Sins of a Solar Empire : Real-Time Strategy. Unrivalled Scale.
© 2003-2013 Ironclad Games Corporation Vancouver, BC. All rights reserved.
© 2006-2013 Stardock Entertainment

Can you prove the existence of God?

By on March 29, 2012 8:06:40 PM from JoeUser Forums JoeUser Forums External Link

AERYCK

Join Date 01/2005
+2

Today is a very special day for me.  


Why?   Well, I've come to the end of a seven year journey of trolling internet forums engaging in countless discussions about God and in particular the topic of Christian Apologetics.  

This post will be a gradual assembly post, to which I shall add bits and pieces of discussions that I've had with many very clever and some not so clever folks.

Not all the bits and pieces will be from the actual discussions.  Some of them will be from books I've read, lectures I've listened to as well as music, poetry and Oriental writings.  As a matter of fact, it's going to be a regular smorgasbord of delights.  You are most welcome to leave your berries, pearls, one-liners and wisecracks, plus any insightful comments in the appropriate space provided at the end of this page.

For starters, I'm considering a question that my son asked a panel of smarties on the 15.09.2005.

The post title was: "Can you prove the existence of God?"

The post read: 'I was approached recently by a friend who asked me how to prove the existence of God without using the Bible. Can you help?'

 


Have fun.


Peace,

Eric

 

 +)(+

 

1. Here's something to nibble on.  The following site has certainly grown, in fact it has changed.  It used to be called "apollos", I suspect it was named after 'Saint Apollos (Ἀπολλώς; contracted from Apollonius) an apostle who was also a 1st century Alexandrian Jewish Christian mentioned several times in the New Testament'   It's now called "Last Seminary"   Though there is certainly a wholesome collection to read, I was immediately attracted to the Philosophy of Religion Articles.  

 2. The Argument From Conscience by Peter Kreeft is one of several papers (in pdf. format) under the heading 'Moral Argument' at "Last Seminary" and another by C.S Lewis might suffice.

a. The Argument From Conscience by Peter Kreeft

 

Excerpt:

"The simple, intuitive point of the argument from conscience is that everyone in the world knows, deep down, that he is absolutely obligated to be and do good, and this absolute obligation could come only from God. Thus everyone knows God, however obscurely, by this moral intuition, which we usually call conscience. Conscience is the voice of God in the soul. Like all arguments for the existence of God, this one proves only a small part of what we know God to be by divine revelation. But this part is significantly more than the arguments from nature reveal about God because this argument has richer data, a richer starting point."

 

b. 

'And, of course, that raises a very big question. If a good God made the world why has it gone wrong? And for many years I simply refused to listen to the Christian answers to this question, because I kept on feeling "whatever you say, and however clever your arguments are, isn't it much simpler and easier to say that the world was not made by any intelligent power? Aren't all your arguments simply a complicated attempt to avoid the obvious?" But then that threw me back into another difficulty.

My argument against God was that the universe seemed so cruel and unjust. But how had I got this idea of just and unjust? A man does not call a line crooked unless he has some idea of a straight line. What was I comparing this universe with when I called it unjust? If the whole show was bad and senseless from A to Z, so to speak, why did I, who was supposed to be part of the show, find myself in such violent reaction against it? A man feels wet when he falls into water, because man is not a water animal: a fish would not feel wet. 

Of course I could have given up my idea of justice by saying it was nothing but a private idea of my own. But if I did that, then my argument against God collapsed too— for the argument depended on saying that the world was really unjust, not simply that it did not happen to please my private fancies. Thus in the very act of trying to prove that God did not exist—in other words, that the whole of reality was senseless—I found I was forced to assume that one part of reality—namely my idea of justice—was full of sense. 

Consequently atheism turns out to be too simple. If the whole universe has no meaning, we should never have found out that it has no meaning: just as, if there were no light in the universe and therefore no creatures with eyes, we should never know it was dark. Dark would be without meaning.'

From: Mere Christianity by C.S. Lewis 

 

3.  Awareness of God by Illtyd Trethowan is one of several papers (in pdf. format) under the heading 'Religious Experience' at "Last Seminary" 

Excerpt:

 "The belief that God is present to the human mind (or soul) and can be found there is part of the Christian tradition. Many Christian philosophers seem to regard this as the concern only of specially devout persons and of no interest for philosophical purposes. The evidence for it, they think, it too slender to be taken seriously by academic philosophers without particular interest in religion, who tend to regard anything in the nature of religious experience as suspect. So philosophical discussions about religion are usually concerned with rational arguments for and against theism, usually of a technical kind. In this article, I want to suggest that there is another attitude of mind which has become more widely shared as the century has advanced..."

 

4. Has Religion Evolved ? , Evolution of Morality and Is Human Behavior in the Genes?  by Dr. David Lahti ( a series of lectures presented at 'The Faraday Institute of Science and Religion' between July and November 2011.) Also, refer Multi-Media for audio/video recordings of a wide selection of lectures, debates and discussions.)  

 

5.  Here are a couple of replies which were presented to my son, in response to his question. (ref: ' my' opening post - above )  The first reply was by a Mormon bishop and the second was an anonymous reply: 

a.  

 

I'm sorry to have to be the bearer of ill tidings, but it is not possible to "prove" the existence of God from the Bible, or any other book for that matter. Nor is it possible to "prove" the existence of God using reason alone.

I know that there have been some great thinkers who have come up with arguments for the existence of God, but there are brilliant men who have heard those arguments and have been unconvinced.

If you are looking for "evidence" of God, well that's a bit easier. But again, any evidence will not be absolute or unabiguous nor will it be uncontended.

So your friend can't prove the existence of God, but then again, the nonexistence of God can't be proven either.

It boils down to a matter of faith. Do you choose to believe? What are you willing to stake on that belief? How much will be give up for that faith?

Those are the fundamental issues that each person must wrestle with and come to grips with.

 

b. 

 

You really can't prove that God exists. It's just the most plausable explenation given the universe we live in and the impressions of God on the human mind: an all powerful, all knowing God made everything and can do anything. 

I really believe that the question "Can you prove God exists?" is disingenuous most of the time people ask it. There are some people who are trapped in a logical impasse about the existence of God, but I think most are mad at God for the way the world is. I'd ask the person you're talking to, "Suppose you could know for certain that God is real. What would you think of that?" And start the conversation from there. 

 

6.  ( Dr. William Lane Craig - Existence of God (ref: Podcasts @ Reasonable Faith) , Prof. Jeff Scholoss = website etc. )

 Evolution and Religion - Prof. Jeff Schloss  

 7.  ( Prof. Alvin Plantinga = website , Dr. Michael Sudduth = website etc. )

God, Design and ID - Prof. Kenneth Miller

Science and Religion : Where The Real Conflict Lies - Professor Alvin Plantinga

God & Evolution: Where the Conflict Really Lies - Professor Alvin Plantinga

What is a properly basic belief?  interview with Prof. Alvin Plantinga

Discussing property warrant (in the video) Professor Alvin Plantinga states that , 'A belief has warrant for you if it's produced by cognitive faculties, memory, perception, mathematical, logical, intuition that are functioning properly, not subject to some sort of dysfunctional and the kind of environment they're designed for either by a god or evolution, according to a design plan (so if they're designed they've got a way of working right and a way of working wrong) that's successfully aimed at truth.' ( at 15:40 )   

 

'Belief in God is warranted, only if belief in God is true'  Professor Alvin Plantinga.  

