Nonsensical

[ratiocinator]

Claims of what? An entity called God? You make my point for me.

If 'God' means something (anything) to you, then you can either define and justify it or you can't. You seem to be having problems doing either.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Who the heck would need evidence of God? I’ve never even heard of such a stupid thing till I came to this website. It’s funny actually.

Why/how can you believe something without evidence for it?

 

[Windwalker]

So you think god is 'everything and nothing'? Makes no sense at all.

To be clear, "I think of God as...". That means it's open not closed. Closed is "Think God is X", defined and bounded as 'this and not that'. The former is metaphorical. The latter is a descriptor.

Now as far as my statement, yes it doesn't make sense rationally. It's a paradoxical statement. Yet, it speaks truth. I see God, paradoxically as both transcendent to and fully immanent with everything that is. So God is both what a tree is, and is not the tree itself. A tree is a tree. Yet a tree exists because of God, and is inseparable from God, and is God as a tree, yet is not God because God is not a tree. And so forth.

The problem is the dualistic mind and a languaged reality. What defines reality is a matter of perception. How we experience reality, is conditioned by the ways in which our minds parcel out objects from one another into 'this and not that' statements. A dog, a tree, a cat, a human, Bob, Susan, God..., and so forth. Each of these namings creates divisions. But is that perception of what these are, what reality is, really actually that?

So yes, what I said does not make sense, in the context of a dualistic subject/object divided reality. But it makes sense in a nondual reality.

I've heard it put this way, any time you are speaking of Absolutes, or approaching the ultimate nature of reality, or the Infinite, all these normal modes of dividing reality up into bits begins to fall apart and things make no more sense. But from a lived perspective, paradoxes can be held without destroying reality. We just learn to hold our dualistic perceptions with a lot less belief in their absolute certitudes to tell us what absolute Reality, or "God" is. Being comfortable with paradoxes as truth, takes practice.

Not at all. If somebody claims that 'god exists', then it's up to them to say what they mean and provide some reason (evidence, reasoning, something) as to why I should take their claim seriously. You don't seem to want to do either.

No, you said evidence and proofs. In order to do that, you have to draw a boundary around God and call God an "it", an object, something that exists as a thing in itself distinctly other to other objects around it. But as far as my reasoning or thinking about God? Certainly, I can share my thoughts about it, but that's not in anyway arguing them as 'proofs' for God as an entity. I can't provide evidence of what is already fully already present in everything that exists. Other than to say, "look".

I understanding reality as a matter of perceptions. Even if we all occupy the same space and live in the same environments, what that 'world' is, will be seen, understood, and experienced through the perceptions of the individual, influenced by and influencing the collective, or 'consensus reality'. Yes, gravity exists in all realities, but how that is understood, can vary wildly, and how that is defined will then shape the lived experience of those who participate in it. What we think about reality, is not Reality. What we think about God, is not God.

So at best, we use metaphors to point to what is beyond languaging or words, or concepts, or ideas, or thoughts. Fingers pointing at the moon, should not be read as the actuality of the moon itself.

How exactly?

You're still not making sense. I do not experience anything I'd call 'god'. I live and move and have my being in the physical universe, but that is most definitely seen.

In your mind, God is other to the physcial universe. You see the material world alone as reality. That is how your perceptions have limited it for the mind to be able to think about it. But that 'thinking world', is itself, what I call "thought world". It's not real reality. It's ideas about reality.

You and I could stand together and look at the sunset falling upon the mountains. While you may see light rays and minerals, I see Beauty, and the immanence of transcendent Spirit in everything I behold. It's the same material world, but seen as more than just a critical analysis of the elements which makes up its physicalness. You may see rocks, but I see Love.

If god is "all that is" it's a redundant and pointless label.

Not at all. Why God is a great word for it, in my view, is because God binds it all together. God is a word to describe the "meta reality' perspective, that which holds and brings it all together. Rather than seeing divided parts, it sees the Whole. And the only way to really talk about that Whole, of everything, is to go beyond languaging and dividing reality up into parts. We have to transcend dualism. God is both the One, and the many.

I can try to describe it this way. I can have the scientific perspective, and I can have the meta perspective, or the spiritual perspective. Or I can have both, or neither. People generally never look at the eyes they are looking through when they consider reality. When you can pull back enough and realize they are all sets of eyes which allow or disallow certain frequencies of light to enter perceptual awareness, then our ideas of reality become less fixed and rigid.

