A Proof that God Exists

[Deeje]

Where do you get the idea that God is a person?

Where do you get the idea that he is not?

 

[Ben Avraham]

@Carlita

I couldn't have said it better myself.

If there is pagan stuff in Christianity, then it isn't Christian.

You can paganize Christianity but you can't Christianize paganism. When you mix poison and water, its still poison.

If the Bible is true, then what need do I have to investigate other religions except out of curiosity as to what they believe....I have done this. I was not impressed by any of them and the ones that practice idolatry (which was many) were particularly repugnant to me.

Christendom so put me off Christianity that I almost gave up on God altogether.....but there was something in me that wanted to search for him. I thought I had exhausted all avenues, until there was a knock on my door. I had almost given up on God, but he hadn't given up on me. He introduced himself and I realized that I had never known him. He was nothing like what I had been taught....nothing.

Judging by what you have written above, it appears that you have a very unrealistic grasp of the God of the Bible. What makes you think that God has to be a material being to create matter? Einstein got it. I think he got a lot of things.

Are you sure that "If there is pagan stuff in Christianity, it isn't Christian!" Okay! Take a look at Mat. 1:18. That is about the pagan Greek concept of the demigod which was adopted by Christianity. Have you ever heard about the demigod? It is the son of a god with an earthly woman. In the case of Matthew, God with Mary. Now, are you going to get rid of the first gospel in the NT because I have shown you pagan stuff in Christianity? Of course not! Probably, you didn't mean what you said.

 

[godnotgod]

@godnotgod PMFJI

"The Light that I saw by was the Light that I was, and the Light that I was, was the LIght that I saw by"

I am curious as to whether that is your quote or of someone else.
When I googled it, I was directed to one of your posts here on RF, with no other options.

This is from a song by The Incredible String Band (mystic Christians) called "Douglas Traherne Harding", part of a 2-CD set called "Wee Tam and The Big Huge", the first CD referring to man, the second to God, a very wonderful album worth every penny. Highly recommended.

Here are the lyrics to Douglas Traherne Harding:

Douglas Traherne Harding


When I was born I had no head
My eye was single and my body was filled with light
And the light that I was, was the light that I saw by
And the light that I saw by, was the light that I was

And many's the time that I've passed by the river
And saw no tollman and needed no ferryman to cross
And I enjoyed the world aright
For the sea itself floweth
And warm I was and crowned.

But one day walking by the river
I met a tollman with an angry face
And many's the time I passed through his tollgate
And paid no silver and paid no fee
But rather I did hide my sheep and goats under the bags of oatmeal
And cold I was, no crown did I wear

But if you're walking down the street
Why don't you look down to the basement
And sitting very quietly there is a man who has no head
His eye is single and his whole body also is filled with light

And the streets are his and all the people
And even the temples and the whole world
And many's the time he walks to the river
And seeing the ferryman and seeing the tollman
The light within him leaps to greet them
For he sees that their faces are none but his own

One light, the light that is one though the lamps be many

You never enjoy the world aright
"Till the sea itself floweth
In your veins and you are cloth-ed
With the heavens and crowned with the stars"

from: Wee Tam and The Big Huge, by the Incredible String Band
*****

...and here is a video with the audio of the original song by TISB:

Songs on the 2-CD set:

Wee Tam and the Big Huge - Wikipedia

You can get it on amazon.com new for under 10 bucks:

INCREDIBLE STRING BAND - Wee Tam & The Big Huge - Amazon.com Music

 

[godnotgod]

Where do you get the idea that he is not?

A person or persona is limited. The nature of the divine is unlimited, infiniite consciousness..

I've answered your question; now can you answer mine?

(You and I and everyone else, as well as the entire Universe, is none other than The Absolute playing itself as you and I and everyone else including the Universe.)

 

[Jedster]

Great stuff. I remeber well when 'Hangman's beautiful Daughter' came out.
Twas quite a journey

 

[godnotgod]

@godnotgod PMFJI

"The Light that I saw by was the Light that I was, and the Light that I was, was the LIght that I saw by"

I am curious as to whether that is your quote or of someone else.
When I googled it, I was directed to one of your posts here on RF, with no other options.

This is a succinct expression of the mystical experience of divine union, 'The Light' being the divine nature itself. IOW, as the Hindus tell us: 'Tat tvam asi'; 'Thou Art That'. You are none other than God. That is our true nature. The question is why we don't think so.

