occams.rzr
Razerian-barbologist
So you define "god" not as a deity, but as a "living" mind?
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Proof for the existence of the Abrahamic god?
Altfish
Veteran Member
But if the thread starter had given the same restrictions to most historical people you could still make a very good case for their existence.
e.g. Caesar, Pythagoras, Archimedes, etc.
Unveiled Artist
Veteran Member
Pantheism and atheism doesnt relate, though?
Atheist dont believe in deities.
Pantheism isnt deity oriented
Other than the word "god", how would that be a form of atheism?
Got me curious now.
Last edited:
Guy Threepwood
Mighty Pirate
Well under that definition I have proof of God yes- but I prefer to acknowledge my beliefs as such, as faith, don't you?
Ouroboros
Coincidentia oppositorum
Most of the historical people are known only through second hand accounts, like scribes and historians writing about them. So really, what we have a personal reflections and impressions that we have to support the existence of historical people, and to follow the OP, we should only stick to scientific evidence. A few historical characters have statues, their own writings, or images on coins, so we kind'a have more tangible evidence, but most of the history is through the eyes of other people and their testimonies.
allfoak
Alchemist
Yes.
Unveiled Artist
Veteran Member
So, basically a lot of us believe in god we just define him differently: experience; intelligence; living mind; deity?
allfoak
Alchemist
i would think any definition of God must be all inclusive.
Unveiled Artist
Veteran Member
True. Which puts a damper when we are asked to proove gods existence.
allfoak
Alchemist
Exactly!
This is the reason that so many struggle with the whole God thing.
The search for god is the search for self.
The search for self ultimately leads to a more substantial knowledge or what is called Gnosis, a knowledge of experience.
Gnosis is something that is learned through experience.
When you have gnosis of something it means the knowledge that you have is a part of you, or you could say has become part of who you are.
This is a much more substantial knowledge than one could derive from a book.
Yet, we can prove none of it to anyone.
All we can do is tell people to do what we do and you will know what we know.
Last edited:
Unveiled Artist
Veteran Member
That sounds like you making it complicated. God is life; so, when you learn about yourself, others, and whatever you choose to believe, you understand that in itself is god.
allfoak
Alchemist
Maybe you are right.
But I understand me just fine.
What you said and what i said are the same thing.
Proof for the existence of the Abrahamic god?
Using the 'Proof' word is a little over-the-top I think. And in the end, I don't think the choices of 'exists' or 'doesn't exist' do the subject justice. The Abrahamic God concept evolves as human society evolves, as there is no perfect understanding possible. I personally find the eastern-Indian schools of thought have reached a higher level of understanding than the western world on spiritual matters.
.
Using the 'Proof' word is a little over-the-top I think. And in the end, I don't think the choices of 'exists' or 'doesn't exist' do the subject justice. The Abrahamic God concept evolves as human society evolves, as there is no perfect understanding possible. I personally find the eastern-Indian schools of thought have reached a higher level of understanding than the western world on spiritual matters.
.
occams.rzr
Razerian-barbologist
No, my beliefs are based on evidence.
occams.rzr
Razerian-barbologist
It is "atheism" because it does not believe in a personal god. Pantheism is the belief that "god" is this universe. It is all that there is and all that there ever will be. It is like saying science is "god" because it is truth.
Twilight Hue
Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
Inconsistencies, poor working knowledge, contradiction, allegory found throughout scriptures. The entirety of the Abrahamic God remains strictly internalized making it a mental scenario through and through with an extremely poor basis with real world history.
There is absolutely no proof whatsoever found in any actual real life environment, then or now, that shows any evidence or proof supporting any independent existance of the Abrahamic god as ever even been there or interacted at any time in Earths actual history.
There is absolutely no proof whatsoever found in any actual real life environment, then or now, that shows any evidence or proof supporting any independent existance of the Abrahamic god as ever even been there or interacted at any time in Earths actual history.
Yes, because the nature of that god-concept means it cannot be assessed using scientific methods. The way the classical monotheists describe their god, it is not some physical thing or object that can be measured and categorized. You can't hold a meter stick to it and say "God is this big," you can't put it on a scale and say "God is this many kilograms," and you can't stick a voltmeter in its body and say "God has this much energy." The classical monotheist god, as defined by them, is fundamentally greater than all of this to the point it transcends any such efforts to categorize it. The moment you can take a meter stick to it, it stops being God at all, to them.
I've often felt that the classical monotheist understanding of god is perhaps deliberately obtuse given its ineffable nature; to use an analogy, it's like an abstract painting rather than a technical drawing. I'm not a fan of abstract art, and I'm not a fan of classical monotheism, but I understand enough of it to know you're asking for something that cannot be done because of what that god-concept is by nature. Hence, I don't understand the point of this thread. It seems a lot more useful to me to say "hey, for those of you who honor the one-god, could you tell me about your experiences with that? I'm interested in learning and understanding your perspective and how you came to your beliefs."
If you're obsessed with some narrow vision of what "proof" and "evidence" is, classical monotheism is not going to work for you. Let it be and move on with your own path, while leaving others to theirs.
Guy Threepwood
Mighty Pirate
so we're back to subjectivity, what do you consider as evidence for your beliefs?
Really? Because for thousands of years after Aristotle it was assumed that gravity was impossible, Newton himself hated the idea and resigned himself to this magical, nonlocal force only because he couldn't do otherwise, and Einstein showed it doesn't exist (general relativity). Gravitation in the "science" you don't need to show it exists doesn't hold it does exist. In quantum physics (apart from quantum mechanics, i.e., quantum electrodynamics, quantum chromodynamics, particle physics, etc.) what would be explained by gravity is in fact a particle field (gravitons), while in general relativity gravity is neither a particle nor a force but spacetime curvature. What you "know" exists is simply an observation about how things fall on Earth that you have labelled gravity thanks to an education based on an outdated mechanics taught for its relative accuracy and comparative simplicity, not truth.
We don't prove things in the sciences (apart from the computational component, but even here proofs are not actual proofs as they depend upon assumptions, such as Bell's inequality, Rosen's proof that living systems can't be computable, Penrose's proof that consciousness can't be computable, etc.). Actually, proofs of god abound- they just depend on assumptions and faith in strict logic that most people (myself including) find unconvincing. What is lacking is the standards of empirical evidence one normally finds in most sciences. When certain scientific fields stray far from this standard, such as with multiverse theories or string theories, we actually find scientists equating such theories with religion:
"To the hard-line physicist, the multiverse may not be entirely respectable, but it is at least preferable to invoking a Creator. Indeed anthropically inclined physicists like Susskind and Weinberg are attracted to the multiverse precisely because it seems to dispense with God as the explanation of cosmic design"
Ok, so maybe there's a bit of bias, but at least scientists have testable, empirically based theories and would never believe in something just because it "feels" right or for any other religious-like reasons...oh wait...
"Despite the growing popularity of the multiverse proposal, it must be admitted that many physicists remain deeply uncomfortable with it. The reason is clear: the idea is highly speculative and, from both a cosmological and a particle physics perspective, the reality of a multiverse is currently untestable...For these reasons, some physicists do not regard these ideas as coming under the purvey of science at all. Since our confidence in them is based on faith and aesthetic considerations (for example mathematical beauty) rather than experimental data, they regard them as having more in common with religion than science."
(both quotes are taken from Carr's introductory paper in the volume:
Carr, B. (Ed.). (2007). Universe or multiverse?. Cambridge University Press.)