A Proof that God Exists

[loverofhumanity]

What does Baha'u'llah words have to do with another person's individual spiritual journey that only he and he only knows whether he is spiritual veiled or not?

How can you tell John's heart based on what Baha'u'llah written without asking John himself and going by John's views not Baha'u'llah and not your own?

Baha'u'llah just stated a fact that if a Promised One had been foretold in all the Holy Books and people rejected that Promised One then they would have also rejected their own religion, Holy Book and Messenger.

He's was just emphasising faithfulness to ones own religion.

 

[loverofhumanity]

So before that occurred, you were wrapped up in self, and God was some 'other', correct?

And now after your 'transformation', what is the status between you and God?

I don't consider myself worthy of knowing Him. I never deserved such a precious gift that all the treasures on earth cannot compare. Mine is a happiness, a contentment people search everywhere for in vain. I've found the 'Holy Grail' of this world.

Everyone can attain to it but not without effort and the giving up of the self.

 

[godnotgod]

I don't consider myself worthy of knowing Him. I never deserved such a precious gift that all the treasures on earth cannot compare. Mine is a happiness, a contentment people search everywhere for in vain. I've found the 'Holy Grail' of this world.

Everyone can attain to it but not without effort and the giving up of the self.

Well it sounds to me that you still have not given up the self for two reasons. One is that you say you do not consider yourself 'worthy', which is an old egotistic game of spiritual one-upmanship turned upside-down. "Oh, I could NEVER aspire to be like YOU, Lord". The pretension is obvious. Secondly, you put God on a pedestal as some unreachable 'other', a Special Case, with you definitely separated from God. And then you go on to say you have 'found the Holy Grail OF THIS WORLD, which makes zero sense in light of what Jesus said: 'My kingdom is not of this world'. You make spirituality Something Special, when it is Nothing Special, as it is available to everyone, anywhere, anytime. It's as common as the grass.

When you really give up the self, there will be no further distinction between you and God, as you will have attained what all seekers want: divine union. Until you do, you will always see God as some 'other', through the lens of self.

 

[Deeje]

Two questions:

1. 'Something' had to be a cause of the First Cause. What was it?

Since the great 'First Cause' is an infinite being, nothing 'caused' him. He has always been. Failure to comprehend infinity appears to be the problem here. The Bible says that he is a spirit being of infinite intelligence, wisdom and power. Humans alone were given his attributes.
He also left humanity a guidebook explaining why we are here, and what his intentions are concerning this earth and all life upon it. Since humans are the only creatures on earth to need such information, it is not co-incidental that it was supplied.
You don't have to believe it, but it tells an amazing story that ends well for those who accept the Creator at his word. There is no future for those who don't. That is not the least bit unfair because those who deny God's existence, don't believe they have a future anyway......they get what they expect. Simple, isn't it?

2. Why do you 'believe' there was a 'great first cause' of everything?

Human logic and intelligence work together to come to that conclusion. Nothing comes from nothing.
Human scientists copy the things in nature that they believe are incredibly well designed, yet they have the temerity to assume that originals had no designer. How illogical is that?

 

[godnotgod]

Since the great 'First Cause' is an infinite being, nothing 'caused' him.

But something caused the infinite being to create the world, so there was a cause to the First Cause. It's only logical. Were it not so, then you would have to admit that something comes from nothing.

 

[loverofhumanity]

Well it sounds to me that you still have not given up the self for two reasons. One is that you say you do not consider yourself 'worthy', which is an old egotistic game of spiritual one-upmanship turned upside-down. "Oh, I could NEVER aspire to be like YOU, Lord". The pretension is obvious. Secondly, you put God on a pedestal as some unreachable 'other', a Special Case, with you definitely separated from God. And then you go on to say you have 'found the Holy Grail OF THIS WORLD, which makes zero sense in light of what Jesus said: 'My kingdom is not of this world'. You make spirituality Something Special, when it is Nothing Special, as it is available to everyone, anywhere, anytime. It's as common as the grass.

When you really give up the self, there will be no further distinction between you and God, as you will have attained what all seekers want: divine union. Until you do, you will always see God as some 'other', through the lens of self.

Christ also said "The Kingdom of God is within you"
Luke 17:21

Nearness to God is the highest attainment we can achieve, the Holy Grail of all existence.

To be rich in God and learn His attributes and become virtuous is true spirituality.

There is no greater bounty in life than to draw near to God.

 

[godnotgod]

Christ also said "The Kingdom of God is within you"
Luke 17:21

Nearness to God is the highest attainment we can achieve, the Holy Grail of all existence.

To be rich in God and learn His attributes and become virtuous is true spirituality.

There is no greater bounty in life than to draw near to God.

So why is there still a distance between you and God? Must be you still attached to self.

