Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
oslove

How to explain existence of God from reality

390 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

StarMountainKid

"Reality is invisible and cannot be perceived by the conscious mind." - Ch'an Buddhist quote. The conscious mind creates its own internal reality, an illusion, which is not Reality at all, only concepts created in the conscious mind. Reality is not a concept in the mind. Zen no-mind, or non-conceptual mind, may be as close as we can get to the experience of Reality. If we relate this non-conceptional-mind as Reality to God, then what is this God? 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Will Do
6 minutes ago, StarMountainKid said:

"Reality is invisible and cannot be perceived by the conscious mind." - Ch'an Buddhist quote. The conscious mind creates its own internal reality, an illusion, which is not Reality at all, only concepts created in the conscious mind. Reality is not a concept in the mind. Zen no-mind, or non-conceptual mind, may be as close as we can get to the experience of Reality. If we relate this non-conceptional-mind as Reality to God, then what is this God? 

The God that's really real.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'mConvinced
1 hour ago, Will Due said:

The God that's really real.

 

Oh really.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Will Do
12 minutes ago, I'mConvinced said:

 

Oh really.

Swear to God.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ouija ouija
22 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.

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.

Firstly, you are forgetting that people have a life outside of this forum! Just because you want people to be here to talk to you at a specific time doesn't mean that others are available then. Secondly, I'm at a loss to reply further to you. You have made your statement and that seems to be it(as I'mConvinced says below). Plus, you seem to want control over the conversation ..... you don't answer poster's questions to you. I don't want to discuss Buddhism because I know so little about it ..... I have forgotten most of what I knew.   

6 hours ago, I'mConvinced said:

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.

^ ^ this.

I hope you find people to talk to, when you want to talk to them, but in this instance I can't be one of them.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'mConvinced
1 hour ago, Will Due said:

Swear to God.

God doesn't like swearing.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Will Do
6 minutes ago, I'mConvinced said:

God doesn't like swearing.

So you know him after all.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'mConvinced
1 minute ago, Will Due said:

So you know him after all.

I've heard stories.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
oslove
9 hours ago, I'mConvinced said:

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.

Dear I'mConvinced, you say:

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

When you cannot know if something you perceive etc., then why do you at all talk about systems coming from randomness, suppose you just keep to things that do not come from randomness, but are from the intention and execution of entities like us humans?

Where am I going with my questions to you?

My point is that humans have a lot of ideas inside their mind, but they are useless unless for fiction amusement only, since they have no examples at all outside their mind.

So, ideas in their mind get all mixed up by themselves and by others, as to talk about them as though they really exist outside and independent of their mind.

That is not conducive at all toward the contact we have with what I call the default status of things in the totality of reality which is existence, i.e. outside and independent of our mind.

This thread from yours truly is about How to explain existence of God from reality, i.e. the reality that is outside and independent of our mind.

And it is impossible to get to talk with atheists because they keep on and on and on with bringing into the conversation all kinds of ideas no matter how absurd from their mind.

Like system produced by randomness.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
XenoFish
20 minutes ago, oslove said:

And it is impossible to get to talk with atheists because they keep on and on and on with bringing into the conversation all kinds of ideas no matter how absurd from their mind.

So? You only want to see things your way?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
oslove

Dear colleagues here, so: let us talk about how things in our mind but we have no examples of them at all in the world outside and independent of our mind, what is the purpose we or you are pursuing with talking about them as if they exist in the world outside and independent of our mind.

With Buddhists, they have got a lot of ideas inside their mind, like the no self, which they got into their mind with meditation.

I ask the Buddhists here, do you have an example of a person like your papa and your mama and your babies, which have no self?

You will ask me, what about my concept of God, in concept as first and foremost the creator cause of everything with a beginning?

You see, that thought in my mind has two subjects: God and everything with a beginning.

Everything with a beginning, that is not something that is exclusively only inside our mind, but it is everything in the world outside our mind and independent of our mind.

You don't accept that? Well, then present to me something in the world outside your mind that is without a beginning to its existence.

Now, the logic to the existence of God in concept as first and foremost the creator cause of everything with a beginning is the following:

From the existence of things in the world outside and independent of our mind, we have in them the evidence leading us to the knowledge of the reality of God: for how could things with a beginning come to existence, unless and except with being brought into existence by an entity who is the cause of everything with a beginning?

Let us all think about:

1. The no self in Buddhism, how is there something in the world outside and independent of our mind that is a no self: even things which are not humans and not living things, they also have their 'self', like for example, a sub-atomic particle is also a self, witness to that is that we can and do talk about the Higgs Boson particle it-SELF has been shown through the Large Hadron Collider to exist.

2. The self or existence of God in concept as first and foremost the creator cause of everything with a beginning, it is proven to exist by way of EVIDENCE with all things outside our mind and independent of our mind that have a beginning to their existence.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
oslove
5 minutes ago, XenoFish said:

So? You only want to see things your way?

Let us see things in accordance with truths, facts, logic, and the best thoughts of mankind from since the dawn of man's conscious intelligence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'mConvinced
44 minutes ago, oslove said:

That is not conducive at all toward the contact we have with what I call the default status of things in the totality of reality which is existence, i.e. outside and independent of our mind

Only the way you see it. It's a perfectly viable option if you ask me.

20 minutes ago, oslove said:

You will ask me, what about my concept of God, in concept as first and foremost the creator cause of everything with a beginning?

I won't.

18 minutes ago, oslove said:

Let us see things in accordance with truths, facts, logic, and the best thoughts of mankind from since the dawn of man's conscious intelligence.

I'm not sure our ape-like ancestor would agree.

57 minutes ago, oslove said:

it is impossible to get to talk with atheists because they keep on and on and on with bringing into the conversation all kinds of ideas no matter how absurd from their mind

Don't you just hate that? People coming in here, a public facing forum, and bringing conversation about new ideas! It's an outrage. If it's not written you ain't smitten, right? 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'mConvinced
40 minutes ago, oslove said:

Well, then present to me something in the world outside your mind

Weird, I thought a very similar thing as I read your posts. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
XenoFish

So is the question are maybe answer is that since we exist god has to exist? Sorry but I'm done with theological debates, they never go anywhere. If this is more geared towards spirituality/religion isn't this is the wrong forum section?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
oslove

Thanks a lot to all you posters here, appreciate it.

Suppose let's proceed this way, of course you all can also suggest how you would want us all to proceed.

The thread is entitled, "How to explain existence of God from reality."

There are eight ( 8 ) words in that phrase of the thread's title, namely:

1 How

2 to

3 explain

4 existence

5 of

6 God

7 from

8 reality

There are three nouns: existence, God, reality.

There is one verb, explain.

Here is my request to us all, namely, choose one word, just one word of the four words: existence, God, reality, explain, which we want to talk about as to concur among ourselves on something about the word chosen by us to talk about, again, as to concur on what it means to us.

From my part, I choose the word God, because I have certainty that He exists, and I like to know whether others are also certain that He exists, or not certain, or are against any discussion altogether with God existing or not, just no talk - period.

So, what do you dear colleagues here, think about my approach to this thread?

Or you want to propose another way of going about the thread?

Here is again my proposal:

1. Read the four words: existence, God, reality, explain.

2. Ask yourselves, Do I know these four words?

3. If yes, then proceed to next number; if you do not know at least one of the four words, then you can dispense yourselves from contributing your thoughts in this thread for the time being, for you will learn what is the meaning of the one word or two or three or all four words, then come back, to continue with No. 4 item.

4. Now that you know all four words: existence, God, reality, explain, choose just one word, any one word, you care to for us talk about as to reach concurrence on something about it.

I have gone through No. 1 to No. 4, and I have chosen to talk with anyone here who has also chosen the same word I have chosen, and the word I have chosen is God.

There, I hope we can get some system adopted so that we will get to some productive talk going on, and arrive at some concurrence on something about the word we have chosen to talk about.

That means that by simple arithmetic there might be just two left, namely, I and another poster who chooses to talk about God; or I am left all alone to talk to readers about God, how to explain from my part to them that God exists by investigating reality.

As I proceed all alone by myself, perhaps a reader or two will join me because they realize that they also want to talk about God, and how we can explain that He exists by investigating reality.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ouija ouija

You refer to God as 'he'. Is that what you believe, that God is male? How would that happen?

Edited by ouija ouija
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
third_eye

Cuz the Marys says so ...

~

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'mConvinced
6 hours ago, oslove said:

I have gone through No. 1 to No. 4, and I have chosen to talk with anyone here who has also chosen the same word I have chosen, and the word I have chosen is God

Let me make a suggestion for next time.  In your OP state the following:

I don't wan't to talk to anyone who doesn't believe in my god.  If you believe in my god then please discuss X specific point.  My god is X god so if you believe in a different one please leave also.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
oslove
4 hours ago, ouija ouija said:

You refer to God as 'he'. Is that what you believe, that God is male? How would that happen?

