the existence of God?

[virginiawang]

I never took an interest in Bible and God, either because I didn't want to get the feeling that I had always been controlled and influenced by this sort of magic power, or because I never considered myself someone close to a saint. Instead, I always considered myself a devil or something between a devil and a saint. However, now, at this very moment, I am brimming over with ecstasy that I wish to share my joy with all people around the world, and my heart is charged with gratitude. I believe in everything Emerson said in all his works, so if so many people agree in God, I'll agree.

[mono]

I cannot recall from the top of my head where Emerson wrote/said something along the lines of "if so many people agree in God, I'll agree" - could you cite that source, by any chance, virginiawang?
Saying that you agree with everything Emerson wrote or said sounds like quite a profound statement, and, if he composed the aforesaid statement in his lifetime, I would guess it as sometime early in developing his religious and spiritual beliefs, perhaps when he worked as a Unitarian minister. As with nearly anyone, his beliefs changed through the years and decades, and I could envision Emerson saying something along those lines, yet, in a follow-up sentence, claiming "but there's nothing else to agree with," especially in conjunction with the Transcendentalist theory believing in the infinity and undeniable absoluteness of God and what he called the "Over-Soul." He studied quite a bit into different religions and belief systems, taking a particular interest in the Bhagavad-Gita and Vedas - these two texts influenced his thought greatly towards the prime of developing his philosophy, simultaneous to The Bible. Emerson existed as one of the finest minds to have graced the fields of philosophy, spirituality, and religion, and changed the path of Transcendental thought forever, maybe as one of the founders.

[MarkBastable]

I am brimming over with ecstasy that I wish to share my joy with all people around the world, and my heart is charged with gratitude. I believe in everything Emerson said in all his works


I'm not sure even Emerson believed in everything Emerson said in all his works.

[mayneverhave]

I never took an interest in Bible and God, partly because I didn't want to get the feeling that I had always been controlled and influenced by this sort of magic power, and partly because I never considered myself someone close to a saint. Instead, I always considered myself a devil or something between a devil and a saint. However, now, at this very moment, I am brimming over with ecstasy that I wish to share my joy with all people around the world, and my heart is charged with gratitude. I believe in everything Emerson said in all his works, so if so many people agree in God, I'll agree.

Emerson aside, generally what I gather from this paragraph is that you have decided to believe in god because a large amount of people (maybe a majority) believe in god.

The debate for the existence of god is a very complex one, with a great many brilliant intellectuals througout history making compelling arguments for both sides - with varying degrees of success.

I am personally not a believer, but I respect arguments for God's existence (and by extension, those who make them) when they are compelling and logically sound. What I cannot except are totally irrational reasons, such as, in this case, randomly deciding that the majority is for some reason infallible in their beliefs. This is simply not the case. People are, generally, very easy to persuade - they are taken in by large movements, and individuals find it hard to stand their ground when a large group is pressing the opposite. Not only that, but religion, or at least some form of belief, is indoctrinated into most people at a very young age, that it isn't even really fair to assume that most people actually make a concious decision to believe, instead of merely going along with it.

Not only that, but I can honestly say I do not trust public opinion. If I do not trust the general population to the choose the greatest film of all time, for example, I would certaintly not let them make decisions about whether or not I believe in god. Most people do not have the intellectual capabilities of forming arguments for either side of the debate, nor the inquisitiveness to even consider the issues - which leaves them unqualified for approaching reality.

[virginiawang]

Emerson approved the existence of God in almost all of his works, and gave God a new explanation. He emphasized on human intuitions and feelings being closely connected with God. What I meant in the last sentence of my last post was the fact that I truly agreed with Emerson in everything he wrote.
Many people have been persuaded to believe in God and accepted God's existence without deep thoughts. However I don't think the debates about the existence of God would have made sense because nobody could provide any real evidence for his arguments. I don't know too much about God.
I love to read Emerson, but I sometimes found difficulty in accepting his views on human intuitions being colsely connected with God. I just don't like to feel that I've been governed by God, though I truly agree with everything else Emerson wrote.

