Can it not exist?

[SkepticThinker]

As I said, I see life different than you.

There isn't my logic and your logic. There's just logic.
You "see life different" if you want, but if you're not employing logic, then you're being irrational.

 

[Spirit of Light]

There isn't my logic and your logic. There's just logic.
You "see life different" if you want, but if you're not employing logic, then you're being irrational.

That you are free to hold as a opinion about me.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Spirit, not as a person

A being/person is the same in this context. Consciousness as a being would mean it "lives" and exists as a separate entity.

Conscious awareness or experience would be abstract...not a being or someThing that works apart from you.

It doesn't need to be physical to be refered to as a being but it does need to have some sort of sperate or distinct persona to call it such.

 

[Spirit of Light]

A being/person is the same in this context. Consciousness as a being would mean it "lives" and exists as a separate entity.

Conscious awareness or experience would be abstract...not a being or someThing that works apart from you.

It doesn't need to be physical to be refered to as a being but it does need to have some sort of sperate or distinct persona to call it such.

I would not be able to answer that, since I am not a God it would be foolish of me to even try, because how I understand God today, probably is far from what God actually is.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

There isn't my logic and your logic. There's just logic.
You "see life different" if you want, but if you're not employing logic, then you're being irrational.

Yes, and so what.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

That you are free to hold as a opinion about me.

CT logic meaning, for example...

I'll use Santa (not an analogy for God).

A parent tells his child there is Santa. The child sees presents and thinks it's Santa. The child is happy.

How did the child knew Santa exist? The logic behind it was that the parent wanted his child to be happy so he told him a tell the child relates to. It "makes sense."

Santa doesn't need to be real nor does God as a being, but if you derive to a said conclusion Santa or God how you came to it should have some logic. It doesn't need to be scientific. Santa is not scientific but people get it regardless their background.

It's how you made sense of your belief so when you tell others they can see how you came to your conclusion....even if they disagree.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

I would not be able to answer that, since I am not a God it would be foolish of me to even try, because how I understand God today, probably is far from what God actually is.

When you say God as a conscious being and someone asks what you mean, if the answer is always "but I can't answer" then your point or topic of discussion can't go anywhere because there is nothing to discuss.

That's why I see conversations don't get pass these "atheistic" topics because in order to understand what you mean we need to get definitions to talk of the topic.

Not asking you to understand God just for sake of conversation what do you mean by what you said.

 

[Spirit of Light]

CT logic meaning, for example...

I'll use Santa (not an analogy for God).

A parent tells his child there is Santa. The child sees presents and thinks it's Santa. The child is happy.

How did the child knew Santa exist? The logic behind it was that the parent wanted his child to be happy. It makes sense.

Santa doesn't need to be real nor does God as a being, but if you derive to a said conclusion Santa or God how you came to it should have some logic. It doesn't need to be scientific. Santa is not scientific but people get it regardless their background.

It's how you made sense of your belief so when you tell others they can see how you came to your conclusion....even if they disagree.

The answer is that it has taken me 30 years and a few different religious practices to get to my understanding that I have today, my belief in the sufi teaching is the only practice I do now, but all the other year's of practicing spiritual life, has of course made a great impact on who I am.

My belief in Allah was not something that started the day I become sufi, it actually started many years ago but it manifested it self through the Buddhist teaching I practiced at that time. ( I did not know it was Allah calling at that time)

 

[Spirit of Light]

When you say God as a conscious being and someone asks what you mean, if the answer is always "but I can't answer" then your point or topic of discussion can't go anywhere because there is nothing to discuss.

That's why I see conversations don't get pass these "atheistic" topics because in order to understand what you mean we need to get definitions to talk of the topic.

Not asking you to understand God just for sake of conversation what do you mean by what you said.

I have already tried to answer that by the answer a higher consiousness that can be found in everyone, how can I answer differently when it is how my understanding of God is.

 

[The Hammer]

Our senses are pretty limited. We cannot see radio waves, ultraviolet light, or infrared light. We cannot hear ultrasound. We cannot sense radioactivity.

But our senses are NOT the only means of detecting things. As with the things above, we can use *other* things to detect them and convert that detection into something we can detect. So, we have built radios to radio waves. We have devices to detect ultraviolet and infrared. We have ways to detect ultrasound and radioactivity.

So, it is quite common to know something exists that we cannot directly detect with our senses. We can extend those senses using various devices and use those devices to detect things.

But, does it even make sense to say that something exists if there is literally NO WAY to detect it, even when our senses are extended. even in theory?

To *that* question, I would say that the existence, at that point, has no meaning at all.

Afaik, we don't have anything that extends our spiritual senses. Only our 5 traditional ones.

The normal 5 senses can not detect anything Spiritual or Supernatural. It's coming from somewhere/something we haven't quite pinpointed yet.

 

[blü 2]

If it is invisible to your eyes or your other senses, why is it impossible that it does exist without you being able to detect it?
For something to exist, you must see it?

If the claim is that something is real, then that's a claim that it has objective existence, can be found in the world external to the self.

And you're always entitled to reply to such a claim, "Show me" ─ whether via your unaided senses, or through the great range of instruments we use to enhance our senses.

So the Higgs boson wasn't real until 2012, and after that it was retrospectively always real. No such luck with Bigfoot.

