- Joined
- 29 Dec 08
- Moves
- 6788
03 Apr 11
There is much talk on this forum about the existence of thing. (One thing in particular gets most of the talk.)
What sorts of existence are there, and what presumptions does each sort make?
For example, a chair's existing evokes a presumption of a physical space, and a duration in time, or a sensible (sense-able) object.
The number 2's existing evokes a presumption of it being an object of thought, applied to the concept of quantity, and a specific quantity, at that.
A nation's existing seems to evoke a formalized recognition of a people's identity and connection, usually but not always within a bordered physical territory and with a government.
A persons' existing evokes a different kind of existence than that person's body existing, because some believe body can exist and the person stops existing and others believe the converse.
What presumptions are evoked when we contemplate the existence if one god? It there a sort of "space" within which, but not occupying all of it, is this god? Is there a duration of time? How does the concept of existence apply to a god (or God, if you wish?) Or to any spiritual being?
03 Apr 11
Originally posted by JS357This seems more a philosophical question.
There is much talk on this forum about the existence of thing. (One thing in particular gets most of the talk.)
What sorts of existence are there, and what presumptions does each sort make?
For example, a chair's existing evokes a presumption of a physical space, and a duration in time, or a sensible (sense-able) object.
The number 2's existing evokes ...[text shortened]... he concept of existence apply to a god (or God, if you wish?) Or to any spiritual being?
Some 'things' exist, and some don't. Those 'things' that don't exist are irrelevant to meaning and purpose in life. All 'things' that exist are what life is all about.
To me the question is, what 'things' do I make a part of my life, and what 'things' do I avoid?
- Joined
- 29 Dec 08
- Moves
- 6788
03 Apr 11
Originally posted by josephwYes, it is a philosophical question and I hope to avoid getting into any arguments about whether something does or does not exist. Thanks for seeing it that way. Your approach is quite practical.
This seems more a philosophical question.
Some 'things' exist, and some don't. Those 'things' that don't exist are irrelevant to meaning and purpose in life. All 'things' that exist are what life is all about.
To me the question is, what 'things' do I make a part of my life, and what 'things' do I avoid?
03 Apr 11
1 edit
Originally posted by JS357I am not sure if a number can be said to exist. Every pattern can have instance (whose components exist and thus form the pattern) or can be thought of in the abstract. But does the abstract, which is independent of any given instance or time or physical location, really exist?
The number 2's existing evokes a presumption of it being an object of thought, applied to the concept of quantity, and a specific quantity, at that.
And what about emotions when taken in the abstract? Do love or hate exist as abstracts or only as instances?
03 Apr 11
Originally posted by JS357Debate is good. Argument is bad.
Yes, it is a philosophical question and I hope to avoid getting into any arguments about whether something does or does not exist. Thanks for seeing it that way. Your approach is quite practical.
Practical and pragmatic, and a bit dogmatic. Thanks for noticing.
"How does the concept of existence apply to a god (or God, if you wish?)"
I'd like to give my idea of an answer to this question.
What is know about God is known because God revealed it. Any questions about God's existence must be asked of God.
03 Apr 11
Originally posted by twhiteheadTrue, but relevant to what?
Not necessarily. Sometimes non-existent things, like what others believe in, can become relevant.
The answer is too complicated and convoluted. Believing in things that don't exist, or not believing in things that do exist changes everything about the meaning and purpose of one's life.
Reality! Reality! Reality!
To be or not to be? The truth or the lie? Very complicated yet so simple.
03 Apr 11
Originally posted by josephwSo when someone on this forum tells me that it is obvious that God created the universe, I can tell him that is not true. The only way you could possibly know that God created the universe is if he revealed it to you. It can never be known by any independent means/deduction/logic etc.
What is know about God is known because God revealed it. Any questions about God's existence must be asked of God.
03 Apr 11
Originally posted by twhitehead"It can never be known by any independent means/deduction/logic etc."
So when someone on this forum tells me that it is obvious that God created the universe, I can tell him that is not true. The only way you could possibly know that God created the universe is if he revealed it to you. It can never be known by any independent means/deduction/logic etc.
That is precisely how it is known.
This is the problem: You're not taking God at His word. You operate from a platform of unbelief and therefore deny the existence of the one that made you.
This isn't about believing in something that doesn't exist.
The fundamental principle of knowing there is a creator lies in the very existence of the universe itself. "In the beginning God created..." The universe would not exist if God had not created it.
There is no other rational/independent/logical explanation. And what is even more profound is that I know there is a voice inside every man's head that tells him that that is true. If he will listen.
- Joined
- 29 Dec 08
- Moves
- 6788
03 Apr 11
Originally posted by josephwIn my religious training I was taught that God reveals truths to us by various kinds of revelation. One is special revelation, that is, by supernatural means, which includes miracles, scripture, and direct revelation, such as Moses getting the 10 commandments. Another is general revelation, which includes observation of nature, history and human life, philosophical reasoning, conscience, etc. But however it is done, asking God will yield an answer by a route that God chooses, not us. It might be available by more than one route. And it is sort of on a need-to-know basis -- God decides if we need to know, but we can of course ask. One thing we were taught was that the knowledge gained by one of these routes will not contradict knowledge gained by another route. Is this your general understanding, or are you speaking only of seeking special revelation?