[mono]

I'm not sure even Emerson believed in everything Emerson said in all his works.
I do not think I fully understand what you mean to say here. Could you explain, please? :)

Emerson approved the existence of God in almost all of his works, and gave God a new explanation. He emphasized on human intuitions and feelings being closely connected with God. What I meant in the last sentence of my last post was the fact that I truly agreed with Emerson in everything he wrote.
Many people have been persuaded to believe in God and accepted God's existence without deep thoughts. However I don't think the debates about the existence of God would have made sense because nobody could provide any real evidence for his arguments. I don't know too much about God.
I love to read Emerson, but I sometimes found difficulty in accepting his views on human intuitions being colsely connected with God. I just don't like to feel that I've been governed by God, though I truly agree with everything else Emerson wrote.
Indeed, Emerson approved the existence of God, because he felt he could approve of nothing else; in other words, nothing else existed due to the infinity and absoluteness of the Divine figure - nothing exists outside of infinity because . . . well, infinity proves infinite. He placed such a high regard on intuition due to feeling it as "in born knowledge and conscience" ("Self-Reliance"), thereby something inherent, unbiased, instinctive, and, to put it in Kantian terms, knowledge a priori. Emerson connected intuition with something not so much divine, but something absolute - intuition functions in the precise automatic and spontaneous ways as all of nature - for survival, growth, etc., unaffected by the much-valued, but attained, and sometimes poisonous, logic and learned knowledge, which he regarded as worthy of reverence, but sometimes impeding. Through intuition, in connection to nature, the divine, etc., Emerson wrote that all results in connection with a "common origin" and the source of wisdom; one thinking individually for one's only self gets nowhere, but thinking from a primary source deserves wisdom, he thought. Emerson connected intuition with God and nature in this way, as intuition, and I write this in a passive tense for a reason, is given to us from birth (a priori), while one gains logic and knowledge with time (a posteriori). I do not think that Emerson intended this as a justification for the existence of God, but more a proof as intuition as the primary source of wisdom and peace with one's self and surroundings.

[NikolaiI]

Indeed, Emerson approved the existence of God, because he felt he could approve of nothing else; in other words, nothing else existed due to the infinity and absoluteness of the Divine figure - nothing exists outside of infinity because . . . well, infinity proves infinite.

"From within or from behind, a light shines through us upon things, and makes us aware that we are nothing, but the light is all."

The above quote is from one of my favourite essays by Emerson, "The Over-Soul." This is an idea I've been contemplating for a little while now. Mystics in their visions saw that there was ultimately no reason for any worry; that in the end, there is peace and bliss and light. "We are nothing, and that light is all." It's not something you can measure with science, but yet it comes from a science itself, like that of Raja-yoga. That is the ideal I strive for.

[virginiawang]

It's only a play of words on your part. You said that Emerson did not focus on the existence of God. However he saw God being the origin of our fate, feelings and intuitions, and an inseperable part of Nature. Emerson believed in God in an unconventional and romantic way. That is the truth.

[mono]

"From within or from behind, a light shines through us upon things, and makes us aware that we are nothing, but the light is all."

The above quote is from one of my favourite essays by Emerson, "The Over-Soul." This is an idea I've been contemplating for a little while now. Mystics in their visions saw that there was ultimately no reason for any worry; that in the end, there is peace and bliss and light. "We are nothing, and that light is all." It's not something you can measure with science, but yet it comes from a science itself, like that of Raja-yoga. That is the ideal I strive for.
Very beautiful, Nikolai, and extraordinarily wise quote. Even years of reading Emerson, and my fascination never ceases when reading his works over and over again. Thanks for sharing. :)

It's only a play of words on your part. You said that Emerson did not focus on the existence of God. However he saw God being the origin of our fate, feelings and intuitions, and an inseperable part of Nature. Emerson believed in God in an unconventional and romantic way. That is the truth.
I apologize you feel that way, and perhaps I did not explain my rationale as well as I could have, creating some confusion; I hardly know why I should create a "play of words." Let us create a simple, but absurd, analogy that we have a glass full of water to the point that the surface tension of water has created a bubble-like form above the glass; inside the glass only exists pure water - not a speck of dust, nor a single other atom that one frequently finds in ordinary tap water - pure H2O.
In Emerson's conception of God, let the water represent God, setting aside the fact that we can split water into two hydrogen ions and one oxygen ion, thereby contradicting infinity; regardless, bear with me. Emerson explored the entire glass, every cubic millimeter, discussing such subjects as intuition, Transcendentalism, nature, etc.; he discussed God, too, I agree, but he could not discuss anything else, so long as every of his other subjects, or everything, for that matter, existed inside the water, representing God - no other part of the glass existed without water saturating it - speaking of something outside the water, but within the glass, would contradict all his arguments. Emerson never composed an ontological argument for or against the existence of God, but he preached of the undeniable infinity of God, unity, oneness. In my elementary analogy of the full glass of water, God existed as everything within the glass - hydrogen, oxygen, covalent bonds, ionic bonds - everything; he discussed the unity of all of that water, but not everything of the water itself, thereby never focusing solely upon the existence of God, but of our mutual origins and unity with God.

[virginiawang]

Does that make any difference to what I wrote?