Whereas a whole range of things ─ all generalizations and abstractions like "a car" (as distinct from "this car") and "two", and all imaginary characters like Superman, Sherlock, Aphrodite, Santa, on and on ─ exist only as concepts and things imagined in individual brains, and thus are not real.

 

[Spirit of Light]

If the claim is that something is real, then that's a claim that it has objective existence, can be found in the world external to the self.

And you're always entitled to reply to such a claim, "Show me" ─ whether via your unaided senses, or through the great range of instruments we use to enhance our senses.

So the Higgs boson wasn't real until 2012, and after that it was retrospectively always real. No such luck with Bigfoot.

Whereas a whole range of things ─ all generalizations and abstractions like "a car" (as distinct from "this car") and "two", and all imaginary characters like Superman, Sherlock, Aphrodite, Santa, on and on ─ exist only as concepts and things imagined in individual brains, and thus are not real.

Does that mean that if a person say "in my belief" instead of claiming "this is how it is, because it is written in the scripture" it would be more easy to "accept" the one saying "in my belief" ?

 

[TheBrokenSoul]

If it is invisible to your eyes or your other senses, why is it impossible that it does exist without you being able to detect it?
For something to exist, you must see it?

Can it be that other people can see and understand something you can't see or understand?

Thou whom is wise sees the transparency of that which is before the
aurora borealis

 

[Yazata]

So, it is quite common to know something exists that we cannot directly detect with our senses. We can extend those senses using various devices and use those devices to detect things.

Yes, I agree 100% with that.

But, does it even make sense to say that something exists if there is literally NO WAY to detect it, even when our senses are extended. even in theory?

Hypothetically? I don't see why not.

To *that* question, I would say that the existence, at that point, has no meaning at all.

We (sort-of) know what 'exists' means in our everyday language. (There's actually a huge metaphysical question there.) The word 'exists' exists (!) in our language and we certainly use it often enough. And presumably we know how to define the referring expression that we are using. ('God' appears so often in religious speech and seemingly means whatever the religious people mean to say by using it.) So saying that *God exists* seems to be meaningful to me. It's assigning whatever the word 'God' refers to into the class of objects with mind-independent reality.

I think that the problem there is establishing reference. If we are talking about the unbounded set of all the things that exist that we know nothing about, how are we to pick out which object in that class (if any) the referring expression ('God' in this case) refers to?

I suppose that various theists would narrow down the applicability of 'God' to mean the deity revealed in the Bible, Quran or the Gita. So the word 'God' would pick out whatever occupant of the unknown corresponds to those descriptions. Did it appear on Sinai or to Arjuna or whatever the story is supposed to be?

Others (I find this line of thought more persuasive than the last) might define 'God' in the manner of natural theology. God is the first-cause, source-of-cosmic-order or ground-of-being. Then if we introduce the Principle of Sufficient Reason (for all X, if X exists, then a sufficient reason for X's existence exists) and if we agree that the universe exists, then we seem to have the makings of a logical proof of the existence of God. (Obviously it can be attacked and is only as persuasive as the assumptions built into it.)

So this line of thought delivers us to whatever unknown something(s) perform a particular set of metaphysical functions. It's an awfully austere God, but it's the God of Deism I guess. I won't say that I believe in it (I don't) but it's interesting from a philosophy of religion perspective.

 

[Fool]

But are the 5 senses all the senses you have?

no

What if spiritual practice opens up a bunch of new senses, way more sensitive than the 5 physical senses.

it is already known that there are more than 5 senses

 

[Unveiled Artist]

I have already tried to answer that by the answer a higher consiousness that can be found in everyone, how can I answer differently when it is how my understanding of God is.

Your choice of words. I don't think people are questioning you as God as consciousness but God as a being. I'm not sure how they are the same unless maybe the being or entity is an inseparable incarnation of the mind. But then when used to denote what God does and says the question of being will emerge again.

 

[Fool]

That's a belief. Also, something "greater than our self" doesn't have to be any God(s). I don't believe in any Gods but I realize the universe is "much greater than our self," for instance.
"Deeper than a belief" would be something you could demonstrate, which obviously, you can't.


Sorry then it's useless to me if I have to put logic aside. That's silly.
I mean, you can't even describe what a spirit is, let alone demonstrate they exist.

Can you think of anything else in your life where you suspend reason and logic and instead just believe? I can't. It seems it only applies to non-demonstrable religious beliefs.

logic only arises after belief is tested and a pattern starts to form in relationship to what the self believes is going on and what is going on. everything about self isn't logical. that is the part that some have problems accepting.

everyone has a belief system. some are organized and some are not. some people form groups based on primary beliefs vs some just go it alone, or don't need others to re-affirm their beliefs

 

[Spirit of Light]

Your choice of words. I don't think people are questioning you as God as consciousness but God as a being. I'm not sure how they are the same unless maybe the being or entity is an inseparable incarnation of the mind. But then when used to denote what God does and says the question of being will emerge again.

You will probably get different answer from mostly every believer on what God truly are, because we do not hold exactly the same understanding.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

I have already tried to answer that by the answer a higher consiousness that can be found in everyone, how can I answer differently when it is how my understanding of God is.

Your choice of words. Using being throws it off because it refers to an entity not a mystic experience.

 

[Spirit of Light]

Your choice of words. Using being throws it off because it refers to an entity not a mystic experience.

Strange that many believers seems to understand what I say.
Higher consciousness means a non physical being "entity" who holds a consciousness that is not like a human beings lower consciousness.