 

Science and Religion : Video Discussion at the Veritas Forum : . Alvin Plantinga , Dr. Richard Gale , Dr. Quentin Smith and Dr. William Lane Craig.  Wow! Now that's a room full of hothouse flowers

 

8.  The Extended Mind (pdf) by David Chalmers (Published in Analysis 58:10-23, 1998.) - The Extended Mind Revisited (video: 2009) , David Chalmers on Consciousness , TEDxSydney - David Chalmers - The Extended Mind (video: 2011)

 

9.  Does Evil Disprove God Robert Lawrence Kuhn interviews Dr. Alvin Plantinga.

 

 

 

 

10. The Transcendental and the Transcendent and Pragmatic and Transcendental Arguments for Theism (A Critical Examination ) by Professor Sami Pihlström ( Professor of Practical Philosophy (University of Jyväskylä), Docent of Theoretical Philosophy (University of Helsinki) ) 

 

Excerpt 1:

"As an obvious source of relevant examples of transcendental reasoning about the transcendent, I shall consider a particular language-game, or a group of language-games, namely, the religious one(s), and briefly examine two specific problems pertaining to religious language-use, namely, the problem of the existence of God (section 2.1) and the problem of evil (section 2.2). I have chosen to focus (in section 2.1) on a transcendental argument for theism drawn from Charles Taylor’s work, instead of, say, the more explicitly transcendental 'Martin – Frame Debate' on TAG (the transcendental argument for the existence of God) vs. TANG (the transcendental argument for the non-existence of God)."

Excerpt 2:

"Commenting upon some recent literature on the topic, this paper examines two strategies by means of which one might try to defend theism: (1) a pragmatic(Jamesian) strategy, which focuses on the idea that religious belief has beneficial consequences in the believer’s life, and (2) a transcendental (Kantian) strategy, according to which theism is required as a condition of our self-understanding as ethically oriented creatures. Both strategies are found unsatisfactory, unless synthesized and thus supported by each other. While no argument, either pragmatic or transcendental, can demonstrate the existence of God, a pragmatic transcendental argument might have a legitimate role to play in the philosophy of religion. The problem of relativism arises, however. It is concluded that it remains unclear whether a religious believer could justify her or his beliefs to anyone who does not already share those beliefs."

  

 

+)(+

 

The Mad Hatter's Tea Party (stuff that I thought about but forgot to add)

 

 

1. Cornelius Van Till - Biography - Resources by Subject.

  

2. Dr. William Lane Craig's - Existence of God (audio lectures) at Reasonable Faith.

 

3. Selflessness and Altruism:

Altruism is a concern for the welfare of others. It is a traditional virtue in many cultures, and a core aspect of various religious traditions, though the concept of ‘others’ toward whom concern should be directed can vary among cultures and religions. Altruism is the opposite of selfishness.
Altruism can be distinguished from feelings of duty and loyalty. Altruism is a motivation to provide something of value to a party who must be anyone but the self, while duty focuses on a moral obligation towards a specific individual (for example, a god, a king), or collective (for example, a government). Pure altruism consists of sacrificing something for someone other than the self (e.g. sacrificing time, energy or possessions) with no expectation of any compensation or benefits, either direct, or indirect (for instance from recognition of the giving).
The term altruism may also refer to an ethical doctrine that claims that individuals are morally obliged to benefit others. Used in this sense, it is the opposite of egoism.

From: Alruism @ W.O.E

a. Prof. Viktor Frankl

“Again and again I therefore admonish my students in Europe and America: Don’t aim at success – the more you aim at it and make it a target, the more you are going to miss it. For success, like happiness, cannot be pursued; it must ensue, and it only does so as the unintended side effect of one’s personal dedication to a cause greater than oneself or as the by-product of one’s surrender to a person other than oneself. Happiness must happen, and the same holds for success: you have to let it happen by not caring about it. I want you to listen to what your conscience commands you to do and go on to carry it out to the best of your knowledge. Then you will live to see that in the long-run – in the long-run, I say! – success will follow you precisely because you had forgotten to think about it.”

b.  Prof. Jeff Schloss

Altruism and Selfless Love : Theistic and Naturalistic Perspectives

Washington University, St. Louis
29 March 2010

‘Evolution might be able to explain biological diversity, but can it explain self-giving love? How do we make sense of altruism in a world of competition? In this Veritas Forum, two perspectives are brought to the table—theistic and naturalistic—both from practicing scientists. Jeffrey Schloss is a Professor of Biology at Westmont and a Christian; Robert Sussman is a Professor of Anthropology at Washington University and a non-theist. The event is moderated by Professor in the Laboratory and Genomic Medicine Division at Washington University in St. Louis, S. Joshua Swamidass, MD PhD.’

To watch the video > http://www.veritas.org/Media.aspx#!/v/912
Join the Veritas Forum, to download.

The "End" of Love: Evolutionary Psychology, Altruism, and Human Purpose

Evolutionary evil and a good creation?

 43 “You have heard that it was said, ‘Love your neighbor[i] and hate your enemy.’ 44 But I tell you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, 45 that you may be children of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. 46 If you love those who love you, what reward will you get? Are not even the tax collectors doing that? 47 And if you greet only your own people, what are you doing more than others? Do not even pagans do that? 48 Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect.

[i] Matthew 5:43 : Lev. 19:18

http://www.biblegateway.com/audio/mclean/niv/Matt.5

 

For ‘thespian and artistic type’ lovers : Selflessness by John Coltrane (in two parts)

 

 

4. Prayer - Meditation - Contemplation and the pursuit of God:

 

Part I

 

a.  

Why would anyone choose a deity who ‘….is untouched by pleasure and pain, good and evil’ yet who it is said, ‘….dances in supreme joy and creates, sustains and destroys with the rhythm of His dancing movements’ who it is also said, ‘….is the most awe-inspiring and terrifying deity, Rudra, with Trisul or trident in His hand’ and who it is said, ‘…. is the source of all knowledge and wisdom’ who it is said, also ‘….conducts the work of creation according to His will and pleasure’ who it is said, ‘….is distinct from Brahma, Vishnu and Rudra’ and who it is said commands, ‘…. Brahma, Vishnu and Rudra’ who ‘are the trinities of the world’ who it is said that whoever ‘…. regards the three deities as distinct and different, Siva Purana says, is undoubtedly a devil or evil spirit’ and yet of whom it is said, ‘The most auspicious and useful work beneficial to mankind ever carried out by Lord Siva, is to impart the knowledge of Yoga, Bhakti, Jnana, etc., to the world. He blesses those deserve His grace and who cannot get out of Samsara without His grace. He is not only the World-Teacher but also an ideal example to the Jivanmukta or sage. He teaches by His very actions in His daily life’ ? Is it perhaps because, ‘Lord Siva through His third eye of wisdom burnt passion to ashes’ ? Is it your hope to ‘overcomes waking and sleeping state and through meditation’ and thereby merge yourself ‘…. in the object meditated upon in’ your ‘waking state itself’ ?

Quotes from SIVA TATTVA Chapter 2 from LORD SIVA AND HIS WORSHIP by SRI SWAMI SIVANANDA

 

Or, is this life closer to the ideas of Epicurus?

Those things which without ceasing I have declared to you, those do, and exercise yourself in those, holding them to be the elements of right life. First believe that God is a living being immortal and happy, according to the notion of a god indicated by the common sense of humankind; and so believing, you shall not affirm of him anything that is foreign to his immortality or that does not agree with his blessedness, but you shall believe about him whatever may uphold both his blessedness and immortality. For truly there are gods, and knowledge of them is evident; but they are not such as the multitude believe, seeing that people do not steadfastly maintain the notions they form respecting them. Not the person who denies the gods worshipped by the multitude, but he who affirms of the gods what the multitude believes about them is truly impious. For the utterances of the multitude about the gods are not true preconceptions but false assumptions; hence it is that the greatest evils happen to the wicked and the greatest blessings happen to the good from the hand of the gods, seeing that they are always favorable to their own good qualities and take pleasure in people like to themselves, but reject as alien whatever is not of their kind.

Lives, 10.123 )

Or, is this life closer to the ideas of writers of the book of Acts?

While Paul was waiting for them in Athens, he was greatly distressed to see that the city was full of idols. So he reasoned in the synagogue with both Jews and God-fearing Greeks, as well as in the marketplace day by day with those who happened to be there. A group of Epicurean and Stoic philosophers began to debate with him. Some of them asked, “What is this babbler trying to say?” Others remarked, “He seems to be advocating foreign gods.” They said this because Paul was preaching the good news about Jesus and the resurrection. Then they took him and brought him to a meeting of the Areopagus, where they said to him, “May we know what this new teaching is that you are presenting? You are bringing some strange ideas to our ears, and we would like to know what they mean.” (All the Athenians and the foreigners who lived there spent their time doing nothing but talking about and listening to the latest ideas.)
Paul then stood up in the meeting of the Areopagus and said: “People of Athens! I see that in every way you are very religious. For as I walked around and looked carefully at your objects of worship, I even found an altar with this inscription: TO AN UNKNOWN GOD. So you are ignorant of the very thing you worship—and this is what I am going to proclaim to you.”