 

[godnotgod]

Great stuff. I remeber well when 'Hangman's beautiful Daughter' came out.
Twas quite a journey

Wow! Someone else familiar with (and appreciative of) their talent.

I went to one of their concerts in San Francisco as they were on tour from Ireland, way back when. The audience dressed in costumes, like Pharoahs, and kings, and many other characters of old. Incredible experience.

 

[Jedster]

This is a succinct expression of the mystical experience of divine union, 'The Light' being the divine nature itself. IOW, as the Hindus tell us: 'Tat tvam asi'; 'Thou Art That'. You are none other than God. That is our true nature. The question is why we don't think so.

@godnotgod
Yes it is. Also as well as 'light' being used as a metaphor it is also literal. Anyone who does or has done inner light meditation knows that. It is delightful
We are all born with a natural curiosity about everything. This curiosity is somewhat abated in much of society, particularly in the area of religion which often insists on telling people how and what to believe, rather than allowing them to make their own discoveries and have real realisations(not borrowed ones from a scripture or person).


Robin Williams came to my town a few years and is coming again next in March. I'm gonna go

 

[Deeje]

Are you sure that "If there is pagan stuff in Christianity, it isn't Christian!" Okay! Take a look at Mat. 1:18. That is about the pagan Greek concept of the demigod which was adopted by Christianity. Have you ever heard about the demigod? It is the son of a god with an earthly woman. In the case of Matthew, God with Mary.

Matthew 1:18 is not a pagan Greek concept at all, just a poor interpretation of the passage on the part of someone who doesn't believe that Messiah has already been and gone. The birth of God's son on earth accomplished many things to fulfill God's law on redemption or repurchase. He could not redeem the human race unless he was related to them by birth.
As you are probably aware, the Law provided that in the case of a poor Israelite whose circumstances forced him to sell his hereditary lands, his city house, or even to sell himself into servitude, “a repurchaser closely related to him,” or go·ʼelʹ, had the right to “buy back [ga·ʼalʹ] what his brother sold,” or the seller could do so himself if funds became available to him. (Leviticus 25:23-27, 29-34, 47-49; Ruth 4:1-15.)

Adam's children were all sold into slavery to sin and death with no way to redeem themselves. The Father who sold them (Adam) died for his crime. So a relative who was not sold into slavery was the only one who could pay a ransom to free them. Jesus, by his human birth, was that redeemer. The Law required equivalency....so the price was, a sinless life for a sinless life. (Leviticus 24:17-19)

It was prophesied that the Messiah would come through a maiden in Isaiah 7:14:
"Therefore Jehovah himself will give you men a sign: Look! The maiden (`almah, meaning virgin or young woman) herself will actually become pregnant, and she is giving birth to a son, and she will certainly call his name Im·manʹu·el." (Matthew 1:23)

Isaiah 9:6 said concerning this promised one: “His name will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Eternal Father, Prince of Peace.” Yet none of these names were given to Mary’s firstborn as personal names. Jesus was given many names for the many roles he would fulfill.

Now, are you going to get rid of the first gospel in the NT because I have shown you pagan stuff in Christianity? Of course not! You don't mean what you said.

You are putting your words in my mouth.

Why would I get rid of anything just because someone wants to put a corrupt slant on a law that God had given his own people long before Jesus began his earthly mission?

Unless you know the mechanics of the ransom (which you apparently don't) you can read whatever you want to read into the narrative.....but what you have stated is so way off the mark that it is almost comical.

Christendom has adopted many pagan concepts, it is true......but that wasn't one of them.

 

[Deeje]

A person or persona is limited.

You say that so authoritatively, like it must be a law.......but I have to ask...who said?

As a persona, God loses nothing...it is you who loses by assuming that he lacks it. Man is made in his image and likeness.
What other creature on this earth is like man? Who has his creativity, imagination, language skills, dexterity, power and ability to consciously plan for the future using yesterdays experience and today's knowledge?

The nature of the divine is unlimited, infiniite consciousness.

So.......? Who says the Creator can't possess infinite consciousness (whatever that is) and maintain persona as well. It sounds like you limiting God rather than him limiting himself....?

I've answered your question

I'm sure you think you have.......not sure the readers here will agree. It sounds like meaningless waffle to me...

now can you answer mine?

(You and I and everyone else, as well as the entire Universe, is none other than The Absolute playing itself as you and I and everyone else including the Universe.)