When we can put different sets of eyes in, look through a multitude of different perceptive filters, then the nature of reality becomes more fluid, spacious, and dynamic. I describe all of the latter as a larger perspective of the Whole. An aperspectival mode, creates a different experience of reality, than a mono perspectival mode does.

I'm doing all that but I'm seeing no evidence of any god. Your claims about god just look like deepity to me.

Have you never experienced the world as beyond comprehension, beyond the mind's ability to penertrate and understand? Have you never stood before the night sky, wrapped in awe, and felt yourself move beyond your ideas into great wonder and mystery?

I'm sure some radical reductionist might call that "woo woo", but I call it it Life.

 

[ratiocinator]

Now as far as my statement, yes it doesn't make sense rationally.

So it's irrational?

No, you said evidence and proofs.

I never mentioned proof. I got evidence from the OP. Any reason at all to take your claim of god seriously, would be an improvement.

Have you never experienced the world as beyond comprehension, beyond the mind's ability to penertrate and understand? Have you never stood before the night sky, wrapped in awe, and felt yourself move beyond your ideas into great wonder and mystery?

Yes, and...?

I've read all the words in your post but you still haven't said what you think god actually is or why I should take it seriously. Again, it all just looks like deepity.

 

[Windwalker]

So it's irrational?

Nope. Irrational means it violates reason. This does not violate reason. It goes beyond the limitations of reasoning. It is non-rational. Love is non-rational for instance. But when love violates reason and you act irrationally, then that's a problem. The problem isn't the nonrational. The problem is the rational when it cannot integrate the non-rational, and it becomes dysfunctional, or "irrational".

I never mentioned proof. I got evidence from the OP. Any reason at all to take your claim of god seriously, would be an improvement.

Okay, I see asking for evidence as a call for proofs, but that's fine if you see it differently. Now, I don't think I've ever made a "claim of god". Claiming what? That I see God when I see the world? That's just a statement of my experience. I may be claiming that is my experience, and I can defend that, of course. It's how I experience reality. But to call that my 'claim of god' is misleading. I don't see God as an object outside of myself and the world. I see and experience God as the Fabric of Reality itself.

My claim, if any, is that human beings can and do experience reality this way. And those that do, report it to create healthy and happier conditions for living their lives. I do claim that, yes. And that can be argued for rationally.

Yes, and...?

I've read all the words in your post but you still haven't said what you think god actually is or why I should take it seriously. Again, it all just looks like deepity.

Yes, you don't understand it. You want it to fit into your predefined perceptions. And you insult what doesn't fit, rather than acknowledge your limitations. Maybe there are things you don't yet understand? There is more to reality, than just our own ideas about it and whether or not we can hold them rationally. Thinking there isn't, is the very definition of irrational.

 

[Brian2]

There ya go

Zeus was big in his day but ended up being a bit of a fizzer but there is evidence for bigfoot. Not empirical but still there is evidence. Could be true.

 

[oldbadger]

Who the heck would need evidence of God? I’ve never even heard of such a stupid thing till I came to this website. It’s funny actually.

How about you?
If you believe in God, which God is that?
As a Deist I believe that every thing and force is a part of God, including you, but a God so vast that it doesn't even know about us let alone be interested.
Do you need evidence for Deism?

 

[Brian2]

Well, evidence for deliberate creation of the universe (I assume that's what you mean) would be a start (if there was any) but even that wouldn't get you very close to most forms of theism.

Still for me God would be the creator instead of someone/thing that just put itself in charge with no real authority to do that.
It sort of narrows things down a bit,,,,,,,,,,,for me.
I see the Bible God claims to be the creator and His story of creation, although not as complex as science would make it, does fit with science imo.

 

[Brian2]

"

Really... Provide some, then?

You are evidence for a God.

 

[ratiocinator]

Claiming what? That I see God when I see the world? That's just a statement of my experience. I may be claiming that is my experience, and I can defend that, of course. It's how I experience reality. But to call that my 'claim of god' is misleading. I don't see God as an object outside of myself and the world.

So god is a subjective experience?

I see and experience God as the Fabric of Reality itself.

That sounds very grand but I see no actual meaning. How can one experience that 'fabric of reality'? What do you think the phrase actually means?

My claim, if any, is that human beings can and do experience reality this way. And those that do, report it to create healthy and happier conditions for living their lives. I do claim that, yes. And that can be argued for rationally.

