Does god exist?

[dali]

Not when nobodys looking surely?

[Jamie]

Originally Posted by Maguru

I can agree conceptually with your concept of the existing aspect of god being "life' and everything life entails. BUT why would we need a god?
Using this concept, belief in god makes no difference to our lives.

Hi Maguru,

Well, for me, I think it's better to relinquish all belief (as much as possible), and come to a first-hand feeling for, the nature of your very own being, through self investigation, quietening the mind, and feeling.

I'm happy to use the word 'god' or not; it doesn't bother me in the slightest, cos my first (perhaps only) point of reference, is my own being, and I have very little use for labels and names for things (incl. 'god'), except for when I'm trying to communicate such concepts with other people.

I think the biggest problem we have, in debating 'god', is not one of existance or not, but rather of first defining what we mean when use the word 'god'. It probably has as many meanings as there are people on this planet ...

But that kind of discussion sure could make for interesting debate..

Have fun!

[Dannyboy1]

He just gave me a back rub.

[pianoperformer]

Originally Posted by Dannyboy1

He just gave me a back rub.

Darn, and I thought I was his favorite. That lying...

*dodges lightning*

[Dannyboy1]

Originally Posted by pianoperformer

Darn, and I thought I was his favorite. That lying...

*dodges lightning*

He's got something planned for you.

[Maguru]

Originally Posted by Jamie

Hi Maguru,

Well, for me, I think it's better to relinquish all belief (as much as possible), and come to a first-hand feeling for, the nature of your very own being, through self investigation, quietening the mind, and feeling.

Many are believing that the 'nature of your very own being' is god and concluding the experience of 'stillness within' is connecting with god. Without prior knowledge of god, what would the conclusion be?

Personally, this expereince of my inner self has been a human experience. I have likened it to being in paradise but I was in my daughter's back garden so I knew it wasn't truly paradise.

I have also experienced the opposite in the 'stillness within'. Total darkness. Nothing. No life. I describe it as hell but I was in my own bed and I knew it wasn't truly hell.

Without prior knowledge of god, I doubt thoughts of heaven or hell would have entered my head. They are constructs also.

So if I am to be objective about my 'experiences within' I would have to conclude, it is all me. If I were to be subjective then I would conclude god and devil. Which is exactly what I did.

[mercuryrising]

Originally Posted by Maguru

I haven't thought of it from this perspective before. Useful?

Do you have experiences of something 'more powerful' than you' being 'loved unconditionally', never 'making wrong choices' etc. Surely the experience is neccesary to deem the beliefs true and live life accordingly?

How does the concept of god become useful when the opposite is being experienced?

You might think of it like tinkering with a machine. You've built this machine to do certain things. Most likely you would have it do things better than you could do without it. It requires maintenance and sometimes it won't do what you want it to do. It also goes on working while you do other things. The machine might make your life easier or it could make your life much more difficult. It might even kill you if you aren't careful.

In regards to athiests, I am saying they look at this machine and don't see how it could possibly work. They point out that the concept is our own creation so that means it isn't real. But then, we might reflect why we spend most of our time making these little devices. Isn't that what a Creator does?

[Maguru]

TRUTH *

A Jewel so precious it must be guarded,
So rare it must be preserved,
So essential it must be dispersed,
So indispensable it is The Path to God, for
Truth with love is God in Action.

I have just come across a 'concept' of god I can live with. Love is the easy bit but the truth? Isn't that what we are all searching for? However, I do think it is possible and plausable.

[Evan]

If there was a mind independant world we'd only know about it through our mind.

By which I mean, the problem is putting the question in terms of 'objective' and 'subjective'. This ends up in hopeless tangles.

I think it is useful to move on to discussing experience. What is the experience you have which is labelled god (or life, unity etc).

For myself, I have had at least one experience which I don't think can be explained in materialist terms. It didn't occur in a lab and I don't know how on earth I could replicate it but does that mean it was not real? Or that it is not proven? Not for me.

[Maguru]

Originally Posted by mercuryrising

You might think of it like tinkering with a machine. You've built this machine to do certain things. Most likely you would have it do things better than you could do without it. It requires maintenance and sometimes it won't do what you want it to do. It also goes on working while you do other things. The machine might make your life easier or it could make your life much more difficult. It might even kill you if you aren't careful.

