Is there proof God exists?

fresco wrote:

IFF,

I won't labour the point but "thing in itself" seems antithetical to your holistic transcendent position (or at least to my undestanding of it). BTW most of these thoughts are mine, not from philosophy books which I find (to the gratification of a vain "me") seem to agree with me. (I'm thinking particularly of post modernists such as Foucault). Also, as I have said elsewhere, "objectivity" is an idealistic myth. "Science" may have the advantage of using the relatively culture free meta-language of "mathematics" thereby laying greater claims to "consensus", but as Godel has shown, even scientists are hostage to the nominal assumptions of axioms outwith their systems.
Such assumptions are ultimately bounded by the functionality of our "particular" physiological and social needs and we even tend to make assumptions about those !

There are different levels of understanding. For most people, and for most practical purposes, it is useful to consider that an objective world exists. (By useful I am saying the same thing as fulfilling "physiological and social needs.") It has certainly been a useful assumption in science, for example. We might not take life seriously if we imagined the world to be just a projection of our own consciousness. However, I believe that ultimately the world is just a projection of our own consciousness. That doesn't mean that it's unreal, or that other people don't exist. (Other people are a parts of the "Big Mind" or universal intelligence which is partitioned off from me. They are me.) The understanding that the world is "maya", a dream, or the projection of our consciousness, can only be realized from the point of view of a higher state of consciousness. I don't claim to have attained that state, but I have had experiences which suggest to me the dreamlike nature of reality.

0 Replies

Steve 41oo wrote:

IFeelFree wrote:
When we think about God, we are forming a mental concept. That is not God. God is experienced as the source of love and bliss within. We may not be able to know God completely, just as we may not be able to know the tree completely, but we can have an experience of God, or the tree, which helps us to form a more meaningful mental concept.
So God is not a mental concept but God can help us form a more complete mental concept about God. You're beginning to loose me IFF.

The experience of God can help us to form a more meaningful mental concept of God, just as the experience of a tree (to someone who's never seen one) can help them to form a more meaningful concept of a tree. There is a great deal of argument about whether God exists, what He/She/It is like, etc. by people who are just arguing over mental concepts. It is like people who have never seen a tree (or a picture of one) but have read descriptions, arguing over what the nature of a tree is. The experience of God in the impersonal form as bliss-consciousness provides an experiential basis for a more meaningful mental concept because the word "God" then points to a particular experience, as opposed to a purely mental construct. Of course, knowledge and experience go hand in hand. The experience of pure consciousness might be baffling to someone who didn't understand what it meant. In fact, I seem to remember reading some accounts by certain writers (Longfellow?) who seem to describe this experience but express some confusion or fear because they can't identify what it means.

0 Replies

IFeelFree wrote:

I don't claim to have attained that state, but I have had experiences which suggest to me the dreamlike nature of reality.

leave the stuff alone IFF its bad for you.

0 Replies

IFF,

For me "consciousness" is not central. The centre lies at the interface between "inner" and "outer" processes....a two way exchange...like the water in a river and its bed. Being the "water" we attempt to predict the river's course but we cannot fully "know" (transcend ) the nature of the "bed". "Reality" is the river, not the water.

0 Replies

fresco wrote:

IFF,

For me "consciousness" is not central. The centre lies at the interface between "inner" and "outer" processes....a two way exchange...like the water in a river and its bed. Being the "water" we attempt to predict the river's course but we cannot fully "know" (transcend ) the nature of the "bed". "Reality" is the river, not the water.

That sounds like a type of "mind/body dualism" -- the subject and object are two ontologically separate categories. From my point of view, that is one level of understanding. Mysticism, to which I'm partial, posits that reality is a condition of oneness, and that division into subject and object is an error. However, before that error can be recognized, a more primary error must be be transcended and that is the error of ego, or identification with the mind-made self. This is Hume's bundle theory of self -- that we are a constantly changing bundle of perceptions. Experience of pure consciousness reveals that we are not our thoughts, perceptions, emotions, body, etc., but rather the absolute unbounded state consciousness prior to thought.

0 Replies

IFF - I just thought of something kind of funny. "IFF" is a common short hand expression for "if and only if." It's a pretty good Nickname to have in a discussion on a proof.

Too perfect.
K
O

0 Replies

Diest TKO wrote:

IFF - I just thought of something kind of funny. "IFF" is a common short hand expression for "if and only if." It's a pretty good Nickname to have in a discussion on a proof.

"IFeelFree" is also the title of song by the 1960s band, Cream. (I actually saw them perform live in 1967.)

0 Replies

IFF,

The "river" is definately not a duality. You choose the monism of "consciousness" backed by "God" as a singularity. I chose the monism of "interaction"...of "mutual existence of inner and outer" with consciousness as an epiphenomenon of "inner".