I am sure that you understand what you just said perfectly.....but I have no idea. Was that supposed to be a reasonable and rational statement about the topic at hand?
It's a bit hard to answer a question when I don't see one. Would you like to rephrase?

 

[godnotgod]

Time is the potential of a body in motion. For instance, put a marble on the top of a mount and tell me how long it takes for that marble to reach the basis of the mount. One cannot know until the marble is moving down the mount. That's the only way to measure time. Time is there all the time but, we don't know it till matter is in motion.

No, without motion, there is no time, otherwise you would be able to isolate it from motion. It is clear from your example that what you call 'time' is dependent upon motion. But what you are unwittingly doing is to lay down the gridwork of time first, and then have motion conform to the gridwork, which is linear in design. So you say that from point A to point B, it takes x amount of time, as shown by the increments on the measuring grid, ie, clock. But without laying down a grid, and then rolling the ball from point A to point B, it is all occurring in the present, where there is no time. IOW, the rolling of the ball from A to B is a single event occurring now; now when it is at A, and now when it is approaching B, and now when it reaches B. But even with a ticking clock present, all of the ticks of the clock occur now, and not in some linear fashion. Now is no-time, so one could have 2 ticks or 1000 ticks; they all occur in this timeless now. There is no past or future. You only think so because you have a memory, but memory is just traces of that which is already dead.

 

[godnotgod]

As a persona, God loses nothing...it is you who loses by assuming that he lacks it. Man is made in his image and likeness.

The nature of God is unlimited potential. To say that God is a persona is to limit God.

It's more like God is made in man's image and likeness by man.

Let me put it this way: man is God, playing himself not just as man, but as The Universe. And yet, the true nature of man is not to express a persona, which is a creation of the ego. The true nature of man is his divinity. Man expressing himself as a persona is a fictional character in the state of Identification.

So.......? Who says the Creator can't possess infinite consciousness (whatever that is) and maintain persona as well. It sounds like you limiting God rather than him limiting himself....?

This is all so unnecessary as in 'excess baggage'. Quite simply, what you call 'God' is Pure Consciousness, without having to be an agent (ie persona) of Consciousness. IOW, there is no 'creator of the creation', in the same way that there is no 'whirler of the whirling water in a whirlpool'; there is just creation itself. So you see what I am saying: The Universe is none other than The Absolute itself. The Universe is not a product a Creator; it is simply the act of intelligent creativity. You want to add an unnecessary agent of creation to the scenario. Why encapsulate The Infinite into a limited persona? Is it because that provides you with something comfy and familiar to identify with?

Would you like to rephrase?

Nope!

 

[Straw Dog]

Consciousness is never pure. 'Purity' is the base myth in this whole miscommunication. End game.

 

[godnotgod]

Nothing comes from nothing.

Actually, Everything comes from Nothing, necessarily so.

Think of potential. A light bulb, wired to a switch connected to an electrical source, possesses the full potential for light, which is always present. All one need do is flip the switch.

The Universe has phases of on and off. But in the OFF phase, all of the potential for a complete Universe is present. So yes, Everything comes from No-thing, which is pure potential, just another word for consciousness. But even more than that, when in the ON phase, the Universe as manifested, is, according to Quantum Physics, a 'superposition of possibility'', and NOT, as we have thought for centuries, a material reality.

 

[godnotgod]

Consciousness is never pure. 'Purity' is the base myth in this whole miscommunication. End game.

I should have qualified my statement. 'Pure', as used here, simply means 'clear'. OK?

But having said that, you are thinking of MIND, which is never pure. Only consciousness, which precedes mind, is pure.

 

[Ben Avraham]

No, without motion, there is no time, otherwise you would be able to isolate it from motion. It is clear from your example that what you call 'time' is dependent upon motion. But what you are unwittingly doing is to lay down the gridwork of time first, and then have motion conform to the gridwork, which is linear in design. So you say that from point A to point B, it takes x amount of time, as shown by the increments on the measuring grid, ie, clock. But without laying down a grid, and then rolling the ball from point A to point B, it is all occurring in the present, where there is no time. IOW, the rolling of the ball from A to B is a single event occurring now; now when it is at A, and now when it is approaching B, and now when it reaches B. But even with a ticking clock present, all of the ticks of the clock occur now, and not in some linear fashion. Now is no-time, so one could have 2 ticks or 1000 ticks; they all occur in this timeless now. There is no past or future. You only think so because you have a memory, but memory is just traces of that which is already dead.

