If There Were a God/Creator...

Originally posted by josephw
A rolling stone gathers no moss.

Why do you insist on accepting explanations for everything based on human reasoning? The reason there is such a thing as a "non-dualist" is because of human reasoning. There are two paths one can go by. One can live and breath in a world he believes is without a creator, or he can acknowledge the existence of the creator o ...[text shortened]... rd to find an individual who is honest with himself. After all, that's were it has to begin.

Your down-putting tone aside, I said I cant answer your question because you think of god as a separate being from the rest of reality, whereas I think "He" is everything and "His" true nature is unmanifested (and so is not subject to decay).
So you see , my point here is to try to give you a broader interpretation of god, you could almost say a chrsitian one.(My understanding of christianity anyway)


Seems your question is one of faith, something of which I have plenty 😉

Originally posted by josephw
A rolling stone gathers no moss.

Why do you insist on accepting explanations for everything based on human reasoning? The reason there is such a thing as a "non-dualist" is because of human reasoning. There are two paths one can go by. One can live and breath in a world he believes is without a creator, or he can acknowledge the existence of the creator o rd to find an individual who is honest with himself. After all, that's were it has to begin.

I insist, no demand, to accept explanations that derive from my own experience.
Thats the only way froward for me.
Can you accept that? Because I can accept hindus and christians🙂

edit: I find it absurd that you cant accept my answer and accuse me of obfuscating 'n' such. I merely pointed out that we have different interpretations of god and that the god I would try to prove would be a totally different one from the one that you are asking about. Get it?

edit2:seems bill718's post is not the only one you did not answer. Blackbeetle gave you a perfectly good answer back on page one.
I would have to accuse you of being selective and not addressing some valid points made by others only to have you come back and accuse me of deliberate deception.

Originally posted by karoly aczel
I insist, no demand, to accept explanations that derive from my own experience.
Thats the only way froward for me.
Can you accept that? Because I can accept hindus and christians🙂

edit: I find it absurd that you cant accept my answer and accuse me of obfuscating 'n' such. I merely pointed out that we have different interpretations of god and that ...[text shortened]... alid points made by others only to have you come back and accuse me of deliberate deception.

I haven't accused you of deliberate deception. I don't believe anyone in this forum is doing that!

"I insist, no demand, to accept explanations that derive from my own experience."

Exactly! What experience would be necessary for one to know that a Creator/God existed?

Originally posted by josephw
I haven't accused you of deliberate deception. I don't believe anyone in this forum is doing that!

[b]"I insist, no demand, to accept explanations that derive from my own experience."

Exactly! What experience would be necessary for one to know that a Creator/God existed?[/b]

I think "obfuscation" and "changing the subject/topic" could easily be described as "deliberate deception".

Originally posted by josephw
I haven't accused you of deliberate deception. I don't believe anyone in this forum is doing that!

[b]"I insist, no demand, to accept explanations that derive from my own experience."

Exactly! What experience would be necessary for one to know that a Creator/God existed?[/b]

just to answer your restructured question:The realization that there is no self apart from "God" and vice versa.

Originally posted by karoly aczel
just to answer your restructured question:The realization that there is no self apart from "God" and vice versa.

It's the same question rephrased.


"The realization that there is no self apart from "God" and vice versa."

Realization? With or without a cause? Are you saying that you know there is a Creator/God based on realization? What caused this realization?

Originally posted by josephw
You must be inadvertently misunderstanding the purpose of my question.

I did not say "there was a God" therefore how would you know?

I tried to phrase the question as objectively as I could.

[b]"If there were a God/Creator, how would you know?"

So, perhaps I should modify the question. If there were a being of infinite proportions beyond our abilities to define, how would we know such a being existed?"[/b]

The definition of any epistemic object (in our case: the entity you call God/ Creator) is necessary, otherwise it is impossible, for one, to know what exactly we are talking about and looking for, and for two, to know what exact epistemic instruments can ease us to access that epistemic object.
If a being of infinite proportions is beyond my observations and thus unobserved, it cannot be contained in the reality I perceive. Indeed, I fail to recognize the existence of the epistemic object you defined as "a being of infinite proportions beyond my abilities to define it"
😵

Originally posted by josephw
It's the same question rephrased.


[b]"The realization that there is no self apart from "God" and vice versa."