[Virginia Wang]

Emerson drewlled on beauty of nature, souls, and feelings. He viewed God as something underlying nature, but he never focused on God alone. I agree with you, and that's the reason why I always love to read Emerson instead of Bible.

[Jane_Li]

"I just don't like to feel that I've been governed by God"
Actually,this sentence caught my eye....you know that I feel completely comfortable because Someone is looking after me and watching me all the time...Don't you think that you feel safe if somebody guards you all the time???;)
I don't know much about Emerson but if you said that he emphasized on human intuitions and feelings I would agree with him :nod:because I always follow my intuitions..:angel:
But I think that God is Something beyond reach...not like anything He Created..There's difference between the Creator and the creation...Our minds can't believe in what we can't touch or see...But I guess that all of us can't see the wind but we know it's there because we FEEL it...

[blazeofglory]

This question is unanswerable.

If one opposes or supports he is a liar.

[LMK]

I think it is great that you found something so inspiring that seems to have altered your life, so now what do you do?

If I may suggest, be thoughtful about the God you are agreeing to. Is there one you believe in? One hopes that you are not idealizing Emerson to the title of minor diety, and if you are, may I caution you further not to drink the kool-aid.

Other than that, as I said I am happy for you and your excitement.

~L

[JBI]

Emerson aside, generally what I gather from this paragraph is that you have decided to believe in god because a large amount of people (maybe a majority) believe in god.

The debate for the existence of god is a very complex one, with a great many brilliant intellectuals througout history making compelling arguments for both sides - with varying degrees of success.

I am personally not a believer, but I respect arguments for God's existence (and by extension, those who make them) when they are compelling and logically sound. What I cannot except are totally irrational reasons, such as, in this case, randomly deciding that the majority is for some reason infallible in their beliefs. This is simply not the case. People are, generally, very easy to persuade - they are taken in by large movements, and individuals find it hard to stand their ground when a large group is pressing the opposite. Not only that, but religion, or at least some form of belief, is indoctrinated into most people at a very young age, that it isn't even really fair to assume that most people actually make a concious decision to believe, instead of merely going along with it.

Not only that, but I can honestly say I do not trust public opinion. If I do not trust the general population to the choose the greatest film of all time, for example, I would certaintly not let them make decisions about whether or not I believe in god. Most people do not have the intellectual capabilities of forming arguments for either side of the debate, nor the inquisitiveness to even consider the issues - which leaves them unqualified for approaching reality.

To an extent that is true, but which religion - the majority of people in this world do not hold to one religion - Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, or even the Indigenous Chinese Folk Religion all have huge partakers, yet none of them dominate, and they are all very, very different religions. Even the so called "Abraham" religions don't make up a majority - they perhaps come close to touching half, given the highest estimates.

And in a sense, you are right, most people aren't going to argue over this, but I would wager many people would also not consider themselves religious, and this obsession with believer verses unbeliever is a construct as well - the religion of Hinduism in itself is a construct of colonists - the actual religion though did not exist as a religion, merely as a set of beliefs. In the same sense then, we could perhaps argue that Buddhism functioned on a similar level, and Daoism did as well. The concept of religion as religion is a very limited perspective in its own right

[Judas130]

He emphasized on human intuitions and feelings being closely connected with God.

Polkinghorn said similar in reply to the ideas of Dawkins, saying that Dawkins forgets the longing and searching many do in order to find their deity.

Polkinghorn forgets that all these human intuitions and feelings prove alone is that they are human intuitions and feelings - and not the existence of God, and not anything else.

The reason so many believe is because the major world religions did a lot of missionary "de-culturisation", and colonising. The reason so many believe is because religion and its dogma grew like a hereditary disease among traditions. Vast amounts of people do not believe something because it is factually correct - be it vast amounts of Nazis and their racially purist ideals, or be it vast amounts of people believing Christ rose from his deathbed - or be it the fact alone that there are those who worship Allah and those who find faith with Vishnu - the variations of belief in deity cancel out the relevance. All it tells us is that there is faith, a faith that is wholly subjective and in itself, with its many claims, denies the existence of any certain deity.

[LMK]

I'm not sure that I can agree with a correlation between belief in oneself as being a different yet associated level in a diety.

I do agree that people believe in something, but it may not be someting God-like, it may simply be that a person believes that they are born, they live their life and then they turn to dust and the lights go out forever. It may be that the belief is only in that people are not to be trusted and counted upon, that one has only one's self in this life.

Whatever, it is ok with me. I say live and let live. The only caviate is that I encourage positive or constructive life choices.

If God exists, it won't matter whether or not He is believed in; although even satanic spirits depicted in the bible believe in God and you see where it got them. And if God does not exist, it still won't matter, because He will not be there to be upset by it all.

