Proofs for existence of God

[Vajradhara]

Good point! But sometimes I wonder if in fact the two qestions are related more than we have examined here. After all, In Christianity our self dies and what remains is the Christ Spirit.

lunamoth

however... that very formulation reveals the wide gulf in our traditions.

in our tradition, when the self dies, there is nothing that remains. in your tradition, when the self dies, something eternal takes its place, in this case the spirit of the Annointed One.

it isn't really a philosophical objection that Buddhism, in general, has towards the conception of eternalism. rather, it is a religious objection predicated on a vastly different ontology than what the Buddha taught.

that being said, there is a philosophical objection as well... however, that objection is fairly specific to a fairly specific school of Sanatana Dharma thought. by and large, it more closely corresponds to how the Jews understand the soul than it does to the Christian understanding of it, nevertheless, my point being that the philosophical objections for certain conceptions that are found in the Buddha Dharma are fairly specific, and as such, it behooves us to get an understanding of the audience to whom the teaching was given.

it is quite possible that many of the teachings which we read in the Buddha Dharma are actually not suited for us, it really depends on our capacities and so forth. the point being that, due to this difference, the Buddha Shakyamuni will give answers that seem to contradict themselves, should we not have an understanding of whom he is addressing.

the oft cited "Noble Silence" is a prime example.

many, many theists believe that Buddha Shakyamuni was "silent" on the idea of God. some come to conclude that this is because the situation would not permit him to teach monotheism, some come to conclude that this is because he didn't know about monotheism, and some conclude that he knew God but couldn't express it.

whilst these are valid views to have, they do not find any support in the Buddha Dharma itself.

when asked about God, he remained silent when the questioners were Brahmins that held a view of God already. when he spoke to the Sangha, however, he completely refuted the idea of a Creator Deity.

without knowing which group he is speaking to and why they are given different answers, i can't imagine that it is anything but confusing!

having said all of that...

i do think that many of the conceptions regarding a Creator Deity are predicated on a perception of self.

metta,

~v

 

[Devadatta]

the Buddhist term for these are "skandhas". the heaps of aggregates, as it were.

Well, here's where I find a kind of oddity if not lack in the tradition. The tradition asserts non-self ad nauseum - while being the most self-reliant practice imaginable. My point is that the Abdhidhamma/dharma commitment to this sort of analysis leaves the true instrumentality of the self in sort of limbo. I understand the soteriological reasoning here - we must deny any shred of concept of self to cling to - but the intent is not to deny self, which is listed among the wrong views, but to help effect a turning in the mind, to reorient the mind to the true state of affairs, as repeated in the Lankavatara. Now, we can scholastically list "self" under the heading of the skanda of mental formations - that may satisfy our fear of clinging - but it only takes us so far... But as you suggest somewhere above, this problem can lead us to all sorts of convolutions maybe better left to another thread. In the end, I don't think we disagree. Perhaps my difference is that I think that we needn't be too afraid of ideas like "process self" and "interbeing" and a greater emphasis on "interdependence" as ways of smuggling selfhood in through the back door. Every culture that has adopted Buddhism has brought in new perspectives and new gifts. My hunch is that Western Buddhism will bring in new and fruitful correctives to the self/non-self dichotomy.

it depends on the dialetic being employed, within the Buddhist context at any rate, in my view.

Certainly. My comments simply pertain to the vagaries of Buddhism as actually practiced by we frail human beings.

none of this has anything to do with proof or evidence for God, one way or the other

Here I agree with Lunamoth below and Earl above. The existence of self and god are indissolubly linked, especially in the montheistic systems. At the end of the day they probably do have to be discussed together. So in that sense this discussion has not really veered off course. My only concern was ladling on more Buddhism than is to the taste of some.

Cheers.

 

[Devadatta]

however... that very formulation reveals the wide gulf in our traditions.

in our tradition, when the self dies, there is nothing that remains. in your tradition, when the self dies, something eternal takes its place, in this case the spirit of the Annointed One.

