How to explain existence of God from reality

[+DieChecker]

If everything we think and feel is part of reality, then God does exist. Because if something exists in even the imaginings of a single individual, then it exists.

Whether that means God can do miraculous things, and created the universe we all share, is another subject.

[I'mConvinced]

14 hours ago, oslove said:

 So, I start with the thought that:

1. The default status of things in the totality of reality is existence.

So the default state of existence is existence.  Gotcha.

Then:

2. Existence is either from oneself or from another.

No.  The possibilities are that existence is either from another or from random particle interactions in a system or from random interactions in an external system.  If existence was from yourself then there would be no testable objective reality that could have existed prior to us.

3. Existence is in the mind of man and/also outside the mind of man and independent of the mind of man.

You just said existence exists again - well I guess so but what point are you making? 

 I think the three statements above are evident from an honest comprehension of their import.

Logically, no.  I think they are designed to fit your worldview.

 Let me start with No. 1, The default status of things in the totality of reality is existence.

 That means that we need not even bring up why there is something instead of nothing, for such a question is not at all of any relevancy, since when we start with nothing-ness literally nothing-ness, then we have already to evaporate into nothing-ness, in re the purpose of everything in regard to reality: no more thread here and also no more the website of Unexplained Mysteries...

There is no logical connection between the above statement and your 3 points.

At this point, what do you dear colleagues here say about my thinking in this thread?

I think it is based on presumption & confirmation bias and doesn't hang together in a logical sense.

You are also welcome to take this thread as on  the philosophy of paranormal investigation.

We could but it wouldn't help anything.

 

[I'mConvinced]

2 hours ago, DieChecker said:

If everything we think and feel is part of reality, then God does exist. Because if something exists in even the imaginings of a single individual, then it exists.

Whether that means God can do miraculous things, and created the universe we all share, is another subject.

So I was right.  We live in a never ending computer simulation in which the computer is running infinite simulations in order to discover what killed its creator.  

[+ouija ouija]

8 hours ago, NightScreams said:

This thread is a migraine in the making. I'm just gonna drop off this bottle of Excedrin for everyone that wants to involve themselves with this topic...you will need it.

Okay, I'll be the first one to admit defeat. I already need these ^ ^ 

[+and-then]

16 hours ago, Adampadum123 said:

I want to believe in a creator but how can any half intelligent person   Actually think that there is a god with the world we live in 

A belated welcome to UM, Adampadum123. Hope you enjoy your time here.

Could you please explain a little more what you mean here in the bolded?  I think I understand but I'd rather be sure before I answer.

[+and-then]

11 hours ago, Hammerclaw said:

I rather enjoy reading how others navigate through life, whether they hug the shoreline, run before the wind or if they tack against it, out of sight of land, seeking new horizons. Everyone sets their own course, finds their own way, some for known destinations, others for one's beyond my ken. I delight in the novelty of their own unique invention, different from all others, as they sail into harbor at sunset, their way lit by the lights of golden cities far.

I've always been a starry-eyed dreamer, thirsting for obscure knowledge, yearning for the fantastic, for vicarious adventure. In my head and at my fingertips are thousands of books I've read over the course of my life as I've indulged my penchant in the creative works of favorite authors. My desire to do so has abated, as technology has given me new resources for my pastime. Still, the books one reads leave lasting impressions and the Good Book, for all it's flaws and contradictions, the strongest impression of all.

o oNne can persuade another to believe in God. Suspension of disbelief is difficult, at best for some, impossible for others. The old adage, " You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink." sums up the conundrum, best. One may think one has the best proof of God's existence to show and persuade, and then to find your answers lead only to more questions for which there are no easy answers. People who have been surrounded and saturated by religion for most of their lives but have not partaken of it, are the biggest challenge of all. They've already been down that road and yet have chosen another.

4

I really like this answer.  It sums the whole question fairly and objectively and I agree completely.  The bolded, especially, gets to the heart of belief/nonbelief.

[oslove]

14 hours ago, Wes4747 said:

 

 

14 hours ago, Wes4747 said:

Dear Wes4747, you ask: "Lets start with 1. The default status of things is existance? Including ideas?"

-------------------------------------------------

 

 Please read my No. 3 statement, below in Annex..

Ideas exist in our mind, and we can and should go forth into the world outside and independent of our mind, to search for any entities at all that correspond to the ideas in our mind.

If you have no ideas in your mind, then it is pointless for you to talk about them.

First therefore is to have ideas in your mind.

Here, think about this idea in your mind by using your mind, okay?