All we can do is our best, and that might involve soul searching, learning, observing and experiencing life.

My thoughts at the moment.

~L

[virginiawang]

Polkinghorn forgets that all these human intuitions and feelings prove alone is that they are human intuitions and feelings - and not the existence of God, and not anything else.
Ralph Waldo Emerson held that everyone must accept an irresistable dictation, which understands itself. This dictation is an arragement for a man by God before he enters the world, and it is beyond the power of human beings to alter. Our emotions and intuitions which lead to the path we take harmonize with nature, and with God. We cannot avoid the beautiful necessity.

[MarkBastable]

We cannot avoid the beautiful necessity.

Just watch me.

[Judas130]

Just watch me.

Here we have the perfect example. MarkBastable is consciously aware of his refusal. Yet what you (virginiawang) have proposed is that we are puppets to the deity and cannot leave its grasp and influence. I suppose one might have to ignore the atheists the world over, just as Ralph Waldo Emerson ignored the zero proof that there is a God who dictates 'before [we] enter the world'.
Not to get personal, but assertions like these are illogical to physical reality. I understand that many have faith, but how many have faith without introduction to a religion or a single religious axiom, who form faith whilst ignorant of organised religion? What I mean is, can the child form faith independently?
Even so, if this is the case, it proves faith is faith, not faith proves the existence of anything from the vast choice of deity - yet you are right to suggest it 'understands itself'.
peace

[virginiawang]

Here we have the perfect example. MarkBastable is consciously aware of his refusal.

Yet what you (virginiawang) have proposed is that we are puppets to the deity and cannot leave its grasp and influence. I suppose one might have to ignore the atheists the world over, just as Ralph Waldo Emerson ignored the zero proof that there is a God who dictates 'before [we] enter the world'.
I really don't understand what Markbastable meant by that short remark. Though I always got an uplifted feeling after I read Ralph Waldo Emerson for a while, and would like to believe him all my life besause of the beauty he created in all of his works, I do not want to become a real christian who surrenders his soul to God. I believe in fate. There is a certain part of your life over which you have no control, and you can only peep into this fate by some of your intuitions. Therefore I think there must be a God, who makes arragements. By the way, I don't like the way you described human beings under fate as puppets, and that made me feel that I had lost my free will, which I consider one of the most precious gifts for me.

Not to get personal, but assertions like these are illogical to physical reality. I understand that many have faith, but how many have faith without introduction to a religion or a single religious axiom, who form faith whilst ignorant of organised religion? What I mean is, can the child form faith independently?
According to Ralph Waldo Emerson, there are many phenonemons that remain a mystry and eacape human knowledge. I believe physical science couldn't have explained everything to everyone's satisfaction. Here I don't quite understand you. How can a child have faith before he gets to know what faith is?


Even so, if this is the case, it proves faith is faith, not faith proves the existence of anything from the vast choice of deity - yet you are right to suggest it 'understands itself'.
peace
For the sole reason of fate, I think there is God, or perhaps somebody above that or close to that.

[Judas130]

Therefore I think there must be a God, who makes arragements.

Thus, the evidence for God lies in our inevitable death, or if not death, "that which will inevitably befall us"? it appears this idea of God's existence is fabrication to quell feelings of emptiness at the inescapable void that is death, faith in God because of fate is emotional and unstably metaphysical. If God exists to help many like you to sleep at night, then so be it, if it makes one feel better - but it is no closer to logically proving God's physical and internal existence.


By the way, I don't like the way you described human beings under fate as puppets, and that made me feel that I had lost my free will, which I consider one of the most precious gifts for me.

Did you not say "We cannot avoid the beautiful necessity"? It is our perceptions of what counts as freedom of will that clash here, one might see freedom in God, whereas the Atheist sees it as constraint.



How can a child have faith before he gets to know what faith is?

Precisely, is faith not but a human construct, that we corrupt our offspring with? A child takes faith to believe in santa, and is hurt to understand that he does not exist. When God is taught as fact, even though there are so many Gods taught as fact, we grow up with primitive understanding and a belief in Santa until we die, with texts and artwork to praise him, and what can the undoubting mind of a child do against this? Nothing.