Speaking of tailoring a message to any audience, this is not the way the Buddha - from what I've read in the Pali Canon - would answer a question like this. The Buddha was careful never to tell anyone who believed in a self in this sense that this self "dies"; that as you know is a wrong view. Wrong in several ways, but first of all wrong in sowing confusion and misconception. What "self" are we talking about that "dies" here? I must be honest here, and I don't claim to be an enlightened master in any sense, but I think you've slipped past your expertise here. When there is a danger of misleading, I would suggest noble silence. This is again what I see as being tangled up in mere words. The aim is not to make distinctions between traditions which use words like "eternal" or "non-eternal" or any other wrong view; but in effectively arriving at the reality that all these traditions point to.

it isn't really a philosophical objection that Buddhism, in general, has towards the conception of eternalism. rather, it is a religious objection predicated on a vastly different ontology than what the Buddha taught.

I'm not actually following this religious/philosophical distinction you're making here. As well, the Buddha taught no ontology. Even the abhidhamma - which was not likely formulated by the Buddha in any case - is a phenomenological excercise, and certainly Nagarjuna established no position, let alone an ontology.

Look, I hope you can find it in your heart not to be offended by my rather stiff response above. I was speaking honestly and from the heart. But if you think I was off-base, don't hesitate to tell me so.

 

[earl]

I guess you call a sub-theme of this thread, "proofs for the existence of self."
Actually think I posted a link to this web article by Theravadin Bhikku, Thanissaro Bhikku, at a large Web archive of Theravadin teachings, "Access to Insight." He wrote an interesting piece entitled, "The Not-Self Strategy," wherein he makes a good argument that technically Buddha taught "anatta," not-self, not as a metaphysical position, but merely as "medicine" to facilitate the release from suffering:
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/thanissaro/notself.html

Quite literally, "I" know "I" exist, just don't know what "I" am, but used in zen way, "Don't Know" mind, phrase used by recently deceased Korean zen teacher, Seung Sohn, though, is the growing edge of the open-minded mental process which allows for the journey of discovery to move along. Since in some unknown way, (sorry but I don't either Buddhist or monotheistic explanations really explain the Mystery fully anymore than physics has figured out this level of reality), the process that brought "me" into this world-larger and more encompassing than little old me-exists & to which I apply terms such as "the Divine" or "God"-I just simply don't know re what that is either.

Concepts about any kind of "Big Other," though as Buddha would have pointed out can entail subtle traps as one cannot think of an "Other" without simultaneously thinking of a "self." Those moments though as all Buddhists would say when one is functioning without "self" are then moments when "Wisdom" and "Compassion" flow, not " my" wisdom and compassion, nor "Other's" , but just wisdom and compassion. Reminiscent of that quote I posted at this forum somewhere by Eckhart regarding that when "he left his created form" there was neither "Brother Eckhart," nor God.

I'd say this position of Buddhists allows for the most fruitful, creative koanic process-as I've joked befroe, in terms of discussing the ineffable suchness of Reality, they'd vote for "yes, no, none of the above, all of the above, both none of the above and all of the above." (that whole Nagarjuna thing )

Take care, Earl

 

[lunamoth]

I guess you call a sub-theme of this thread, "proofs for the existence of self."
Actually think I posted a link to this web article by Theravadin Bhikku, Thanissaro Bhikku, at a large Web archive of Theravadin teachings, "Access to Insight." He wrote an interesting piece entitled, "The Not-Self Strategy," wherein he makes a good argument that technically Buddha taught "anatta," not-self, not as a metaphysical position, but merely as "medicine" to facilitate the release from suffering:
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/thanissaro/notself.html

Quite literally, "I" know "I" exist, just don't know what "I" am, but used in zen way, "Don't Know" mind, phrase used by recently deceased Korean zen teacher, Seung Sohn, though, is the growing edge of the open-minded mental process which allows for the journey of discovery to move along. Since in some unknown way, (sorry but I don't either Buddhist or monotheistic explanations really explain the Mystery fully anymore than physics has figured out this level of reality), the process that brought "me" into this world-larger and more encompassing than little old me-exists & to which I apply terms such as "the Divine" or "God"-I just simply don't know re what that is either.

