God Exist

[hoope]

This was emailed to me , thought of sharing it with you :-)


[SIZE="4"]This is one of the best explanations of why God allows pain and suffering that I have seen

A man went to a barbershop to have his hair cut and his beard trimmed.
As the barber began to work, they began to have a good conversation.
They talked about so many things and various subjects.
When they eventually touched on the subject of God, the barber said:
"I don't believe that God exists."



"Why do you say that?" asked the customer. "Well, you just have to go out in the street to realize that God doesn't exist.
Tell me, if God exists, would there be so many sick people?
Would there be abandoned children?

If God existed, there would be neither suffering nor pain.
I can't imagine a loving God who would allow all of these things."
The customer thought for a moment, but didn't respond because he didn't want to start an argument.
The barber finished his job and the customer left the shop.

Just after he left the barbershop, he saw a man in the street with long, stringy, dirty hair and an untrimmed beard.
He looked dirty and unkempt. The customer turned back and entered the barber shop again and he said to the barber:
"You know what? Barbers do not exist."
"How can you say that?" asked the surprised barber.
"I am here, and I am a barber. And I just worked on you!"
"No!" the customer exclaimed. "Barbers don't exist because
if they did, there would be no people with dirty long hair and untrimmed beards, like that man outside."


"Ah, but barbers DO exist! That's what happens when people do not come to me."
"Exactly!" affirmed the customer. "That's the point! God, too, DOES exist!
That's what happens when people do not go to Him and don't look to Him for help.
That's why there's so much pain and suffering in the world."


If you think God exists, send this to other people---
If you think God does not exist, delete it!


BE BLESSED & BE A BLESSING TO OTHERS!


http://www.coolfreeimages.net/images/flowers/flowers_15.jpg

[NikolaiI]

That was really beautiful, thank you!

[Bancini]

Flawed logic....but a great story

[oopsycandy]

Im sure there are lots of people praying everyday to god to be relieved of their suffering, hunger and misery.

Perhaps there not trying hard enough eh?

[Neo_Sephiroth]

Nice.

[hoope]

Im sure there are lots of people praying everyday to god to be relieved of their suffering, hunger and misery.

Perhaps there not trying hard enough eh?

i dnt think its about trying hard ... i would rather say its about being honest
and not only remembering God when you need but we should always do remember Him.

[billyjack]

cute story. i've been seeing a lot of these appeal to simplicity god stories of late. their fallacious content doesnt seem to bother believers...which bothers me

[Lust Hogg]

If there is a god , then there can be no suffering. unless, an acknowledged assent towards god eliminates suffering. If there are barbers, there can be no unkempt men. but an awareness of the barber and his services eliminates the utter hopelessness of being an unkempt man. The logic is for the most part consistent. Valid argument, but the soundness of the premises are definitely in question. Gods are supposed to eliminate suffering, while barbers are supposed to prevent men from being unkempt. The point of debate is the relation between being unkempt, and human suffering.

[Wintermute]

cute story. i've been seeing a lot of these appeal to simplicity god stories of late. their fallacious content doesnt seem to bother believers...which bothers me

Hi Billy,

Agreed. Its also nonsense. My grandmother believed in the Christian god with all her heart. Apparently god didn't trust her or something because she was smitten with a particularly nasty cancer in her late sixties and suffered tremendously for almost a decade before passing.

So: "That's what happens when people do not go to Him and don't look to Him for help. That's why there's so much pain and suffering in the world."

...is pure crap. I'm sorry, and I mean no disrespect to anyone, but this statement is simply not true. Folks that 'go to Him' still suffer as much as those who choose another path.

Blessings,
Doug

[hoope]

Hi Billy,

Agreed. Its also nonsense. My grandmother believed in the Christian god with all her heart. Apparently god didn't trust her or something because she was smitten with a particularly nasty cancer in her late sixties and suffered tremendously for almost a decade before passing.

So: "That's what happens when people do not go to Him and don't look to Him for help. That's why there's so much pain and suffering in the world."

...is pure crap. I'm sorry, and I mean no disrespect to anyone, but this statement is simply not true. Folks that 'go to Him' still suffer as much as those who choose another path.

Blessings,
Doug

You can't say that she got cancer coz God didn't trust her .. that's silly.. !
Why can't we say that when a person gets sick , or even when anything bad happened, its to see how human being can be patient & know that this is all written for him , Be patient & accepting whateva that happens to us.
Why can't we do that instead of say that GOD IS BAD , God ALLOW ALL THE SUFFERING OF PEOPLE...

Nothing happens to us but we have been a reason or part in that.

[SirRaustusBear]

Chain email philosophy is about a step below bathroom graffiti philosophy.

And the point of this earth shatteringly beautiful treatise on human unhappiness seems to be that if you ask God to get rid of your suffering, he will do it (though if we follow the barber analogy you might have to pay him).

So following this logic, all those who suffer haven't asked God to alleviate said suffering. Therefore those who both suffer and pray must be doing so insincerely. That's a pretty broad statement, all unhappy people are bad at praying, or are secret atheists.

[oopsycandy]

Hoope I think your missing the point of my post and I think Wintermute was alluding to a similar point

Your OP states quite clearly *That's what happens when people do not go to him, and don't look to him for help. Thats why there so much pain and sufffering in the world*

I actually find the suggestion in the OP that the people I loved who have died horribly, or that the millions of people on this planet who are starving and suffering everyday, are doing so because they have failed to subscribe to this idea of a deity offensive.

If I had to choose between being poked in the eye by my barber with a pair of scissors or having my head pulled off by the god this is supposed to prove the truth of, I'd take my chances with the god.

[1n50mn14]

Hoope I think your missing the point of my post and I think Wintermute was alluding to a similar point

Your OP states quite clearly *That's what happens when people do not go to him, and don't look to him for help. Thats why there so much pain and sufffering in the world*

I actually find the suggestion in the OP that the people I loved who have died horribly, or that the millions of people on this planet who are starving and suffering everyday, are doing so because they have failed to subscribe to this idea of a deity offensive.

If I had to choose between being poked in the eye by my barber with a pair of scissors or having my head pulled off by the god this is supposed to prove the truth of, I'd take my chances with the god.

Agreed. 100%.

There are a great deal of people who appeal to God, who fervently believe in Him, and who ask for his help- not in petty issues, either. And they still die horrible deaths, lead tragic lives and suffer.

[JBI]

Another one? Read before posting, geez. This isn't a cut and paste forum - it's for discussion of literary texts. Why don't people stop forwarding their emails here?

As far as I'm concerned, this has nothing to do with the bible, or any other text, and instead insults my beliefs as an atheist.

These boards are not for converting - if I'm not posting topics like "why religious people are idiots", and not copying and pasting from Dawkins or whomever, why should religious people be allowed the same freedom?

Basically I find this insulting. It says that because I am not Christian, or whatever monotheistic religion this seems to follow (though I think it is Christian, because I know Jewish Dogma would consider this ridiculous) I deserve all the suffering and whatnot that comes to me. It says I am not entitled to good unless I believe in god. It says people suffer because they do not accept God. It basically says, tough luck Atheist, rot in hell.

It says more than that. It says those people who don't have food in poor countries deserve it, because they don't believe in "God". It says many worse things than that, and it is not the least bit unoffensive.