Right! Without motion aka matter in motion, there is no time. You have finally learned something about time. But matter cannot exist without time. The example of the marble is only in the visible part of our consciousness. All matter is composed of atoms and every atom of protons, neutrons and electrons. Electrons are constantly in motion around the nucleus of the atom. It means we are never without time. It further means that when the Universe was caused to exist time was part of the matter that the Universe is composed of.

 

[Ben Avraham]

Matthew 1:18 is not a pagan Greek concept at all, just a poor interpretation of the passage on the part of someone who doesn't believe that Messiah has already been and gone.

Indeed, the Messiah has already come and gone and, BTW, three times already. First, when he went to Egypt where he stayed for 430 years and returned by the hands of a Messianic leader called Moses. The second time around was from Babylon where he went to stay for 70 years when at the end, his freedom was proclaimed by King Cyrus whom Isaiah anointed as a Messianic leader for having financed the rebuilding of the Temple. (Isaiah 45:1) Then, the last time around was when the Messiah was forced into an exile unto the 4 corners of the earth where he stayed for 2000 years. Finally, he returned perhaps inspired with love for Zion by the Messianic leader Theodor Herzl. In 1948 the third Jewish Commonwealth was proclaimed as the new State of Israel.

Bottom line is that Jesus could not have been the Messiah because the Messiah cannot be an individual. The individual is born, lives his span of life and dies. Are we to expect a new different Messiah in every generation? Obviously not! The Messiah cannot die but to remain as a People before the Lord forever, if you read Jeremiah 31:35-37. Then, if you read Habakkuk 3:13, "The Lord goes forth to save His People; to save His Anointed One." That's what Messiah is, the Anointed One of the Lord aka Israel, the Son of God if you read Exodus 4:22,23.

 

[godnotgod]

I can't make any sense of this article. Here is another article that is much more informative. Virtual Particles: What are they?

That all particles in the Universe are none other than standing waves has become clear to me, as explained here:


Standing Waves

When two or more complementary traveling waves of space interact, they form a standing wave. Standing waves are stationary or standing vibrations that travel in a cyclical path within a confined region.

Complementary traveling waves vibrate at frequencies that are equal to or multiples of one another. As space quanta in a standing wave compress and rebound, each one’s period of compression or density, fills the other’s rarity, the period of rebound. Vibrating space quanta in a standing wave follow the path of least resistance.

The result of this interaction is mass; a particle.


All known elementary particles are standing waves of space.

The energy forces of gravity, electromagnetism, and the strong and weak nuclear interactions are also standing wave patterns.

Mass

In its fundamental state, matter, or mass, is a standing wave. Mass is vibrating space quanta locked in ongoing interaction.

Each of the 12 elementary particles, six quarks and six leptons, comprises a standing wave of a specific frequency and wavelength. The individual motions of their component traveling waves result in each particle’s unique, vibrational signature.

Elementary particles interact with complementary particles to form new systems, including protons, neutrons, electrons, atoms, simple and complex molecules, organisms, eco-systems, planetary systems, stars, galaxies, galactic clusters, and super-clusters.

standing waves | Quantum Wave Theory

 

[godnotgod]

Right! Without motion aka matter in motion, there is no time. You have finally learned something about time.

What I have learned is that you contradict yourself. You previously stated that without motion, time is still present. Now you say that without motion, there is no time.

But matter cannot exist without time.

Once again, the BB occurred in a matrix of no-time and no-space. That matrix was/is CONSCIOUSNESS, which has no space or time element to it.

The example of the marble is only in the visible part of our consciousness. All matter is composed of atoms and every atom of protons, neutrons and electrons. Electrons are constantly in motion around the nucleus of the atom. It means we are never without time. It further means that when the Universe was caused to exist time was part of the matter that the Universe is composed of.

Space-Time is a scientific CONCEPT superimposed over Reality.

For the Universe to have had a beginning means that space and time were already in place, but scientific theory says that space-time did not come into existence until the Universe came into existence. To say that time was part of the matter of the BB does not satisfy the requirement that space-time had to have been present for a beginning to occur, 'beginning', meaning 'beginning in time'. There was no time yet.

 

[godnotgod]

Where do you get the idea that he is not?

You're just forcing a square peg into a round hole. I'm smarter than to buy your belief system.