Concepts about any kind of "Big Other," though as Buddha would have pointed out can entail subtle traps as one cannot think of an "Other" without simultaneously thinking of a "self." Those moments though as all Buddhists would say when one is functioning without "self" are then moments when "Wisdom" and "Compassion" flow, not " my" wisdom and compassion, nor "Other's" , but just wisdom and compassion. Reminiscent of that quote I posted at this forum somewhere by Eckhart regarding that when "he left his created form" there was neither "Brother Eckhart," nor God.

I'd say this position of Buddhists allows for the most fruitful, creative koanic process-as I've joked befroe, in terms of discussing the ineffable suchness of Reality, they'd vote for "yes, no, none of the above, all of the above, both none of the above and all of the above." (that whole Nagarjuna thing )

Take care, Earl

Enjoyed that earl. Thank you.

lunamoth

 

[Devadatta]

(sorry but I don't either Buddhist or monotheistic explanations really explain the Mystery fully anymore than physics has figured out this level of reality)

Some excellent perspectives, Earl. The one I've quote here particularly resonates with me. We need to be constantly reminded that the finger pointing at the moon - no matter how well painted & manicured! - is not the moon itself. We need to forego the certainty we're always trying to invest in words & formulas for the far greater certainity that we're struggling with and pointing to the same reality.

Cheers.

 

[Devadatta]

I have no problem with the idea that my entire body is turned over every, what was it Vaj, six years? Yet my body looks more or less the same thanks to my DNA blueprint. Why couldn't the self be the same way, ever turning over, remaining the same in essence, yet completely different. We are the river, not the water in it. Which is the oak, the acorn or the tree? They look completely different, yet they are both "oak."

Never mind me... I'm strictly a lightweight.

lunamoth

Well, maybe I'm a lightweight too, but I think this ounce of common sense is worth a pound of theology or speculation.

Cheers.

 

[lunamoth]

Well, maybe I'm a lightweight too, but I think this ounce of common sense is worth a pound of theology or speculation.

Cheers.

As you know, you get what you pay for on internet religion discussion forums.

(Thank you for the kudos.)

lunamoth

 

[lunamoth]

Dear Vajradhara,

Thank you for the reply.

however... that very formulation reveals the wide gulf in our traditions.

I have no problem with that--I appreciate the diversity.

in our tradition, when the self dies, there is nothing that remains. in your tradition, when the self dies, something eternal takes its place, in this case the spirit of the Annointed One.

Yes, this is how I phrase it. But words are limiting. To me it's not like the Christ spirit is some seperate Being that is limited to some place "in me" that takes over when I'm baptized or achieve moments of enlightenment or union with the divine. It's more like I'm in Christ and Christ is in and around and through everything, not seperate from the divine in you or in a tree. It's kind of like the Christ Spirit is masked by the flotsom and jetsom of my thinking which stems out of my material attachments. We try to peel away layers and reveal more of the Spirit. I'm not trying to force Buddhism into theistic thinking (heaven forbid!), but how does emptiness/nothing differ from everythingness/eternity?

it isn't really a philosophical objection that Buddhism, in general, has towards the conception of eternalism. rather, it is a religious objection predicated on a vastly different ontology than what the Buddha taught.

OK.

that being said, there is a philosophical objection as well... however, that objection is fairly specific to a fairly specific school of Sanatana Dharma thought. by and large, it more closely corresponds to how the Jews understand the soul than it does to the Christian understanding of it, nevertheless, my point being that the philosophical objections for certain conceptions that are found in the Buddha Dharma are fairly specific, and as such, it behooves us to get an understanding of the audience to whom the teaching was given.

