Top Seven Reasons God Exist.

[Unveiled Artist]

Life is not a thing or a substance, it is a process. Your post is word salad.

Edit.

Substance? What do you mean by that?

Life is everything. I just added the word God and the thread blew up in my face.

Life is a salad: it consist of our minds, our bodies, our environment, And So On. It is every changing as we are born, grow, age, and pass on. It is not a perfect order.

The meaning of the word God has some common definitions that are not all supernatural. From atheist to christian all share in this definition but they call it something different. Christians call it God. Thats the word I am accustomed to. Thats the word I used.

The OP is not monotheist, polytheist, atheist, et. focused thread.

We all agree that we have a mind. We have a body. We have our enviornment. We have purposes. We have family. We experience love (and other emotions). We can act on what we value.

These things exist.

I just put the label "God" to describe these things that DO exist. As such, God exists.

Unless you have a different definition of God, life creates, in life we have minds, there is nature, we have purposes, and so forth. As such, because life is God.

God exists.

Its a language thing. Nothing circular. Redundant is the better term.

 

[averageJOE]

In this respect, the word God is consciousness (or how people want to term the word). The word God shares many characteristics in all faiths no matter what they call God.

For example, God is our wisdom. The word God can be used to be this wisdom that can also be min, consciousness, buddha nature (whata in my spoiler) and still be wisdom regardless the name.

The word God can be the creator. I do not believe anything can come from nothing. All is a "product of" our mind. Everything is percieved from the mind. The mind "creates" our worls world view. The word mind can also be called the word God.

The word God can be called nature. God, to some, takes care of us. If nature IS God, she (for mother not person) does. Literally not metaphysically. We need nature or the earth foe our survival. If God is nature and we know nature exists. So does God.

The word God as mind, purpose, consious, etc exist because we have direct experience of it. You have a mind, purpose, con. Nature exists no matter the language. If all these things are God but separately named by different people, it doesnt matter the label. They exist therefore God does.

This is not a monotheist, polytheisr, etx.. thread.

There is no mono lens that God in this thread should be a person or being "compared" to the def. I gave. If you have a def. say you believe God is a beingz you can see we all believe in the same thing and we call it different ways.

In my OP, I will also restate that the word God is a word I am accustomed to. It means many things to many people. When read with an openess that God is not one thing but multifacted word that describes more less what i listedz you can see its a word. All things it is exist. Therefore, it is proof that God exist.

Nothing fancy. Nothing supernatural (unless thats your faith).

All of what I listed is all life. Life is God. No more no less.

I see no circular reasoning. More redundancy.

God is mind. If that is so, why not just say mind. Thats like saying a RF is a religious forums. Focusing on the redundancy not the ancrolynm.

The "mind" existed before the universe, and created it?

 

[Unveiled Artist]

The "mind" existed before the universe, and created it?

Mind existed before the universe? What its the mind to you? That sounds foreign to me.

 

[averageJOE]

Mind existed before the universe? What its the mind to you? That sounds foreign to me.

I'm asking you if the mind existed before the universe. You made the claim "the word god can also be called the word god."

The mind is the product/activity of a working brain.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Huh?

You made the claim "the word god can also be called the word god."

The word God is a word. Have to quote it.

I'm asking you if the mind existed before the universe. You made the claim "the word god can also be called the word god."

The mind is the product/activity of a working brain.

How can the mind exist before the universe? Thats metaphysical language. Nothing that we would define as living existed before the universe. Hence, mind included.

 

[Fraleyight]

Carlita,

Assuming god exists is circular reasoning because the argument is for Gods existence. An example of this would be " I know all Asians are smart because all Asians are not dumb" The argument is based on a conclusion that has already been assumed. It is bad logic.

 

[aoji]

By claiming that God is consciousness, he is assuming that God exists. Thus, he is using circular reasoning.

You mean like Descarte, "Cogito ergo sum, I think therefore I am"? "I am thinking, therefore I exist." That's about the only thing one can be sure of, "I am." Did he get that idea from Exodus 3:14?

It may be better to challenge him on his statement "Without mind, you can't live. ... Without it, you cannot exist." So two words have to first be defined, "live" and "exist". Did he mean, "alive"? And what does "alive" mean? As Kilgore says the discussion can devolve very quickly. I tend to follow Ramakrishna's explanation that some believe God is without (objective) and some believe God is within (subjective). I presume Carlita is arguing that God is within, as opposed to being an objective being, even as the Universe, as being without.

 

[psychoslice]

Mind existed before the universe? What its the mind to you? That sounds foreign to me.

The universal mind has nothing to do with a brain, the universal mind is beyond a brain, its pure Consciousness, and this Consciousness is the Source of all there Is.

 

[Willamena]

Eh. Was trying to figure how to use the word God without having so many connotations to it. We can call it life. It's convenient calling it a noun. Even Joe would do. Or Pencil maybe.

I like "my little left toe."

