Existence of God

[Fool]

EXACTLY! God is self-evident.
But to "see" also means to recognize and/or understand what is being seen. To grasp it conceptually. Without the latter, the former is just "pixels on a screen", so to speak.

this is why dualist will never understand, see god. because they have assigned it as something that can't be grasped because it is separate. otherwise to self.
.

jacob saw god inwardly, face to face


john 14:20

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

i'm getting at the fact that what is considered holy divine isn't something based on how it looks but based on how it behaves, acts, evolved based on changes. the form is deceptive.

Why would the question of "how does this thing behave?" come before "does this thing even exist at all?"

 

[Fool]

Why would the question of "how does this thing behave?" come before "does this thing even exist at all?"

because it exists as an action and not as a static thing. it takes no exact form, in fact it takes all forms and is itself formless because it is like an eternal kaleidescope of light intersecting, reflecting.

 

[dybmh]

i didn't say divine intervention.

to truly appreciate God one requires some feedback from God. The feedback, in whatever form, is divine intervention.

to be is ambiguous. it doesn't take a form. it's a physical action. like spirit is an action

Ambiguous doesn't make sense. Here's the definition from google:

• (of language) open to more than one interpretation; having a double meaning.
• unclear or inexact because a choice between alternatives has not been made.

To be has a double meaning? No. To be is unclear because a choice hasn't been made? No. Maybe you meant ubiquitous?

Also a physical action is a form, so I'm not sure what to make of your reply.

exodus 3:15

"And God said moreover unto Moses, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, The LORD God of your fathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, hath sent me unto you: this is my name for ever, and this is my memorial unto all generations."

relevance?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

because it exists as an action and not as a static thing. it takes no exact form, in fact it takes all forms and is itself formless because it is like an eternal kaleidescope of light intersecting, reflecting.

Okay.

 

[Fool]

to truly appreciate God one requires some feedback from God. The feedback, in whatever form, is divine intervention.

Ambiguous doesn't make sense. Here's the definition from google:

• (of language) open to more than one interpretation; having a double meaning.
• unclear or inexact because a choice between alternatives has not been made.

To be has a double meaning? No. To be is unclear because a choice hasn't been made? No. Maybe you meant ubiquitous?

Also a physical action is a form, so I'm not sure what to make of your reply.

"And God said moreover unto Moses, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, The LORD God of your fathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, hath sent me unto you: this is my name for ever, and this is my memorial unto all generations."

relevance?

exodus 3:15 shares the root of exodus 3:14


being isn't a form that is eternal, the form rises and falls, but the being doesn't. like the spirit hovering, stirring the waters. the spirit creates forms, waves that rise and fall with the action of to be.

the action is eternal, being. the form it chooses, wills to be isn't.

 

[dybmh]

to be is both before, within, behind, above, below

agreed

it isn't hidden except by looking for a form.

if it's not hidden then one shouldn't have trouble providing evidence for it. The premise in the OP is that God is not evident. Not hidden and not evident contradict.

people don't recognize love by a form. they recognize it by an action and say, hey look that's love. being is a verb 1st and then recognized as a thing 2nd.

I reassert an action is a form.

exodus 3:16

"Go, and gather the elders of Israel together, and say unto them, The LORD God of your fathers, the God of Abraham, of Isaac, and of Jacob, appeared unto me, saying, I have surely visited you, and seen that which is done to you in Egypt"
Sorry, I still don't see the connection between these verses and the content of your reply.

 

[Fool]

if it's not hidden then one shouldn't have trouble providing evidence for it. The premise in the OP is that God is not evident. Not hidden and not evident contradict.

i asked a question to show a conflict, a division in the logic.

I reassert an action is a form.

a verb is not an exact thing, form. it can be anything, everything.

"Go, and gather the elders of Israel together, and say unto them, The LORD God of your fathers, the God of Abraham, of Isaac, and of Jacob, appeared unto me, saying, I have surely visited you, and seen that which is done to you in Egypt"
Sorry, I still don't see the connection between these verses and the content of your reply.

the name is the connection. it is only called lord, a noun, after it refers to itself as being, a verb. it's a deverbal noun. the noun doesn't come into existence until after the action is recognized


it doesn't take an exact form but it does take an exact action. it is all being

 

[dybmh]

exodus 3:15 shares the root of exodus 3:14
if it's important for understanding this topic, can you show me how 3:15 shares the root of 3:14

being isn't a form that is eternal, the form rises and falls, but the being doesn't. like the spirit hovering, stirring the waters. the spirit creates forms, waves that rise and fall with the action of to be.

the action is eternal, being. the form it chooses, wills to be isn't.