I am not even familiar with the Christian doctrine about the soul, much less the Jewish understandings. My only belief about the soul is that it is that part of the Something More that pertains to my experience of life. While I think of my soul as something that is with me, I don't think of it as some kind of energy in me because even energy is of the material world. I am a soul, I just happen to have a body.

it is quite possible that many of the teachings which we read in the Buddha Dharma are actually not suited for us, it really depends on our capacities and so forth. the point being that, due to this difference, the Buddha Shakyamuni will give answers that seem to contradict themselves, should we not have an understanding of whom he is addressing.

the oft cited "Noble Silence" is a prime example.

many, many theists believe that Buddha Shakyamuni was "silent" on the idea of God. some come to conclude that this is because the situation would not permit him to teach monotheism, some come to conclude that this is because he didn't know about monotheism, and some conclude that he knew God but couldn't express it.

whilst these are valid views to have, they do not find any support in the Buddha Dharma itself.

when asked about God, he remained silent when the questioners were Brahmins that held a view of God already. when he spoke to the Sangha, however, he completely refuted the idea of a Creator Deity.

without knowing which group he is speaking to and why they are given different answers, i can't imagine that it is anything but confusing!

having said all of that...

i do think that many of the conceptions regarding a Creator Deity are predicated on a perception of self.

metta,

~v

Again, I think I understand your point and respect it. Even though I fully believe that I am God's creature, that He has shown us His love through the Trinity, I know that these experiences still are not the fullness of understanding God/The More. When we get to the mountaintop, we'll all have the same view. 'course, this is just my theistic perspective.

Interesting point--Creator, created self; Non-creator, no self.

Well, that's enough navel gazing for one night.

lunamoth

 

[presser_kun]

I am constantly changing.

indeed, this is the case.

since you are, in fact, constantly changing, there cannot be a permenantly existing, unchanging entity of self, or soul, or being.

Not an unchanging, but a continuous entity of self.

it would seem that you are saying that "you" are the sum of your experiences. are "you" more than the sum of your experiences?

Yes, I am, though the comments in my earlier post don't reflect this. You see, I'm growing, yea, verily, changing even as I consider my answer to you.

The events of my life happen to me, a single thing made of many parts that changes and responds to them.

Put enough bricks together and you get a wall. That wall is a single thing which is more than the sum of it's parts. It has a continuity of being until the bricks are separated.

The wall is painted, then hung with pictures, then augmented with secondary walls, a facade, et cetera.

It's still the same wall, though changed.

My "me" is like that wall: made of many parts that, when assembled together, exist as a continuity of being.

Is my "me," then, the continuity itself?

how does the change of the physical form effect how "you" think?

i'm not really asking how physical changes change the thought process, per se, what i'm asking is, really, how any of these physical changes effect "you" if "you" are not the physical body?

My hand is cut off. As a result my self image changes: I am less competent, less desirable to be around. The gruesome event is assimilated into the continuity of being that is my "self."

Therapists, both physical and mental, work with patients recovering from minor to major physical changes to overcome the feelings of inadequacy that arise in such situations.

How many of us know someone who says that he was changed in a fundamental way by his heart attack? Yet, if asked, he will assert that his "me" is contant, though changed. Like the brick wall, perhaps?

what is still you? the process of thinking?

when you are asleep and no longer consciously thinking, do you exist?

Yes. My continuity of being exists while I am asleep in the subconscious thought processes of my brain.

Stop all thought and my "me" ceases to exist as an entity, though my body may continue to respirate.

would you say that a being in a coma is alive or dead?

how about a tree? is a tree alive or dead?

To be alive a being must eat and grow. The being in a coma and the tree are alive, but neither is conscious. Most would say the coma patient has no sense of self. And, of course, neither does the tree, though we really don't know for sure.

But dogs are conscious. Do they have a sense of self? How is a dog different than a tree?

I think it may be a difference of complexity.

* * *​

Marvin Minsky, once at the forefront of AI research (though he may not be now -- it's been a while since I checked in with the field of artificial intelligence) wrote a book titled Society of Mind. Getting his idea across requires two steps.

I. There is within me something like single-celled agents (perhaps single-purposed agents is better), such as Reach, Grasp, Lift; Tired, Sleep; Hungry, Eat; Blink; Focus; Yawn, and so on. Thousands of agents interacting, combining to achieve a simple task, or a complex one.