“The God who made the world and everything in it is the Lord of heaven and earth and does not live in temples built by human hands. And he is not served by human hands, as if he needed anything. Rather, he himself gives everyone life and breath and everything else. From one man he made all the nations, that they should inhabit the whole earth; and he marked out their appointed times in history and the boundaries of their lands. God did this so that they would seek him and perhaps reach out for him and find him, though he is not far from any one of us. ‘For in him we live and move and have our being.’ As some of your own poets have said, ‘We are his offspring.’

“Therefore since we are God’s offspring, we should not think that the divine being is like gold or silver or stone—an image made by human design and skill. In the past God overlooked such ignorance, but now he commands all people everywhere to repent. For he has set a day when he will judge the world with justice by the man he has appointed. He has given proof of this to everyone by raising him from the dead.”

When they heard about the resurrection of the dead, some of them sneered, but others said, “We want to hear you again on this subject.” At that, Paul left the Council. Some of the people became followers of Paul and believed. Among them was Dionysius, a member of the Areopagus, also a woman named Damaris, and a number of others.

Acts 17 ( Listen )

The Laws of Manu by George Bühler.

‘ Friedrich Nietzsche is noted to have said “Close the Bible and open the Manu Smriti. It has an affirmation of life, a triumphing agreeable sensation in life and that to draw up a lawbook such as Manu means to permit oneself to get the upper hand, to become perfection, to be ambitious of the highest art of living” ( Friedrich Nietzsche, The Will to Power, vol. 1. ) Contra Nietzsche, Nipissing University philosophy professor W.A. Borody has coined the phrase “sublimation-transmogrification logic” to describe the underlying ‘state of mind’ lying behind the ethical teaching of the Manu Smrti—a ‘state of mind’ that would have found Nietzsche’s concept of the Dionysian Übermensch abhorrent, and a ‘state of mind’ or ‘voice’ that has always been radically contested within India’s various philosophical and religious traditions. ( W.A.Borody,“The Manu Smrti and Neo-Secularism”, International Journal of Humanities and Social Science, Vol I, No. 9 (Special Issue, July, 2011 )

From: W.O.E – Manusmṛti

b.

TRIMURTI

The personalities of the Trimurti (Hindu trinity) are also sometimes referred to as Guna avatars, because of their roles of controlling the three modes (gunas) of nature,( 55 ) even though they have not descended upon an earthly planet in the general sense of the term ‘avatar’.

Vishnu – As controller of the mode of goodness ( sattva )
Brahma – Controller of the mode of passion and desire ( rajas ) (Not to be confused with BRAHMAN )
Shiva – Controller of the mode of ignorance ( tamas )

BRAHMAN

‘….one supreme, universal Spirit that is the origin and support of the phenomenal universe.’ ( The Oxford Dictionary of World Religions , ed. John Bowker, OUP, 1997 )

‘….is sometimes referred to as the Absolute or Godhead’ ( Sarvepalli Radhakrishnan (1888—1975) / Sarvepalli Radhakrishnan )

‘…. which is the Divine Ground’ ( The phrase ‘Divine Ground’ was in modern times coined by Aldous Huxley in his widely read comparative study of mysticism The Perennial Philosophy. Divine Ground (Paul Tillich popularized the expression ‘Ground of Being’ to refer to God) is a neutral term to express the common experience of mystics in diverse religious traditions of an Absolute Ground in which phenomena appear to have their root and origin. Theistic religions refer to this ground as God or Godhead whereas Eastern transtheistic religions use terms such as Tao, Dharmakaya or Clear Light. Among modern authors who use the expression ‘Ground’ is Tibetan Buddhist teacher Sogyal Rinpoche (see his book The Tibetan Book of Living and Dying) ) ‘of all being’

 ‘…. is conceived as personal (“with qualities”), impersonal (“without qualities”) and/or supreme depending on the philosophical school. Hindus worship Brahman through statues called murtis, almost as a portal to Brahman. Different aspects of Brahman are represented in these murtis.
The sages of the Upanishads teach that Brahman is the ultimate essence of material phenomena (including the original identity of the human self) that cannot be seen or heard but whose nature can be known through the doctrine of self-knowledge (atma jnana).’

According to Advaita , a liberated human being ( jivanmukta ) has realised Brahman as his or her own true self (see atman ).

The Mundaka Upanishad ( pdf – SWAMI KRISHNANANDA / pdf – Swami Nikhilananda ) ( ….it is not, like other Mantras , to be used for sacrificial purposes. Its only object is to teach the highest knowledge, the knowledge of Brahman, which cannot be obtained either by sacrifices or by worship (Upasana), but by such teaching only as is imparted in the Upanishad. With its beautiful style, lucid metres, serious wording, and lofty feelings each mantra of this Upanishad gives joyous reading.) says:

AUM – That supreme Brahman is infinite, and this conditioned Brahman is infinite. The infinite proceeds from infinite. If you subtract the infinite from the infinite, the infinite remains alone.

 

‘ The Satapatha contains the oldest speculation on Brahman, or the Absolute Principle. Jung painted an image of the relation of the individual person to Satapatha Brahman or the Self ….’ Dr. JG Friesen from Jung and Western Mysticism

 

c.

‘Brahma’s job was creation of the world and all creatures. His name should not be confused with Brahman, who is the supreme God force present within all things.

Brahma is the least worshipped god in Hinduism today. There are only two temples in the whole of India devoted to him, compared with the many thousands devoted to the other two.’

From: BBC Religions – Brahma

 

Why is Brahma not worshipped so much?

Though there doesn’t seem to be too much written about this, though there are two Hindu myths that indicate that Brahma created the earth and made a very beautiful woman to aid with his job of creation. ‘She was so beautiful that Brahma became infatuated with her, and gazed at her wherever she went. This caused her extreme embarrassment and Shatarupa tried to turn from his gaze.’ ( read more, for the two possible accounts of how things got out of control – Wikipedia Online Encyclopedia – I notice that there are no sources, yet. )

 

“Lord Brahma’s day, consisting of his 12 hours, lasts 4 billion 320 million years, and his night is of the same duration.”

From: Bhaktivedanta VedaBase

 

‘Brahma’s prayers are recorded in the Brahma-samhita. From this scripture we know that Brahma is a devotee of Om the empty space everlasting peace and abode, and what is home for both material, non-material and spiritual universes. According to Brahma’s authority we can know that Om is the Supreme God. Brahma says: Om is the Supreme God. He has an eternal blissful spiritual body. He is the origin of all. He has no other origin and He is the prime cause of all causes. Brahma lets us know that all Brahma is one of many Brahmas who is one of many material universes which appear from Om’s breathing out.’

Link: Wikipedia Online Encyclopedia

d.

THE INCARNATIONS OF LORD VISHNU

There are ten avatars (dashavatara) of Vishnu commonly considered as the most prominent: (refer: The Garuda Purana Texts )

Matsya, the fish that kills Damanaka to save the vedas and saves mankind.

Kurma, the turtle that helps the Devas and Asuras churn the ocean for the nectar of immortality.

Varaha, the boar that rescues the Earth and kills Hiranyaksha.

Narasimha, the one (half-Lion half- human) who defeats the demon Hiranyakashapu (Nara = man, simha = lion).

Vamana. the dwarf that grows into a giant to save the world from King Bali.

Parashurama, A Sage, Rama with the axe, who appeared in the Treta Yuga.

Rama, Sri Ramachandra, the prince and king of Ayodhya and killed Demon King Raavana.