I think of it eventually leads to this argument - "Jews got what they deserved during the Sho'ah because they did not accept the teaching of Jesus Christ." Or any other form of justification. Bigoted, and, ironically, not even justified within scripture.

It seems like whoever wrote that needs to read the book of Job. Either way, I don't think copy and pasting goes with the forum rules, and I don't think the content does either - how could it not offend. I'm surprised this isn't locked - I don't want to say there is a double standard, so I guess I'll just say it hasn't been gotten around to yet.

[Neo_Sephiroth]

Ouch! A little tough there, yo.

[NikolaiI]

God is infinite.

[hoope]

Hoope I think your missing the point of my post and I think Wintermute was alluding to a similar point

Your OP states quite clearly *That's what happens when people do not go to him, and don't look to him for help. Thats why there so much pain and sufffering in the world*

I actually find the suggestion in the OP that the people I loved who have died horribly, or that the millions of people on this planet who are starving and suffering everyday, are doing so because they have failed to subscribe to this idea of a deity offensive.

If I had to choose between being poked in the eye by my barber with a pair of scissors or having my head pulled off by the god this is supposed to prove the truth of, I'd take my chances with the god.

I get ur point ... & yes many people go to God but have you asked yourself whether they are worshipping God int he right way , its not about only believing & going to the church.. And yet you may suffer.
Its not about being , its about becoming what God wants to.We have a choice in our life & we can choose between whats right & wrong . And we can't blame the poor or the sick for they are ; everyone has a reason for . If ther is no poor there wouldn't have been rich , ppl would be all inthe same level ; but now you can see that there is charity & ppl help eachother . If there is no sick you wouldn't know how gifted you r with having a good health & you would thank God . Things are made for reason , & we are all part of what has been written ; but we have the right to accept it or deny it & suffer . And i am one who believes inteh world hereafter i dnt know if you do; but once anyone does they will know that this life is othing but a way that we pass by ; we may get sick or suffer but int he would hereafter there is endless happiness .

I hope you were able to get my point of view . And thx alot for your comment & sorry for any misunderstandin

[hoope]

Another one? Read before posting, geez. This isn't a cut and paste forum - it's for discussion of literary texts. Why don't people stop forwarding their emails here?

As far as I'm concerned, this has nothing to do with the bible, or any other text, and instead insults my beliefs as an atheist.

These boards are not for converting - if I'm not posting topics like "why religious people are idiots", and not copying and pasting from Dawkins or whomever, why should religious people be allowed the same freedom?

Basically I find this insulting. It says that because I am not Christian, or whatever monotheistic religion this seems to follow (though I think it is Christian, because I know Jewish Dogma would consider this ridiculous) I deserve all the suffering and whatnot that comes to me. It says I am not entitled to good unless I believe in god. It says people suffer because they do not accept God. It basically says, tough luck Atheist, rot in hell.

It says more than that. It says those people who don't have food in poor countries deserve it, because they don't believe in "God". It says many worse things than that, and it is not the least bit unoffensive.

I think of it eventually leads to this argument - "Jews got what they deserved during the Sho'ah because they did not accept the teaching of Jesus Christ." Or any other form of justification. Bigoted, and, ironically, not even justified within scripture.

It seems like whoever wrote that needs to read the book of Job. Either way, I don't think copy and pasting goes with the forum rules, and I don't think the content does either - how could it not offend. I'm surprised this isn't locked - I don't want to say there is a double standard, so I guess I'll just say it hasn't been gotten around to yet.

SORRY JBI.... i should have read the forum rules..but thers no need to be harsh with your words , anyway i thought it would be good to just share & see other opinion.. whateva.. i'll check its not A COPY PASTE WORK next tym .:D

[Judas130]

yeah, flawed logic, nice enough story.
but to be honest, I like my beard.

[hoope]

yeah, flawed logic, nice enough story.
but to be honest, I like my beard.

Thx Judas.. for steppin by :)

[Wintermute]

. . .but have you asked yourself whether they are worshipping God int he right way , its not about only believing & going to the church..

Hi Hoope,

I'm sorry. Are you saying that my grandmother was worshipping in the wrong way? And that by doing so she brought on her cancer and suffering? If so, I want no part of your God. You can keep it.

Its no wonder this planet is in such a state with ideas like this.

Doug

[hoope]

Hi Hoope,

I'm sorry. Are you saying that my grandmother was worshipping in the wrong way? And that by doing so she brought on her cancer and suffering? If so, I want no part of your God. You can keep it.

Its no wonder this planet is in such a state with ideas like this.

Doug

daaaaaaaa.. don't get me wrong..
No offence Wintermute ! Every one has his own point views.. And am sorry for your grandma ; May her soul rest in peace

Getting cancer or any disease is a testing for human tolerance & whether they can take it with patient & know that this is written for anyone .. those who believe or not.. i believe that how our life will be is written way before we r born.. nothing we do can change it .. but we can accept it in a different way..



And which state you meant by ur last word.. !!

[blazeofglory]

The reason man believes in God is man likens this vastness, the unknown universe to God. Of course there are too many associations of God-related subjects with mythological readings. And when mythological things have bearings on the subject of God it is not unnatural to see some of the superstitious beliefs with God-subjects.

Yet I see God rather differently and choose to dissociate it with mere mythological issues.
God is the universe, the cosmos but in its manifested or un-manifested forms.

[laidbackperson]

Though not directly relevant, the way believers believe and the way atheists counter argue and refuse to believe in God, I got reminded of this joke.

A deaf person going for a swim in the river met another deaf sitting by the roadside:

Sitting deaf: Are you going for a swim in the river?

First deaf: No, No…. I am going for a swim in the river.

Sitting deaf: Oh! I thought, you were going for a swim in the river.

I am a firm believer, by the way.

[Judas130]

The reason man believes in God is man likens this vastness, the unknown universe to God. Of course there are too many associations of God-related subjects with mythological readings. And when mythological things have bearings on the subject of God it is not unnatural to see some of the superstitious beliefs with God-subjects.

Yet I see God rather differently and choose to dissociate it with mere mythological issues.
God is the universe, the cosmos but in its manifested or un-manifested forms.

To say God is the entirety of the natural order, existence being the common thread between all that physically exists and God being the binding for us all, is a concept I share. To believe this however, at least in and around the time of Spinoza, was as good as atheism. It is a deistic concept, to see an entity that IS the universe, all in it, the cosmos but in its 'manifested or un-manifested forms' - to me this means, 'physically', and 'in abstract'. Thus, i would infer from your statement that 'God' in this understanding is like spinoza's natural order, Plato's Form of the Good, or Aristotle's Prime Mover. Therefore, 'God', in this understanding, cannot be interactive, loving, or in any way interested with us humans. As Hoope is clearly a Theist, her God clearly of the Judeo-Christian variety and so your deistic idea, of which I too share (in some form or another perhaps), doesn't apply to her loving God, nor her story...or HIS if I got the gender wrong...I just assumed due to the flowery avatar...

All in all, deism is an interesting way to look at something...it depersonalises a deity, and has no recommendations to worship it, has some empirical grounds for proof, yet cannot be faith or religion, but philosophy.

peace

[hoope]

The reason man believes in God is man likens this vastness, the unknown universe to God. Of course there are too many associations of God-related subjects with mythological readings. And when mythological things have bearings on the subject of God it is not unnatural to see some of the superstitious beliefs with God-subjects.