0 Replies

fresco wrote:

IFF,

The "river" is definately not a duality. You choose the monism of "consciousness" backed by "God" as a singularity. I chose the monism of "interaction"...of "mutual existence of inner and outer" with consciousness as an epiphenomenon of "inner".

Ya lost me.

0 Replies

IFF,

Traditionally there are two monisms "idealism" and "materialism". Cartesian dualism refocuses thise specifically on mind-body. Your own leaning is towards idealism/mind with the proviso that you seek "closure" via "God" as a form of "absolute consciousness". My position i(like Fritjof Capra in his` Web of Life") is that neither idealism nor materialism is the key. That lies in a "nested systems approach" of potentially infinite extent, such that "observatioin" at one level yields to "observation of observation" from another level with no necessity for "closure". Thus "we"(water) cannot know "river" except by transcendent helicoptor, but then again "we" cannot know/examine "reason for helicoptor" except froim the "next level". etc. Functionally of course we are satisfied with limited "prediction and control" (=partial closure)at one level and the temptation is to assume such "closure" is ultimately "absolute" by evoking a deity or "ultimate observer".
(My phrase "mutuallity of existence" implies that "observer" and "observed" are always two sides of the same coin at some level of system)

0 Replies

IFeelFree wrote:

God is experienced as the source of love and bliss within.

Good god.

0 Replies

epenthesis wrote:

IFeelFree wrote:
God is experienced as the source of love and bliss within.

Good god.

Are you expressing dismay? If so, I should point out that I mean what I say literally. If this has not been your experience then I would suggest that you are missing a profound experience. God is not a mental concept, but a direct experience which need not be associated with any religious dogma.

0 Replies

I have to call bullshit on that one.

0 Replies

USAFHokie80 wrote:

I have to call bullshit on that one.

I am telling you what I have experienced directly. If it is bullshit, then either I am a liar or I am delusional. Which do you think it is?

0 Replies

I can only choose one?

I pointed out ealier just this issue. If someone were to say he "experienced" someone telling him xyz and it was NOT god.... then he'd be medicated or locked up. Everyone would think he was crazy. But ooooohhhh no, if you imagined an experience with god, that's fine.

Double standards.

0 Replies

USAFHokie80 wrote:

I can only choose one?

I pointed out ealier just this issue. If someone were to say he "experienced" someone telling him xyz and it was NOT god.... then he'd be medicated or locked up. Everyone would think he was crazy. But ooooohhhh no, if you imagined an experience with god, that's fine.

Double standards.

I'm not too clear on what you saying here. However, I can tell that you have a very different conception of God than I do. Even if you believe that God does not exist, you imagine I am implying something very different when I use the word God than I'm actually intending. To put it simply, have you ever heard people talk about God as "God is in everything. We're all a part of God."? Its more along those lines. I am talking about an all-pervading presence, pure consciousness, not some personality or companion along the lines of "Jesus is with me." Does that clarify what I'm saying at all?

0 Replies

not really. :-)

0 Replies

USAFHokie80 wrote:

not really. :-)

Since I'm a bit inarticulate, here's a description of this experience by a fellow scientist:

"One night as I was falling asleep, at about the age of eight or nine, I suddenly felt a soft effusion of supreme comfortableness engulf my being. My mind became unbounded and completely fulfilled. Thoughts suddenly stopped their ceaseless activity and became still. It was as if the mind had turned inward and collapsed in on itself, as though passing through the eye of a needle. I was filled with a profound feeling of well being and happiness. It was not happiness about any particular thing, but an unconditional, all pervading bliss that depends on nothing outside of itself. The river of ever active consciousness, moving in the stream of boundaries, suddenly arrived at the ocean of silent, ever full, unbounded awareness. My mind was no longer searching. It had arrived at the searched for. I had no idea what it was. In it there was no thought, no perception, only unbounded awareness. I felt wrapped in a blanket of love and safety, or rather I was That, the wrapper and the wrapped all at once. There was no differentiation of experience. I was that state, nothing else. Not me experiencing something outside of me, just me experiencing the best version of me as that state."

0 Replies

USAFHokie80 wrote:

not really. :-)

Also, here's a long list of descriptions of "God consciousness" that I find interesting: God Consciousness

0 Replies

IFF.

The problem is this. Many people have experienced an overwhelming "holistic love" feeling (including myself) without the need to call it "God". Indeed there is some evidence which indicates that such experiences can be drug induced or triggered by brain stimulation. Therefore however pleasant and comforting this may be in an uncertain world, the move to call this "the Truth" is rationally questionable. Furthermore, it could also be thought of as pernicious because it gives succour to all-comers who claim "the Truth" including the fanatics.

0 Replies

Is there proof God exists?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know