Dear Ouija, you have chosen to talk about God whether he is male. I submit that it is a non-essential item among serious thinkers, because serious thinkers don't bother when the issue is God in his core essence, not whether He is male or whatever, as with us biological entities.

They go right away to the concept of God, by which concept mankind at least a good portion of mankind take Him to be relevant to themselves as to think about whether He exists at all.

Now, in my case and also I am sure there are a good portion of mankind like myself, we go into the concept that God is first and foremost the creator cause of everything with a beginning.

So, dear Ouija, at least try to read about God in the West, are you from the West and in the West, or you are from the Far East, the home of the Buddha?

And in my case I keep to truths, facts, logic, and the best thoughts of mankind from since the dawn of man's conscious intelligence, and all that on our common possession of intelligence, not on any kind of revelation from God.

You see, dear Ouija, I bring up Buddhism because for atheists in the West they think that the Buddha does not know about any God existing, in concept as first and foremost the creator cause of everything with a beginning, and wherefore they have a good ground to not think about whether God exists or not, because according to them, with the authority of the Buddha, he Buddha to them, God does not exist.

Perhaps we should not anymore deal with Buddhism at all, because the intellectual tradition of Buddhists is what I call non-empirical-rational, Buddhism is all founded on meditation by which meditation Buddhists come to instances piecemeal way up to the final complete enlightenment, at which point they have come to complete self-annihilation, wherefore no more suffering.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
StarMountainKid
19 hours ago, oslove said:

Let us all think about:

1. The no self in Buddhism, how is there something in the world outside and independent of our mind that is a no self: even things which are not humans and not living things, they also have their 'self', like for example, a sub-atomic particle is also a self, witness to that is that we can and do talk about the Higgs Boson particle it-SELF has been shown through the Large Hadron Collider to exist.

2. The self or existence of God in concept as first and foremost the creator cause of everything with a beginning, it is proven to exist by way of EVIDENCE with all things outside our mind and independent of our mind that have a beginning to their existence.

 

I think we may consider sub-atomic particles as behavior only, not 'things' that behave. What would be the 'thing' that behaves?  In other words, they have no 'self', they are just events, only behavior with nothing behaving.. 

Things outside our mind and independent of our mind that have a beginning to their existence, the creator cause of everything with a beginning... as you say above. Maybe there is no beginning of existence, only changes of events. The existence of God then would be behavior without some entity behaving. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Liquid Gardens
On 9/20/2017 at 11:53 AM, StarMountainKid said:

"Reality is invisible and cannot be perceived by the conscious mind." - Ch'an Buddhist quote. The conscious mind creates its own internal reality, an illusion, which is not Reality at all, only concepts created in the conscious mind. 

Actually I've found that people discover pretty quickly how real reality actually is when they have cancer or some other nasty disease.

Quote

Reality is not a concept in the mind.

It is in mine.

Quote

 Zen no-mind, or non-conceptual mind, may be as close as we can get to the experience of Reality. If we relate this non-conceptional-mind as Reality to God, then what is this God? 

I'm not sure what 'no-mind' and 'non-conceptual mind' specifically mean to you.  If it's literally 'no mind' then I'm not sure why we're bothering to ask questions and use language at all, that requires a mind.  Same thing with non-conceptual mind; if 'reality is not a concept of the mind', then I'm not sure why there would then be a question about relating reality to God since those two words don't mean anything without concepts behind them.  I'm not a Buddhist though, so I may be making the mistake of taking these terms too literally.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Wes4747
On 9/20/2017 at 11:53 AM, StarMountainKid said:

"Reality is invisible and cannot be perceived by the conscious mind." - Ch'an Buddhist quote. The conscious mind creates its own internal reality, an illusion, which is not Reality at all, only concepts created in the conscious mind. Reality is not a concept in the mind. Zen no-mind, or non-conceptual mind, may be as close as we can get to the experience of Reality. If we relate this non-conceptional-mind as Reality to God, then what is this God? 

Welcome back

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guyver
On 9/15/2017 at 1:17 PM, oslove said:

 

 

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

I have no problem with it.....except your OP doesn't touch the title.  Basically, what you've said is that reality is existence.  This is self-apparent.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guyver
On 9/15/2017 at 5:10 PM, oslove said:

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.

So, in other words, because we have an idea that God may exist, we have the ability to search for evidence of his existence in the physical world. 

Well, yes.  This is true.   I mean, this is rather intuitively known.  I guess you're building a point slowly and I should just read the entire thread before responding.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.