Krishna (meaning ‘dark coloured’ or ‘all attractive’ or the Existence of Bliss, ( Vishnu sahasranama, Sankara’s interpretation of the 57th name, Swami Tapasyananda’s translation, pg. 51. ), appeared in the Dwapara Yuga along with his brother

Refer this narrative which is based upon the commentary of Shankaracharya:

(57) Krishnah -The word Krishna means in Sanskrit ‘the dark’. The Truth that is intellectually appreciated, but spiritually not apprehended, is considered as ‘veiled behind some darkness’. Vishnu Sahasranama means the “Thousand Names of Vishnu.”

Balarama, the avatar of Aadi Sesha, the serpent on which Supreme Lord Vishnu sleeps, Svayam Bhagavan’.’ This viewpoint is specific to Bhagavata, Gaudiya, Vallabhacarya and Nimbarka sampradayas. (refer: Sri Dasavatara-stotra and Upaaya )

Kalki (“Eternity”, or “timeless”, destroyer of time or “The Destroyer of foulness”), who is expected to appear at the end of Kali Yuga, the time period in which we currently exist.

From: Wikipedia Online Encyclopedia : VISHNU

 

Part II 

a.  

A Talk With Ramana Maharshi

‘Apart from its historical usage, the term meditation was introduced as a translation for Eastern spiritual practices, referred to as dhyana in Buddhism and in Hinduism, which comes from the Sanskrit root dhyai, meaning to contemplate or meditate. The term “meditation” in English may also refer to practices from Islamic Sufism, or other traditions such as Jewish Kabbalah and Christian Hesychasm. An edited book about “meditation” published in 2003, for example, included chapter contributions by authors describing Buddhist, Christian, Hindu, Islamic, and Taoist traditions. Scholars have noted that “the term ‘meditation’ as it has entered contemporary usage” is parallel to the term “contemplation” in Christianity.’

From: Wikipedia Online Encyclopedia : Meditation : Etymology

 

b.

‘Apart from its historical usage, the term meditation was introduced as a translation for Eastern spiritual practices, referred to as dhyana in Buddhism and in Hinduism, which comes from the Sanskrit root dhyai, meaning to contemplate or meditate. The term “meditation” in English may also refer to practices from Islamic Sufism, ….’

From: Wikipedia Online Encyclopedia : Meditation : Etymology

 

‘….in Buddhism:

As a meditative state, dhyana is characterized by profound stillness and concentration. It is discussed in the Pali canon (and the parallel agamas) and post-canonical Theravada Buddhist literature , and in other literature. There has been little scientific study of the states so far.’

An Anthology from the Pali Canon by Thanissaro Bhikkhu

Live Science: <strong>Study: Zen Meditation Really Does Clear the Mind by Charles Q. ChoiDate: 02 September 2008

Web Extra: Mindfulness for the Masses by Katie Unger

Scientists are taking advantage of new technologies to see exactly what goes on inside the brains of Buddhist monks and other so-called “Olympian” meditators — individuals who meditate intensively and regularly. The neuroscientists hypothesize that regular meditation actually alters the way the brain is wired, and that these changes could be at the heart of claims that meditation can improve health and well-being.

From: Science Explores Meditation’s Effect on the Brain by ALLISON AUBREY

‘in Hinduism:

According to the Hindu Yoga Sutra , ( Yoga Sutras of Patanjali – Swami Jnaneshvara Bharati / The Yoga Sutras of Patanjali The Threads of Union Translation by BonGiovanni ) written by Patanjali, dhyana is one of the eight limbs of Yoga, (the other seven being Yama, Niyama, Asana, Pranayama, Pratyahara, Dharana, and Samadhi).
The entire Eight Limbs of the Patanjali system are also sometimes referred to as Dhyana, or the meditative path, although strictly speaking, only the last four limbs constitute meditation Pratyahara, Dhyana, Dharana, and Samadhi. The preceding steps are only to prepare the body and mind for meditation.

‘….practices from Islamic Sufism’
‘Classical Sufi scholars have defined Sufism as “a science whose objective is the reparation of the heart and turning it away from all else but God”. Alternatively, in the words of the Darqawi Sufi teacher Ahmad ibn Ajiba, “a science through which one can know how to travel into the presence of the Divine, purify one’s inner self from filth, and beautify it with a variety of praiseworthy traits”.

The Healing Power of Sufi Meditation by as-Sayyid, Nurjan Mirahmadi (Author), Hedieh Mirahmadi

‘…. Many people Muslim or others were directing themselves to Yoga, Meditation, Reiki and many New Age philosophies. Believing that Sufism does not have these options, much to their surprise Sufism is the custodian for these ancient realities’ a result of Shaykh Hisham Kabbani and the Baraka of our Sultan al-Awliya and all Mashaykh Naqshbandi pushed the renewed concept of Sufi Meditation and went after those teachings to bring the Light of Mawlana Shaykh to these people and direct many of them to the realities of Sayedena Muhammad [s] and Tariqat Naqshbandiyyat-il-`aliyyah.’

From: The Healing Power of Sufi Meditation ( Sufi Meditation – Step by Step )

 

c.

‘…. or other traditions such as …. and Christian Hesychasm

From: Wikipedia Online Encyclopedia : Meditation : Etymology

An ancient mystical tradition was lost to the Western world nearly a thousand years ago. Now, at the dawn of the new millennium, this profound yet practical path of transcendence is being rediscovered. Its name is hesychasm, from a Greek root meaning “to be still.”

‘Hesychasm’s roots extend back almost two thousand years to the beginnings of the Christian church. Today much of what we know about this spiritual path has been gleaned from the writings of mystics who populated the Middle Eastern deserts in the fourth century. These early ascetics are known as the Desert Fathers.

In the eleventh century, the Christian church split into the Roman Catholic and Orthodox churches. Catholicism rejected hesychasm, which encouraged individual experiences of the divine. As a result, hesychasm disappeared from Western culture but survived because the Orthodox church embraced and preserved this tradition of quiet meditation.

For the last millennium, hesychasm has remained shrouded in obscurity in the West. Why? One reason is that hesychastic texts preserved by the Orthodox Church were written in Greek or the languages of various eastern European countries. This made them inaccessible to most Westerners. Only recently have classics such as The Philokalia and The Ladder of Divine Ascent been translated into English. Another factor has been the cultural and political differences that separated Eastern Europe from the West. The fall of these barriers is permitting greater access to, and understanding of, this spiritual path. ‘ ( read more )

From: Hesychasm: A Christian Path of Transcendence by Mitchell B. Liester

 

d.

 

‘…. or other traditions such as Jewish Kabbalah and Christian Hesychasm. ( Daniel Goleman (1988). The meditative mind: The varieties of meditative experience. New York: Tarcher. ) ‘

From: Wikipedia Online Encyclopedia : Meditation : Etymology

 

‘So what is meditation really ? ….’

Daniel Goleman discusses Meditation in a two part video playlist: Click Here

Kaballah (lit. “receiving”) is a discipline and school of thought concerned with the esoteric aspect of Rabbinic Judaism. It was systematized in 11th-13th century Hachmei Provence (Southern France) and Spain, and again after the Expulsion from Spain, in 16th century Ottoman Palestine. It was popularized in the form of Hassidic Judaism in the 18th century.

Kabbalah is a set of esoteric teachings meant to explain the relationship between an eternal and mysterious Creator and the mortal and finite universe (His creation). While it is heavily used by some denominations, it is not a denomination in and of itself; it is a set of scriptures that exist outside the traditional Jewish scriptures.

Kabbalah seeks to define the nature of the universe and the human being, the nature and purpose of existence, and various other ontological questions.

It also presents methods to aid understanding of these concepts and to thereby attain spiritual realization.

Kabbalah originally developed entirely within the realm of Jewish thought and constantly uses classical Jewish sources to explain and demonstrate its esoteric teachings. These teachings are thus held by kabbalists to define the inner meaning of both the Tanakh (Hebrew Bible) and traditional rabbinic literature, their formerly concealed transmitted dimension, as well as to explain the significance of Jewish religious observances. (Primary Source:Kabbalah Online: Imbued with Holiness ‘The relationship of the esoteric to the exoteric in the fourfold Pardes interpretation of Torah and existence.’ )

What is Kabbalah? : What is Kabbalah …And Why? : Beginners Start Here :Introductory

Primary Website: The Kabbalah Centre : Video – Where to begin?