Yet I see God rather differently and choose to dissociate it with mere mythological issues.
God is the universe, the cosmos but in its manifested or un-manifested forms.

Hey Blaze we missed you around.. wlc back..

and yes i was eager to read your reply & as you said we should dissociate God from any mythology

[hoope]

To say God is the entirety of the natural order, existence being the common thread between all that physically exists and God being the binding for us all, is a concept I share. To believe this however, at least in and around the time of Spinoza, was as good as atheism. It is a deistic concept, to see an entity that IS the universe, all in it, the cosmos but in its 'manifested or un-manifested forms' - to me this means, 'physically', and 'in abstract'. Thus, i would infer from your statement that 'God' in this understanding is like spinoza's natural order, Plato's Form of the Good, or Aristotle's Prime Mover. Therefore, 'God', in this understanding, cannot be interactive, loving, or in any way interested with us humans. As Hoope is clearly a Theist, her God clearly of the Judeo-Christian variety and so your deistic idea, of which I too share (in some form or another perhaps), doesn't apply to her loving God, nor her story...or HIS if I got the gender wrong...I just assumed due to the flowery avatar...

All in all, deism is an interesting way to look at something...it depersonalises a deity, and has no recommendations to worship it, has some empirical grounds for proof, yet cannot be faith or religion, but philosophy.

peace

Am a girl.. & i have no any philosophy iterest out of all this.. & i dnt like philosophy either.. And i think we should separate Philosophy from religion & from faith... Philosopher are nothing but weird ppl coming up with theories .. which are to be wrong or right ..

i went way from the topic.. anyway Judas.. thx alot for your comment.. & for sharing your idea..

[blazeofglory]

Philosophy is just full of ideas, different ideas, and it suffers limitations.

All of us are here learning. Truth is not revealed to us fully. We have so many books, philosophies, Scientology theories that were designed or written about truth, but they can not unfold full truth but only part of them only.

God is truth, and realizing truth is likened to realizing truth.

All regardless of ideologies, all follow truth in its variations. Scientists are too seeking it and spiritualists are too. The only difference is the path.

[Wintermute]

Hi Blazeofglory,


Scientists are too seeking it and spiritualists are too. The only difference is the path.

Do you know anyone who has actually, 100% certain found 'it'. There seem to be gazillions of folks that claim to have found 'it'. But I don't think they have. Most of them seem silly to me. I'm hoping 'it' is much more beautiful and gentle than Ms hoope thinks.

Naturally, being agnostic, I could be wrong--it could be a mean spirited, angry old man sitting in a cloud somewhere smiting those who fail to recognize and worship it.

Blessings to you.

Doug

[weltanschauung]

god's body is the universe.
god's thoughts are gravity, strong nuclear force, weak interaction force, and electro-magnetic force.
god's actions are all the immutable mechanisms triggered by the basic four thoughts.
http://theanimationacademy.com/an/Universe5a.jpg

anthropocentrism is a frigging joke.

[billyjack]

Am a girl.. & i have no any philosophy iterest out of all this.. & i dnt like philosophy either.. And i think we should separate Philosophy from religion & from faith... Philosopher are nothing but weird ppl coming up with theories .. which are to be wrong or right ..
.

i agree philosophy should be separated from sun worshiping and wishing (ie..religion and faith). good call hoope.



Do you know anyone who has actually, 100% certain found 'it'.
Doug

somewhat more seriously though, i can think of a few philosophers that wrote as if they found 'it.' who's to say if they lived like they wrote though. i heard Kant was quite the guy

sidenote: anthropomorphism is blasphemy of "it", sort of. sometimes not though. emphasis sometimes. usually is

[krymsonkyng]

The message of the original story isn't,"This is why god exists". The message is more along the lines of "come to god, because he must exist". If so which god? From what I recall, "All gods where immortal"

Whether a god or set of gods exist is moot. Which truth do we choose to realize? usually it's the one we're indoctrinated in at birth. Sometimes folks research other religions and find they're not all that dissimilar. Although, here's how general Philosophy and Religions differ:
Philosophy is figuring out how to live. Religion is being told how to live. Philosophy is focused on this plane of existence . Religion goes beyond the mortal coil, either as a punishing or a rewarding system. Philosophy proposes rewards in this life. Religion promises rewards in this life and beyond. Philosophy builds itself on premise. Religion builds itself on tradition.

So which do you take? A proposal or a promise? And if you chose the promise which one? There are more than enough out there to provide enough pleasure and pain for lifetimes to come.

This very question is why there is conflict in the world. "He can't be right because that would make me wrong". Really, what does it matter whether a god truly exists or not? Religion should be a means to a healthy lifestyle or it's masochistic. If you live righteously you'll usually be considered a good person, and end up in heaven (One of the christian varieties or nirvana or Firdaus or one of the Lokas or...). Otherwise the religion brings conflict instead of peace, and is hypocritical in some capacity.

What I'm saying is it's not if god exists, but how you believe 'it' would want us to exist. If you live well, you're a winner either way.

[Judas130]

but grounds for faith can be very philosophical. But you are right Krym, religion is the ages of manmade tradition indoctrinating its dogma into us all. Religion is the group you belong to, it is your community, the word suggests it - you conform. Our cognitive mechanisms freely accept irrational non-doubting explanations for design.

:idea:

Yet we as humans possess the inner religious struggle between melancholy and happiness, and trance is our cognitive mechanism. Fear and pain, the need for a powerful parent to care for us, the obsessional nature of ritual, and the hypnotic state a community can induce are all factors of religion. Philosophy can strip this bare of false axioms, or it can back it up. at the end of the day you are thinking for yourself with philosophy.


peace.

[NikolaiI]

Judas that post is objectionable on many levels. It is uncalled for, baseless, and vulgar.

[Judas130]

apologies, it is edited now, to an extent...i hit a chord maybe? forgive me.

[Frizzy_Frog]

As far as I'm concerned, this has nothing to do with the bible, or any other text, and instead insults my beliefs as an atheist.

I don't really believe in god, and I'm not offended. It wasn't meant to insult anyone, I'm sure. Chillax :)

[blazeofglory]

God must exist, and without God existing nothing exist. We are manifestations of God; in fact we are different forms of God. We coexist or our existence is God's existence in a different way.

How can water exist without a container, and so does God exist and God is the container of this universe and all of us.

Realizing the existence of God demands of us a certain quality or else we fail to comprehend this subtlety and few can understand it.

God is a process. God is not a thing, or entity or physicality at all as we generally tend to conceive of. We associate God with issues of heaven, otherworldliness, something extraordinaire, some entity that is unrealisable in this part of the world.

God permeates through everything.

[NikolaiI]

God must exist, and without God existing nothing exist. We are manifestations of God; in fact we are different forms of God. We coexist or our existence is God's existence in a different way.

How can water exist without a container, and so does God exist and God is the container of this universe and all of us.

Realizing the existence of God demands of us a certain quality or else we fail to comprehend this subtlety and few can understand it.

God is a process. God is not a thing, or entity or physicality at all as we generally tend to conceive of. We associate God with issues of heaven, otherworldliness, something extraordinaire, some entity that is unrealisable in this part of the world.

God permeates through everything.

I agree with everything you've said. God permeates the whole of creation, into every atom.

