much as people making posts complicated or actually trying express their belief, either way your loss of interest is irrelevant to the poster, since everything you said has practically been said already .

Don't think of it as people trying to complicate things, that just discourages yourself and makes your presence here useless.

I know what you mean though, huge posts can be a burden to read and deal with, but when you get caught up in the fun of it you just get carried away.

I didn't mean to sound like a dick btw, I just like to push the envelope.

Welcome to RF

 

[RitalinO.D.]

Thanks for the warm welcome to RF No worries, thick skin is pretty much a prerequisite when you get involved with debates or discussions, especially in ones involving religion or politics.

I just find its unnecessary to make a post as complicated as possible to read and comprehend. Not everyones reading comprehension is Ivy league. I consider myself an intelligent person, however, there were a few posts that made my eyes glaze over into a thousand yard stare. And obviously its better to write with more than a 3rd grade perspective, but within reason.

Anyways, thats just my opinion

As far as there being evidence on both sides, I don't see it. Anything anyone has been able to provide as evidence, no matter what side of the fence you sit, has been based on what that person perceives as evidence. Someone saying that their prayers have been answered and lists this as evidence, has to prove that this specific instance would not have happened had they not prayed. It may be true to this person, but they are not going to sway any opinions with it. It's just another story.

This is not to say that these story's are meant to change someone else's outlook. If something good happened to someone after they prayed for it, and they believe that prayer is the direct cause then thats awesome. It's nice to hear that good things happen to good people, and have them share it with strangers, but this cannot be used to prove the existence of God. I'd actually like to hear what these people say when asked about the things they prayed for that didn't happen. Does God have a set agenda and only grants prayers he thinks are worthy? Or is it a crap shoot, and you just happen to catch God in a giving mood? I don't believe in it, so I am far from qualified to give any sort of opinion on it. I simply do not know.

 

[nonbeliever_92]

There is evidence on both sides everywhere, I thought I said that already.

Really? Actually neither side has submitted evidence. One side has claimed to have provided evidence, the other side has tells why there hasn't been any evidence presented.

 

[Orias]

Really? Actually neither side has submitted evidence. One side has claimed to have provided evidence, the other side has tells why there hasn't been any evidence presented.

I can be redundant to, how do you know what the evidence is if you don't even know what your looking for?

People provide their own personal evidence to you, they go out of their way to express themselves and what they truly believe and then you shoot it down and say that it is a claim to evidence, when really you don't know even know what the hell your looking for.

Both sides have submitted mounds of evidence, just because you chose not to see it, does not mean that they haven't tried their best to put forth what they are naturally comfortable with.

It should be natural enough to assume that we exist because of our fathers, so our fathers exist because of their fathers, and so on.

It's a proposition that requires little effort to deny, and tons of effort to understand.

 

[McBell]

I can be redundant to, how do you know what the evidence is if you don't even know what your looking for?

People provide their own personal evidence to you, they go out of their way to express themselves and what they truly believe and then you shoot it down and say that it is a claim to evidence, when really you don't know even know what the hell your looking for.

Both sides have submitted mounds of evidence, just because you chose not to see it, does not mean that they haven't tried their best to put forth what they are naturally comfortable with.

It should be natural enough to assume that we exist because of our fathers, so our fathers exist because of their fathers, and so on.

It's a proposition that requires little effort to deny, and tons of effort to understand.

Would you be so kind as to point out what evidence has been presented for god in this thread?
Not rationalizations.
Not justifications.
But evidence.