According to Ralph Waldo Emerson, there are many phenonemons that remain a mystry and eacape human knowledge. I believe physical science couldn't have explained everything to everyone's satisfaction.
Emerson died in 1882 and I am positively certain the man would not comprehend the grand scale of discovery we as a race have made since his time through sciences. There is no doubting that Science has scored more on the 'correct' tally chart for understanding reality than the old tomes of varying religions and faiths.
Physical Science is not about satisfaction. It is about cold, cruel, and harsh reality - how things really do work. Faith is there for us all to cloud our minds with fancies and satisfactions, but at the end of the day, again, with faith we are no closer to proving a God that is physical and internal.
Peace

[weltanschauung]

I believe physical science couldn't have explained everything to everyone's satisfaction.

this is a quote i quite enjoy because most people use it to discard science.
also, those people are the ones who do not know science.
if you wanna have a materialistic take, theres no better way than quantum mechanics to satisfy me with explanations. but of course, to discard it, you would have to know it.

[virginiawang]

Thus, the evidence for God lies in our inevitable death, or if not death, "that which will inevitably befall us"? it appears this idea of God's existence is fabrication to quell feelings of emptiness at the inescapable void that is death, faith in God because of fate is emotional and unstably metaphysical. If God exists to help many like you to sleep at night, then so be it, if it makes one feel better - but it is no closer to logically proving God's physical and internal existence.
It is the fact that everyone of us must accept an irristable dictation that leads to the belief of God or somebody close to that. It has nothing to do with emotions.




Did you not say "We cannot avoid the beautiful necessity"? It is our perceptions of what counts as freedom of will that clash here, one might see freedom in God, whereas the Atheist sees it as constraint.
I am an atheist because I don't want to get the feeling all the time that I have been dominated by a power. However I believe in fate as Emerson did.




Precisely, is faith not but a human construct, that we corrupt our offspring with? A child takes faith to believe in santa, and is hurt to understand that he does not exist. When God is taught as fact, even though there are so many Gods taught as fact, we grow up with primitive understanding and a belief in Santa until we die, with texts and artwork to praise him, and what can the undoubting mind of a child do against this? Nothing.
A smart child will make decisions by himself. I do believe in fate, and I believe in the existence of God or somebody close to God. However people can make their own choice whether to believe or not, and whether to surrender his soul or not. I won't become a real Christian.


Emerson died in 1882 and I am positively certain the man would not comprehend the grand scale of discovery we as a race have made since his time through sciences. There is no doubting that Science has scored more on the 'correct' tally chart for understanding reality than the old tomes of varying religions and faiths.
Physical Science is not about satisfaction. It is about cold, cruel, and harsh reality - how things really do work. Faith is there for us all to cloud our minds with fancies and satisfactions, but at the end of the day, again, with faith we are no closer to proving a God that is physical and internal.
Peace
Everyone can make their own choices and decide what to put into his head. Even if you are extremely for science, it's not decent for you to devalue Emerson's ideas, which might be terribly different from your own.
By the way, we cannot provide scientic proofs for everything that took place on earth, so you cannot say something is non existent because you do not see proofs.


this is a quote i quite enjoy because most people use it to discard science.
also, those people are the ones who do not know science.
if you wanna have a materialistic take, theres no better way than quantum mechanics to satisfy me with explanations. but of course, to discard it, you would have to know it.
Please allow me a question. Can you promise that every phenomenon that took place on earth had some sort scientific proof along with it? If you had really known much about science, you wouldn't have made such judgments. Many facts or occurences escape the knowledge of science. It is a fact.

[weltanschauung]

give me an example

[Judas130]

It is the fact that everyone of us must accept an irristable dictation that leads to the belief of God or somebody close to that. It has nothing to do with emotions.

I can agree to some extent that faith is a dictation, but not of a higher power. Faith exists in the mind as a cognitive facet for mankind to indulge upon, the roots of which grow from education and upbringing in religion, whereby solid versions of this primitive faith is shared and focused. One cannot say faith is not to do with emotions, when there are so many examples of emotional confirmations, conversions, etc - but all are subjective and have little to do with proving God, they express nothing beyond the fact that such cognitive mechanisms exist. You universalise faith, but again I tell you, it is clearly not the case.


I am an atheist because I don't want to get the feeling all the time that I have been dominated by a power.
...

I believe in the existence of God or somebody close to God.

These statements contradict, but they are personal to you and, well, that's that.


Everyone can make their own choices and decide what to put into his head. Even if you are extremely for science, it's not decent for you to devalue Emerson's ideas, which might be terribly different from your own.

Atheism is more about taking ideas out of one's head I assure you, about removing concept, and looking at fact - or just removing concepts of God and getting on with one's life. I am not devaluing Emerson's ideas - his ideas worked for his time sure, but the times they are a' changing - his notions that you offered do not grasp the thinking of 2009. However, some quotes by Emerson I am partial to: "Adopt the pace of nature: her secret is patience": a common argument of faith is that it is conclusive of that which its holder does not understand, it is impatient for answers that are not as of yet solved - answers that, since the time of the quote, are being answered without the axioms of faith or religion.