God in concept i.e. as an idea is first and foremost the creator cause of everything with a beginning.

With that idea in your mind you go forth into the world outside and independent of your mind to search for all instances of things with a beginning, like for examples: humans, the moon in the sky and also the sun, roses and babies, etc., in fact everything that makes up your environment: they are all with a beginning, including the universe itself.

 

Wherefore they are all evidence of the existence of God in concept or idea in your mind as first and foremost the creator cause of everything with a beginning.

 

Please understand this most fundamental methodology of productive thinking and discovering and/or inventing:

First formulate in your mind the idea, then search for the entity that corresponds to it, or evidence leading you to it; if you can't find the entity corresponding to the idea in your mind, then see if you can just invent it.

 

In the case of the idea of God as first and foremost the creator cause of everything with a beginning, no need to search far and wide, start with the nose in our face, you can already conclude:

"My nose exists, it has a beginning, therefore God exists!

 

Annex

 1. The default status of things in the totality of reality is existence.

Then:

2. Existence is either from oneself or from another.

3. Existence is in the mind of man and/or outside the mind of man and independent of the mind of man.

They are the methods for mankind to come to the existence of God, in concept as first and foremost the creator cause of everything with a beginning.

 

[oslove]

9 hours ago, DieChecker said:

If everything we think and feel is part of reality, then God does exist. Because if something exists in even the imaginings of a single individual, then it exists. [ It does not follow! ]

Whether that means God can do miraculous things, and created the universe we all share, is another subject. [ That depends upon your concept of God. ]

1. Think of this concept of God, God in concept is first and foremost the creator cause of everything with a beginning,

2. then you find God in the world outside and independent of your mind,

3. from evidence of everything outside your mind has a beginning, including the universe itself,

4. wherefore conclusion: God exists in concept as first and foremost he creator cause of everything with a beginning.

See that? Or you want to produce objections? Please go ahead, but first think of the three statements from me, below:

Annex

 1. The default status of things in the totality of reality is existence.

Then:

2. Existence is either from oneself or from another.

3. Existence is in the mind of man and/or outside the mind of man and independent of the mind of man.

They are the methods for mankind to come to the existence of God, in concept as first and foremost the creator cause of everything with a beginning.

 

[oslove]

7 hours ago, I'mConvinced said:

[ Not reproduced by forum system.]

 

[...]

2. Existence is either from oneself or from another. [From Oslove]

No.  The possibilities are that existence is either from another or from random particle interactions in a system or from random interactions in an external system. [From I'mConvinced]

[...]

_____________________

 

Please present an example of a system that is produced by randomness.

 

[oslove]

Dear I'mConvinced:

In re randomness, please first have your idea inside your mind of what is randomness, then you go forth into the world outside and independent of your mind, to search for an example of randomness as per the concept in your mind of randomness.

There, now bring forth your randomness example when you have found it.

I am waiting to read about your example of randomness in the world outside and independent of your mind, but corresponding to the concept from you in your mind of what is randomness.

So:

1. Think up in your mind with your mind of your concept of randomness.

2. Look up an example of your concept in the world outside and independent of your mind.

3. Present your example here in this thread in this forum in this website of Unexplained Mysteries.

[Wes4747]

Ok then. Carry on.

[oslove]

Dear readers here, I am so glad that we are having a profitable exchange of thoughts in this here thread on "How to explain existence of God from reality."

Thanks to the goodness of the founder and owner and operator of this website, Unexplained Mysteries.

[+DieChecker]

15 hours ago, oslove said:

1. Think of this concept of God, God in concept is first and foremost the creator cause of everything with a beginning,

True. In the concept of the Abrahamic God. God is foremost the Creator.

Quote

2. then you find God in the world outside and independent of your mind,

True again. To me, at least, God is everywhere, in every breeze, bird tweet, and speck of dust floating by. In the galaxies, in the quarks, in everything in between.

Quote

3. from evidence of everything outside your mind has a beginning, including the universe itself,

I agree. To those who are believers, this is obvious. But, to those who do not believe, they will disagree.

That is why I worded my answer the way I did. It is near impossible to argue that God doesn't exist, if you define existence as merely being something imagined.

Quote

4. wherefore conclusion: God exists in concept as first and foremost he creator cause of everything with a beginning.

That conclusion is only true to believers. To non believers your argument produces no clear evidence, regardless of logic, and so they will not agree.

