God Exist

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NikolaiI

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?

Quote:

---

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?

Quote:

---

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

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mr. Dark

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.

Quote:

---

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...

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lichtrausch

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?"

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Judas130

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.

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

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

I second that notion.

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.

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

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

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.

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.

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.

blaze of glory,

you are really afraid? of what?