About the first cause

[Unveiled Artist]

IF god is an entity and there was No sacred text to imply this entity even exists, how do you know there is a god, how do you know this god is a creator and not anything else, and how did you come to that conclusion?

This is assuming god is an entity. Not a force, feeling, consciousness, or any description that, by nature, is not concrete.

 

[metis]

The unfortunate fact is that we can't and don't know, and the mistake we often tend to make is to elevate beliefs to the level of absolute facts.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

The unfortunate fact is that we can't and don't know, and the mistake we often tend to make is to elevate beliefs to the level of absolute facts.

Kinda wish that wasnt ths case. It would help a lot of people if they found god exists without depending on sacred text and others.

 

[Sunstone]

IF god is an entity and there was No sacred text to imply this entity even exists, how do you know there is a god, how do you know this god is a creator and not anything else, and how did you come to that conclusion?

This is assuming god is an entity. Not a force, feeling, consciousness, or any description that, by nature, is not concrete.

Some mystics have concluded that they have had one or more experiences of deity. Among those mystics have been some who think god is an "entity", as you call it.

I myself do not agree with their conclusions.

 

[metis]

Kinda wish that wasnt ths case. It would help a lot of people if they found god exists without depending on sacred text and others.

I hear ya.

To me, I tend to believe that these texts are attempts to understand how we got here and what constitutes moral behavior. They should be taken seriously, imo, and then we can contemplate what might be useful and act accordingly.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Some mystics have concluded that they have had one or more experiences of deity. Among those mystics have been some who think god is an "entity", as you call it.

I myself do not agree with their conclusions.

Can experiences be interpreted as a entity of some sort? May e the cause of the experience but without any point of reference, how do the mystics equate their experiences with an entity?

 

[Laika]

IF god is an entity and there was No sacred text to imply this entity even exists, how do you know there is a god, how do you know this god is a creator and not anything else, and how did you come to that conclusion?

This is assuming god is an entity. Not a force, feeling, consciousness, or any description that, by nature, is not concrete.

It would be worth Asking a Deist as they believe in a creator, not on the basis of revelation, but on the basis of reason and evidence. You may also be able to find people who believe in "Old Earth Creationism" can give you a good answer to this as well as by and large that is a position where science and religion overlap. The Catholic Church has also insisted that the Big Bang is compatable with creationist beliefs since 1951. It is worth noting that one of the major thinkers behind the big bang theory was a catholic priest, named Georges Lemaitre. he came up with the idea of an expanding universe.

[Edit: And I forgot Thomas Aquinas and his Five Proofs for the existence of God.]

 

[Sunstone]

Can experiences be interpreted as a entity of some sort? May e the cause of the experience but without any point of reference, how do the mystics equate their experiences with an entity?

Good question. I have no sure answer to it though, as I have not interrogated many mystics on that point, just a few. For what it's worth, the few mystics I have asked about that have told me things along the lines that the experience of god, as they termed it, seemed so real that it couldn't possibly be other than real. And they have even told me things along the lines that god is more real than apparent reality.

 

[jonathan180iq]

IF god is an entity and there was No sacred text to imply this entity even exists, how do you know there is a god, how do you know this god is a creator and not anything else, and how did you come to that conclusion?

This is assuming god is an entity. Not a force, feeling, consciousness, or any description that, by nature, is not concrete.

So we're assuming here that God is actually an entity, right? If so, then the answer would be easy. Over time, he would be discovered. He would have tangible effects on the world and the surrounding Universe. It would be something that would be measured and quantified and there would be no doubt that this "thing" actually was there. After discovery, we would learn about it's attributes and its qualities and we would attempt to know it as much as possible and there would be no question of its effect on our lives, kinda like gravity...

In the non thought-experimental world, however, this doesn't seem to be the case. Much to the chagrin of most of human existence.

 

[Aupmanyav]

I am sort of relieved that there is no God, no one to send me to an eternal hell.

 

[metis]

I am sort of relieved that there is no God, no one to send me to an eternal hell.

Ya, but I've been told that's where I'm going so often that I'm looking forward to the trip.

 

[allfoak]

We can know.

 

[Sunstone]

Ya, but I've been told that's where I'm going so often that I'm looking forward to the trip.

"Go to Heaven for the climate, Hell for the company." -- Mark Twain.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

So we're assuming here that God is actually an entity, right? If so, then the answer would be easy. Over time, he would be discovered. He would have tangible effects on the world and the surrounding Universe. It would be something that would be measured and quantified and there would be no doubt that this "thing" actually was there. After discovery, we would learn about it's attributes and its qualities and we would attempt to know it as much as possible and there would be no question of its effect on our lives, kinda like gravity...

In the non thought-experimental world, however, this doesn't seem to be the case. Much to the chagrin of most of human existence.

One question only. (surprinsgly) How do you measure an entity?

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Good question. I have no sure answer to it though, as I have not interrogated many mystics on that point, just a few. For what it's worth, the few mystics I have asked about that have told me things along the lines that the experience of god, as they termed it, seemed so real that it couldn't possibly be other than real. And they have even told me things along the lines that god is more real than apparent reality.

Hmm. I don't know too much if any about mysticism either. You're view is as good as mine.

 

[George-ananda]

IF god is an entity and there was No sacred text to imply this entity even exists, how do you know there is a god, how do you know this god is a creator and not anything else, and how did you come to that conclusion?

This is assuming god is an entity. Not a force, feeling, consciousness, or any description that, by nature, is not concrete.

The best I know about the ultimate nature of reality comes from those advanced souls of the Vedic tradition. Yes, after due consideration, of all other theories and the 'we can't know' positions.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

I hear ya.

To me, I tend to believe that these texts are attempts to understand how we got here and what constitutes moral behavior. They should be taken seriously, imo, and then we can contemplate what might be useful and act accordingly.

I can see that. I hope texts don't become idols, or at least I hope it doesn't prevent spiritual growth by focusing on what's written instead of applying what's written.

You gotta point.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

It would be worth Asking a Deist as they believe in a creator, not on the basis of revelation, but on the basis of reason and evidence. You may also be able to find people who believe in "Old Earth Creationism" can give you a good answer to this as well as by and large that is a position where science and religion overlap. The Catholic Church has also insisted that the Big Bang is compatable with creationist beliefs since 1951. It is worth noting that one of the major thinkers behind the big bang theory was a catholic priest, named Georges Lemaitre. he came up with the idea of an expanding universe.

[Edit: And I forgot Thomas Aquinas and his Five Proofs for the existence of God.]

Aaah. I remember reading the Thomas Aquinas arguments years ago. They are pretty good. They may explain there is a cause of some sort. As for an actual entity (who can love, judge, and all), that, I don't believe his arguments address.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

The best I know about the ultimate nature of reality comes from those advanced souls of the Vedic tradition. Yes, after due consideration, of all other theories and the 'we can't know' positions.

/Shrugs/ Is it worth exploring? Kinda like going in a circle thinking that the next round there may be an exit. Then again, there could be. (Reminds me of the movie Labrinth. "You take too many things for granted!"

 

[columbus]

It would be worth Asking a Deist as they believe in a creator, not on the basis of revelation, but on the basis of reason and evidence.

I considered giving my personal take on the subject, but Carlita specifically ruled it out. I don't see the "Original Source" as anything like an entity.
"Entity" seems much too small a concept to apply to God. We humans can't usually imagine a greater thing than a disembodied sapient being with superpowers, so we put God into that box. A mere "entity".
Tom