 

[loverofhumanity]

So why is there still a distance between you and God? Must be you still attached to self.

Because we are His creation. And He is the Creator.

God is independent above any need of His creatures. He is self subsisting and perfect while we are ever dependant on Him.

He can exist without us but we cannot exist without Him.

 

[godnotgod]

Because we are His creation. And He is the Creator.

God is independent above any need of His creatures. He is self subsisting and perfect while we are ever dependant on Him.

He can exist without us but we cannot exist without Him.

So you have yet to attain divine union with God, and continue on as a little subservient created 'self', always separated from God.

 

[Jedster]

@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.

 

[loverofhumanity]

So you have yet to attain divine union with God, and continue on as a little subservient created 'self', always separated from God.

To win God's good pleasure is to attain union with Him.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

C'mon you, "godnotgod"! Rather you are not using your head! Why impossible! Both time and space are accidents of matter. How? Thus: Space by definition is the distance between matter and matter; between an astral body and another; between an element and another. 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.

Please explain what you mean by "in motion" without referring to time.

 

[Ben Avraham]

Please explain what you mean by "in motion" without referring to time.

Body in motion is the only way to measure time. The rest is poppycock.

 

[Ben Avraham]

Why does a god have to exist if the universe as we know it had a beginning? that does not mean that matter and/or energy did not preexist the universe. And even if literally everything had a beginning that does not get you to a god......You have to first demonstrate it's existence, and then you have to demonstrate that it can create universes.

Can you answer what or who caused the beginning of the Universe? That's the best evidence to prove that the Primal Cause caused the Universe to begin. Now, if you were of the kind of atheists that deny a beginning for the Universe, I could no longer use that as an evidence for the existence of God. But I still can use Logic to prove that you are wrong.

 

[Ben Avraham]

And I am telling you that Causation is poppycock. When you narrowly focus on one event, it only appears to have been caused by another event. But when you look at the whole picture all at once, we find that all things co-arise simultaneously and interconnectedly. All such 'things', or events, are already interconnected. Taken as a whole, nothing has changed.

Einstein was wrong.

Really! Okay! So, let's test if causation is poppycock. Did you cause yourself to be born or you were caused by someone else that preceded you? By your parents. And your parents? By their parents. And their parents? These are the steps of genetic causation which for you is part of a cycle of poppycock. Do you still believe you have been caused to be born or the whole thing is pure poppycock?

 

[ArtieE]

IOW, a 'particle' is the product of energy fluctuations in the surrounding field, that create standing waves which only appear to be a particle. These are not real particles, but are virtual particles, acting 'as if' they are real, in somewhat the same way that standing waves make it appear as if the spinning wheel is standing still.

Still on board?

This is a common misunderstanding. Real particles are standing waves in the field. Virtual particles are random vacuum fluctuations that can sometimes influence real particles.

"In the jargon of field theory, physicists often say that “virtual particles” can briefly and spontaneously appear from the vacuum and then disappear again, even when no one has put enough energy into the field to create a real particle. But what they really mean is that the vacuum itself has random and indelible fluctuations, and sometimes their influence can be felt by the way they kick around real particles.

That, in essence, is a quantum field: the stuff out of which everything is made. It’s a boiling sea of random fluctuations, on top of which you can create quantized propagating waves that we call particles."
http://www.ribbonfarm.com/2015/08/20/qft/

 

[ArtieE]

Really! Okay! So, let's test if causation is poppycock. Did you cause yourself to be born or you were caused by someone else that preceded you? By your parents. And your parents? By their parents. And their parents?

They were caused by an uncaused god without any parents. Right? But hang on a second... wouldn't that make causation poppycock?

 

[godnotgod]

This is a common misunderstanding. Real particles are standing waves in the field. Virtual particles are random vacuum fluctuations that can sometimes influence real particles.

"In the jargon of field theory, physicists often say that “virtual particles” can briefly and spontaneously appear from the vacuum and then disappear again, even when no one has put enough energy into the field to create a real particle. But what they really mean is that the vacuum itself has random and indelible fluctuations, and sometimes their influence can be felt by the way they kick around real particles.

That, in essence, is a quantum field: the stuff out of which everything is made. It’s a boiling sea of random fluctuations, on top of which you can create quantized propagating waves that we call particles."
http://www.ribbonfarm.com/2015/08/20/qft/

This is the information I have:

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.

standing waves | Quantum Wave Theory

 

[Ben Avraham]

They were caused by an uncaused god without any parents. Right? But hang on a second... wouldn't that make causation poppycock?

Not to me! I understand if it does to you.

 

[ArtieE]

This is the information I have:

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.

standing waves | Quantum Wave Theory

Yes, this information is 100% correct. The standing waves are the real particles. Virtual particles are just short-lived random vacuum fluctuations in the quantum field that sometimes just happen to have an influence on real particles.