Proof of the existence of God

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

there is not a lot of written documents of people who was so sure of the existance of the tooth fairy that they would proclaim its the truth in the face of death

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

There you go.
I believe we have just reached a mutual understanding.
Was that so hard?

jan

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

That's it, keep the conditioning topped up.

Lest they forget.

jan.

 

You are comfortable with God=universe.
I comfortable with that, and more. It's that simple.

jan.

 

...

 

Isn't 'proof of the existence of God' the subject of this thread?

If you don't want to talk about that, what do you want to talk about instead? What point are you trying to make, Jan?

Why are you so convinced that everyone else is wrong about the subject of God and you are the only one who is right? What are your ideas about God that you believe are so superior to everyone else's? Why do you believe that your own position (whatever it is) is so authoritative?

Are you an adherent of some existing religious tradition, and if so which one? (You've mentioned Krishna in the past, so are you associated with ISKCON or whatever they call it now?) Or are you more of a religious free-lancer, some kind of 'new-age' syncretist convinced that all religious traditions ultimately teach and reveal the same underlying truth (your personal view of God)?

It would help a lot (and make you far less annoying) if you put less effort into playing the troll, trying to make yourself the center of everyone else's attention (you come across as emotionally needy), and more effort into explaining what your own position is and why you hold it (even if you fear doing that will put you on the defensive and you prefer to remain on offense).

 

If God = the physical universe, then why call it 'God'?

The word 'God' has all kinds of connotations and associations that 'physical universe' doesn't have. Most obviously, 'God' is typically (but not universally) imagined as being a 'person' in some sense. That seems to mean that psychologistic terminology like 'aware', 'intelligent', 'purposive', 'loving' (or alternatively) 'wrathful' are applicable to God. Moral predicates such as 'good' are too. God is imagined as being the goal and terminus of human spiritual quests, the summum bonum and beatific vision.

Pantheism attributes many qualities to the universe around us that physicalistic science doesn't, qualities that one appreciates by aesthetic or spiritual penetration of some sort.

And hasn't Jan insisted that "God as original cause/creator, is not my definition. It is THE definition"? The physical universe doesn't seem to satisfy that one, unless it's somehow self-creating, which is problematic.

(What "THE definition" means and why it should be accepted as authoritative remain obscure.)

 

I don't "want" to believe that God does not exist. I kind of wish he did. But there's no evidence that he does, so I'm stuck with reality.

 

Yazata,

 

Does Jan believe in God?

Definitely. And like others of Jan's 'scriptural' references, that one is loosly quoted from devotional Hinduism, in this instance the Bhagavad Gita (15:15).

http://www.vedabase.com/bg/15/15

That's one reason why I asked Jan if he or she is an adherent of ISKCON. Predictably Jan didn't give a straight answer. Jan asks everyone else lots of questions but never answers anyone else's questions. S/He obviously enjoys being on offense (on the attack) against everyone else's views more than being on defense, defending his or her own beliefs.

 

What do you mean I didn't give you a 'straight answer?
I'm not going to discuss my personal life to you or anyone else.
I don't ask you or anyone else about your personal lives.
There is no discussion in this whole forum where one needs to discuss their personal religion, unless the thread particularly asks for it. And then it should be up to each individual to decide whether or not they want to get involved.

jan.

 

I asked you half a dozen times if you believed in God, you refused to answer that question every single time.

 

And I asked just as many times what that question had to do with what we're talking about.
Why can't you explain?

jan.

 

...

 

The point is, you never give a straight answer.

 

I answer every question with straight answers. You just don't accept the answers. Either because you cannot see the point i'm making, or you don't accept it because it doesn't fit with your comprehension. My advice is brush on your comprehension, because the subject matter of God is as vast as it is interesting. You're not yourselves any favours by remaining ignorant of it.

jan.

 

This indeed seems to be true. And I believe there lies also the problem with these kind of discussions because judging from the historical religious violence it would seem that “THE definition” is not the same for everybody. Anyway: Going back to the “root” of this:

Assuming he is talking about his “THE definition” of God than I fully agree with this. But let me rephrase it a bit to make it better understandable (I hope): Let’s assume (avoiding the word imagine here) that a God as a supreme, all knowing, all powerful being does NOT exist. Give that assumption: Would the world and universe we live in look any different from what we now see? As I argued before in this thread: No: there is nothing in this world or universe, other than a natural or instinctive human need, that would indicate, require or prove that a “THE definition” God exists.
In other words: this proves to me that a “THE definition” God does NOT exist.
Now, does that mean that God exists or not: THAT is a whole different(!) discussion that I already had here before and I am not going to repeat.
I am only going to repeat this: everybody is free to believe what they need.