By the way, we cannot provide scientic proofs for everything that took place on earth, so you cannot say something is non existent because you do not see proofs.

Of course, we know that we cannot understand fully the intricacies of Quantum Theory, but we know how to use it practically - we know it exists. We know that the basis for all/most physics that is Riemann's theory cannot be explained, but it exists because we can use it practically - however, it is not personal, it is not an entity - unlike God, who we cannot seem to explain either, we cannot physically 'see' or use, God does not play out before our eyes.

My question is thus:
Theists, and deists even, claim that nobody can disprove the existence of God - even though mankind has for years with new discovery, logic and reason, and science - we have taken apart ideology and shown it as false, such as a loving deity, or an interacting personal deity. The ideas of theism falter, and thus believers resort to ideas of the external, as the internal God ideas do not work logically and physically. My question begins here - both of us have no experience of any external worlds, we cannot disprove them, or prove them. So why bother believe?

[virginiawang]

I can agree to some extent that faith is a dictation, but not of a higher power. Faith exists in the mind as a cognitive facet for mankind to indulge upon, the roots of which grow from education and upbringing in religion, whereby solid versions of this primitive faith is shared and focused. One cannot say faith is not to do with emotions, when there are so many examples of emotional confirmations, conversions, etc - but all are subjective and have little to do with proving God, they express nothing beyond the fact that such cognitive mechanisms exist. You universalise faith, but again I tell you, it is clearly not the case.

The word, dictation, which I used in my last post referred to an unalterable arrangement of fate for each human being, and some people took their path to belief after they were aware of this predestiny. Since there has been such predestiny, God, someone close to God, or somebody above that must have undertaken the job. I believe in fate. For some years in the past, I had been so obssessed with fortune telling that I visited a fortune teller once for a while to get to know some of the hidden facts about my fate or something that would happen in the future. That fortune teller reads palms. By reading the lines on your palm, he may divine what you've been thinking for days together or what comes to your mind at the moment he reads your palm.
I agree that many people choose to surrender themselves to God with a view to overcome some morbid mood, which has taken possession of them at the thought of their own inevitable death, but I am not one of them. I belive in god's existence because I believe in fate. However you can make your own choices as to which one to believe in, a mystical realm or science. You cannot say something is non-exixtent because it has no scientific proof along with it. Many occurences and facts have transcended the boundaries of science over the past years. People are having difficulties in explaining some of those even until now.
...



These statements contradict, but they are personal to you and, well, that's that.
I know God or someone close to that exists, but I don't want to surrender my soul to him. I will keep the freedom of my soul while I accept fate as everyone else does.



Atheism is more about taking ideas out of one's head I assure you, about removing concept, and looking at fact - or just removing concepts of God and getting on with one's life. I am not devaluing Emerson's ideas - his ideas worked for his time sure, but the times they are a' changing - his notions that you offered do not grasp the thinking of 2009. However, some quotes by Emerson I am partial to: "Adopt the pace of nature: her secret is patience": a common argument of faith is that it is conclusive of that which its holder does not understand, it is impatient for answers that are not as of yet solved - answers that, since the time of the quote, are being answered without the axioms of faith or religion.
This is a world of mystery, and no one knows where the facts lie. Science only covers a tiny bit of the whole realm. By the way, Emerson was a philosopher rather than a reporter, and his ideas can travel with time. Each time I read Emerson, it put me in the best of spirits. I agree with you here. People do not, or perhaps shall never, understand the meaning of their destiny, yet they experience it.



Of course, we know that we cannot understand fully the intricacies of Quantum Theory, but we know how to use it practically - we know it exists. We know that the basis for all/most physics that is Riemann's theory cannot be explained, but it exists because we can use it practically - however, it is not personal, it is not an entity - unlike God, who we cannot seem to explain either, we cannot physically 'see' or use, God does not play out before our eyes.
If you choose to believe only what you can see, you may.


My question is thus:
Theists, and deists even, claim that nobody can disprove the existence of God - even though mankind has for years with new discovery, logic and reason, and science - we have taken apart ideology and shown it as false, such as a loving deity, or an interacting personal deity. The ideas of theism falter, and thus believers resort to ideas of the external, as the internal God ideas do not work logically and physically. My question begins here - both of us have no experience of any external worlds, we cannot disprove them, or prove them. So why bother believe?
I believe because I believe in fate. That fortune teller always amazed me by revealing something true about my past and some about my future. You can choose not to believe it. Everyone has a right to his own views.