The sacred texts of Judaism : Kabbalah Unveiled

e.

‘…. An edited book about “meditation” published in 2003, for example, included chapter contributions by authors describing Buddhist, Christian, Hindu, Islamic, and Taoist traditions. ‘

From: Wikipedia Online Encyclopedia : Meditation : Etymology

Experience of Meditation: Experts Introduce the Major Traditions by Jonathan Shear

Jonathan Shear is Affiliated Associate Professor of Philosophy at VCU, where he has taught since 1987. He received his Ph.D. in philosophy from the University of California at Berkeley, and was a Woodrow Wilson Fellow there, and a Fulbright Scholar in philosophy of science at the London School of Economics. Since the early 1960’s his work has focused on the use of meditation practices and related scientific research to expand our knowledge of human consciousness. He has published and lectured widely in North America, Europe and Asia, and was the founding Managing Editor of the Journal of Consciousness Studies.

 Ruth A. Baer , Ph.D., is a professor of psychology at the University of Kentucky in Lexington, KY. She conducts research on mindfulness and related processes and teaches and supervises mindfulness and acceptancebased interventions. She is a renowned expert in mindfulness-based cognitive therapy (MBCT), dialectical behavior therapy (DBT), and mindfulnessbased stress reduction (MBSR).

ASSESSING MINDFULNESS AND ACCEPTANCE PROCESSES IN CLIENTS – Illuminating the Theory and Practice of Change

 

f.

 

‘…. Scholars have noted that “the term ‘meditation’ as it has entered contemporary usage” is parallel to the term “contemplation” in Christianity.’

From: Wikipedia Online Encyclopedia : Meditation : Etymology

 

Prayer, meditation and contemplation in Christianity

From meditation to contemplative prayer

In the Western Church, during the 15th century, reforms of the clergy and monastic settings were undertaken by the two Venetians, Lorenzo Giustiniani and Louis Barbo. Both men considered methodical prayer and meditation as essential tools for the reforms they were undertaking.( 28 ) Barbo, who died in 1443, wrote a treatise on prayer titled Forma orationis et meditionis otherwise known as Modus meditandi. He described three types of prayer; vocal prayer, best suited for beginners; meditation, oriented towards those who are more advanced; and contemplation as the highest form of prayer, only obtainable after the meditation stage. Based on the request of Pope Eugene IV, Barbo introduced these methods to Valladolid, Spain and by the end of the 15th century they were being used at the abbey of Montserrat. These methods then influenced Garcias de Cisneros, who in turn influenced Ignatius of Loyola. ( 29 ) ( 30 )
The Eastern Othodox Church has a similar three level hierarchy of prayer.(31 )( 32 ) The first level prayer is again vocal prayer, the second level is meditation (also called “inward prayer” or “discursive prayer”) and the third level is contemplative prayer in which a much closer relationship with God is cultivated. ( 31 )

 

 

 

 

Abhishiktananda

Jim: Won’t some people say that you have returned to a Christian apologetic that wants to again set up Christianity as the truth over other religions?

Glenn: Well of course some people will say that. Other people say that I am still interpreting Christianity in terms of Hinduism. I am not responsible for how other people think or react. I can only say that, in large part through my studies of Abhishiktananda, I have learned to see Christianity differently, and I know that it is true. This knowing is more than an intellectual acceptance of what Abhishiktananda called "petrified" and "idolatrous" dogma. And this is not to say that God cannot also reveal Himself in other religions. But it seems to me that Christianity does have a distinct emphasis on love as self-giving, following the model of Christ’s kenosis. And this has practical consequences. We must ask why it was that it was a Western friend who came to the aid of Abhishiktananda as he was lying in the street of Rishikesh after his heart attack.

From: An Interview with Dr. J Glenn Friesen - Abhishiktananda 

Thomas Merton

'Hence contemplation is more than a consideration of abstract truths about God, more even than effective meditation on the things we believe.  It is awakening, enlightenment and the amazing intuitive grasp by which love gains certitude of God's creative and dynamic intervention in our daily life. Hence contemplation does not simply "find" a clear idea of God and confine Him within the limits of that idea, and hold Him there as a prisoner to whom it can always return.  On the contrary, contemplation is carried away by Him into His own realm, His own mystery and His own freedom.  It is a pure and a virginal knowledge, poor in concepts, poorer still in reasoning, but able, by its poverty and purity, to follow the Word "wherever He may go."

From: New Seeds of Contemplation by Thomas Merton

 

 

5.  The Influence of Classical Ideas in the Humanities:

 ‘….the influence of classical ideas in many humanities disciplines, such as philosophy and literature, remains strong; for example, the Gilgamesh Epic from Mesopotamia, the Egyptian Book of the Dead, the Vedas and Upanishads in India and various writings attributed to Confucius, Lao-tse and Chuang-tzu in China.
From: W.O.E. – Humanities – Classics

 

For those who may be unfamiliar with any of the above mentioned books or authors, here are a few links that might be helpful to those who are not yet acquainted with them.

1. Ancient Near East : The Epic of Gilgamesh (courtesy of Sacred Texts)
2. The Egyptian Book of the Dead (courtesy of Sacred Texts)
3. The Vedas (courtesy of Sacred Texts)
4. Upanishads (courtesy of Sacred Texts)
5. Confusion and Traditional Chinese Beliefs (courtesy of Sacred Texts)
6. Lao-tse (604BC) – Taoist Texts (courtesy of Sacred Texts)
7. Chuang-tzu(4th century BCE) – Musings of a Chinese Mystic by Lionel Giles (courtesy of Sacred Texts)

‘Chuang-Tze had made himself well acquainted with all the literature of his time, but preferred the views of Lao-Tze; and ranked himself among his followers, so that of the more than ten myriads of characters contained in his published writings the greater part are occupied with metaphorical illustrations of Lao’s doctrines.’ (read more: here or here )

  

‘Of what is great one must either be silent or speak with greatness. With greatness–that means cynically and with innocence.’ FN

 


Did Jesus Exist?

 

Peace.

From this pilgrim who enjoys reading and studying  EvolutionPhilosophy and more recently Atheism and Nihilism in Art. 

 

Finis.  

Aeryck

Fossil Finds by rogue66

 

ps.  A while ago I met an Australian bloke who was totally into something he called 'Lay Gnosis' which he explained to me in some detail as well as informing me that my skepticism would be solved by visiting the website AFTERLIFE EVIDENCE (authored by a lawyer Victor Zammit), but one peculiarity stuck out and that was his use of the phrase "GOOGLE-IT"     

Well, as I was thinking of a way to end this thread (now that the comments have fizzled out), I decided to do just that and type 'can you prove the existence of god' into my Google browser and post up the results.

Who knows maybe Google will shutdown one day just like Geocities did and there'll be a record of it here.

 

 


 

 Here are the links: (from my "GI" / Google It!)

1.  CAN YOU PROVE GOD EXISTS?  PETER KREEFT

2.  CAN YOU PROVE THE EXISTENCE OF GOD?  EVERY STUDENT

3.  IS THERE A GOD  EVERY STUDENT

4.  EXISTENCE OF GOD  WIKIPEDIA

5.  HUNDREDS OF PROOFS FOR THE EXISTENCE OF GOD   GODLESSGEEKS

6.  CAN SCIENCE BE USED TO PROVE THE EXISTENCE OF GOD   THE GUARDIAN

7.  IF YOU CAN READ THIS, I CAN PROVE GOD EXISTS   COSMIC FINGERPRINTS

8.  HOW DO YOU PROVE THE EXISTENCE OF GOD   ICHTHYS

9.  CAN YOU PROVE THE EXISTENCE OF GOD   PLIM REPORT

10.  CAN YOU PROVE THE EXISTENCE OF GOD?  JOEUSER FORUMS  < LIKE A MAP (HERE WE ARE)  

 

 

 

 

 1st SA Bluesman and Smeagologist in Cyberspace

Thanks for your comments and may you stay forever young kids.    