Debate is good. Argument is bad.
Practical and pragmatic, and a bit dogmatic. Thanks for noticing.
[b]"How does the concept of existence apply to a god (or God, if you wish?)"
I'd like to give my idea of an answer to this question.
What is know about God is known because God revealed it. Any questions about God's existence must be asked of God.[/b]
03 Apr 11
Originally posted by JS357I can say I agree with your post in the main. I would add though that while God did, and does communicate His will to us by those means, His primary means of communicating with us is through His word.
In my religious training I was taught that God reveals truths to us by various kinds of revelation. One is special revelation, that is, by supernatural means, which includes miracles, scripture, and direct revelation, such as Moses getting the 10 commandments. Another is general revelation, which includes observation of nature, history and human life, philosop ...[text shortened]... ute. Is this your general understanding, or are you speaking only of seeking special revelation?
I don't believe God has spoken directly to anyone since the close of the canon of scripture by the end of the first century. God has done and said all that needs to be done and said.
We now have a more excellent way to know the will of God. We have the Spirit of Christ indwelling and the completed word of God and the Holy Spirit to guide us in it.
That opens a whole can of worms.
04 Apr 11
Originally posted by JS357If I may be permitted to reply by quoting Purusha Sukta of the Rigved ( the first Ved of the four Vedas ) God (and not god! ) occupies the entire Universe ( including the multi-verses that some people in this and Science Forum are talking about) and even exceeds that by a space of " ten fingures " ! The Purusha Sukta is the 90th Sukta of the 10th Mandala of the Rigved.
There is much talk on this forum about the existence of thing. (One thing in particular gets most of the talk.)
What sorts of existence are there, and what presumptions does each sort make?
For example, a chair's existing evokes a presumption of a physical space, and a duration in time, or a sensible (sense-able) object.
The number 2's existing evokes ...[text shortened]... he concept of existence apply to a god (or God, if you wish?) Or to any spiritual being?
This last qualification in the Sukta is obviously a figure of speech to indicate that God occupies everything that you know but even something beyond what you know.
You will be, of course, knowing that as per western Logic the term god has a connotation but no denotation.
- Joined
- 29 Dec 08
- Moves
- 6788
04 Apr 11
Originally posted by rvsakhadeoI am comfortable with the idea that the existence of God means that God occupies all (and moreover, comprises the all that is occupied) and that the term god (of which God is the instantiation) has a connotation but no denotation if western logic is to be applied.
If I may be permitted to reply by quoting Purusha Sukta of the Rigved ( the first Ved of the four Vedas ) God (and not god! ) occupies the entire Universe ( including the multi-verses that some people in this and Science Forum are talking about) and even exceeds that by a space of " ten fingures " ! The Purusha Sukta is the 90th Sukta of the 10th Mandal ...[text shortened]... of course, knowing that as per western Logic the term god has a connotation but no denotation.
04 Apr 11
Originally posted by JS357Thanks for the response ! I was beginning to feel that Hindu thinking is not even being acknowledged on this thread for whatever reasons.
I am comfortable with the idea that the existence of God means that God occupies all (and moreover, comprises the all that is occupied) and that the term god (of which God is the instantiation) has a connotation but no denotation if western logic is to be applied.
Incidentally in the same Sukta,it is further stated that God comprises of everything that has happened in the past or will happen in future,thus imparting the dimension of Time also to God ( may be it is supposed to mean that God is timeless, but I have translated the words literally ).
Moreover it may be of interest to know that the Sukta further states that by the crystallization into the perceptible ( or cognizable ) Universe, God has changed his/her/its appearance from being non perceptible/non cognizable.
It may be of interest to many on this thread that the Sukta further states that God created various parts of the Universe including this planet,Mankind and various other living beings and the various seasons and so on.
04 Apr 11
Originally posted by rvsakhadeoI subscribe most closely to the hindu religon "on the outside". I like bhudism for "the inside".
Thanks for the response ! I was beginning to feel that Hindu thinking is not even being acknowledged on this thread for whatever reasons.
Incidentally in the same Sukta,it is further stated that God comprises of everything that has happened in the past or will happen in future,thus imparting the dimension of Time also to God ( may be it is supposed to ...[text shortened]... including this planet,Mankind and various other living beings and the various seasons and so on.
I am not any religon, but if I were born in India, I would in all likeliness be a Hindu.
The only reason I am not a Hindu is that I dont know enough about it and I would do a disservice to that faith system if I were to speak as an adherent.
So there is at least one regular reader who enjoys a Hindu perspective 🙂 Thnks rvsakhadeo