Proof there is a God

Indeed. One start point might be for Jan to explain what sort of God it is that he claims "cares for the soul" (post 913). That indicates a belief in one very particular sort of concept of God, I think, even though Jan seems reluctant to spell it out.

I was comptemplating a similar post.

It would be helpful and rather than demanding proof I really would like to hear Jan's view of God.

I would understand if he is reluctant to share his personal view but I for one undertake not to be critical.

Alex
 
Indeed. One start point might be for Jan to explain what sort of God it is that he claims "cares for the soul" (post 913). That indicates a belief in one very particular sort of concept of God,
It also indicates belief in a soul, raising even more questions, and further needlessly multiplying entities.
 
It also indicates belief in a soul, raising even more questions, and further needlessly multiplying entities.

Well yes this implies our friend subscribes to traditional Cartesian dualism and also is suggestive of belief in a personal God who "cares for" the souls of individual beings.

All rather traditional and not compatible with the sort of impersonal, Pantheistic view of God as merely the order in nature, which he seemed to be encouraging Write4U to assent to.

So the questions about what game Jan is playing do indeed seem to multiply.
 
That is arse about face. If you - as you appear to - want to propose unorthodox definitions of "god", that might be no more than the order we perceive in the world, then you need to define what you mean by the term, before demanding that people answer.

What do you mean by ''unorthodox definitions of god''?
Which definition of God do you know that doesn't include our perception of the order in the world?

For example, if you were to say, "God is the Laws of Thermodynamics", then I would say I do "believe in" them enough to trust them for all practical purposes. (But then I would also refuse to accept that your definition of God has any utility.)

That wouldn't make any sense. ''the law of thermodynamics operates because of God''. If we are to use the meaning of God in its proper sense, it would have to be that way round.
Do you agree?

I do hope you are not now playing a rhetorical game in which you try to broaden the meaning of God more and more, until you hope to succeed in extracting a statement of belief - in whatever it is by then - from someone.

I am intellectually incapable of broadening the meaning of God. Here is a definition of God I gave to Write4U earlier:

The Personality of Godhead is perfect and complete, and because He is completely perfect, all emanations from Him, such as this phenomenal world, are perfectly equipped as complete wholes. Whatever is produced of the Complete Whole is also complete in itself. Because He is the Complete Whole, even though so many complete units emanate from Him, He remains the complete balance.

It's more a case of down playing the definition of God, by atheists, than theists broadening it.

jan.
 
exchemist said:
So come on, define what you mean by God. You've just said, "God cares for the soul". Expand on that, please, before you demand people answer whether or not they believe in your idea of God.

I would have thought that to be obvious. Living entities are not the bodies they inhabit. The body is perishable, and the living entity is eternal, like God. Caring for the body is analogous to caring for your car, or your clothes. I don't mean to diminish it's importance, but it is definitely a temporary state of affairs.

jan.
 
Explain your concept of an existing God to me and I'll tell you if I agree or not. I'm afraid my previous statement is the best I can do at this time.

Fair enough...

The Personality of Godhead is perfect and complete, and because He is completely perfect, all emanations from Him, such as this phenomenal world, are perfectly equipped as complete wholes. Whatever is produced of the Complete Whole is also complete in itself. Because He is the Complete Whole, even though so many complete units emanate from Him, He remains the complete balance.

jan.
 
I have a feeling your concept of God is alittle different than the *common* concept of a sentient motivated God, but you have not clarified your concept of an existing God. How can anyone propose the existence of a God without some description of its properties?

I have a feeling when you say ''common concept of a sentient motivated God'', you are referring to the so-called Christian God, or the so-called Muslim God.
If not, then please enlighten me.

What do you mean by ''properties''?

jan.
 
It's the same as my refusal to accept that Russell's Teapot exists.

IOW, you are putting yourself in a position where you don't have to think about God.
Or shouting la la la as loud as you can, while covering your ears.

The onus remains on the claimant. Until then, the assertion is not granted.

You're the one making claims, not me.

jan.
 
Your stance is still flawed, despite all your fancy footwork; you are still trying to put the onus on others to show why God doesn't exist. The onus remains on you to present a compelling case.

If you claim God doesn't exist, then the onus is on you to demonstrate that.
I'm not claiming that God exists, I'm attempting to provide a proof for God's existence, and for that we need to understand what God is, or (if you atheist) what God is supposed to be.

And I guess I should have listened to others. It seems God's objective existence is the crux of the issue for you. :frown: So present your case.