Peace,

Aeryck.

North Walsham Guide


 

Locked Post   |   329 Replies
Search this post
Subscription Options


Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
March 31, 2012 5:34:59 PM from Sins of a Solar Empire Forums Sins of a Solar Empire Forums

You can't have the experience if you aren't equipped with the cognitive tools to recognize it. More simply, it is possible to know that God exists, as opposed as to have faith in His existence. Religious experience has nothing to do with knowledge, as it is founded on faith. The knowledge i mentioned is not religious.

 

Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
March 31, 2012 7:16:18 PM from Stardock Forums Stardock Forums

Thank you all for your insightful and sensitive comments.  

 

Peace, Aeryck. 

Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
March 31, 2012 8:20:24 PM from Sins of a Solar Empire Forums Sins of a Solar Empire Forums

You can have a cognitive experience--it's just the process of arriving at it isn't like you might think.

Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
March 31, 2012 9:09:06 PM from Sins of a Solar Empire Forums Sins of a Solar Empire Forums

Quoting lulapilgrim,
With the rise of rationalism, faith and reason became separated with disastrous consequences. The end result is the nihilism that we are now experiencing. Nihilism contains no hope of meaning and admits of no objective truth (n. 46). It recognizes only the utilitarian ends of power and pleasure (n. 47). Men and women are treated as objects to be manipulated rather than as persons to be honored. Nihilism is reflected in contemporary culture, for example, in art, music, literature and entertainment. As the result of increasing nihilism, a culture of death is replacing a culture of life. If this continues, the Pope told the U.S. bishops, the next millennium will bring “a new era a barbarism rather than a springtime of hope” (Address, n. 3).


Quoting lulapilgrim,
Did you all note the last paragraph?


There are very good philosophers of religion and religious philosophers, but this is trash. Nihilism and utilitarianism are different, contradicting philosophical positions. Although a nihilist could consistently seek some utilitarian end, e.g. the maximum distribution of some good, she would need to do so while recognizing that end as subjectively and not objectively desirable. She would have a very different appreciation of these ends from the utilitarian, since utilitarianism depends on the premise that subjective goods are objective goods, i.e. goods simpliciter, and nihilism expressly denies this premise. 

There's also nothing intrinsic to nihilism that would make a nihilist treat "men and women as objects to be manipulated... rather than persons to be honored." A nihilist could just as easily do the opposite.

Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
March 31, 2012 10:17:57 PM from JoeUser Forums JoeUser Forums

Quoting Sinperium,
You can have a cognitive experience--it's just the process of arriving at it isn't like you might think.
Most that do and expound on it usually end up with a prescription for psychotic drugs, acquire a new tax-paid-for residence or they practice theology. Very few accept another's 'individual and private' experience as anything more that their own personal 'reason' for believing in something only they were privy to. Be it god or a teapot in space the choice is theirs ... oh yea there is always science if one is so predisposed. Predisposition would make a dissectible delectable topic I think but that makes me think of brainwashing and especially of children. Oh my but the first few years are soooo important.

Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
April 1, 2012 12:09:28 AM from Sins of a Solar Empire Forums Sins of a Solar Empire Forums

There are many  shared spiritual experiences--even if one is individually predisposed to use  the convenient panaceas offered to rationalize them away so they don't have to be considered.

If accounts of God were strictly solitary, internal experiences with no coherency or consistency then sure--strike them all as delusions.  They aren't all like that though--any more than  they are all schizophrenic breaks, self-hypnosis or communal hallucinations.

The fact that some people have delusions and imagine they are spiritual experiences doesn't make all spiritual experiences delusions.

Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
April 1, 2012 2:09:33 AM from Sins of a Solar Empire Forums Sins of a Solar Empire Forums

Quoting Sinperium,
You can have a cognitive experience--it's just the process of arriving at it isn't like you might think.

Are you under the impression that you are the only one who knows how to experience God? It's a benevolent question, you see.

There are plenty of ways to have an acquaintance with the Highest, and through history there's been much polemic about them. As Nicolaus Cusanus put it, each mirror according to its own capability to reflect.

My statement remains, in any case, valid, that neither a subjective experience nor a knowledge of Him can be passed to another, one because it is by definition constrained by the limits of individual consciousness, the other because it depends on a massive amount of study, which very few can muster.

And no, what is found through drugs is not God: just shadows of mechanisms running in the background of you and your surrounding "reality".

Quoting zigzag,
There are very good philosophers of religion and religious philosophers, but this is trash. Nihilism and utilitarianism are different, contradicting philosophical positions.

I would contend that lulapilgrim's stance is quite consequential. As Guénon diversely put it, nihilism and utilitarianism may be seen as aspects of the same materialistic attitude.

Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
April 1, 2012 3:07:03 AM from Sins of a Solar Empire Forums Sins of a Solar Empire Forums

In court the testimony of an eye witness trumps speculations. I am an eye witness, I met Jesus once, and I am not sure if I died in or what in my sleep as a child, but I saw Him, and I heard Him. I can't remember squat from when I was a kid, much less whatever dream I may have had, but decades later I still remember, and still feel the echoes of His voice. People can believe me or not, but that is my truth, and no one can convince me otherwise, because I lived it, and I have had more proof of Gods existence than I can possibly ignore. 

Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
April 1, 2012 10:13:23 PM from Sins of a Solar Empire Forums Sins of a Solar Empire Forums

What sintinerus said above echoes my experience as well personally.

@137...

I think my statements made my point clearly to the contrary of my being "the only one".  I think nothing I said suggested that.

For the record, I've never done drugs of any kind other than what comes in food nowadays.

Your approach here seems to be "intellectual philosophy".  "So-and-So says", rhetorical terms and concepts, etc., etc.  These really have little to do with any actual experience with an external divine and much more to do with man's musings about what must constitute such a thing and how they imagine it.

For something to truly be in the place of what we define as a "God" it must be removed in nature from what we are--perhaps related to us and us related to it--but not existing solely in our own realm as we are.  It must be something inclusive of us but beyond us as well.

There is little chance of anyone perceiving or coming to understand something beyond us that exists elsewhere and has characteristics and properties that we cannot imagine--unless that something acts from it's own unique position to reveal itself to us.

So real experiences with God must be initiated by God--i.e., you're not going to conjure one up or imagine it...or even derive it's existence from philosophy.

I think many people (all in fact) at some point in their own lives and at some level experience the presence and effect of God.  Their ability to accept it or see it in proper context will vary but I don't think the experiences are so alien and unique to each person that no one can share what's happened coherently with anyone else.  In essence my own experience and those I have heard from others suggest that "God" is willing to be found and to for those finding it to know they have found it.

Modern skeptics dismiss any chance that such a being has ever  been revealed to anyone and will insist that only scientifically describable experiences are valid regarding anything that is "real" in our universe.  From that stance, most skeptics will reject any solely internal experience as subjective or anecdotal becasue it can't be quantified scientifically.  The other approach is to apply psychology to explain why internal perceptions of things "not visibly here" are just human emotion and cognition--not any cause and effect result of contact with something beyond our own reality and experience.

So a staunch atheist would say, "Your opinion of your spiritual experience is erroneous and is at best simply a psychological projection or misinterpretation of otherwise mundane and common thoughts and experiences."--i.e., "It can't be real.".

A philosopher would say that, "Real is in the mind of the imagining beholder" and that "all experiences are real" but then rationalize why no experience is real enough to be known to be true for anyone else.

Both of these viewpoints leave you with Pontius Pilate saying, "What is truth?". 

If a true God exists, if it intentionally communicates with mankind with the goal of being known to men and does so from a position superior to our own, then it it very well be possible for people to share an experience with an actual God that has definition and consistency that people with similar experiences can recognize and identify.

This is essentially what the New Testament "Church" is described as being--people who have had this definable experience and are able to share it with one another with understanding.  In fact, the whole purpose of the bible is to lay out how and why this can occur and provide instructions on how to proceed with it.

I don't believe in, We can't know" or "It can't happen" or "No one else can understand it.".

Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
April 1, 2012 10:30:45 PM from JoeUser Forums JoeUser Forums

Quoting sintinerus,
sintinerus
Everything trumps speculations and testimony from an eye witness can lack as much credibility as any other piece of evidence, maybe more so due to prejudice. If you are happy then so be it, but you have not put forward anything to promote your cause other than a dream from a child a long time ago, not the best evidence to take back into that court of yours. You did mention Jesus though and that is one god figure I care to differ over. Take the NT out of the picture (as per the OP question) and try to justify your dream and your belief in Jesus.

Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
April 2, 2012 12:45:30 AM from Stardock Forums Stardock Forums

Ha!, the question that no one as the answer to; comes to mind:  "Who created the creator?"  Also a wall of text cannot answer the question you have proposed.  Believe what you want, but except the fact there will be others who will not and for reasons of their own will not agree with you.

 

Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
April 2, 2012 3:16:14 AM from Sins of a Solar Empire Forums Sins of a Solar Empire Forums

Quoting Sinperium,
What sintinerus said above echoes my experience as well personally.

@137...

I think my statements made my point clearly to the contrary of my being "the only one".  I think nothing I said suggested that.

For the record, I've never done drugs of any kind other than what comes in food nowadays.

Your approach here seems to be "intellectual philosophy".  "So-and-So says", rhetorical terms and concepts, etc., etc.  These really have little to do with any actual experience with an external divine and much more to do with man's musings about what must constitute such a thing and how they imagine it.

For something to truly be in the place of what we define as a "God" it must be removed in nature from what we are--perhaps related to us and us related to it--but not existing solely in our own realm as we are.  It must be something inclusive of us but beyond us as well.

There is little chance of anyone perceiving or coming to understand something beyond us that exists elsewhere and has characteristics and properties that we cannot imagine--unless that something acts from it's own unique position to reveal itself to us.

So real experiences with God must be initiated by God--i.e., you're not going to conjure one up or imagine it...or even derive it's existence from philosophy.

I think many people (all in fact) at some point in their own lives and at some level experience the presence and effect of God.  Their ability to accept it or see it in proper context will vary but I don't think the experiences are so alien and unique to each person that no one can share what's happened coherently with anyone else.  In essence my own experience and those I have heard from others suggest that "God" is willing to be found and to for those finding it to know they have found it.

Modern skeptics dismiss any chance that such a being has ever  been revealed to anyone and will insist that only scientifically describable experiences are valid regarding anything that is "real" in our universe.  From that stance, most skeptics will reject any solely internal experience as subjective or anecdotal becasue it can't be quantified scientifically.  The other approach is to apply psychology to explain why internal perceptions of things "not visibly here" are just human emotion and cognition--not any cause and effect result of contact with something beyond our own reality and experience.

So a staunch atheist would say, "Your opinion of your spiritual experience is erroneous and is at best simply a psychological projection or misinterpretation of otherwise mundane and common thoughts and experiences."--i.e., "It can't be real.".

A philosopher would say that, "Real is in the mind of the imagining beholder" and that "all experiences are real" but then rationalize why no experience is real enough to be known to be true for anyone else.

Both of these viewpoints leave you with Pontius Pilate saying, "What is truth?". 

If a true God exists, if it intentionally communicates with mankind with the goal of being known to men and does so from a position superior to our own, then it it very well be possible for people to share an experience with an actual God that has definition and consistency that people with similar experiences can recognize and identify.

This is essentially what the New Testament "Church" is described as being--people who have had this definable experience and are able to share it with one another with understanding.  In fact, the whole purpose of the bible is to lay out how and why this can occur and provide instructions on how to proceed with it.

I don't believe in, We can't know" or "It can't happen" or "No one else can understand it.".

You can know God exists and know the shadow left of Him in creation without having an experience of Him, and yet the knowledge helps the experience unfold. Human intellect, and the choice of the word is appropriate given its latin origin, is a gift of God, literally. As it is borrowed understanding, borrowed consciousness. Everything is initiated by God, therefore, the distinction between something which is from God and something which isn't, is meaningless.

Science helps as well as philosophy. Yet science and philosophy are ones of several keys to open the doors of understanding.

Has it ever occurred to you, the the word "truth" and the word "you" (male plural), in hebrew, are anagrams? That contains an interesting suggestion: as in, listening to the opinions of others is always a good idea, even though you may disagree. So, "so and so says" is a perfectly valid statement of fact. It's their stance, and it must contain some truth.

The New Testament church is caught in the shortcomings of its members, otherwise it would be fine with me. The problem with the experience of Jesus should be imitating Jesus, but that very few Christians know how to do. Jesus was a very self-conscious man, and this is not true for many, many Christians.

Of the importance of knowledge and court witnessing:

    Then the LORD answered Job out of the whirlwind and said:
    “Who is this that darkens counsel by words without knowledge?
    Dress for action like a man;
        I will question you, and you make it known to me.
(Job 38:1-3 ESV)

Nonetheless, it's the kind of knowledge you cannot impart upon one another, as it takes a lifetime to collect it.

Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
April 2, 2012 4:03:17 AM from Sins of a Solar Empire Forums Sins of a Solar Empire Forums

I respect what others have to say--but "thinkers" are a dime a dozen.  Experience counts for a lot more.  Many people have a list of quotes from "the known" to give themselves credibility and quotes on the net are thin for credibility as many are copied and pasted and don't reflect the actual established thoughts of the speaker.

No argument that people in church should be imitating Jesus--but that's a big part of the problem--they're trying to "imitate" without knowing by first hand experience. True imitation requires really knowing something of the one you want to emulate.

You can use philosophy and reason to work out and gain an increased perspective on what experience showed you and you can even get a point in a right direction on occasion from it before having any experience--so i'm not saying it's worthless as I think it has a lot of worth.  It's a great tool for learning disciplined thinking.

We all learn as we go and never completely finish--that's a given in life and in spiritual things as well. 

Not trying to be a strictly Christian apologetically here either--just an advocate for the belief that anyone can know a real God as opposed to mere philosophical or intellectual creations of one.

I'm also very cognizant from my own faith that it should be simple enough for a child to grasp at it's most basic level.

Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
April 2, 2012 5:49:38 AM from Sins of a Solar Empire Forums Sins of a Solar Empire Forums

Oh, it is simple: be good to others and love God. Yet sometimes simplicity requires bafflingly complicated explanations, if one really wants to know the reasons thereof.

On the other hand, quoting the Bible necessitates, generally, copying and pasting. Of course many other positive appraisals of knowledge could be found in the Bible, in Ben Sirach (although some consider it deuterocanonical), Judges, and elsewhere. Bible which, as Timothy put it, is all good for teaching (I am abstaining from quotations, as you dislike them).

If you dislike philosophy as opposed to experience, it's your right. Yet science, philosophy and thought are just another kind of the many experiences God mandated to man to discover and practice, so there is not really a difference, if not in the tools you use to relate with reality (words, numbers, mental images as opposed to bodily sensations). An idea can inspire feelings as well as a nice morning of work in the garden.

There are, besides, intelligent children. Let them come to me, someone said.

Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
April 2, 2012 11:54:32 AM from Sins of a Solar Empire Forums Sins of a Solar Empire Forums

I don't dislike philosophy (I'm accused of it all the time)--I just don't see it as a substitute for what faith is really constituted of.  Philosophy isn't required--for example--for a child to love their parents.

I'm also not trying to argue or contend with you here--just making my own points alongside.

Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
April 2, 2012 1:24:10 PM from Stardock Forums Stardock Forums

137: 'Nonetheless, it's the kind of knowledge you cannot impart upon one another, as it takes a lifetime to collect it.'

This reminded me of the first time I went sailing and got so sick that we had to turn the yacht around.  Within minutes we were heading home in a full force gale.  You have no idea how happy I felt to finally have my feet back on good old Mother Earth again.  

 

Hendrick Maertensz. Sorgh - Sailing Vessels in a Strong Wind


Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
April 2, 2012 2:09:02 PM from JoeUser Forums JoeUser Forums

 

 

Quoting 137,
You can't have the experience if you aren't equipped with the cognitive tools to recognize it. More simply, it is possible to know that God exists, as opposed as to have faith in His existence. Religious experience has nothing to do with knowledge, as it is founded on faith. The knowledge i mentioned is not religious.