Realization? With or without a cause? Are you saying that you know there is a Creator/God based on realization? What caused this realization?[/b]

As I understanding this (inner) realization is quite natural and comes to anyone that earnestly seeks it.

So to answer your 4 questions:
1. Yes
2. with a cause (usually started with a premise that has been followed through to its logical conclusions)
3. More or less, though I would say that we (and other sentient beings) are co-creators of the universe as well.
4. This realization was caused by earnest seeking after initial revelations.

Originally posted by Agerg
OK...it works this way. "Faith"...that's the only way it can work. One day, after the crusi[b]fiction

I don't usually highlight typos/spelling mistakes but I liked this one (well the part I bolded anyway)![/b]

Shame on me...the spelling dunce!😳

Originally posted by black beetle
The definition of any epistemic object (in our case: the entity you call God/ Creator) is necessary, otherwise it is impossible, for one, to know what exactly we are talking about and looking for, and for two, to know what exact epistemic instruments can ease us to access that epistemic object.
If a being of infinite proportions is beyond my observati ...[text shortened]... c object you defined as "a being of infinite proportions beyond my abilities to define it"
😵

"If a being of infinite proportions is beyond my observations and thus unobserved,.."

Come now bb! With all due respect, don't you think that is a bit shallow?

Did you think you could actually "see" God with your eyes or "observe" God with any of your physical senses?

You talk about the wave function. Have you seen it?

We all "sense" the same world, yet it seems many "know" things they can't prove to even their own senses.

This thread is about "how" we could know there is a God, not a definition of God.

Originally posted by josephw
[b]"If a being of infinite proportions is beyond my observations and thus unobserved,.."

Come now bb! With all due respect, don't you think that is a bit shallow?

Did you think you could actually "see" God with your eyes or "observe" God with any of your physical senses?

You talk about the wave function. Have you seen it?

We all "sense" the ...[text shortened]...
This thread is about "how" we could know there is a God, not a definition of God.[/b]

Edit: "Did you think you could actually "see" God with your eyes or "observe" God with any of your physical senses?"

Methinks whatever is not observed by us, it cannot be contained in our given reality;


Edit: "You talk about the wave function. Have you seen it?"

I cannot "see" the wavefunction just as I cannot "see" a sound. The wavefunction is a formula and it is accessed by means of Math;


Edit: "We all "sense" the same world, yet it seems many "know" things they can't prove to even their own senses."

Methinks whatever is known is by definition observable;


Edit: "This thread is about "how" we could know there is a God, not a definition of God."

I think we could know there is a God solely if this God were observable;


Edit: "Come now bb! With all due respect, don't you think that is a bit shallow?

Kindly please ask yourself how do you come to know whatever you appear to know: is this knowledge of yours really a product of your own intelligence, or do you follow blindly somebody else's beliefs?
😵

Originally posted by josephw
Yes RB.

I started this thread in hopes of having a discussion with those who deny the existence of God by asking a very simple question, but it seems that no one is willing to take me up on it.

It's really just a minor mental exercise. Imagine that there were a God, and try to imagine how you would know God exists.

Perhaps not believing there is a God causes one to believe they are above imagining there is one.

Hi JW, just jumping midway in to the thread, hope I'm not covering old ground.
I'm an atheist. And, lo and behold, I can imagine that there is a god.

Now, what would I need for proof?
Well, a god is supernatural, so I would need clear evidence of supernatural acts - miracles, I guess you'd call them. I'd need these miracles to be repeated and verified by a number of different people. And I think, since we're talking about something pretty amazing here, I'd need to see some of these miracles myself.

I wouldn't accept the existence of the universe as any sort of evidence since that can be explained in other natural ways.

Originally posted by amannion
Hi JW, just jumping midway in to the thread, hope I'm not covering old ground.
I'm an atheist. And, lo and behold, I can imagine that there is a god.

Now, what would I need for proof?
Well, a god is supernatural, so I would need clear evidence of supernatural acts - miracles, I guess you'd call them. I'd need these miracles to be repeated and verified f the universe as any sort of evidence since that can be explained in other natural ways.

What do you think about this passage ? Here is at least one passage where it says that Jesus did not entrust Himself to people who believed in Him because of signs which they saw Him miraculously perform:

"Now when He was in Jerusalem at the Passover, during the feast, many believed into His name when they saw the signs which He did.