If you're bypassing my dialogue, in favour of their bias, then I doubt very much that you can handle a discussion like this. So step to the side with Sarkus and Yazata (gate keepers), or stop using diversion tactics.

jan.
 
Indeed. One start point might be for Jan to explain what sort of God it is that he claims "cares for the soul" (post 913). That indicates a belief in one very particular sort of concept of God, I think, even though Jan seems reluctant to spell it out.

What is it that you find difficult about what I've said thus far?
Haven't I responded to all your enquiries?

jan.
 
I would understand if he is reluctant to share his personal view but I for one undertake not to be critical.

What good is my personal view in this thread?
Is it too much to ask smart, intelligent, people to put aside their prejudice, and take a good look at what this God thing is all about?
Aren't you even curious?

jan.
 
What do you mean by ''unorthodox definitions of god''?
Which definition of God do you know that doesn't include our perception of the order in the world?



That wouldn't make any sense. ''the law of thermodynamics operates because of God''. If we are to use the meaning of God in its proper sense, it would have to be that way round.
Do you agree?



I am intellectually incapable of broadening the meaning of God. Here is a definition of God I gave to Write4U earlier:

The Personality of Godhead is perfect and complete, and because He is completely perfect, all emanations from Him, such as this phenomenal world, are perfectly equipped as complete wholes. Whatever is produced of the Complete Whole is also complete in itself. Because He is the Complete Whole, even though so many complete units emanate from Him, He remains the complete balance.

It's more a case of down playing the definition of God, by atheists, than theists broadening it.

jan.

OK, thanks for this, but all it is is a list of alleged qualities (complete, whole, perfect), without any description of the entity to which these qualities are being applied. Just capitalising "complete" and "whole" and shoving a definite article in front, i.e. "The Complete Whole", does not get us any further forward. The question crying out to be answered is; "A complete, whole what? "

But clearly you do in fact ascribe further characteristics, when you say He "cares for the soul". That implies there is a consciousness capable of "caring for" things and that this consciousness does in fact care for the souls of individuals, these individuals being presumably among His "emanations", right?

So there is the idea of a Creator who cares for His creation. Is that right?

And are we being invited to discuss proof of the existence of a Creator of everything who cares for His creation? If we are, we can all understand what you mean by God and can respond accordingly.
 
I am intellectually incapable of broadening the meaning of God. Here is a definition of God I gave to Write4U earlier:

The Personality of Godhead is perfect and complete, and because He is completely perfect, all emanations from Him, such as this phenomenal world, are perfectly equipped as complete wholes. Whatever is produced of the Complete Whole is also complete in itself. Because He is the Complete Whole, even though so many complete units emanate from Him, He remains the complete balance.

http://www.harekrishna.com/col/books/RP/ISO/iso-inv.html

Jan's definition is from Swami Prabhupada's personal-theistic translation of the Isha Upanishad. The swami helpfully includes a literal word-for-word translation of the Sanskrit as well, which doesn't include "personality of Godhead" or all the "He" and "Him" language. (The Sanskrit reads more like philosophy than devotionalism.) That's how the less personal-theistic Advaita can also cite this Upanishad. They just translate it without all the theistic interjections about the "complete whole" that produces everything else being a divine person.
 
Last edited:
http://www.harekrishna.com/col/books/RP/ISO/iso-inv.html

Jan's definition is from Swami Prabhupada's personal-theistic translation of the Isha Upanishad. The swami helpfully includes a literal word-for-word translation of the Sanskrit as well, which doesn't include "personality of Godhead" or all the "He" and "Him" language. (The Sanskrit reads more like philosophy than devotionalism.) That's how the less personal-theistic Advaita can also cite this Upanishad. They just translate it without all the theistic interjections about the "complete whole" that produces everything else being a divine person.

Why don't you show us Yazata?

Did you not catch when I said that God is both personal and impersonal?
Or did you conveniently miss that part so you can use this diversion tactic?

What is your problem with me and the Hare-Krishnas?

jan.
 