 

 

Quoting 137,
There are plenty of ways to have an acquaintance with the Highest, and through history there's been much polemic about them.

 

Quoting Sinperium,
You can have a cognitive experience--it's just the process of arriving at it isn't like you might think.

I agree.

Quoting Sinperium,
So real experiences with God must be initiated by God--i.e., you're not going to conjure one up or imagine it...or even derive it's existence from philosophy.

I agree. 

 

It's been over 2,000 years since the Birth, Life, Death and Resurrection of Christ and  the spread of Christianity. From then through today, there are thousands of records of people having mystical experiences and visions of Christ and/or His Blessed Mother Mary. Here are six great examples transcending localities and centuries that come to mind.  

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_Faustina_Kowalska

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bridget_of_Sweden

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teresa_of_%C3%81vila#Mysticism

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sister_Lucia

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marguerite_Marie_Alacoque

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthony_of_Padua

 

Quoting 137,
My statement remains, in any case, valid, that neither a subjective experience nor a knowledge of Him can be passed to another, one because it is by definition constrained by the limits of individual consciousness, the other because it depends on a massive amount of study, which very few can muster.

Well, for Catholics, the experiences of these six  have certainly been passed on to us. In some cases, cathedrals, hospitals, missionaries, schools, religious orders, etc. were founded as a result of the experience. 

 

Quoting Sinperium,
I think many people (all in fact) at some point in their own lives and at some level experience the presence and effect of God. 

Absolutely. 1 St.John 4:16 tells us God is Love.  "God is love, and he who abides in love abides in God, and God abides in him."

In his 2005 encyclical, Deus Caritas Est, Pope Benedict teaches these words from the first letter of St. John express a remarkable clarity of heart of the Christian Faith; the Christian image of God and the resulting image of mankind and its destiny. In the same verse, St. John offers a kind of summary of the Christian life: "We have come to know and believe in the love God has for us." ..Being Christian is not the result of an ethical choice or a lofty idea,  but the encounter with an event, a Person, which gives life a new horizon and decisive direction." 

The experience of true love is experiencing Almighty God. Christ is Love and the Source of true love (agape), 

Being Christian is an encounter (event) with love (Christ). God's supernatural love for us is linked with the reality of human love. 

 

 

 

 

Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
April 2, 2012 3:09:36 PM from JoeUser Forums JoeUser Forums

Quoting 137,
You can know God exists and know the shadow left of Him in creation without having an experience of Him,...

I agree and essentially what I've been saying.

Quoting 137,
and yet the knowledge helps the experience unfold. Human intellect, and the choice of the word is appropriate given its latin origin, is a gift of God, literally. As it is borrowed understanding, borrowed consciousness. Everything is initiated by God, therefore, the distinction between something which is from God and something which isn't, is meaningless.

Though human reason is capable of attaining a true and certain knowledge of the existence of the One God, yet at the same time there are many obstacles that prevent reason from the effective use of this inborn faculty, namely, as a consequence of our fallen nature, the human mind is often hampered by the impact of senses and imagination. So it happens that men easily persuade themselves that what they would not like to be true is false or at least doubtful.

 

That's why Almighty God, without origin or end,  in His Infinite Love, Goodness and Wisdom gave us another order of knowledge which man cannot possibly arrrive at on his own powers; Divine Revelation, His truth, both written and oral. God has revealed Himself to man and given us His plan for the benefit of all mankind. God has fully revealed His plan and made known the mystery of His will, by sending us His beloved Son, Our Lord Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit.  This is where Reason and Faith meet.

 

Quoting 137,
Everything is initiated by God, therefore, the distinction between something which is from God and something which isn't, is meaningless.

Sin (moral evil) is not initiated by God. 

 

 

  

 

Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
April 2, 2012 3:26:10 PM from JoeUser Forums JoeUser Forums

Quoting Sinperium,
Both of these viewpoints leave you with Pontius Pilate saying, "What is truth?". 

Truth was standing right in front of him. God "desires all men to be saved and come to the knowledge of the truth", that is of Jesus Christ. 

Quoting Sinperium,
If a true God exists, if it intentionally communicates with mankind with the goal of being known to men and does so from a position superior to our own, then it it very well be possible for people to share an experience with an actual God that has definition and consistency that people with similar experiences can recognize and identify.

This is essentially what the New Testament "Church" is described as being--people who have had this definable experience and are able to share it with one another with understanding.  In fact, the whole purpose of the bible is to lay out how and why this can occur and provide instructions on how to proceed with it.

Well said. 

By love, God has revealed Himself to us by gradually communicating His own mystery in deeds and in words. His will was that men should have access to the Father, through Christ in the Holy Spirit and thus become sharers in His Divine nature. 

By revealing Himself God wishes to make us capable of knowing, loving and serving Him. God, our beginning and end is the meaning and purpose of human life. 

 

Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
April 2, 2012 3:55:41 PM from JoeUser Forums JoeUser Forums

Quoting lee3908870,
Ha!, the question that no one as the answer to; comes to mind:  "Who created the creator?" 

 

This is the sneering gibe to be expected from an Atheist in a dispute with a believer in the existence of God.

I'll answer, but would like your answer to this simple query---

If there is no God, tell us, from whence came all creation?

God, the Creator, cannot be a creature which He would be if He were made. Being a creature, He would be a contingent, a dependent being, instead of a being that cannot be. He would be a composite being, made up of parts, subject to decomposition, death, hence, not a pure Spirit as is God.  

God told us that He is the I AM WHO AM. "HE WHO IS has sent me to you," said Moses to the children of Israel. In other words, God has no past or future, He is Eternal Being, and therefore without a beginning or an end. To ask, "Who made the Eternal?" is as absurd as to ask when the Eternal, the Timeless, began. If the Eternal, Who is God, were made as I said a moment ago, He would be a creature instead of the Creator; and if the Eternal God had a beginning, He would not be Eternal. 

Your question is a senseless as asking, How much wood could a woodchuck, chuck, if a woodchuck could chuck wood?

In studying the source of created things, right reason demands that we go intellectually from the finite back to the last of the series, beyond which we come to the Infinite. Words in our language would be minus their proper contrast if the finite did not assume the existence of the Infinite; the imperfect, the Perfect; just as a contingent, a dependent being (man) calls for the existence of a Necessary Being, one who is independent, indispensable, existing by and of Himself, Who is God.

In order to avoid terms that are technical, (thought they may be more comprehensive), look at God as we believers hold Him to be, the First Cause. The first is first, is that not so, Ms. Lee 3908870?  Of course, it is. Then only he who has eaten on the insane root, that takes the reason prisoner", would ask "If the first is first, who made the first"? 

If there were such an impossible thing as the cause of the First Cause, it would not be the First Cause. Therefore, even an Atheist could see, if she would take an unbiased intellectual peep, that to ask "who created the creator", is as far-fetched as to ask "what makes water wet? or what makes a circle round?" or  "How high is up?"

Almighty God is a Self-Existent, Spiritual Being, the "I AM WHO AM", the Causeless Cause, the Maker of the made.   

Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
April 2, 2012 4:56:02 PM from JoeUser Forums JoeUser Forums

Quoting lulapilgrim,
This is the sneering gibe to be expected from an Atheist in a dispute with a believer in the existence of God.
Truth be told, you cannot prove that god even exists anywhere besides in your head; let alone that he always was. Seemed like a reasonable question to me is all. For someone who professes reason for so much of their explanations, you seem to be devoid of much of it yourself. Reason has nothing to do with denials of our scientific prowess simply because you cannot figure out some compatibility. Reason has little to do with religion itself because it is one of the first things that has to go during the conversion process. Reason has nothing to do with believing in the biblical age of the universe, Adam and Eve, the Ark and the flood or many other such impossibilities ... it has to do with faith only ... and that is why it is called blind. There is a reason why theological life started in a short lived bliss and was taken down by a provocative snake and the tree of knowledge. