Proof there is a God

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

I'll do it right here for you.

‘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).’

How about responding to my questions?

jan.
 
I wouldn't describe it as my favorite, but it's the first one I learned...

Bg. 2:13: Just as in this body the embodied (soul) passes into childhood, youth and old age, so also does he pass into another body; the firm man does not grieve thereat.
jan.
In atheist terms that is called *aging gracefully*
 
I'll do it right here for you.

‘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).’

How about responding to my questions?

jan.
They have been.

Why do you think your questions haven't been responded to?

What do you mean by respond?

And so on...
 
Changeless.
So an attribute of God is that it's changeless? Why didn't you include that in your definition?
I didn't ''reiterate it.
This is not an argument as yet. We are discussing this definition of God.
You were elaborating on your definition of God. Is it possible to get past this step?
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.
Still roughly the same definition.
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.
Still a definition, but we have clarified that your definition of God says it's not material, and it's changeless.

Why do you think something immaterial and changeless exists?
 
Who's they?
Can't you be bothered to read the 2 posts before you?
Did want to discuss something in particular?

jan.
Which "they" are you referring to?

What's so special about those two posts?

Sure, but then I decided to just do what you do.
 
I'll do it right here for you.

‘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).’
jan.
OK, Except for the semantics, I can accept that premise. But it does not prove that Brahman is a sentient, motivated, emotional Condition or God. It is pure allegory.

In atheist terms this can be translated as: "The invisible Universe is full with Potential; the visible (Physical world) too is full with Potential. From the Universal Potential the Physical world has come (emerged). Universal Potential remains constant, even after the Physical world has come (emerged) out of Universal Potential.

Read David Bohm's *Wholeness and the Implicate Order" (of the invisible Universe), from which physical reality emerges. The difference is that Bohm was an eminent physicist as well as schooled in Deism and his hypothesis is based on a scientifically defensible premise.
 
Last edited:
I've already defined God.
Do you accept that definition regardless of whether you think God exists or not?

jan.
So I don't misunderstand Jan can you give it to me again please.
Perhaps if not too much to ask could you restate your definition and then we could proceed.
I am sorry to be a bother and would appreciate your indulgence on my request.
Alex
 
So an attribute of God is that it's changeless? Why didn't you include that in your definition?

‘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).’

Why didn't you just read the definition?

You were elaborating on your definition of God. Is it possible to get past this step?

No I wasn't.

Why do you think something immaterial and changeless exists?

Because it is required.

jan.
 
So I don't misunderstand Jan can you give it to me again please.
Perhaps if not too much to ask could you restate your definition and then we could proceed.
I am sorry to be a bother and would appreciate your indulgence on my request.
Alex

Look at the post above yours.

jan.
 
OK, Except for the semantics, I can accept that premise. But it does not prove that Brahman is a sentient, motivated, emotional Condition or God. It is pure allegory.

What semantics?
Do you accept that this is a definition of God, or not?
A simple yes or no will suffice.

In atheist terms this can be translated as: "The invisible Universe is full with Potential; the visible (Physical world) too is full with Potential. From the Universal Potential the Physical world has come (emerged). Universal Potential remains constant, even after the Physical world has come (emerged) out of Universal Potential.

Which is why atheists shouldn't try to explain religious or spiritual texts without a theist present, to hold their hand. ;)

But seriously, what is an invisible universe?

Read David Bohm's *Wholeness and the Implicate Order" (of the invisible Universe), from which physical reality emerges. The difference is that Bohm was an eminent physicist as well as schooled in Deism and his hypothesis is based on a scientifically defensible premise.

I'll wait and see how your answer(s) turn out.

jan.
 
What semantics?
Do you accept that this is a definition of God, or not?
A simple yes or no will suffice.
No, it is a metaphorical definition of Universal Potential.
Which is why atheists shouldn't try to explain religious or spiritual texts without a theist present, to hold their hand. ;)
You believe I am unable to understand metaphors, analogies, allegories?

I could have said; "Which is why theists shouldn't try to explain religious or spiritual texts without a scientist present, to hold their hand." You know, just to keep it real.
But seriously, what is an invisible universe?
Universal Potential.
I'll wait and see how your answer(s) turn out. jan.

Let me try to prove the proposition that the definition of *Potential* is the mathematical Scientific equivalence of the God that exists in your mind.

Consider that the noun Potential is defined as; "That which may become reality", which is equal to any other concept of a Creative force.

And we can prove that Potential has an abstract existence as a "latent" ability to perform work.

Universal Potential is recognized by all Disciplines of thought. Science and Theism or Deism all recognize Potential is the fundamental common denominator of everything.

Potential, "That which may become reality". The Implicate. Somewhere in there lies your and everyone else's God as just another metaphor . But it is a natural mathematical function, no more, no less.
 