II. As more and more agents evolve -- are added -- are created -- complexity arises. When that complexity passes a threshold, consciousness arises.

i think that if one defines the idea of self or soul to be something which is constantly changing, not eternally existing from its own side, then there is no reason for imputing the concept of an eternally existing self other than to appease the clinging mind.

Hmm. Yet I say that sense of self arises from the continuity of being.

Easy to get this all mixed up, and right now my brain hurts from all the thinking I've done to get to the points I've made.

You're making me work terribly hard to come up with a theory of soul that can be supported.

 

[presser_kun]

As more and more agents evolve -- are added -- are created -- complexity arises. When that complexity passes a threshold, consciousness arises.

Hmm. Yet I say that sense of self arises from the continuity of being.

Easy to get this all mixed up, and right now my brain hurts from all the thinking I've done to get to the points I've made.

You're making me work terribly hard to come up with a theory of soul that can be supported.

Hmm. Replying to my own post. Must have an inflated sense of self!

I've slept some and want to add just a bit.

Minsky says that consciousness arises out of the complexity of the thousands of agents that make up the mind.

But earthworms are conscious, no? Rather, aware?

Is consciousness more than awareness?

The earthworm is conscious, but not intelligent.

Perhaps intelligence arises from the growing complexity of consciousness. Ever more sophisticated agents building ever more complex sister agents.

At some point mental dexterity passes a new threshold of complexity, and intelligence is born; sense of self is born.

Where is the soul in all of this?

Where, indeed?

Far be it for me to say anything definitive here. I have entirely too much thinking to do on the matter before I could do that. But I have my suspicions, not even theories. Maybe just wonderings.

What makes sense to me is that soul is mind; soul is sense of self, and not something that is eternal.

Not something that God (the Western one that presents itself as personality) drops into our body and that will outlast it.

Although nothing precludes the soul, as I define it from going on after the body dies, since it is temporal but not spatial.

To tie this back to the principal topic of this thread, proofs for the existence of God, let me say:

It is in our "soulness," our mindfulness, that we are like God. It is our soul that is spatial-less. (My, I do like the "-ness" and "-less" suffixes today.)

Shifting now, let me say that perhaps souls as individuals are like nodes on a network.

God would be the network.

Rather than the image of God creating souls and giving them bodies, I like the image of the Network making opportunities for nodes to form. Perhaps guiding, nudging them into existence, watching over them as they develop into souls.

We are individual, connected, part of the greater whole of existence itself.

We are already God. What remains for us is to realize it. This Westerner, woefully ignorant of Eastern philosophy and religion, wonders if this is what is meant by enlightenment.

Is there a precedent for any of this?

Please challenge me. I want to learn more.

 

[earl]

Hmm. Replying to my own post. Must have an inflated sense of self!

I've slept some and want to add just a bit.

Minsky says that consciousness arises out of the complexity of the thousands of agents that make up the mind.

But earthworms are conscious, no? Rather, aware?

Is consciousness more than awareness?

The earthworm is conscious, but not intelligent.

Perhaps intelligence arises from the growing complexity of consciousness. Ever more sophisticated agents building ever more complex sister agents.

At some point mental dexterity passes a new threshold of complexity, and intelligence is born; sense of self is born.

Where is the soul in all of this?

Where, indeed?

Far be it for me to say anything definitive here. I have entirely too much thinking to do on the matter before I could do that. But I have my suspicions, not even theories. Maybe just wonderings.

What makes sense to me is that soul is mind; soul is sense of self, and not something that is eternal.

Not something that God (the Western one that presents itself as personality) drops into our body and that will outlast it.

Although nothing precludes the soul, as I define it from going on after the body dies, since it is temporal but not spatial.

To tie this back to the principal topic of this thread, proofs for the existence of God, let me say:

It is in our "soulness," our mindfulness, that we are like God. It is our soul that is spatial-less. (My, I do like the "-ness" and "-less" suffixes today.)

Shifting now, let me say that perhaps souls as individuals are like nodes on a network.