In regards to athiests, I am saying they look at this machine and don't see how it could possibly work. They point out that the concept is our own creation so that means it isn't real. But then, we might reflect why we spend most of our time making these little devices. Isn't that what a Creator does?

My musings : If we are all one and god created everything then the machine could not be seperate from us. We would be components of the machine. Using this example, God must be the creation as well as the creator.

The only place I can see the possibility of god's existence is within humanity. In fact, within humanity is the only place I have witnessed god, including myself. If god exists, everything we are, god must be. Or in other words, humanity as a whole and everything humanity entails is God.

[vimoh]

Originally Posted by Maguru

My musings : If we are all one and god created everything then the machine could not be seperate from us. We would be components of the machine. Using this example, God must be the creation as well as the creator.

The only place I can see the possibility of god's existence is within humanity. In fact, within humanity is the only place I have witnessed god, including myself. If god exists, everything we are, god must be. Or in other words, humanity as a whole and everything humanity entails is God.

Couldn't have said it better myself.

[soloboi23]

I am new here so I am not trying to spark any big debates but if God is something outside of existence and all that is reality, then would it not be illogical to try to figure out God through intelligence. Either God is "here" because civilization needs something to fall back on, something to put all there faith into, and therefore we simply "believe", or God really exists and your heart is the only thing that can bring you closer to that understanding.

[Maguru]

Originally Posted by Evan

If there was a mind independant world we'd only know about it through our mind.

By which I mean, the problem is putting the question in terms of 'objective' and 'subjective'. This ends up in hopeless tangles.

I think it is useful to move on to discussing experience. What is the experience you have which is labelled god (or life, unity etc).

For myself, I have had at least one experience which I don't think can be explained in materialist terms. It didn't occur in a lab and I don't know how on earth I could replicate it but does that mean it was not real? Or that it is not proven? Not for me.

I think the human experience is the only possible way to determine god. Was yours a physical experience or an inner experience, and can you be objective in your description without drawing conclusions.

[Dannyboy1]

Originally Posted by Evan

If there was a mind independant world we'd only know about it through our mind.

By which I mean, the problem is putting the question in terms of 'objective' and 'subjective'. This ends up in hopeless tangles.

I think it is useful to move on to discussing experience. What is the experience you have which is labelled god (or life, unity etc).

For myself, I have had at least one experience which I don't think can be explained in materialist terms. It didn't occur in a lab and I don't know how on earth I could replicate it but does that mean it was not real? Or that it is not proven? Not for me.

Read "The Power of Now". Thinking interferes with your connection to God. The way to connect is to be present and NOT think. Just experience.

[Christian223]

I wonder, did black holes exist in the year 3000 BC?, where black holes an objective reality at THAT time?, or are black holes an objective reality NOW and just because we have finally aquired the means/instruments to be able to see them?.

Even though we still have not instruments to say that for sure Gods existence is objective, we have the design of creation (Design is NOT= complexity, a pile of rocks may be complex, but its not a designed pile of rocks, the human body is complex and designed) as a proof of God existence.

[Maguru]

:

Originally Posted by Christian223

I wonder, did black holes exist in the year 3000 BC?, where black holes an objective reality at THAT time?, or are black holes an objective reality NOW and just because we have finally aquired the means/instruments to be able to see them?.

Even though we still have not instruments to say that for sure Gods existence is objective, we have the design of creation (Design is NOT= complexity, a pile of rocks may be complex, but its not a designed pile of rocks, the human body is complex and designed) as a proof of God existence.

The 'design' concept is still only a concept, albeit logical. I think the human race is well aware of the awesome design of the body but why does it become sick and die?
Is that god's design too?
Doesn't this concept imply god is elsewhere and seperate from us?

[pianoperformer]

The design of the body says nothing about the existence or non-existence of any god. It merely suggests that certain configurations of atoms created a lifeform functional enough to live on a planet which contains conditions that are suitable for such life.

[Maguru]

Originally Posted by Dannyboy1

Read "The Power of Now". Thinking interferes with your connection to God. The way to connect is to be present and NOT think. Just experience.