Last edited:
Dont worry Jan we are not getting anywhere and I do not wish to waste your time or mine. If God wants to make himself known to me he will do so I expect but at my age I doubt it.
He may be annoyed at me and will leave me ignorant of his being.
Alex
 
No, it is a metaphorical definition of Universal Potential.

But it is actually a definition of God (despite your lack of belief).
Can you state why it is a definition of what you put forward, and why it isn't a definition of God?

You believe I am unable to understand metaphors, analogies, allegories?

You don't seem to understand the definition, choosing to see it as something that suits you. I have to say in this case, yes.

I could have said; "Which is why theists shouldn't try to explain religious or spiritual texts without a scientist present, to hold their hand." You know, just to keep it real.

Maybe. But not in this scenario.

Let me try to prove the proposition that the definition of *Potential* is the mathematical Scientific equivalence of the God that exists in your mind.

Consider that the noun Potential is defined as; "That which may become reality", which is equal to any other concept of a Creative force.

And we can prove that Potential has an abstract existence as a "latent" ability to perform work.

Universal Potential is recognized by all Disciplines of thought. Science and Theism or Deism all recognize Potential is the fundamental common denominator of everything.

Potential, "That which may become reality". The Implicate. Somewhere in there lies your and everyone else's God as just another metaphor . But it is a natural mathematical function, no more, no less.

I quickly typed Universal Potential into google and it yielded no direct results.
I did find a Wiki definition of ''Potential Energy''.
The first line says; In physics, potential energy is energy possessed by a body by virtue of its position relative to others, stresses within itself...
Maybe this isn't the same thing as what you term UPO, but it becomes clear that the potential is the energy in an existing body, in relation to other existing bodies.
''Brahman'' is not dependent on physical bodies, meaning it isn't potential of any kind. It is what it is, by it's own conscious will.

jan.
 
Last edited:
But it is actually a definition of God (despite your lack of belief).
Can you state why it is a definition of what you put forward, and why it isn't a definition of God?
Because the word God is a metaphor for Potential.
You don't seem to understand the definition, choosing to see it as something that suits you. I have to say in this case, yes.
No, you don't understand the definition this is a Universal constant, which can be demonstrated scientifically.
Maybe. But not in this scenario.
Especially in this context of your scenario.
I quickly typed Universal Potential into google and it yielded no direct results.
I did find a Wiki definition of ''Potential Energy''.
The first line says; In physics, potential energy is energy possessed by a body by virtue of its position relative to others, stresses within itself...
It is one of the applications and proofs of the existence of Potential.
Maybe this isn't the same thing as what you term UPO, but it becomes clear that the potential is the energy in an existing body, in relation to other existing bodies.
''Brahman'' is not dependent on physical bodies, meaning it isn't potential of any kind. It is what it is, by it's own conscious will. jan.
That illustrates your lack of depth in abstract thinking and limited understanding of its Implications. Universal Potential is not dependent on physical bodies either. It can exist as a unformed condition of latent mathematical abilities inherent in the fabric of spacetime. And finally, Potential precedes even the existence of a god.

Potential is "that which may become reality", meaning that while not all potential becomes expressed in reality, all reality past, present, and future was, is, and will be preceded by Potential, even the concept of your God.
IOW, without Potential there can be no Implicate, without a potential Implication (probability), there can be no expression in reality.

God, by any other name are the well meaning, but ignorant metaphors for pure potential, which orders itself in hierarchical orders, ranging from the unmeasurable subtle to expression in our limited view of reality itself. This process is mathematical and only obeys to the laws of mathematical hierarchy of Orders.
; you may want to google *Potential definition* and check Oxford dictionary. All spiritual metaphors is explained in detail .
po·ten·tial, [pəˈten(t)SHəl]
ADJECTIVE

  1. having or showing the capacity to become or develop into something in the future:
    "a two-pronged campaign to woo potential customers"
    synonyms:
    possible · likely · prospective · future · probable · latent ·
    [more]
    inherent · undeveloped
NOUN

  1. latent qualities or abilities that may be developed and lead to future success or usefulness:
    "a young broadcaster with great potential" ·

    [more]
    "the potentials of the technology were never wholly controllable"
    synonyms:
    possibilities · potentiality · prospects · promise ·
    [more]
    capability · capacity

    • (potential for/to do something)
      the possibility of something happening or of someone doing something in the future:
      "the crane operator's clear view reduces the potential for accidents" ·

      [more]
      "pesticides with the potential to cause cancer"
  2. physics
    the quantity determining the energy of mass in a gravitational field or of charge in an electric field.
ORIGIN
late Middle English: from late Latin potentialis, from potentia ‘power,’ from potent- ‘being able’ (see potent1). The noun dates from the early 19th cent.
Powered by
Oxford Dictionaries
 
Last edited:
Back
Top