Last edited:
And I guess I should have listened to others. It seems God's objective existence is the crux of the issue for you. :frown: So present your case.
Jan said:
If you're bypassing my dialogue, in favour of their bias, then I doubt very much that you can handle a discussion like this. So step to the side with Sarkus and Yazata (gate keepers), or stop using diversion tactics.
Yes, DaveC, come and stand by the side with us and watch as Jan fails to answer any straight question, avoids answering any question he doesn't like, and provides inconsistent answer after inconsistent answer that he then subsequently fails to correct.
The only gate that Yazata and I are likely to keep is one of honesty, which is why Jan struggles to pass through, happy as he is to dance and frolic outside to try to woo the spectators with what he thinks passes for answers.
And you'll note how anyone he doesn't want to converse with are now tagged with being unable to "handle a discussion like this".
You'll get used to him, though. ;)
 
Here is a wiki article about Adi Shankara for those who are interested.

Adi Shankara was a philosopher and theologian from India who consolidated the doctrine of Advaita Vedanta. He is credited with unifying and establishing the main currents of thought in Hinduism.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adi_Shankara

A link for Advaita Vadanta...

Advaita Vedanta is a school of Hindu philosophy and religious practice, and one of the classic Indian paths to spiritual realization. Advaita (Sanskrit; not-two, "no second") refers to the idea that the true Self, Atman [soul], is the same as the highest Reality, Brahman. It gives "a unifying interpretation of the whole body of Upanishads", providing scriptural authority for the postulation of the nonduality of Atman and Brahman. Followers seek liberation/release by acquiring vidyā of the identity of Atman and Brahman. It emphasizes Jivanmukta, the idea that moksha (freedom, liberation) is achievable in this life.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advaita_Vedanta

Here is a link explaining the term 'Brahman'...

In Hinduism, Brahman connotes the highest Universal Principle, the Ultimate Reality in the universe. In major schools of Hindu philosophy it is the material, efficient, formal and final cause of all that exists. It is the pervasive, genderless, infinite, eternal truth and bliss which does not change, yet is the cause of all changes. Brahman as a metaphysical concept is the single binding unity behind the diversity in all that exists in the universe.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brahman


Here are some quotes by Adi Shankara.

The Soul appears to be finite because of ignorance. When ignorance is destroyed the Self which does not admit of any multiplicity truly reveals itself by itself: like the Sun when the clouds pass away.

Like bubbles in the water, the worlds rise, exist and dissolve in the Supreme Self, which is the material cause and the prop of everything.

All the manifested world of things and beings are projected by imagination upon the substratum which is the Eternal All-pervading Vishnu, whose nature is Existence-Intelligence; just as the different ornaments are all made out of the same gold.

On the destruction of the Upadhis, the contemplative one is totally absorbed in "Vishnu", the All-pervading Spirit, like water into water, space into space and light into light.
Realise That to be Brahman, the attainment of which leaves nothing more to be attained, the blessedness of which leaves no other blessing to be desired and the knowledge of which leaves nothing more to be known.


All objects are pervaded by Brahman. All actions are possible because of Brahman: therefore Brahman permeates everything as butter permeates milk.

Knowing that I am different from the body, I need not neglect the body. It is a vehicle that I use to transact with the world. It is the temple which houses the Pure Self within.

jan.
 
OK, thanks for this, but all it is is a list of alleged qualities (complete, whole, perfect), without any description of the entity to which these qualities are being applied. Just capitalising "complete" and "whole" and shoving a definite article in front, i.e. "The Complete Whole", does not get us any further forward. The question crying out to be answered is; "A complete, whole what? "

''The'' Complete Whole. It is a description of God.
The nature of God is described as spirit...

John4:2 "God is spirit, and his worshipers must worship in the Spirit and in truth."

An exert from wiki basically describes 'spirit' as The English word spirit, from Latinspiritus "breath", has many different meanings and connotations, most of them relating to a non-corporeal substance contrasted with the material body.

A more comprehensive word would be ''Atman''.
  • Ātman (Jainism), a philosophical term used within Jainism to identify the soul

But clearly you do in fact ascribe further characteristics, when you say He "cares for the soul". That implies there is a consciousness capable of "caring for" things and that this consciousness does in fact care for the souls of individuals, these individuals being presumably among His "emanations", right?

Why are you asking me?
What do you think?
Or are you not going to allow yourself to?

So there is the idea of a Creator who cares for His creation. Is that right?

It's not my idea.

And are we being invited to discuss proof of the existence of a Creator of everything who cares for His creation? If we are, we can all understand what you mean by God and can respond accordingly.

You're being invited to take a critical look at what can be called the concept of God. While you are not forced to believe in God, you can decide for yourself what the meaning of God is. So yes God is personal, but is also impersonal, according to scriptures.

jan.
 
Back
Top