OK, got it, thank you.

So back to the question in the OP:

how can you appreciate something, that isn't evident; such as, god?

by appreciating the action?

how do you provide evidence of something that isn't evident?

by demonstrating the action?

 

[dybmh]

a verb is not an exact thing, form. it can be anything, everything.

isn't this a unique property of to be? other verbs are more exclusive?

 

[Fool]

OK, got it, thank you.

So back to the question in the OP:

by appreciating the action?

by demonstrating the action?

the op was to question those who saw the divine as something immaterial and separate from self.


it was self-evident in the one called jesus. i am in the father and the father is in me. so then if he claimed that it was the father of all, why would they look for something outside of self; if their teacher found it within.

it was self-evident to jacob who struggled within himself before meeting esau.


john 14:20

luke 17:21

 

[Fool]

isn't this a unique property of to be? other verbs are more exclusive?

YES!!!


the infinite I

 

[PureX]

Why would the question of "how does this thing behave?" come before "does this thing even exist at all?"

I think you have to identify what the "thing" in question, is, within your experience of the world. Otherwise none of those other questions can make sense.

For example; I identify the experiences of love, forgiveness, kindness, and generosity as a special class or kind of experience. I view them as divine experiences: above and beyond (transcendent of) all other kinds of experiences. And I label the source of those kinds of experiences "God" (for my own convenience). So those kinds of divine experiences are the reality of God in my world. Their source remains a mystery to me that I cannot unravel, but their existence and their transcendent nature are self-evident. So "God" is self-evident in my experience and understanding of existence.

But if I had not recognized these kinds of real life experiences as transcending the realm of physicality from which they arise, and realized that the mystery source must then transcend the realm of physicality, also, I wouldn't have chosen to label it "God".

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I think you have to identify what the "thing" in question, is, within your experience of the world. Otherwise none of those other questions can make sense.

Indeed. We need to be able to answer the question "just what sort of thing are we talking about?" before "does this thing exist?" is even a meaningful question.

For example; I identify the experiences of love, forgiveness, kindness, and generosity as a special class or kind of experience. I view them as divine experiences: above and beyond (transcendent of) all other kinds of experiences. And I label the source of those kinds of experiences "God" (for my own convenience). So those kinds of divine experiences are the reality of God in my world. Their source remains a mystery to me that I cannot unravel, but their existence and their transcendent nature are self-evident. So "God" is self-evident in my experience and understanding of existence.

But if I had not recognized these kinds of real life experiences as transcending the realm of physicality from which they arise, and realized that the mystery source must then transcend the realm of physicality, also, I wouldn't have chosen to label it "God".

Okay.

Sounds like it would be easy for you and someone else to talk past each other without a lot of preliminary dialogue about exactly what each of you mean by the word "God."

 

[dybmh]

the op was to question those who saw the divine as something immaterial and separate from self.

the divine operates on multiple levels? omni-presence? if so, is it wrong to say God is both immanent and transcendent?

 

[PureX]

Sounds like it would be easy for you and someone else to talk past each other without a lot of preliminary dialogue about exactly what each of you mean by the word "God."

Sure ... and everyone. The subject of the existence/nature/reality of "God" has people talking past each other constantly. I think it's because the term "God" mostly refers to the source of the "things" that we experience, not the "things" we experience, themselves. And then the "things" being experienced are not the same, either. For some people the thing they experience as "God" is religion, and religiosity. For others it's morality and justice: right and wrong. For others it's an imaginary parent/friend/help-mate: an internalized relationship. And these are just some of the real experiences (the "things") that people come to know and then label as being from "God". It's very confusing to discuss, and yet can still be amazingly helpful to people, individually.

 

[ppp]

By using imagination and faith.

I don't provide evidence, I offer possibility.

One cannot provide possibility without providing evidence.

 

[ppp]

because it exists as an action and not as a static thing. it takes no exact form, in fact it takes all forms and is itself formless because it is like an eternal kaleidescope of light intersecting, reflecting.

I think you are slamming your verbage into the law of contradiction. Fruitlessly.

 

[dybmh]

One cannot provide possibility without providing evidence.

maybe you're right, but, a possibility doesn't require strong evidence. Subjective and ancedotal evidence should be enough.

 

[ppp]

maybe you're right, but, a possibility doesn't require strong evidence. Subjective and ancedotal evidence should be enough.

Why should that be enough?