Does God really exist?

Well, at least the Called One (“God”) exits (stands out) for those of us who call upon it and reap benefits from it. Whether it/He/She is a figment of our imagination (which, nonetheless, is an expression of a deeper or different part of the mind than we consciously identify with) or a Being is secondary to acknowledging a way of human functioning that is beneficial to humans.
 
Wasn't this writing once new, then oral tradition, then became a scripture?
What word was translated to "Experts" and what were those people?
It became a scripture for Buddhists. It is good advice for me and not a scripture.
Experts - bhabba-rūpatāya (Bhavya- impressive, Roopa- looks) Looking good like one who really knows the truth.

1603090869061
But Einstein flipped on Quantum Mechanics.
 
It would seem that the Buddha realised that to find evidence you have to look at possibilities.
Looked at possibilities, did not find any to believe in God or soul.
Do you mean evidence that life popped into existence from non life. If you have any real evidence for this, there is $10 million prize money waiting for you.
Evolution 2.0 Prize: Unprecedented $10 Million Offered To Replicate Cellular Evolution
I checked and reported in the forum that it is a fake organization.
 
Now to me it makes sense to say it more like this "Take everything with a grain of salt", ..
That is true. I believe science because they mention what they have found as also what they have not yet found. That is honesty.
See the various lists here: What science is yet to find? at DuckDuckGo
They do not say that there is some information which cannot be found, or is found in this book or that, or only with some particular person.
 
That is because there is no evidence. I do not find any evidence which will make me accept the existence of God or soul.
Is there a substrate within reality that operates differently than on the surface? And do you think humans have the means to utilize it?
 
That is because there is no evidence. I do not find any evidence which will make me accept the existence of God or soul.

Having had a career in psychology, I cannot seem to sweat the difference between a god function and a god as an object or being. So, the issue at hand here on this thread seems to me more a matter of semantics than anything. Even if “God” is nothing but an unknown space from which we intuit new possibilities or tap into hidden potential, the effect of accessing that through prayer or contemplation or meditation seems to me so “real” that it would be throwing the baby out with the bathwater to insist that God is not real. Perhaps we could find some common ground of god-like realities such as “intuition”, “synergy,” “psychological space,”etc.?

I wrote the following poem about a god junction of a synergistic whole-is-greater-than-the-sum-of-its-parts “reality.”
It seems there is enough hidden potential in life that a “God” tag to a useful function is in order. That seems to be a baby we don’t want to throw out with the bathwater.

Lord Allofus

Each being has a little light
for us together to make things bright
and make things right.
When we pray, just who or what
do we pray to?
Even if it’s only us
(and all who’ve ever been),
maybe the best light will shine through.
And THAT is one good invisible friend.
 
That is because there is no evidence. I do not find any evidence which will make me accept the existence of God or soul.
..but @rocala said 'I do not need to show you any evidence. You have stated that "there is no possibility of any gods". I say that god/s are a logical possibility.'

In other words, do you hold by your initial claim .. or not?
i.e. there is no possibility of any gods
 
I believe others believe.

I believe to many people that belief has value to them.

I believe that some beliefs are harmful to the believers, and others actions on their beliefs are harmful to others.

I really don't care what people believe...if it does not harm.

I find it sad when it harms themselves, and abhorrent when folks wield their belief to harm others.
 
Indeed, I wonder too
After all, it's one thing to say evidence is lacking ...
A critique which fails when the object of inquiry by its very definitions transcends the realm of 'proof' – by whch one supposes empirical evidence. Hence it's a failed argument from the get-go, and repeating it doesn't make it any more successful.
 
Back
Top