God is the source of all spiritual and material worlds. God is Truth, the source of Light, of all love, bliss, knowledge, peace, renunciation, wealth, fame, power, etc.. God is the source of reality.

The source of all worlds, all reality, is within the heart of every living being. The center of the universe, as the Daoists say, is within the heart of every being.

We're seprate because of our desire, our consciousness, our ego. We associate ourselves with gross, subtle and mental consciousness. But we are none of these. Our pure essence is non-different from our source. How can we be different from our source? And yet due to ignorance we create layers and layers of falsity.

We feel like we are separate from reality but we are not. God is within us, the source. How can any living being not have the potential for enlightenment? We all do. Enlightenment is simply enacting our true nature, our pure essence, our true self, our source. It is spontaneous love. It is fearlessness, happiness, peace, and knowledge.

[MissScarlett]

A cute story, from my point of view, very flawed logic.

Pain and suffering and death are part of life for every living thing, not just human beings. God doesn't inflict pain, nor does it take it away and confer health and happiness. Pain and suffering simply "are."

I agree with the things blazeofglory wrote, but of course, I think everyone has the right to believe whatever they want. A person's belief is his belief and cannot be changed by others.

[NisreenS]

but people who suffer in this life and are patient and there suffering does'nt make them disbelivers will be awarded in the next life , they will go to heaven. All prophets suffered, didn't they? suffering is a test, and belief needs to be tested.

[grotto]

but people who suffer in this life and are patient and there suffering does'nt make them disbelivers will be awarded in the next life , they will go to heaven. All prophets suffered, didn't they? suffering is a test, and belief needs to be tested.

Nice try! How do you know this? Have you passed to the nether world and have come back to enlighten us? Maybe, my guess is though, it’s conditioned thought. People are trained to believe in suffering, it’s an addiction, along with the cure for that self imposed suffering. There are many mystics throughout history who didn’t spent their lives suffering, but then again, organized dogma can’t use them to sell their medicine.

Religion has no interest in showing the cure, it’s only interested in selling the medicine.

Yes, I will agree with you on one point, but not in the way you intended. Belief in deed needs to be tested! The testing needs to be, why you believe in anything at all? What is the reason for your belief? Is it only because it’s what you have been told to do and think?

It’s a good thing that someone didn’t think the world was flat or that everything revolved around the earth. Its unfortunate the sheep, when in large enough numbers can indeed stampede the wolf.

[weltanschauung]

but people who suffer in this life and are patient and there suffering does'nt make them disbelivers will be awarded in the next life , they will go to heaven. All prophets suffered, didn't they? suffering is a test, and belief needs to be tested.

"doesnt that trouble anyone? the idea that god might be ****ing with our heads? i have trouble sleeping with that knowledge... some prankster god running around.
i think god put YOU here to test MY faith, dude" (b.h.)

[BienvenuJDC]

I do not believe that God is just as thing. God is a Person with intelligence, power, personality, and emotion. If the universe was created (science indicates that it was) and if it was created with design (again...there is a design to it) then Someone with an intelligence greater than the design must have created it. The same can be said about mankind. The human (and animal forms) are created with such an intricate design, then the Creator must have more intelligence than is reflected in the design. The same arguments can be made about the love that is reflected in mankind. A greater love must be found in the Creator.

[NisreenS]

Dear grotto, Yes,I have been told to believe in God when I was a child. I was a good believer until I was 22, when I started to ask questions about all what I have taken for granted for the past years. I discovered that believing in God and life after death answers all questions about man and existence and his last destiny, while suspecting all that doesn't answer anything. I don't want to be astray again after I arrived to the truth at last. And there is a question to you: Have you ever died and discovered that there is nothing after death and you have come back to enlighten us?

[NikolaiI]

The Inner Fields
by Sri Aurobindo


There is a brighter ether than this blue
Pretence of an enveloping heavenly vault,
Royaler investiture than this massed assault
Of emerald rapture pearled with tears of dew.
Immortal spaces of cerulean hue
Are in our reach and fields without this fault
Of drab brown earth and streams that never halt
In their deep murmur which white flowers strew

Floating like stars upon a strip of sky.
This world behind is made of truer stuff
Than the manufactured tissue of earth's grace.
There we can walk and see the gods go by
And sip from Hebe's cup nectar enough
To make for us heavenly limbs and deathless face.

[NisreenS]

To 42:Please Do not say that impolite words about your Creator (in this way you are violating the rules of the forums: respecting the beliefs of others). God does exist whether you accept the thought or refuse it. Otherwise can you tell me who created you? Nature? Is Nature so wise to create such complex entity. Chance? Does this make sense? And look at our world: there is governance in everything: a family has a father, a school has a headmaster, a city has a governor, a state has a president, so , rationally the world needs to have a Lord. There is courts on earth to achieve justice, but not all criminals are punished, so it is very reasonable that there is a day when those criminals are punished and victims are satisfied with this . It's oversimplification to ignore a lot of facts around us and get rid of all reasonable things by saying there is no God. Science says that every phenomenon has a reason and purpose. Life and death two are phenomena and should have reasons and purposes. Disbelieving in Good and life after death makes make these two phenomena purposeless and causeless.

[grotto]

Dear grotto, Yes,I have been told to believe in God when I was a child. I was a good believer until I was 22, when I started to ask questions about all what I have taken for granted for the past years. I discovered that believing in God and life after death answers all questions about man and existence and his last destiny, while suspecting all that doesn't answer anything. I don't want to be astray again after I arrived to the truth at last. And there is a question to you: Have you ever died and discovered that there is nothing after death and you have come back to enlighten us?

From “The Menagerie” They have their illusion, and you have yours. May you live in peace.

To your question; Nope, I haven’t come here to do anything more than ask questions. I don’t give a “you know what” about yours, or anyone else’s enlightenment.

No truth that can be understood in the feeble mind of a human is ever to be believed. No belief can ever be held as truth. Belief negates infinite truth as truth negates stoic beliefs.

[Rococo]

Yeah, this seems silly. Nice story - but it doesn't really prove a point.

I could go on and list hundreds of stories that contradict this one, but that would take too long, so i'll just list a couple - namely, the one's that i have encountered in everyday life.

My favourite arguement for the nonexistance of god is this: my grandfather fought in the second world war (and, before you get on your self-righteous high-horse, he had to fight - he was conscripted and had no choice in the matter)

He was hiding in a bunker, along with his fellow soldiers. The bunker was being shelled. They were helpless, so they prayed. As soon as they finished their prayer, a huge icycle fell from the ceiling of the bunker and hit one of his friends. Needless to say, the man that was hit died instantly. If that wasn't ironic enough, my grandfather was actually praying that, if anyone was to die, it should be him, because he was the only one there who wasn't married with children. The man that died was a father of three. Was God there for these men when they needed him? No.

Another thing: a woman i used to know (note USED to know) was extremely pious. She went to church every Sunday, made sure her kids went to church and Sunday school. She was active in the community - everyone loved her, she was probably one of the most selfless, kind hearted people i've ever met. She died in agony, of breast cancer.