Quote

See that? Or you want to produce objections? Please go ahead, but first think of the three statements from me, below:

Annex

 1. The default status of things in the totality of reality is existence.

Then:

2. Existence is either from oneself or from another.

3. Existence is in the mind of man and/or outside the mind of man and independent of the mind of man.

They are the methods for mankind to come to the existence of God, in concept as first and foremost the creator cause of everything with a beginning.

I tend to not agree with "Existence in in the individual's mind.", because that places Reality into the same category as, say, a video game. And humans are notorious for being completely immoral in video games, because, "It is only a game". If reality is all in your mind, then logically your personal morality is the only morality that matters.

 

[Nostrodumbass]

On 9/16/2017 at 3:18 AM, oslove said:

And write again after thinking with your mind, okay?

 

Even after thinking with my mind I still don't get it!

[oslove]

8 hours ago, DieChecker said:

8 hours ago, DieChecker said:

 

[...]

From DieChecker:

I tend to not agree with "Existence in in the individual's mind.", because that places Reality into the same category as, say, a video game. And humans are notorious for being completely immoral in video games, because, "It is only a game". If reality is all in your mind, then logically your personal morality is the only morality that matters.

 

 

Please read No. 3 statement, do you notice that I say:

"Existence is in the mind of man and/or outside the mind of man and independent of the mind of man."

I want to make the distinction between a thought in our mind which can just be in our mind without any connection with anything outside and independent of our mind, for example, the thought of a square circle.

Now, when the thought in our mind does have a corresponding object in the world outside and independent of our mind, then it is in our mind as concept, and also outside and independent of our mind, as an object.

 

The importance of this distinction is that a lot of people have the wrong thinking that just because they have an idea in their mind, it is therefore to be taken as seriously existing also in the world outside and independent of our mind.

Take for example, Bertrand Russell compares God to an orbiting teapot in space, and therefore he feels that God is ridiculous, wherefore mankind should not take God seriously.

 

Russell was an intelligent person, he should not have gone in that direction, but he did and a lot of people follow him in that direction, with having the thought of the flying spaghetti monster for a God concept, and therefore they these people following Russell feel already so certain that God as object does not exist in the world outside and independent of our mind.

Now, the question to ask is: Why did Russell for all is sharp intelligence engage in that kind of wrong thinking?

Here is where psychologists have to step in to figure out what is his motivation in taking up with wrong thinking.

 

Annex

 1. The default status of things in the totality of reality is existence.

Then:

2. Existence is either from oneself or from another.

3. Existence is in the mind of man and/or outside the mind of man and independent of the mind of man.

They are the methods for mankind to come to the existence of God, in concept as first and foremost the creator cause of everything with a beginning.

 

[ Dear readers here, is there in this website some pages where I can read on the formatting codes and how to use them, to write a message for posting in the forum here? ]

 

[oslove]

On 9/16/2017 at 7:26 PM, ouija ouija said:

Okay, I'll be the first one to admit defeat. I already need these ^ ^ 

[ My reaction is below outside the quote box. ]

Dear Ouija, I understand you are a Buddhist [from your Namaste greeting], so I assume you ascribe to the idea that there is no self, and you have come to that kind of an idea in your mind, from meditation by which Buddhists endeavor to arrive at enlightenment.

And atheists do take up with Buddhism because Buddhism according to them the atheists who do take up with Buddhism, the Buddha is against any gods.

That is not true of course, for in Buddhism of the very kind advocated by the Buddha himself, The Enlightened One, there are plenty of gods, and Buddhists should do good deeds in order to become members among the gods, when they get to one reincarnation in which they are entitled to be gods.

Now, what I notice is that you have not reacted to my thought that concepts in the mind when they have no corresponding objects in the world outside and independent of our mind, they should not be taken seriously, of which more can be discussed among thinkers here.

Now, tell me do you as a Buddhist take it seriously that there is no self, and thereby also you go about life with this thought and are guided by this thought, that there is no self?

I await your contribution on how you live your life in the world outside and independent of your mind.

 

[+ouija ouija]

@ oslove: it's too late in the evening for me to be bright enough to reply, but I promise I will tomorrow. But I will just say this, I am not a Buddhist!

[+ouija ouija]

Hello again, oslove. I am not a Buddhist but I am sympathetic to some of the teachings. I like the Namaste acknowledgement that we are each, at one and the same time, individual souls with the same Great Spirit infusing each and every one of us.

Now I'm going to work my way through this thread from the beginning, addressing points as I come to them.

Your idea number 2, 'Existence is either from oneself or another', prompts me to say that it is my experience that in most situations there are more than two choices!

You still haven't told us what you mean by 'God'. Are you talking about the God of the Bible or something else entirely? Please answer because it affects the understanding of your 3 ideas and the conclusion you make from them. You mention an entity, which means 'a thing with distinct and independent existence' and that sees to contradict your 3 ideas.

The best way I could describe my understanding of what God/The Creator is, would be to say it is a vast, all-pervading, invisible Spirit 'ether'(in the Archaic sense). It is that-which-we-came-from. This Spirit maintains our existence and so we are at one and the same time, independent individuals and part of our Spirit Creator. I'm not sure that the Creator is anything other than that ....... something that initiated our existence ..... and therefore nothing like the God in the Bible.

When you 'go forth into the world outside and, independent of your mind, seek for evidence pointing to God', what evidence do you find?

In your post #14 you say "In respect of this consciousness, to be existing is to be conscious, so that every moment of consciousness is a phase of existence; when you lose consciousness and never return to consciousness, you have ceased to exist" but how do you reconcile that with your statement: "Existence is in the mind of man and also outside of man and independent of the mind of man?

Further on in post #14, you say of your 3 ideas/statements: "They are the methods for mankind to come to the existence of God, in concept as first and foremost the creator cause of everything with a beginning", so, is that all you want people to understand, or are you then going to move onto the promotion of a religion? I keep coming back to these questions: how do you describe this God of yours, and what is the evidence you have of it/him in our world?

I agree with Wes4747 who said: "Sure, have an idea of a creator. Does nothing to validate the belief".

In your post #32 you say "My nose exists, it has a beginning, therefore God exists!". I'm sorry, but you've lost the plot there. You are being illogical, Captain(as Spock would say).

Because you can imagine in your head a God who performs miracles, and then you attribute everything perceived as a miracle to that idea of God ..... it does not automatically follow that that God exists outside of the imaginings in your head.

Post #33: again, where do you find evidence of God in the world?

 

     

[+ouija ouija]

21 hours ago, oslove said:

Dear Ouija, I understand you are a Buddhist [from your Namaste greeting], so I assume you ascribe to the idea that there is no self, and you have come to that kind of an idea in your mind, from meditation by which Buddhists endeavor to arrive at enlightenment.

As I said, I am not a Buddhist. Currently, I believe the self is transient but Self is eternal. It is a long time since I meditated! 

And atheists do take up with Buddhism because Buddhism according to them the atheists who do take up with Buddhism, the Buddha is against any gods.

I don't believe in gods or God because I see no evidence for them/it/him.

That is not true of course, for in Buddhism of the very kind advocated by the Buddha himself, The Enlightened One, there are plenty of gods, and Buddhists should do good deeds in order to become members among the gods, when they get to one reincarnation in which they are entitled to be gods.

As I said, I'm not a Buddhist.

Now, what I notice is that you have not reacted to my thought that concepts in the mind when they have no corresponding objects in the world outside and independent of our mind, they should not be taken seriously, of which more can be discussed among thinkers here.

I agree with that thought of yours, but you don't seem to believe it yourself! You have yet to come up with any evidence of God in the world and yet you say you believe in the existence of God.

Now, tell me do you as a Buddhist take it seriously that there is no self, and thereby also you go about life with this thought and are guided by this thought, that there is no self?

As I mentioned in my previous post, I believe we are at one and the same time, individual, transient souls and we are all infused with the same Great Spirit.

I await your contribution on how you live your life in the world outside and independent of your mind.

 

 

[oslove]

Dear Ouija and everyone here, please bear with me, even though I registered here in 2008, I had not been always around, and to date I am really not conversant with the formatting usages here.

What I do then is to strive to make my writing readable, by hook or by crook.

Now, dear Ouija, let us exchange thoughts, but one at a time.

I have spent a lot of time trying to make sense of Buddhism.

So, as you to my impression, though not what I might call a card carrying Buddhist, do have knowledge of Buddhism, I really like to talk with you, as to get to know what it is all about.

I spent a lot of time in that forum of Randi the skeptic, but his forum has been I think bought by a new group, which to my impression is into outright commercial interest, what with requiring people to register in order to post, when they have already all the whole database of the James Randi Educational Foundation etc. website: so I say to myself, that is not what I look to in a forum, of course costs are unavoidable but there is no sense in coming out so brass with obvious imposition that smells like subscription fee in order to post messages.

There was a long time poster there who called himself The Resident Buddhist, at first glance I was impressed that the JREF has a resident Buddhist like as though it is a kind of a chaplain in the forum for all matters of Buddhism.

Okay, let's talk about Buddhism, unless you prefer to talk about God in the West.

