Proof there is a God

[DaveC426913]

The important thing to bare in mind is that we do not need to believe in God to accept a definition of God. Agreed?

I have corrected your statement. As written, yours was false.

It is impossible to have "the" definition (implying there is only one) of something one believes does not exist, since, it is, by definition, made up, and there is no exemplar with which to verify any definition. There are seven billion ways to make it up. None of those ways is an authority.

Best that can be done is to accept a given definition for argument's sake. (a definition)

 

[Xelasnave.1947]

Fine. But you cannot claim that...

God does not exist
God is a mythical character
God is a Santa Claus for adults.
God is a crush for the weak minded
There isn't evidence for God etc...

Why can I not make these claims Jan?

Have I fallen into a trap such that you can now convince me that I can not attempt to present my view.

I expect you want evidence in support of my claims and such a request would not be unreasonable certainly no more unreasonable than any request made to you to support any claims you may make.

Think of my "claims" as my beliefs and tell me why I am not entitled to have them.

If you wish you can address each of my beliefs and offer something by way of rebuttal.

I say God does not exist and of course one can not prove nonexistence but one, you, should be able to prove the existence of something and clearly you can not otherwise you would.. wouldnt you?

I say mythical character surely you can nail me here and simply prove otherwise... can you prove otherwise Jan and show God is not a mythical character. Perhaps the question should be.. Will you?

Santa clause if not why not?

Crush for weak minded.. I think I backed away from that claim but assume such and reject it if you wish but I would prefer you deal with the above other matters.

As to evidence of God I sincerely ask for some and am trying to take on board the role scriptures play... My point is I am being receptive I think so ask.... what more can you offer?
Alex

 

[Xelasnave.1947]

Please speak for yourself.

I am sorry that I slipped up here. I was trying to present my views as my own as my post overall suggests.

I think that many of us can form many good definitions of the divine without believing in them.

See how easy it is to slip up you are now talking for others it seems.
Alex

 

[Xelasnave.1947]

A mythical character is still a character.
Plus you must know why you believe it mythical.

Yes Jan you are correct yet again.
I believe mythical because of the absence of proof to the contrary.
A mythical character can be best defined by the folk making up the story in which that character is featured. So its your story so you can describe the character.
Alex

 

[Xelasnave.1947]

You say you don't believe in God because, you think it is a man made myth (or something to that effect. Right?
So why do you believe God is is a made up mythical?
If your reply is no evidence, then what would be evidence of God? I assume you must know.

I have done my best to make my views clear.
As to evidence I dont really know given I think I know the limitations of those who may offer evidence.
Humans have limited sences so lets start with my sences and how I could get evidence via them.
We have sight so what might I expect to see with my eyes.
I have ears so what may I hear.
Can I view a documentary similar to say a documentary on the Queen of England for example.
I suppose documentaries are just as suspect as the scriptures and raises the question I always have.. How can you be sure of anything, how do you know anything is real... I hate it when one gets into that trip but there we go how do those authors know what is real and not just their imagination playing tricks.. Who is to say that they have answers.. They made it all up and although their works are voluminious they are no more than stuff they thought was a good idea at the time. I am not swayed by it at all.
Alex

 

[spidergoat]

No, because it is full of vague, metaphorical language. You have no interest in being clear because then we could actually point out the holes in your reasoning. For you, reasoning is not involved and you want others to merely submit.

That doesn't matter. If that is Jan's working definition of God, we can have a discussion about it. For reference, it is this:

‘The invisible (Brahman) is the Full; the visible (the world) too is the Full. From the Full (Brahman), the Full (the visible) universe has come. The Full (Brahman) remains the same, even after the Full (the visible universe) has come out of the Full (Brahman).’

My first criticism would be, the universe as described by science also fulfills this definition. So how does God differ from a materialistic view of the universe? By material I mean space-time, matter, and energy, all of which can be invisible or visible, infinitesimal or all encompassing.

 

[Jan Ardena]

That doesn't matter. If that is Jan's working definition of God, we can have a discussion about it. For reference, it is this:

‘The invisible (Brahman) is the Full; the visible (the world) too is the Full. From the Full (Brahman), the Full (the visible) universe has come. The Full (Brahman) remains the same, even after the Full (the visible universe) has come out of the Full (Brahman).’

My first criticism would be, the universe as described by science also fulfills this definition. So how does God differ from a materialistic view of the universe? By material I mean space-time, matter, and energy, all of which can be invisible or visible, infinitesimal or all encompassing.

God (Brahman) is spirit, the universe in matter.
God (Brahman) is infinite/eternal, the universe it finite/temporary.
That is the difference.

From Wiki...

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.

jan.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Why can I not make these claims Jan?

You say you cannot define God, but when you say ''God does not exist'' you imply that God as defined, does, or, cannot exist.
When you say ''God is a mythical character'' the implication suggests you have a reason why His character is mythical. Meaning you have defined Him/It.
When you say ''God is a Santa Claus for adults.'', you define God as Santa Clause. I presume you know the definition of Santa Clause.
When you say ''God is a crush for the weak minded'', you imply that God does not exist in reality.
When you say ''There isn't evidence for God'', it implies that if there was evidence you would accept that evidence for existence of God. As you would have to know what God is, to accept evidence, it stands to reason that you know what God is to claim there is no evidence.

jan.

 

[spidergoat]

God (Brahman) is spirit, the universe in matter.

You didn't say it was spirit. What is spirit, and how do you know? Why isn't that part of your definition?

God (Brahman) is infinite/eternal, the universe it finite/temporary.
That is the difference.

In the science community, there is no consensus about whether the universe is eternal, or had a beginning 14 billion years ago, or both. This also depends on how you define universe. So, I guess I'm wondering how you know that?

From Wiki...

In Hinduism, Brahman connotes the highest Universal Principle, the Ultimate Reality in the universe.

OK, that could be describing the universe itself. You're just reiterating your definition.

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.

jan.

Why are you changing your definition again? If it's material, why did you say it was spirit?

 

[Jan Ardena]

I say God does not exist and of course one can not prove nonexistence but one, you, should be able to prove the existence of something and clearly you can not otherwise you would.. wouldnt you?

How do you know I can't?
How do you know I haven't already proved God's existence?
If you can't define God, or even describe God, how do you know I can't prove God?
What is it that makes you confident that I can't prove God?
Treat these questions as rhetorical if you like.

I say mythical character surely you can nail me here and simply prove otherwise... can you prove otherwise Jan and show God is not a mythical character. Perhaps the question should be.. Will you?

I think the question is; would you let me?
If God IS a mythical character, then obviously I cannot prove God to you. But the problem is, according to you, you have no conception of God, to the point where you cannot bring yourself to define Him/It, but you are somehow certain that God does not exist. What is this God that does not exist?

As to evidence of God I sincerely ask for some and am trying to take on board the role scriptures play... My point is I am being receptive I think so ask.... what more can you offer?

Scriptures, explain the nature of God, the living entity, and the relationship between God and the living entity. The living entity is essential spiritual particle (spirit-soul) that inhabits a material body. Self-realization is coming to the realization that while we have a body, we are not the body. That our spiritual soul does not come into, or go out of being. We simply transform (Bg; 2:13). That realization is the gateway to understand ones relationship with the Supreme Soul (God).

jan.

 

[Jan Ardena]

You didn't say it was spirit. What is spirit, and how do you know ? Why isn't that part of your definition?

Because spiritual nature is eternal, neither coming into or going out of being, material nature is the opposite, it comes into and goes out of being.
Brahman is eternal, and blissful (no anxieties) which brings into existence the material world. So by definition we can understand the fundamental differences.

In the science community, there is no consensus about whether the universe is eternal, or had a beginning 14 billion years ago, or both. This also depends on how you define universe.

I'm just going of the definition.

OK, that could be describing the universe itself.

But it isn't. It's describing an aspect of Brahman, which is the progenitor of the universe(s).

If it's pervasive, united, single, and all, it can't also be a cause. Cause and effect implies non-unity.

''Metaphysical'' includes including abstract concepts such as being, knowing, identity, time, and space.
''Knowing'' implies intelligence. Such intelligence is capable of direction.

And if it's material, why did you say it was spirit?

Some Hindu schools of thought choose to see Brahman as the highest material principle within the universe, but distinct due to it's nature. This is may be an Impersonalist philosophy, or Brahman realization (the first step on the ladder of God/self realization).

Here are more comprehensive definitions from the same Wiki link as the one I posted...

Brahman is a Vedic Sanskrit word, and is conceptualized in Hinduism, states Paul Deussen, as the "creative principle which lies realized in the whole world". Brahman is a key concept found in Vedas, and extensively discussed in the early Upanishads. TheVedas conceptualize Brahman as the Cosmic Principle.[8] In the Upanishads, it has been variously described as Sat-cit-ānanda(being-consciousness-bliss) and as the highest reality.

Brahman is discussed in Hindu texts with the concept of Atman (Soul, Self), personal, impersonal or Para Brahman, or in various combinations of these qualities depending on the philosophical school. In dualistic schools of Hinduism such as the theistic Dvaita Vedanta, Brahman is different from Atman (soul) in each being, and therein it shares conceptual framework of God in major world religions. In non-dual schools of Hinduism such as the monist Advaita Vedanta, Brahman is identical to the Atman, Brahman is everywhere and inside each living being, and there is connected spiritual oneness in all existence.

jan.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Yes Jan you are correct yet again.
I believe mythical because of the absence of proof to the contrary.

How would you know it was proven to you?