Finally, my old English tutor, a lovely lady and very, very traditionally religious, who goes to church every Sunday, prays every evening etc. She's currently unable to walk, awaiting a hip replacement and surgery. She's in constant pain (even, may i add, while she's praying)

Like i said - i could go on and on. Everyone has some stories like that - stories that are pretty good evidence for god's nonexistance. Or maybe God does exist - only he doesn't give a damn about human suffering. I can't remember who it was who came up with this arguement - some philosopher, only their name eludes me - but, when you think about it, it is actually impossible for a Christian "all-loving" and omnipotent god to exist: it's entirely contradictory!! If god has supreme power over all beings and loves all beings, he would be able to stop the suffering. Maybe he does exist, only is not omnipotent and therefore is unable to stop suffering - or maybe he is omnipotent, but, like i said, is not all-loving and therefore does nothing to alleviate suffering.

If the idea of God and religion does enrich your life - fine. And good for you: You have a hobby! But, as much as i would love to derive inner peace from meditation, praying, reading psalms and singing hymns or whatever - i just can't delude myself. I've TRIED to be a Christian - really, i have - but i just can't take myself seriously - it bugs me, and when i pray or go to church i just can't get over the feeling that what i'm doing is silly, old-fashioned and pointless besides.

And if heaven and hell DO exist - great. Suits me just fine. If they do exist, i'm hell-bound, which is awesome because Byron, Shelley and Paganini are there too, to name just a few ;)

[beroq]

I guess there's an "s" missing in the thread title. "God exists." When I was merely making a correction, God enabled me to tell the Truth!

[cute angel]

Very true,God exists and if The Almighty doesn't exist all systems won't work.

tanks a bunch for that great topic

[La Amistad]

My first post here - Hey let my name be Ocma here :).

anyway back to the thread topic, alot of the time i think he does. so there.

[BienvenuJDC]

Another one? Read before posting, geez. This isn't a cut and paste forum - it's for discussion of literary texts. Why don't people stop forwarding their emails here?

I don't understand. What are you telling me? Because we do not know the original author of this story, that this story has not been published, that it's method of distribution is e-mail, then that means that it is not literature...

I believe that there is at least some validity in the argument made in the story. I believe that I understand the original poster's beliefs are that there is a God and that God is there to relieve the pain and suffering if people will go to Him. The intent, if I am not mistaken, was that others would reciprocate such thoughts. I don't think that it is appropriate to belittle this forum member concerning this post, or their beliefs.


As far as I'm concerned, this has nothing to do with the bible, or any other text, and instead insults my beliefs as an atheist.

This person did not mention the Bible, nor did this person mention Christianity, Judaism, Hinduism, Buddhism, or any other religion. This was a reference to one's belief in God and the relation to suffering. From my perspective, this person did not intend to insult anyone's belief, but it was merely pointed out that there is a disagreement from other's points of view. The request at the end of the original post was one of two things: either to respond in a positive manner if you agreed with the existence of God, or if it is the case that you do not believe in the existence of God, please ignore this post.

[oopsycandy]

So if you agree with me we can talk and if you don't you have nothing to say?

Not really conducive to open discussion is it?

[NikolaiI]

No truth that can be understood in the feeble mind of a human is ever to be believed. No belief can ever be held as truth. Belief negates infinite truth as truth negates stoic beliefs.

Basically, I can just see you are holding to the idea that it is impossible to know truth. No reason really to think this. Even if you ever known it or met anyone you thought knew it. Doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Just means it's rare and worthwhile. You mentioned you had read Ramana Maharshi. Didn't you find anything worthwhile in his writings? If you didn't it's understandable, most people probably wouldn't, but just thought I'd ask (the question).

[grotto]

Basically, you see very little if you think I hold to any idea.

[Mr. Dark]

The simplest reason might be that he just doesn't care.

[NikolaiI]

Basically, you see very little if you think I hold to any idea.

I assume when you say something you meant to say it..

[JuniperWoolf]

Another one? Read before posting, geez. This isn't a cut and paste forum - it's for discussion of literary texts. Why don't people stop forwarding their emails here?

As far as I'm concerned, this has nothing to do with the bible, or any other text, and instead insults my beliefs as an atheist.

These boards are not for converting - if I'm not posting topics like "why religious people are idiots", and not copying and pasting from Dawkins or whomever, why should religious people be allowed the same freedom?

Basically I find this insulting. It says that because I am not Christian, or whatever monotheistic religion this seems to follow (though I think it is Christian, because I know Jewish Dogma would consider this ridiculous) I deserve all the suffering and whatnot that comes to me. It says I am not entitled to good unless I believe in god. It says people suffer because they do not accept God. It basically says, tough luck Atheist, rot in hell.

It says more than that. It says those people who don't have food in poor countries deserve it, because they don't believe in "God". It says many worse things than that, and it is not the least bit unoffensive.

I think of it eventually leads to this argument - "Jews got what they deserved during the Sho'ah because they did not accept the teaching of Jesus Christ." Or any other form of justification. Bigoted, and, ironically, not even justified within scripture.

It seems like whoever wrote that needs to read the book of Job. Either way, I don't think copy and pasting goes with the forum rules, and I don't think the content does either - how could it not offend. I'm surprised this isn't locked - I don't want to say there is a double standard, so I guess I'll just say it hasn't been gotten around to yet.

I was going to post something, but you said absolutely everything that I was about to, only more effectively.

[NikolaiI]

God is the source or root of reality. God is the infinite.

[lichtrausch]

God is the source or root of reality. God is the infinite.

Got any proof for that?

[NikolaiI]

Got any proof for that?

Reality must have a source, no? Just as a tree has roots, so must reality have a root, correct?

If reality has a source; where can anything within reality go, outside of reality, except back to the source? Therefore, where can anything in reality go except for the source? Where is the dissolution, the death which ends us, which the naturalist/atheist speaks of?

Where can anything go except for to its source? And then further, how can the source exist less than what comes from it? In other words, how can the source exist less than the unvierse?

What I am saying, is that nothing dies.

[lichtrausch]

Reality must have a source, no? Just as a tree has roots, so must reality have a root, correct?

If reality has a source; where can anything within reality go, outside of reality, except back to the source? Therefore, where can anything in reality go except for the source? Where is the dissolution, the death which ends us, which the naturalist/atheist speaks of?

Where can anything go except for to its source? And then further, how can the source exist less than what comes from it? In other words, how can the source exist less than the unvierse?

What I am saying, is that nothing dies.

What does this have to do with what you originally said?

[NikolaiI]

What does this have to do with what you originally said?

I said, God is the source and root of reality. I also said God is infinite, infinite peace, bliss, power, and knowledge - my post just now was about the first, the source and root of reality. The argument was meant to say that reality has a source.

There are two ideas I am writing from and about. One is as I said, that God is the source and root of reality. The other is the idea that duality is a fallacy. It is false to think that I have an existence separate from the world, from the universe. And yet in ordinary experience, everything concretizes the idea that I am separate. But if I can intellectually assent to the idea that in reality, I am not separate, this lends importance to finding out what this means on more levels, to realizing this.

The idea that although, in ordinary experience, I feel I am separate from the universe - that is, I am always seeking, and am not possessed of, do not realize, my potential, absolute, perfect, and infinite peace - then overcoming this duality by means of meditation is the source of mysticism.

There is the Hebrew name, YHWH, which we have been taught to mean, "I am." And yet every being in the universe is. Before all the twists and turns from the original source, from all the turns away from the self, every being originally is, "I am," their source is God. Before the conditioning taught us, "I am the body, I am the senses, I am the mind, I am a dog, I am a tiger," or "I am a human," there was the "I am." Our source is the unbounded, "I am."