God would be the network.

Rather than the image of God creating souls and giving them bodies, I like the image of the Network making opportunities for nodes to form. Perhaps guiding, nudging them into existence, watching over them as they develop into souls.

We are individual, connected, part of the greater whole of existence itself.

We are already God. What remains for us is to realize it. This Westerner, woefully ignorant of Eastern philosophy and religion, wonders if this is what is meant by enlightenment.

Is there a precedent for any of this?

Please challenge me. I want to learn more.

That's an interesting metaphor: "souls" as nodes in a network. Reminds me of a metaphor often used in Buddhism: they often speak of "Indra's net," an infinite "web" containing infinite number of "pearls," all of which are both in 1 sense independent of each other, yet simultaneouly reflect each other and the net itself in each 1. Now keep in mind I almost flunked high school chemistry so may not get this right, but I also think of crystal formation-specific crytals "crystalize" out of a solution. Are "created" from that matrix, that "net." Are the crystals the net? No. Are they "other than" the net? No. Sort of a panentheism for crystals Metaphors can provide rich fodder for the imagination I think. Take care, Earl

 

[Quahom1]

That's an interesting metaphor: "souls" as nodes in a network. Reminds me of a metaphor often used in Buddhism: they often speak of "Indra's net," an infinite "web" containing infinite number of "pearls," all of which are both in 1 sense independent of each other, yet simultaneouly reflect each other and the net itself in each 1. Now keep in mind I almost flunked high school chemistry so may not get this right, but I also think of crystal formation-specific crytals "crystalize" out of a solution. Are "created" from that matrix, that "net." Are the crystals the net? No. Are they "other than" the net? No. Sort of a panentheism for crystals Metaphors can provide rich fodder for the imagination I think. Take care, Earl

Reminded me of an insect colony, like Ants or Bees (i'm being serious). A collective consciousness of sorts. Though I appreciate the cohesiveness of such an existence, I personally like my independence, (my ability to isolate self from time to time). I also like the "newness" of meeting other independent consciosnesses. And I like the idea of a father creator. There is a great sense of comfort for me in that one on one interaction.

Since we exist the way we do, and Ants exist they way they do, what ever created us is pretty diverse it/Him/Herself, to come up with the variaties of life we have around us, I should think.

v/r

Q

 

[presser_kun]

Reminds me of a metaphor often used in Buddhism: they often speak of "Indra's net," an infinite "web" containing infinite number of "pearls," all of which are both in 1 sense independent of each other, yet simultaneouly reflect each other and the net itself in each 1.

Now keep in mind I almost flunked high school chemistry so may not get this right, but I also think of crystal formation-specific crytals "crystalize" out of a solution. Are "created" from that matrix, that "net." Are the crystals the net? No. Are they "other than" the net? No. Sort of a panentheism for crystals

Metaphors can provide rich fodder for the imagination I think. Take care, Earl

I like your metaphors, too, Earl. Metaphor is the basis of all understanding, someone said.

"This is like an apple, but is not an apple."

"Oh, I see," we say.

Each comparison enriches our sense of understanding of the object/subject at hand.

Pantheism for chrystals? You made me smile.

peace,

press

 

[presser_kun]

Reminded me of an insect colony, like Ants or Bees (i'm being serious). A collective consciousness of sorts. Though I appreciate the cohesiveness of such an existence, I personally like my independence, (my ability to isolate self from time to time).

This is one of the wonderful mysteries of the Christian understanding of God, I think. We are in him, and he in us, yet we retain our individuality.

And I like the idea of a father creator. There is a great sense of comfort for me in that one on one interaction.

This was, and still is, home base for me. It is, indeed, very comforting. My problem with it (to stray from topic) is that this idea was fed to me in a rich pastry swirling with superstition when I was growing up. Separating a right understanding of the Father from all the misinformation about him is my current mission.

Since we exist the way we do, and Ants exist they way they do, what ever created us is pretty diverse it/Him/Herself, to come up with the variaties of life we have around us, I should think.