The thing that I am always wondering about is the meditation idea and practice, which is I understand quite the everlasting trend in religions of the Indian or Hindu tradition, in order to get to enlightenment, by which enlightenment a Buddhist will come to nirvana; what's that nirvana? Something like complete emptiness - correct me though for my ignorance.

By the way, after some two or three years later with The Resident Buddhist in JREF, the poster of concern gave up his self-designation - so I teased him with pointing out that he must have out-lived his Buddhist fervor.

So, what would you like to tell me about what to you is the whole deal with Buddhism, or you prefer that we talk about God, which I must have already mentioned in this thread as in concept, first and foremost the creator cause of everything with a beginning.

Posted Saturday at 08:10 AM · Post #3

Dear Ouija, you see the three statements exist in my mind and they exist in your mind now that you have read them.

Quote

1. The default status of things in the totality of reality is existence.

Then:

2. Existence is either from oneself or from another.

3. Existence is in the mind of man and/also outside the mind of man and independent of the mind of man.

So, when we you and I have the concept of the existence of an entity that is described in concept as first and foremost the creator cause of everything with a beginning, then we can already go forth into the world outside and independent of our mind, to search together for instances of evidence for an entity which corresponds to the concept in our mind, namely, in concept the creator cause of everything with a beginning.

 

[…]

 

[oslove]

It's been more than 24 hours since I last posted a message here addressed in particular to Ouija.

And not Ouija and not anyone either has replied to that post.

So, what is happening to the posters who were quite eloquent with ideas previously?

Anyway, I was thinking that I could have a good talk with Ouija or anyone else who have ideas which they would love to share with me, I guess I have been mistaken.

So, I will return to this thread tomorrow, in the meantime I will go to the thread on shadow people, for I have some ideas I love to share with the posters there.

When you return here, dear Ouija, you can read my concept of God everywhere in Page One, so I am amazed that you missed it altogether as to request me to tell you what is my concept of God.

Just eh same, here it is again:

"In concept God is first and foremost the creator cause of everything with a beginning."

Hope to see you soon, for you seem to be a thinking poster here, with plenty of ideas.

[I'mConvinced]

On 16/09/2017 at 7:38 PM, oslove said:

Dear I'mConvinced:

In re randomness, please first have your idea inside your mind of what is randomness, then you go forth into the world outside and independent of your mind, to search for an example of randomness as per the concept in your mind of randomness.

There, now bring forth your randomness example when you have found it.

I am waiting to read about your example of randomness in the world outside and independent of your mind, but corresponding to the concept from you in your mind of what is randomness.

So:

1. Think up in your mind with your mind of your concept of randomness.

2. Look up an example of your concept in the world outside and independent of your mind.

3. Present your example here in this thread in this forum in this website of Unexplained Mysteries.

The definition of randomness is this:

"the quality or state of lacking a pattern or principle of organization; unpredictability"

1. My concept of randomness is any action which is not guided by intelligence.  I appreciate this is not the definition.

2. It's pointless looking up examples as we cannot know if something we perceive as random is governed by intelligence or not. 

3. As we cannot prove or disprove randomness what would you like me to provide you? 

I feel you have a different question that you want to ask.  As I've said many times though, I don't claim to know the 'why' of anything, just the 'how' of somethings.

[I'mConvinced]

16 hours ago, oslove said:

It's been more than 24 hours since I last posted a message here addressed in particular to Ouija.

And not Ouija and not anyone either has replied to that post.

Sometimes people miss things, misunderstand things or forget to reply - don't take it personally.

16 hours ago, oslove said:

Anyway, I was thinking that I could have a good talk with Ouija or anyone else who have ideas which they would love to share with me, I guess I have been mistaken.

I'm not Ouija obviously but I'm happy to discuss whatever.

16 hours ago, oslove said:

In concept God is first and foremost the creator cause of everything with a beginning.

This doesn't really open a discussion unfortunately.  This is an un-testable statement of belief - for example I could say:

In concept god was created by another god who was created in turn by another god.  This is the endless cycle of everything infinite.

This can neither be proven true nor false from our perspective, no matter ones personal experience.

[Wes4747]

On 9/16/2017 at 2:25 PM, oslove said:

 

A system of randomness. The track of human technological, sociological and philosophical evolution in the past 100 years. Proof of its randomness can be found in the varied cultures around the world and the trillion possibilitys of what the world could have evolved into today.

 

[Wes4747]

I think you might be playing on the first cause theory and assuming it had to be a creator god. Inherently improvable wide held theory.

As ouija said, your logic is making leaps(paraphrased) and there are more than just two options.