[backline]

...There is the Hebrew name, YHWH, which we have been taught to mean, "I am." And yet every being in the universe is. Before all the twists and turns from the original source, from all the turns away from the self, every being originally is, "I am," their source is God. Before the conditioning taught us, "I am the body, I am the senses, I am the mind, I am a dog, I am a tiger," or "I am a human," there was the "I am." Our source is the unbounded, "I am."

Well put.
I have experienced this (unity) in meditation.

There is a meditative state where I experience a lot of what the ancients were saying to us in texts.
Many will argue on and on about various texts and teachings, but once I experienced the "reality" of their symbolic descriptions, it gave me a much different perspective on what they were talking about, and some common ground with various people who have experienced the same "reality."

[atiguhya padma]

Backline,

When you say "I have experienced this (unity) in meditation" does the "I" refer to the unity experiencing its own existence? Is it a present abstraction (your personal "I") recounting a past experience (unity)? And if so, is it possible for the personal "I" to be present and conscious within the unity? In fact can there be a within? Can there be a mechanism for experience without fracturing the unity? Your statement seems confusing to me.

AP

[backline]

Backline,

When you say "I have experienced this (unity) in meditation" does the "I" refer to the unity experiencing its own existence? Is it a present abstraction (your personal "I") recounting a past experience (unity)? And if so, is it possible for the personal "I" to be present and conscious within the unity? In fact can there be a within? Can there be a mechanism for experience without fracturing the unity? Your statement seems confusing to me.

AP



OK I didn't express that too well.

What I was referring to was an experience in meditation where I found myself beyond divisions of "I" as a separate entity from being. In that state I recognized "I am," which was what I was alluding to. I was conscious that I was conscious in the present moment. In these states I not only seem to experience "being," in a way without seeming connection to past or future, but upon reflection later I recognized that others seem to have spoken of this state of being in various ways from ancient times.
I therefore see the experience as a possible "root" or "source" for much of what passes for "experiencing the mind of God; God's Love; unity with creation and all beings," what have you.

I was attempting to share an experience of "being" as the basis for what others may express as spirituality.

[atiguhya padma]

I'm still not sure I understand. Is the "experience" of being the same as being? I suspect there are two states at play here. 1) conscious experience 2) being. The first seems to me like cutting a knife through the second. I think that conscious experience is the separator. Conscious experience sets up divisions, boundaries. For instance, if you say to me that you have experienced total unity with reality, unless I experienced it too, and my experience was identical, in fact the very same experience and therefore unidentifiable as mine, then I would be led to conclude that either there was something missing from your account or that I am not anything to do with reality.

I think I understand your statement about experiencing the mind of god, or unity with creation and all beings, if by that you mean you had an unusual and profound experience, but that was all. If you mean that for a brief moment you were one with god or one with nature, all being etc, then that I don't understand. Its like empathy. When people tell me they have felt the pain of others, I assume they mean they have managed to recreate an experience of simulation, not that the very same pain that someone feels is the very same identical pain of the empathiser, ie there is one pain and two subjects that feel that one pain.

[backline]

...I think I understand your statement about experiencing the mind of god, or unity with creation and all beings, if by that you mean you had an unusual and profound experience, but that was all...

Yes: "as-if."
I believe what is actually happening to me in these meditative states is that my brain's left hemisphere becomes quiet, and I am experiencing consciousness in my right hemisphere.

Then later upon reflection of the experience, I try to assign meaning with words.

[NikolaiI]

OK I didn't express that too well.

What I was referring to was an experience in meditation where I found myself beyond divisions of "I" as a separate entity from being. In that state I recognized "I am," which was what I was alluding to. I was conscious that I was conscious in the present moment. In these states I not only seem to experience "being," in a way without seeming connection to past or future, but upon reflection later I recognized that others seem to have spoken of this state of being in various ways from ancient times.
I therefore see the experience as a possible "root" or "source" for much of what passes for "experiencing the mind of God; God's Love; unity with creation and all beings," what have you.

I was attempting to share an experience of "being" as the basis for what others may express as spirituality.

I agree with this. For me, the source of what I would call mysticism is every living being's unity with the universe. I've been reading Vivekananda a lot recently; it's really good food for the soul. What he says, with which I agree, is that the universe is one. I do not have a separate existence from the universe. In other words, I am a reflection of the universe. Now, it is one thing to say this, agree with it, but that is almost nothing. We are still experiencing, as Einstein termed, "an 'optical delusion' of consciousness," in which we are separate. Anyway, as for me, I would say the source of mysticism is realizing, really realizing, the truth of unity.

[billl]

atiguhya, thanks so much for the great insights and questions. By drawing the distinction between conscious experience and being, you helped to describe how language can sometimes get misused in this sort of conversation--maybe because there's no language that could be used to accurately describe the ineffable states. Anyhow, you're addressing something that doesn't usually get addressed.

I don't know how it started, but somehow we learned to think that we are 'separate' in some sense. We have an 'ego'. Is it a mistake? Did the 'arrival' of spoken and written language somehow set us on some sort of exaggerated course? Beats me.

I think the illusion of separateness is a gift. I love all the drama, and the special connection that I have with certain people, certain places, certain things. The price is suffering, of course--and we all pay it. I think it's not always fair, and that some people are suffering much more or much less than they ought to, compared to others, but maybe that imperfection is another price we pay for the boundaries that hold beauty in position for us to behold it, and keep our paths and problems and learnings different, unique, and surprising.

And look at what humanity has done (good and bad, ugly and beautiful). We are different than the other creatures and plants, all of them living in the moment--and would it really be right to wish ourselves back to a time before all of our thinking started to get some traction?

I've glimpsed unity, and vanished into a state where I was what I perceived, and no longer the perceiver. It's a powerful experience, and hard-earned (At least it is when I'm actively intending to get there!). However, listening to and reading the words of others, I know there's plenty more stops on the meditation train that I haven't made it to yet. I really admire the commitment (and even bravery) of some of the monks that are helping to make the world a better place. But it's become clear to me that separateness is really taking a beating, lately, as if there were only a ying, and no yang, in this whole debate.

[Mr. Dark]

I said, God is the source and root of reality. I also said God is infinite, infinite peace, bliss, power, and knowledge - my post just now was about the first, the source and root of reality. The argument was meant to say that reality has a source.

There are two ideas I am writing from and about. One is as I said, that God is the source and root of reality. The other is the idea that duality is a fallacy. It is false to think that I have an existence separate from the world, from the universe. And yet in ordinary experience, everything concretizes the idea that I am separate. But if I can intellectually assent to the idea that in reality, I am not separate, this lends importance to finding out what this means on more levels, to realizing this.

The idea that although, in ordinary experience, I feel I am separate from the universe - that is, I am always seeking, and am not possessed of, do not realize, my potential, absolute, perfect, and infinite peace - then overcoming this duality by means of meditation is the source of mysticism.

There is the Hebrew name, YHWH, which we have been taught to mean, "I am." And yet every being in the universe is. Before all the twists and turns from the original source, from all the turns away from the self, every being originally is, "I am," their source is God. Before the conditioning taught us, "I am the body, I am the senses, I am the mind, I am a dog, I am a tiger," or "I am a human," there was the "I am." Our source is the unbounded, "I am."


So what is the source of the source of reality?

[NikolaiI]

So what is the source of the source of reality?

Good question - I don't know. It never occurred to me. Seeing your last post on this thread, I am guessing you do not agree with my understanding.

[Mr. Dark]

Good question - I don't know. It never occurred to me. Seeing your last post on this thread, I am guessing you do not agree with my understanding.

I sure don't. To suggest that all things have an origin would require the originator of those things to have an origin as well. I just don't see much to gain from using God to explain the universe when God is unexplainable him/itself. It's a nonanswer.

[NikolaiI]

I sure don't. To suggest that all things have an origin would require the originator of those things to have an origin as well. I just don't see much to gain from using God to explain the universe when God is unexplainable him/itself. It's a nonanswer.

Would it? Isn't it true that all things have a source? Can you think of anything which does not have a source?

And I do not use God to explain the universe. I am saying, the universe has a source; reality has a source. Infinite Being is the root of reality. God is just another word for that.

The material universe is relative; its source is absolute. In relation to that absolute, the relative is but a dream.

You don't believe in a higher power, or an absolute; believe me, that is okay. The majority do not. I'm not here to argue, and I understand the view that there is no source, no absolute, no Infinite. I held that view for most of my life.

[blazeofglory]

You and me and this universe in togetherness is God manifest.

[Mr. Dark]

Would it? Isn't it true that all things have a source? Can you think of anything which does not have a source?

Well it's been argued that the universe has always existed, but you're not really disproving my point here. If everything has a source and God is the sourc of all things, than what is the source of God?


And I do not use God to explain the universe. I am saying, the universe has a source; reality has a source. Infinite Being is the root of reality. God is just another word for that.
What are you basing this idea of Infinite Being on? It seems you're suggesting the idea of an intelligent being but why is there a need for that if we're talking about something that lies at the far end of a chain of causality?


The material universe is relative; its source is absolute. In relation to that absolute, the relative is but a dream.
What is relative to? I mean


You don't believe in a higher power, or an absolute; believe me, that is okay. The majority do not. I'm not here to argue, and I understand the view that there is no source, no absolute, no Infinite. I held that view for most of my life.

I'm agnostic. I just don't see much gain in attempting explanation and accepting it as truth. It's all speculative and our relations with each other are more important than our relations with the universe at large/infinitie reality/God.

[NikolaiI]

Well it's been argued that the universe has always existed, but you're not really disproving my point here. If everything has a source and God is the sourc of all things, than what is the source of God?

Yes I believe it's accurate to say that the universe always existed. I think consciousness of time precedes time; therefore, before consciousness of time, there is no time.


What are you basing this idea of Infinite Being on? It seems you're suggesting the idea of an intelligent being but why is there a need for that if we're talking about something that lies at the far end of a chain of causality

I'm basing it on direct experience. In answer to this part of your post, and...


I'm agnostic. I just don't see much gain in attempting explanation and accepting it as truth. It's all speculative and our relations with each other are more important than our relations with the universe at large/infinitie reality/God.

this, ...

Why is there a need for it? Why is there a need for anything? The need for it is simply because we as humans need it as well as needing food, shelter, emotional growth, knowledge; along all those lines, and beyond material knowledge, we have a need for spiritual fulfilment. Even if we study science or language or art or anything like that, we are not absolutely fulfilled. Or if we do, then it's because we satisfy our need for spiritual fulfilment without consciously choosing to.

The need is to know who we are. To know what truth is, what God is. As George Harrison said, "the search for God cannot wait."

Anyway I hope you'll know that I am not trying to disprove your points. It's not about proof or disproof, or explanations or arguing, or forcing anyone or fighting over what's true. Personally? I hold a belief which absolutely no one else agrees with, not anyone from any side of the issue. I believe terms such as "atheist" and "theist" and everything else in between are not opposed to each other. Why? Can I ever explain that? Maybe not. But still it is my position that atheist is not opposed to theist, and in fact the terms are useless.

It's an interesting question. What is the source of the source of everything else? I don't have an answer for you but I thank you for raising it and I will continue to consider your point. But I would ask you to consider what you're suggesting. Are you suggesting that there's an error in what I said, by your objection? In other words I said, all things have a source, therefore the universe and all things have a singular source, they all came from one source; and you said, this is impossible, because where is that source's source? I mean it's a valid point but I'm not sure it invalidates the idea that reality comes from a source.

As for the existence of an Infinite Intelligence, an Infinite Being, again I will say, I am not speaking in relation to you or anyone, but in relation to all. And when you ask what the need is, I can only explain it in this way. When I had the revelations which I did, I was filled with what I can only describe as an infinite peace and bliss, and along with this came a great desire to grab the hand of a friend and explain all, explain that there is this ineffable peace waiting after this life, peace beyond, absolutely beyond, our comprehension; and that it is at the center. To explain that things are not complicated, they are actually very simple, and there is ..."nothing to get hung about." Further, to explain that no one was ever bound, not really. No one was ever lost, no one was ever separate from God (or the universe). This may seem esoteric but I am not lying about my experiences.. There's still a lot of work to do, I'm not denying that. I'm not saying be lazy, nor don't care. But I am saying, on some level, remain unattached, or... simply be strong, having faith in your (our) self.

[Judas130]

Got any proof for that?

I think, at the end of the day, theists and militant internet anti-theists must agree to disagree. Neither party will gain any ground and what of it? faith is a natural conclusive apparatus to grow out of on your own terms, or live by it.
Theists cannot prove that a God created the world, and if we take it to be true, there are SO many illogical contradictions with traditional understanding of God and so many holes. It is said that scientists cannot disprove God. This is wrong. Of course science can, it has challenged and reformed ideas with FACT and scored a billion more points in the 'correct' side of the tally chart than Religion ever claimed. what science cannot disprove, is an external God. The theist is of course doomed - but the deist isn't. You or I cannot possibly understand the external, because we live internal to reality..so we cannot disprove the existence of an external God. we cannot disprove that a deity crafted our reality. we can disprove through reason that it was a loving, Judeo-Christian God of course - but only that alone. My question which has gone unanswered in another thread is why somebody, after similar evaluation, would believe in what they cannot prove or disprove.

"why believe if you can't prove it?"
"well you can't disprove it!'
"aye, but you have no understanding of the external, so why conclude it?"

[NikolaiI]

I think, at the end of the day, theists and militant internet anti-theists must agree to disagree. Neither party will gain any ground and what of it? faith is a natural conclusive apparatus to grow out of on your own terms, or live by it.
Theists cannot prove that a God created the world, and if we take it to be true, there are SO many illogical contradictions with traditional understanding of God and so many holes. It is said that scientists cannot disprove God. This is wrong. Of course science can, it has challenged and reformed ideas with FACT and scored a billion more points in the 'correct' side of the tally chart than Religion ever claimed. what science cannot disprove, is an external God. The theist is of course doomed - but the deist isn't. You or I cannot possibly understand the external, because we live internal to reality..so we cannot disprove the existence of an external God. we cannot disprove that a deity crafted our reality. we can disprove through reason that it was a loving, Judeo-Christian God of course - but only that alone. My question which has gone unanswered in another thread is why somebody, after similar evaluation, would believe in what they cannot prove or disprove.