I wonder how it would be possibe to know you are having an experience (of connecting with god), without presence of mind? How would you describe the experience without awareness of it?

It's similar to observing a dream. Although we are not consciously participating in the dream, we recall the experience of the dream through the mind.

I could believe my dream literally or I can give it my own meaning or someone else's but it would not make it true. It would be my choice to label this dream experience and I could even call it 'connection to god' and I know many have.

The dreams are dreams and are real dreams. An experience is an experience and is a real experience BUT the meaning of the content is entirely subjective.

My subjective belief derived from my experiences of being 'in the present moment' is one of total dis-connection from the reality I experience every day. It feels like there is only me, no-one else, no pain, no worries, at peace, wonderful.


In the present moment I was without judgement and fully accepting of the experience. Some may say this was a connection with god but I think it was a great escape!

However, I can only tell you this in retrospect as does everyone else, even Tolle.

[Maguru]

Originally Posted by pianoperformer

The design of the body says nothing about the existence or non-existence of any god. It merely suggests that certain configurations of atoms created a lifeform functional enough to live on a planet which contains conditions that are suitable for such life.

I really am blown away with this down to earth observation. Bravo!

Bit scary though, don't you think? Would the configurations of atoms just be a natural process of life? It seems to be that way. Certain elements meet at certain points and create a functional life form or even a destructive life form eg. tsunami.

I mean, the egg and the sperm are configurations of atoms and any human sperm can connect with any human egg if the configuration is suitable.

Am I making sense? I am rabbiting a bit as my mind explores. Would our lives, humanity itself have a conscious function in accepting "Life Just Is?"

[SonoranBob]

Originally Posted by Maguru

Is it possible that god is an 'objective' reality using the dictionary definition of objective?

Or is it more likely that god is a subjective reality as in the given definition?

I believe that humble people have to admit the possibility of god as an objective reality, in the same sense that they must admit that there could be a civilization of sentient toad stools living on Proxima Centari. Short of visiting Proxima, who can really tell.

I tend to be swayed by the argument from creation to the extent that I think something as vast and elegant as the universe has to have an intelligent first cause. But I don't claim that the first cause is actively involved with us today as a species or as individuals. I don't claim to know anything about the nature and character of such a being. I tend to think he's indifferent to us, if he exists.

Honest people also have to admit that they don't know, and there appears to be no way of knowing and objectively demonstrating that knowledge to others.

Personally I doubt the relevance of the question, though, because any God worth worshiping would extend himself on our behalf, unambiguously revealing himself to us and communicating with us. Such a god would bring enlightenment, peace, and healing into the world. I don't see those things happening in any meaningful way. What progress we arguably are making seems to be pretty much up to us. So I'm willing to leave the question of God's existence to any afterlife I might encounter. That seems to be the realm god belongs to. As far as I can tell, we're on our own in this realm.

--Bob

[SonoranBob]

Originally Posted by mercuryrising

I think most atheists are really saying, "The concept I have of God is not useful, so I don't believe in God."

Or in my case, I don't consider god's existence particularly relevant. I don't find it necessary to prove to myself or anyone else that he exists because people's lives unfold pretty much as if he didn't, so -- why bother to debate it? Other than as an interesting exercise.

However many atheists in my experience take this further and take it much more personally than simply dismissing the question. Many of them (present company excepted of course) are rather angry, bitter people. They find it necessary to disrespect and belittle people of faith. They find it necessary to arrogantly strut around and ridicule god, the idea of god, and people who are amenable to the idea.

In other words there seem to be two classes of atheists (and just to be clear, I don't lump agnostics in with atheists as some like to blur that line). There is the atheist who simply has his convictions and goes on with his life. He or she might be just as loving and selfless as any person with religious sentiments, and their goodness is all the more impressive because it isn't compulsory. Then there is what I'd call the atheist of convenience (or, perhaps, a Madeline Murray O'Hare atheist): a towering ego that has discovered an excuse to be mad at the world, and is hell bent on telling any and all hapless believers what ignorant nitwits they are. No respect at all.

Yes that is true to an extent of any (non)belief system you might associate with but I have always been struck by the particular stridency of many atheists. They can be worse than Christian fundamentalists, and that's saying something.

--Bob