Well said, Q, well said.

peace,

press

 

[Quahom1]

This is one of the wonderful mysteries of the Christian understanding of God, I think. We are in him, and he in us, yet we retain our individuality.



This was, and still is, home base for me. It is, indeed, very comforting. My problem with it (to stray from topic) is that this idea was fed to me in a rich pastry swirling with superstition when I was growing up. Separating a right understanding of the Father from all the misinformation about him is my current mission.



Well said, Q, well said.

peace,

press

Hmmm, sounds to me that though you have a solid foundation, you wish to build a new house on top of it. Can't argue with that.

v/r

Q

 

[earl]

Yes indeed Q, healthy relationships psychologically involve the interrelationship of 2 psychologically defined "individuals," not some mush. Yet when you thinks of the most intimate relationships such as marriage it really is a blend of distinct individuality and some less well-defined meeting space of the heart wherein for at least moments at a time we forget about defending a "self" and so opening to an "other," that it's no longer quite so "other" to us. Then there is that whole "free will/Divine will" philosophical question that similarly reminds one of the same "what is self/what is Other?" Mystery. This in part is what I meant when I discussed the dance between apophatic and kataphatic, or in zen Buddhism when they discuss the relationship between the One and the Many. Sorry y'all but I get darn right babbly when I get on this subject which to mw is right up there with the central Mysteries of religion and humanity's attempts to understand itself and live the "good" life. Have a good one, Earl

 

[jaxree]

If you could prove God existed, why would you need faith? Why does faith have such a bad rap among so many who call themselves religious? It seems it isn't good enough for them. They want certainty. They want proof.

So if your a Christian who believes he can "prove" God exists, how are you different from the atheist who wants proof?

In the Christian tradition, faith is a virtue. So embrace it, and stop looking for "arguments" that prove your beliefs. If you find a faith that makes sense for you, that helps you connect with the universe, relish that and leave proof out of it.

 

[presser_kun]

If you could prove God existed, why would you need faith? Why does faith have such a bad rap among so many who call themselves religious? It seems it isn't good enough for them. They want certainty. They want proof.

So if your a Christian who believes he can "prove" God exists, how are you different from the atheist who wants proof?

In the Christian tradition, faith is a virtue. So embrace it, and stop looking for "arguments" that prove your beliefs. If you find a faith that makes sense for you, that helps you connect with the universe, relish that and leave proof out of it.

I want to know I'm doing the right thing. Proof is not possible. I know that going in. So why do I think about and discuss proofs for/against God's existence?

I learn from it, simply put. I grow. My faith grows, my intellect grows.

Christians are fond of saying that God doesn't need our praise, but we need to praise him because of the benefit to us. Same with prayer. He doesn't need our prayers, but we need to pray.

I need to doubt, too. It's a part of growing my faith. After all, Jesus doubted, too, didn't he? ("Father, why have you forsaken me?")

I cannot prove that God exists. I cannot prove that he doesn't. But neither am I willing to believe "just because" someone told me I should.

My faith is a thinking faith, that doesn't accept tradition just because it's tradition. That means doubting, discussing, learning from others -- atheists, agnostics, and every stripe of religion out there. ("Why, some of my best friends are athesists," as the old stereotype goes.)

Does this make sense to you? Tell me what's wrong with this way of thinking. Let's dialog.

peace,

press

 

[jaxree]

Hey presser kun,

From where I sit, it seems that you're not so much talking about "proving" God's existence as you are talking about exploring the metaphor by which you connect to God.

There's nothing wrong with refining your understanding of the metaphor. That's part of how you sustain your faith. It helps stokes the fire of hope.

But many Christians, and you might not be among them, mistake their metaphor for the actual God. Each time they refine their metaphor, they believe they actually understand God better. There's a lot of idolatry out there.

And that's where I get uncomfortable with the word "prove." Once you think you have "proved" God's existence, then its a short distance to becoming convinced that your image of God is the "true" God. Then you believe that everyone else's image of God is wrong. And the jump from there to flying planes into buildings isn't as far as you might think.