A mythical character can be best defined by the folk making up the story in which that character is featured. So its your story so you can describe the character.
Alex

It's not my story.
I'm in the same position as you, only I don't choose to ignore the definition.

jan.

 

[spidergoat]

Because spiritual nature is eternal, neither coming into or going out of being, material nature is the opposite, it comes into and goes out of being.

According to science, matter and energy can be neither created nor destroyed. This principle is so evidently consistent that it's called a law. So you will have to define spirit as something other than "That which is eternal". I assert matter and energy can be eternal.

I'm just going of the definition.

Reiterating your definition is not an argument.

But it isn't. It's describing an aspect of Brahman, which is the progenitor of the universe(s).

Reiterating your definition is not an argument.

''Metaphysical'' includes including abstract concepts such as being, knowing, identity, time, and space.
''Knowing'' implies intelligence. Such intelligence is capable of direction.

Stating the definition of the word "metaphysical" doesn't show that the metaphysical concept we are discussing is anything other than a concept.

Some Hindu schools of thought choose to see Brahman as the highest material principle within the universe, but distinct due to it's nature. This is may be an Impersonalist philosophy, or Brahman realization (the first step on the ladder of God/self realization).

Here are more comprehensive definitions from the same Wiki link as the one I posted...

Brahman is a Vedic Sanskrit word, and is conceptualized in Hinduism, states Paul Deussen, as the "creative principle which lies realized in the whole world". Brahman is a key concept found in Vedas, and extensively discussed in the early Upanishads. TheVedas conceptualize Brahman as the Cosmic Principle.[8] In the Upanishads, it has been variously described as Sat-cit-ānanda(being-consciousness-bliss) and as the highest reality.

Brahman is discussed in Hindu texts with the concept of Atman (Soul, Self), personal, impersonal or Para Brahman, or in various combinations of these qualities depending on the philosophical school. In dualistic schools of Hinduism such as the theistic Dvaita Vedanta, Brahman is different from Atman (soul) in each being, and therein it shares conceptual framework of God in major world religions. In non-dual schools of Hinduism such as the monist Advaita Vedanta, Brahman is identical to the Atman, Brahman is everywhere and inside each living being, and there is connected spiritual oneness in all existence.

Reiterating your definition is not an argument.

 

[Jan Ardena]

I have done my best to make my views clear.

They're not clear, which is why I keep asking these questions.
I know you don't like me asking these questions, but by answering them honestly (even to yourself), your view will become crystal clear, then we can move to the next stage.

As to evidence I dont really know...

Then you can't know that there IS no evidence for God's existence, you only believe that there isn't.

Humans have limited sences so lets start with my sences and how I could get evidence via them.

Humans have intelligence, which is how we determine the information we get from sensual activity, and we know how powerful good intelligence is.

Who is to say that they have answers.. They made it all up and although their works are voluminious they are no more than stuff they thought was a good idea at the time. I am not swayed by it at all.
Alex

Show that it is all made up, or else it is just a mythical belief.

jan.

 

[Jan Ardena]

According to science, matter and energy can be neither created nor destroyed. This principle is so evidently consistent that it's called a law. So you will have to define spirit as something other than "That which is eternal". I assert matter and energy can be eternal.

Changeless.

Reiterating your definition is not an argument.

I didn't ''reiterate it.
This is not an argument as yet. We are discussing this definition of God.

Reiterating your definition is not an argument.

I didn't ''reiterate it.
We are discussing this definition of God, which clearly defines Brahman as the source of the material worlds, and its oppositional difference in nature, to the material world it brings into being.

Stating the definition of the word "metaphysical" doesn't show that the metaphysical concept we are discussing is anything other than a concept.

I accept that we are discussing a concept. At this point it is only a definition.

Reiterating your definition is not an argument.

I see it as a modification which gives a clearer meaning to the word ''Brahman''

P.S. In post 1547 I meant to say...

God (Brahman) is spirit, the universe in is matter.
God (Brahman) is infinite/eternal, the universe it is finite/temporary.
That is the difference.

jan.

 

[river]

Oh there is a god ; of which I have no respect . In the common sense of the concept.

The proof is in ancient history.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Oh there is a god ; of which I have no respect . In the common sense of the concept.

The proof is in ancient history.

Can you elaborate on this ''god'', and why you have no respect for it?
What do you mean by ''In the common sense of the concept''?

jan.

 

[Xelasnave.1947]

Nice replies Jan.
Lets make it simple you define God and make your case.
Alex

 

[Jan Ardena]

Nice replies Jan.
Lets make it simple you define God and make your case.
Alex

I've already defined God.
Do you accept that definition regardless of whether you think God exists or not?

jan.

 

[river]

I've already defined God.
Do you accept that definition regardless of whether you think God exists or not?

jan.

On what post # did you so do ? Define god.