This seems to be a claim that you think some way of thinking about or experiencing the "the fabric of reality" (whatever it actually means) is positive influence and makes them happy. So you have statistics?

Yes, you don't understand it. You want it to fit into your predefined perceptions. And you insult what doesn't fit, rather than acknowledge your limitations. Maybe there are things you don't yet understand?

Oh, there's lots of things I don't understand, but all I'm seeing from you appears to be vague hand-waving, rather than something that's difficult to understand.

 

[ratiocinator]

Still for me God would be the creator instead of someone/thing that just put itself in charge with no real authority to do that.

That's your belief but we still haven't got the any of the evidence you claimed there was.

You are evidence for a God.

I always find this rather amusing. Do you not understand 'evidence'? How does the mere existence of a person (or people) provide evidence for a god - let alone a specific god?

 

[PoetPhilosopher]

Who shares this definition, though?

Everyone sees god from his experienced. Goodness to a Christian is sacrifice and resurrection. Others don't share this so their god is different.

Why do we believe that God needs to be abrahamic like?

Good question. I was just joking with @Conscious thoughts using reference from a SpongeBob episode. Sometimes after you answer the question with your opinion like I did in like post #2, you just kind of get the vibe that the mood might need lightened a bit. Sorry if I interfered.

 

[Spirit of Light]

Good question. I was just joking with @Conscious thoughts using reference from a SpongeBob episode. Sometimes after you answer the question with your opinion like I did in like post #2, you just kind of get the vibe that the mood might need lightened a bit. Sorry if I interfered.

I eas not offended by your joke it made me smile

 

[ChristineM]

Zeus was big in his day but ended up being a bit of a fizzer but there is evidence for bigfoot. Not empirical but still there is evidence. Could be true.

All gods seem to go the same way over time.

If there were evidence then there is no need for faith

 

[Windwalker]

So god is a subjective experience?

Of course. Life itself is a subjective experience. But if you want me to try to define "God", then you could say God is the Subject of reality.

When people think of God, they naturally imagine it as external to themselves. But with development of perception, we see that what we were looking for outside ourselves, was ourselves the whole time. If all we do is "believe" in God, that is a mentally constructed God, and not reality. It has to include the subjective, and not exclude it.

That sounds very grand but I see no actual meaning. How can one experience that 'fabric of reality'? What do you think the phrase actually means?

Good question. How. Practice moving beyond your thinking mind. When you dance, do you rationally analyze your footstep as you move to the music? If you do, you will not be able to dance. You'll just jerk around clumsily, imitating dance. If you want to experience dance, you have to "let go", go with the flow. Let the rational mind be more like putting up boundaries to keep you from falling off the edge of the dance floor. You engage it only when practical. It does not dominate your field of vision. If it does, you aren't dancing. Most people let the thinking mind dominate their movements on the dance floor of life.

So when it comes to that "Fabric of Reality", that is a qualitative experience. It is sensed reality, like dance. You don't think dance, you move the body, beyond the mind into freedom of being and spirit. So how do you open to that 'flow"? Practice letting go. Try meditation as an exercise of bringing the runaway analytic mind under some form of control. Understand that the thinking mind, is only a part of who we are. It does not define who or what we are. But if we let it do that, then we will in fact, become disconnected with Reality.

What I try to describe by using that language is to say, that everything is tied together. Nothing is truly separate from each other. Mentally, figuratively, I might imagine it like a formless sheet of fabric, upon with you have various embroidered patterns interwoven with the fabric. These little islands of reality, the "human pattern" for instance, sees other patterns across time and space and says, "Hello, you are different from me." But they all share the same Parent reality. They are not separate from the Fabric, nor or the ultimately other to the other patterns embroidered into the fabric.

The patterns are not other to the fabric, nor to each other, but yet they are different patterns from each other still. It is the set of eyes you are choosing to look through, that defines your experience of that Ultimate Reality, that Fabric and patterns. Seeing God, or that Fabric, that Ground of Reality, is just simply a shift in perception that sees the Whole and the parts, rather than just the parts as the whole.

This seems to be a claim that you think some way of thinking about or experiencing the "the fabric of reality" (whatever it actually means) is positive influence and makes them happy. So you have statistics?