[Judas130]

Its been very interesting to hear your views and it would be rude of me to press you further (we won't end up anywhere due as one argues from the Non-cognitive perception, while the other argues from the cognitive perception). I believe in fate also, in this respect: "that which is inevitably predetermined; destiny: Death is our ineluctable fate." whereas you make approach fate as, "the universal principle or ultimate agency by which the order of things is presumably prescribed; the decreed cause of events; time."
I see the only true destiny is death, and all living things die, i've always viewed death as the only true example of fate, but by no means 'the meaning of life'...that would be terribly pessimistic and a bit paradoxical maybe, so I see procreation as the evident and factual meaning of life.
For me, after death there is no consciousness, no anything - and I think this way because I see that people at their own funerals do not appear to have consciousness, they have no thought processes, they are dead. However, many may believe in another realm after death whereby our consciousness unites with the one who apparently made us. I see such ideas as mankind's selfish want to retain their thoughts and experiences and strive for immortality - recreated in Heaven concepts that have been dominant in mankind's thinking since early civilisation.
peace

[virginiawang]

A fortune teller once told me that I was an animal that lived high up in a mountain thousands of years ago, and had become a goddess after some time. People worshipped me and built temples for me to solicit my help. I don't know whether I should believe it or not, but that story corresponds to my intuitions about myself over the years. Since I was a girl, I almost always felt the same as those female devil charasters in a TV soap opera did, and I nearly wished to jump into the television to extirpate those powerful monks who perished them in some of the stories every time I watched it. According to the fortune teller, my soul is in between a devil and a good one.

[MarkBastable]

A fortune teller once told me that I was an animal that lived high up in a mountain, and had become a goddess after some time. People worshipped me and built temples for me to solicit my help. I don't know whether I should believe it or not, but that story corresponds to my intuitions about myself over the years. Since I was a girl, I almost always felt the same as those female devil charasters in a TV soap opera, and I nearly wished to jump into the television to extirpate those powerful monks who perished them in some of the stories every time I watched it. According to the fortune teller, my soul is in between a devil and a good one.



I think we can all agree that that just about wraps it up, and having accepted it we should all move on.

[Scheherazade]

I think we can all agree that that just about wraps it up, and having accepted it we should all move on.Amen to that.

:D

[NikolaiI]

The existence of God occurs beyond all the words, reasonings, arguments, and agonizations over theological or metaphysical description, law, or symbology. It occurs beyond all the countless posts on these threads, and beyond all the arguments of all the beings who ever took up the question. It is beyond worlds, time, events, causes, and all beings and all interactions. Beyond all of this, which is all God's creation, occurs the existence of God. Nothing in the universe is static and God is no exception. God is the source - the only source, and the single source for all multiplicities.

God is the essence of all mystery, beauty, and love. God is unlimited but still plays certain roles in our lives. The first is that of sustainer - the source of all creation is always present. The divine and eternal Sage, who is known by different names and is the source of all beauty, truth, and all other virtues and ideals.

God's nearest abode is not different from God. It is the closest to the source itself, and its nature is identical and reflects the creativeness of the creator. It is infinite pure land, which are infinite universes. As the Divine Grace exists everywhere, at all times present and unmoved, unaffected by any of the creation; so do to the infinite pure lands of God's doing exist everywhere, always present. Relation to the pure lands and to God is relative. In one sense we are infinitesimal, and we are the microcosm, limited and restricted by our senses and amount of information.

God has created the individual souls for no reason except to joy in the divine play of existence and creation. Separation is only created to increase the joy of union.

[Babbalanja]

The existence of God occurs beyond all the words, reasonings, arguments, and agonizations over theological or metaphysical description, law, or symbology. It occurs beyond all the countless posts on these threads, and beyond all the arguments of all the beings who ever took up the question. It is beyond worlds, time, events, causes, and all beings and all interactions. Beyond all of this, which is all God's creation, occurs the existence of God. Nothing in the universe is static and God is no exception. God is the source - the only source, and the single source for all multiplicities.

God is the essence of all mystery, beauty, and love. God is unlimited but still plays certain roles in our lives. The first is that of sustainer - the source of all creation is always present. The divine and eternal Sage, who is known by different names and is the source of all beauty, truth, and all other virtues and ideals.

God's nearest abode is not different from God. It is the closest to the source itself, and its nature is identical and reflects the creativeness of the creator. It is infinite pure land, which are infinite universes. As the Divine Grace exists everywhere, at all times present and unmoved, unaffected by any of the creation; so do to the infinite pure lands of God's doing exist everywhere, always present. Relation to the pure lands and to God is relative. In one sense we are infinitesimal, and we are the microcosm, limited and restricted by our senses and amount of information.

God has created the individual souls for no reason except to joy in the divine play of existence and creation. Separation is only created to increase the joy of union.
What is this word sonata supposed to mean? There are a lot of interesting phrases and poetic paradoxes, but is it really explaining the notion of God? Or is it trying to explain that such a thing can't be explained?

It says a lot about an approach to knowledge if it affirms things that can't by definition be understood. What sort of knowledge does that represent?

I've said it before: the ancients invented God to explain mysteries. Now believers invent mysteries to explain their God.

Regards,

Istvan

[wlz]

Let us have a vote or poll. We could call it 'The Deity of The Year Award', (2009), or perhaps, 'The Best Deities of The 20th Century'.:idea:

[Dinkleberry2010]

Which do you think is the truer statement?

God is dead - Nietzsche

Nietzsche is dead - God

[lupe]

Which do you think is the truer statement?

God is dead - Nietzsche

Nietzsche is dead - God

It could have been the second of course, if there was any God to make such as statement !

The first is obviously wrong, since God was never born... Even if we take the statement metaphorically (born and die in our heads), it's still wrong, since many gods died and other are still alive inside many people's heads.

[BienvenuJDC]

Which do you think is the truer statement?

God is dead - Nietzsche

Nietzsche is dead - God

Nietzsche is definitely dead. No one can bring forth any evidence that God is dead, but people have provided plenty of evidence that shows the existence of a divine Creator.

The second is definitely truer...and Nietzsche knows it now.

[JuniperWoolf]

People always screw that one up, because they cut out the rest of the quote. Allow me:


God is dead. God remains dead. And we have killed him. How shall we comfort ourselves, the murderers of all murderers? What was holiest and mightiest of all that the world has yet owned has bled to death under our knives: who will wipe this blood off us? What water is there for us to clean ourselves? What festivals of atonement, what sacred games shall we have to invent? Is not the greatness of this deed too great for us? Must we ourselves not become gods simply to appear worthy of it?

Sort of changes the meaning, don't you think?

[wlz]

Maybe Nietzsche isn't dead at all... nor God...? Perhaps they just went into hiding like Jim Morrison and Elvis.

[Babbalanja]

people have provided plenty of evidence that shows the existence of a divine Creator.
If warm fuzzies equal evidence.

I'm with Voltaire. If God didn't exist, it would be necessary to invent Him.

:lol:

Regards,

Istvan

[Jeremydav]

Nietzsche is definitely dead. No one can bring forth any evidence that God is dead, but people have provided plenty of evidence that shows the existence of a divine Creator.
Like what?

[Babbalanja]

Like what?
http://www.newmexiconuts.net/catalog/tumbleweed.jpg

I think it's understandable for religious believers to say there's "evidence" for their beliefs. They want their claims to be accepted as rational and defensible.

But religious claims by their very nature have to be irrational, that's what the value of faith is. Any old heathen can say he believes that the Earth orbits the Sun, because it's a coherent claim and there's evidence that backs up the belief. We may not understand everything about the physics of astronomy, but the knowledge is there if we want to learn.

However, it takes faith to affirm a religious belief like people survive their physical deaths, because all available evidence indicates that we don't. If the notion of afterlife is a non-physical one, even better, because that makes the claim even less coherent and reasonable. Religious believers affirm these things precisely because they can't be understood, and because they're not supported by evidence.

Regards,

Istvan

[aquarium444]

Emerson approved the existence of God in almost all of his works, and gave God a new explanation. He emphasized on human intuitions and feelings being closely connected with God. What I meant in the last sentence of my last post was the fact that I truly agreed with Emerson in everything he wrote.
Many people have been persuaded to believe in God and accepted God's existence without deep thoughts. However I don't think the debates about the existence of God would have made sense because nobody could provide any real evidence for his arguments. I don't know too much about God.
I love to read Emerson, but I sometimes found difficulty in accepting his views on human intuitions being colsely connected with God. I just don't like to feel that I've been governed by God, though I truly agree with everything else Emerson wrote.

Good for you. It appears that you were able to enjoy reading that author, and what he said is his opinion, yet you agree with his views on subjects. Now, that is good. As for evidence, the evidence is that the author believed what he believed and there is nothing else. Who would believe that institutions are connected with God if there is no evidence. I heard that Augustine wrote of a city of God with angels, etc.

I would love to read Hobbes or something like that, but not only is it seeming impossible, but it is as if there is also no practical purpose. Yet, if I was able to enjoy reading some great work, it would be considered well placed. Every sentence should count towards my advantage since it is one of the great human efforts.

[BienvenuJDC]

People always screw that one up, because they cut out the rest of the quote. Allow me:



Sort of changes the meaning, don't you think?

Yes it does...thank you. I never knew the context.