 

[Unveiled Artist]

The universal mind has nothing to do with a brain, the universal mind is beyond a brain, its pure Consciousness, and this Consciousness is the Source of all there Is.

That does not make sense to me. It sounds like metaphysical talk. Like God, there needs to be concret and literal description of consciousness, the all, God. If not, how can you explain thst to an atheist? Different choice of words maybe?

 

[`mud]

It's the vaporous spirit of our ancestors,
swirling around and about and in and out,
one can't see them, but that soup is ready.
~
'mud

 

[aoji]

[edit]
I misspoke. Sri Ramakrishna said that some believe in God with form, and some believe in Gos without form.

 

[aoji]

That does not make sense to me. It sounds like metaphysical talk. Like [the word] "God," there needs to be [a] concrete and literal description of consciousness, the all, God. If not, how can you explain th[a]t to an atheist? Different choice of words maybe?

Unfortunately, in today's Science centric world that is not likely to happen. If you are Scientifically minded you could read a book, like "The Science of the Mind," where Cognitive Science tries to define Consciousness. If you are metaphysically minded then something like "Return to the One, Plotinus's Guide to God-Realization," by Brian Hines, may be a good start, then perhaps a further reading into Advaita (Non-Duality, or Non-Dual Vedanta).

But, as far as trying to get concrete definitions, it is bound to fail. As Ex-President Bill Clinton said, "It depends on what your definition of 'is' is."

After you have studied all the great Philosophers, what will you have? You will have found someone who agrees with whatever you now believe. After you study Kant's "Critique of Pure Reason," and Hume's "An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding" you will probably still be confused, just as reading any book, metaphysical, philosophical, technical or scientific is bound to do when one does not have an experience which one is trying to understand. They are just words and ultimately it may not matter.

If one believes in "Cause and Effect" then one cannot hope to understand that which is "Causeless," no matter what others say they have experienced, because one already has the notion that all experience can only happen to one within a body-mind organism; if one argues that "Time and Space" are purely ideas within the Mind, that they have transcended "Time," the Mind that has not experienced it will think it madness.

Nothing can done, there can be no dialogue. Words fail, no matter how well intentioned, no matter how distinctly defined. Linguistic Semantics is a game the mind revels in and which ultimately proves fruitless. "It all depends on what your definition of 'is' is".

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Unfortunately, in today's Science centric world that is not likely to happen. If you are Scientifically minded you could read a book, like "The Science of the Mind," where Cognitive Science tries to define Consciousness. If you are metaphysically minded then something like "Return to the One, Plotinus's Guide to God-Realization," by Brian Hines, may be a good start, then perhaps a further reading into Advaita (Non-Duality, or Non-Dual Vedanta).

But, as far as trying to get concrete definitions, it is bound to fail. As Ex-President Bill Clinton said, "It depends on what your definition of 'is' is."

After you have studied all the great Philosophers, what will you have? You will have found someone who agrees with whatever you now believe. After you study Kant's "Critique of Pure Reason," and Hume's "An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding" you will probably still be confused, just as reading any book, metaphysical, philosophical, technical or scientific is bound to do when one does not have an experience which one is trying to understand. They are just words and ultimately it may not matter.

If one believes in "Cause and Effect" then one cannot hope to understand that which is "Causeless," no matter what others say they have experienced, because one already has the notion that all experience can only happen to one within a body-mind organism; if one argues that "Time and Space" are purely ideas within the Mind, that they have transcended "Time," the Mind that has not experienced it will think it madness.

Nothing can done, there can be no dialogue. Words fail, no matter how well intentioned, no matter how distinctly defined. Linguistic Semantics is a game the mind revels in and which ultimately proves fruitless. "It all depends on what your definition of 'is' is".

Pretty much makes RF a circular debate with no consclusion.

Since I have my foot in both what people call scientific world and the spiritual, I try to figure out words both can understand each other with.

What happens repeatidly is that atheist minded people bring up exclusions because they dont want to fit in someone else's box long enough to understand the perspective of the one they speak with. A lot of them have blinders to their former religions that block them from using the other person's language by that persons view and not their own (if their goal is to understand their conversant)

Likewise, on the other end, believers (most I speak with) find it hard to talk about their faith in a non personal and objective viea for fear they are disrespecting say God because of it. A lot of people are, on surface, uncomfortable with even thinking that their is a life that is not spiritual. This leaves a blockage of communication by not letting down their walls to understand the other's point of view. People like my friend feel vanuable when they let their guard down as if their spirituality is compromised by words and conversation.

It makes it terribly fustrating to debate. Atheisrics want proof and explanations outside the spiritual. Believers(some) want atheistics to not only understand, but few to the point of calling athristic minds loss because they dont hold the keys of the universe.

---

I wish both parties understood each other. Leaving the bias, the need for self gain knowedge, the need to convert, and the religious prejudice behind may helped both parties.

Eh. Hope among hope.