Just look at the research into those who study things like higher states of consciousness, such as with Buddhist monks for instance. People who have such experiences all report an increase in ones greater happiness from it, than without it. I'm sure if really pressed I could find "statistics", but that seems a waste of time. Ultimately you have to taste it, not study it. It's like asking for statistics to support claims that dancing is enjoyable.

Have you ever practiced meditation?

Oh, there's lots of things I don't understand, but all I'm seeing from you appears to be vague hand-waving, rather than something that's difficult to understand.

No hand waving. That what I'm saying sounds challenging to you, that doesn't mean it's vague. Anyone with similar experience will understand this without that challenge.

As I said, if you are trying to understand and talk about the Infinite or the Absolute, language will break down and naturally sound "vague". That's because it goes beyond the rational. Paradox is the name of the game beyond the rational mind. So everything is to be expected. But if you have similar experience, what I'm saying will sound appropriate.

 

[Starlight]

Actually I think the evidence of God arise within the one who have faith in God. But it is not easy to "show the evidence" to one who has no faith or understanding of what God is. They will not see God anywhere, except if they have physical evidence of a man in the sky

I believe God is NOT a man in the sky.
God is a conscious force/spirit/energy

 

[The Kilted Heathen]

You are evidence for a God.

That's very, very broad. And does not give evidence for a specific god - Yahweh/Allah - as requested.

As I saw you mention him earlier (and yes, there are still people who worship him), Zeus has evidence in the lightning. Thor's name literally means "thunderer". No scripture is needed to know those.

 

[ratiocinator]

No hand waving. That what I'm saying sounds challenging to you, that doesn't mean it's vague.

It doesn't sound at all challenging. It just looks rather obvious that you've taken some subjective experiences and states of mind, that you might well find very satisfying, and are trying to make them into something far more profound than they actually are. But if it makes you happy, I guess that's fine...

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

I see asking for evidence as a call for proofs

Evidence is that which makes a given proposition more or less likely to be the case. Proof is enough evidence to rule and idea in as fact or rule it out as false (disproof). Suppose that Bob, Jim, and Jack are the only people that could have committed a certain crime. When we get evidence that it couldn't have been Jack (a solid alibi), that evidence makes it more likely that Bob, for example, is guilty, but it also serves as disproof of the idea that Jack did it. When we get evidence that it couldn't have been Bob, then we have proof that it was Bob and proof that it wasn't Jim.

that question, "where's the evidence" means they view God as a creature of mysterious legend, needing to be proved like the rest of the Yetis and Loch Ness monsters "out there".

When a skeptic asks for evidence, it should be understood as a rhetorical question, which is actually a statement, in this case, that the atheist requires evidence to believe and has none or not enough, which is why I never ask believers for evidence of their god. The skeptic understands that the believer has none, and will cite as evidence that which is not evidence of a god, such as the existence of the universe, or scripture, or an argument for God that has already been successfully refuted. Rather than having to explain again why what is offered as evidence for a god is not that, he would be better advised simply to say that he doesn't have enough evidence to believe rather than ask for any.

The Abrahamic God is the only one with the evidence, even if people don't want to see it as evidence.

The god of the Christian Bible has already been ruled out by the evidence supporting the theory of evolution, which proves that either life evolved over deep time, or that some superhuman strength and intelligence went to great effort to make it appear that way. All other possibilities are ruled out by that evidence, including the possibility of a god that wants to be known, understood, believed, loved, obeyed, and worshiped.

Maybe you'd like to be the first believer to comment on that argument, which is basically that even if the theory were falsified, the only alternative explanation for the evidence that supported the theory before it was shown to be false doesn't allow for a god like the one described in the Christian Bible. I've pointed this out to at least a dozen other believers, and they all just pretend like they didn't read it. Maybe you can be the first to actually say that you find the argument sound, or if not, rebut it with more than a mere dismissal or an unsupported opinion.

 

[Brian2]

Can you name a few?
You can call anything that justifies your belief as evidence, but

Seeing people as blind to your discover puts a barrier between those who really want to know and those who knows.

I can't imagine learning about god if interested if you come from the perspective people are blind.

I can call anything evidence that justifies my belief, true, and I probably do.
I can't help but come from the perspective that people are blind since the Bible tells me that people have been blinded to the truth.
I don't go around declaring this to everyone from the roof tops but I'm not a good sales person and all I can do is leave it up to God to lead people in the right direction if they want to go that way, and try not to get in the way.