But Jesus Himself did not entrust Himself to them, for He knew all men,

And because He did not neet anyone to testify concerning man, for He Himself know what was in man." (John 2:23-25)

Here the Aposlte John records that Jesus was not anxious to entrust Himself to people who saw miracles and believed. It says something about He knew what was in man.

Maybe that means He knew their hearts on a much deeper level then the superfiscial. Maybe in some instances, just following after miracles may be only superfiscial commitment in God's eyes.

What do you think ? Maybe there's times when God wants to see something deeper in the hearts of seekers then just being floored by miracles.

I think He wanted men to turn over their lives to Him fully as Lord.

Think maybe ?? Sometimes?

Suppose, I was a fornicator and saw a miracle. Suppose I just said "Wow, nice supernatural miracle. Now, where was I. Oh Yes. Back to my fornicating."

Do you think some people may react like this ?

Originally posted by jaywill
What do you think about this passage ? Here is at least one passage where it says that Jesus did not entrust Himself to people who believed in Him because of signs which they saw Him miraculously perform:

[b]"Now when He was in Jerusalem at the Passover, during the feast, many believed into His name when they saw the signs which He did.

But Jesus Him ...[text shortened]... as I. Oh Yes. Back to my fornicating."

Do you think some people may react like this ?

Perhaps.
I must admit that my original response is in some sense facetious. I do not expect to see miracles and even if they did occur, I would explain them away in order to maintain my position of non- belief.
This is, after all, what we all do, selecting facts, opinions, beliefs, notions that suit what we want or need, and rejecting those that do not.
You're quite right though, a miracle would likely be observed with interest and then swept away by the daily grind. It reminds me a little of the experience of those people who go through life threatening situations - cancer, serious trauma, etc. They come out proclaiming the importance of living life to the full, but over time this gets washed away into the normal day to day affairs of people.

Originally posted by amannion
Perhaps.
I must admit that my original response is in some sense facetious. I do not expect to see miracles and even if they did occur, I would explain them away in order to maintain my position of non- belief.
This is, after all, what we all do, selecting facts, opinions, beliefs, notions that suit what we want or need, and rejecting those that do not.
...[text shortened]... to the full, but over time this gets washed away into the normal day to day affairs of people.

===============================
Perhaps.
I must admit that my original response is in some sense facetious. I do not expect to see miracles and even if they did occur, I would explain them away in order to maintain my position of non- belief.
==========================

At least you are trying to be honest.

===================================
This is, after all, what we all do, selecting facts, opinions, beliefs, notions that suit what we want or need, and rejecting those that do not.
==================================

Problem is, that even if that was true it is not garuantee that that believed in is either true of false.

Psychologists have noticed that a young child has a need to believe that when an object passes out of sight, and behind a curtain, and appears again, it never stopped existing.

The kids want to believe that. But it is not FALSE simply because they WANT to believe that.

In circles of rigorous critical thinking, the "Genetic Fallacy" is a logical fallacy of assuming the source of one's belief is enough to prove it is true or false.

Evolution is not automatically false because some people really WANT to believe in it. It would be a genetic fallacy to argue that way. Evolution may be true ANYWAY even if some people really choose and want badly for it to BE true.

Same with the existence of God. My just wanting to believe has no effect on the truth of falseness of the existence of God.

=====================================
You're quite right though, a miracle would likely be observed with interest and then swept away by the daily grind. It reminds me a little of the experience of those people who go through life threatening situations - cancer, serious trauma, etc. They come out proclaiming the importance of living life to the full, but over time this gets washed away into the normal day to day affairs of people.
====================================

This is why the New Testament stresses ABIDING in the realm and sphere of the living Christ in a moment by moment way.

It is not sufficient just to say "Well, now I believe the information."

Now, Jesus told His disciples "Abide in me and I in you". This means to learn to get into His real presence and linger there. That is learning to remain with Him.

As we learn to abide in the Holy Spirit, Christ then abides in our behavior and reactions. We have to learn to log more and more time in His presence.

"Abide in me and I in you" (John 15:4).

1.) We first learn to receive Christ the Lord and abide in His living indwelling persence.

2.) As a response He then abides in us - He's nature saturates our actions. He lives again through us.

What an adventure ! This mutual abiding in the living and available resurrected Lord Jesus.