"why believe if you can't prove it?"
"well you can't disprove it!'
"aye, but you have no understanding of the external, so why conclude it?"

As Swami Vivekananda says, if there is a God, everyone should be able to perceive him, just as if it is warm, everyone can perceive it is warm. No one should say anything except about what they have experienced. My experience of God is only my experience of my own inner light. I believe that that light is the source of all. It has nothing to do with religion or dogma, and actually I would say it's better not to be a part of religion. You say you can disprove the existence of a loving God - a God of infinite light, love, intelligence. I don't see how - again, for me, I am not interested in proof or disproof, even though I believe there is proof. It's a different kind of proof.

The existence of suffering doesn't preclude the existence of an Infinite. The existence of suffering doesn't preclude the existnece of good; and while this is a common usage for arguments against a God of Love, if you carefully examine the argument it is very frail. It is almost as bad as saying we are sinners, weak and wicked. It has almost as crippling an effect. For what are you saying - would you use this in any other situation? There is suffering, so give up hope? There is suffering, so give up trying? Yes there is suffering, there is work to do, but that doesn't mean that there isn't an inner light within every being, that doesn't mean that we are not part of, or one with the universe; that there is genuine mystical experience. There is no reason to compromise, to give up. There is suffering, but there may be, as Vedantists (Hindus) such as Aurobindo and Vivekananda and others, have written about, that sages have seen and described for us in poetry and literature. I do believe there is a spiritual world beyond this material world. As Lao Tzu said, how do I know it's true? I look within myself and know it's true.

[kingoflombards]

A simple, but just as relevant, proof for you is Akiane. Just look her up. She was an atheist, but now....

[blazeofglory]

Of course God exists, and He exists differently than our cerebral capacities can comprehend, and of course he is so powerful that he had given clues about him but very little. Maybe we must have a bigger cerebrum to comprehend the nature of God. There are no clues regarding the existence of God, and the one we have is also not with full evidence. Yet it is really interesting to believe God that gives us great amounts of comfort and warmth in life

[kingoflombards]

I second that notion.

[blazeofglory]

God exists and differently of course than what we normally base our ideas on mythological ideas and as a matter of fact I feel that there is some source of consciousness. I cannot subscribe to the ideas that nature is just chaotic. What we call nature is also a combination of different beings. I beleive that there is no entirely inanimate things in nature. Even all inanimate beings there is some vibrations and that vibrant is something close to life.

I feel that even rocks, rivers, mountains, soil all are kind of living beings, and something of life passes through them. '

We humans are totally ignorant of something that goes with nature.

And God is that spirit, that universal spirit that goes with everything in nature in point of fact.

I never can stop thinking about God.

[Nietzsche]

This is not a church. To paraphrase Nietzsche, a deep thought makes it no truer than strong faith makes something true. I criticize not your attempt to prove the existence of god, but the rather weak attempt at converting people or inspiring stronger faith through the use of a not even superficial allegorical tale. To attempt to convert others, it will take other measures of far greater complexity to convert a person convinced that god does not exist, and to strengthen the faith of a believer typically it is a tragedy happening to said person to inspire greater reliance on a deity to deal with the pain. Otherwise, I imagine to a believer this is no more than a "nice thought", such is the nature of chain mail philosophy.

Considering other peoples beliefs are to be respected, I am not criticizing your belief -- that is a persons personal choice and despite my own convictions every man and woman is entitled to whatever he or she would like to believe on -- merely your approach at inspiring belief.

[blazeofglory]

God is something that is not different from what we see, nature, the construct of it and all in togetherness, in integrity boils down to the meaning of God.

I may oftentimes contradict myself in some places. We are not always sure of the thing we say at times and ideas change every so often.

[atiguhya padma]

God is something that is not different from what we see, nature, the construct of it and all in togetherness, in integrity boils down to the meaning of God.

I may oftentimes contradict myself in some places. We are not always sure of the thing we say at times and ideas change every so often.

Is God then decay, effluent, mindless slaughter, pain and suffering, ugliness, death and injustice?

[blazeofglory]

What God is and is not is a great question and we can hardly answer this. To me God is what we see everyday and what we do everyday. God is just not a being or non-being. God is this cosmos and all creatures included. The problem is not with Godliness or Godlessness, but with our understanding of God. We try to God' capacities in terms scientific or theological gauges. God is all these phenomena plus something more, something that cannot be contained in our cerebral contexts.

Or else what man is, his imaginative and inventive faculties. Man is not confined to physical peripheries, and he transcends physical entities and traverses immeasurable distances, and there is something, I do not know what that energizes or empowers man to do something unthinkable in point of fact. Is that God. That is the question.

[atiguhya padma]

God is indefinable. Man has searched for centuries to define god, but never will. Because god is a man-made concept, with indistinct boundaries and unclear attributes, man will forever find unsatisfactory and insufficient approximations of god. All language used to describe god sounds unconvincing and ephemeral, because the language is not referring to something that we can all perceive, but rather to an idea that is forever adapting to the times.

[blazeofglory]

God is something we are always occupied with and we can not escape from God at least the thought of it. And we will be placed in a comfort zone with the thought of God.

It is really interesting to think about God for now without the thought of God we may be disoriented culturally too. I am really afraid.

[atiguhya padma]

blaze of glory,

you are really afraid? of what?

[blazeofglory]

What I am really afraid of is today if we are culturally disoriented there is likelihood that we lose the harmony we are living over centuries

[Red-Headed]

I suppose it depends on whether you actually are culturally disoriented or not. What exactly does this mean?

My cultural compass is just fine.

[atiguhya padma]

Culture always adapts if it is to remain alive. i cannot see that culture can become disoriented. it is more likely that we become disoriented towards our culture, because we fail to adapt to change.

[billl]

Culture always adapts if it is to remain alive. i cannot see that culture can become disoriented. it is more likely that we become disoriented towards our culture, because we fail to adapt to change.

If someone is "culturally disoriented" that means that the individual is disoriented (in respect to culture), just as a person who is "occasionally unhappy" is unhappy only sometimes. So I think blaze and the others are in agreement with you on this point.

[billl]

I suppose it depends on whether you actually are culturally disoriented or not. What exactly does this mean?

My cultural compass is just fine.

I think it would usually mean that a person lacks understanding of expectations regarding cultural structures and norms (e.g. what's funny; what is acceptable; what symbols, rituals, social transactions, etc. mean; maybe what one's place in the culture is; and other things like that). Moving to another country, people sometimes experience culture shock (their compass is often 'shockingly' wrong)--I think that's kind of what it might mean.

[Red-Headed]

I think it would usually mean that a person lacks understanding of expectations regarding cultural structures and norms (e.g. what's funny; what is acceptable; what symbols, rituals, social transactions, etc. mean; maybe what one's place in the culture is; and other things like that). Moving to another country, people sometimes experience culture shock (their compass is often 'shockingly' wrong)--I think that's kind of what it might mean.

Yes, I can see that. I was just puzzled by the original post's generalisation. Anyway, I thought that was the whole point of the postmodern world we now live in! :nod: :lol:

[blazeofglory]

Culture always adapts if it is to remain alive. i cannot see that culture can become disoriented. it is more likely that we become disoriented towards our culture, because we fail to adapt to change.

I agree with your points. It must assimilate new ideas always so that it will be stronger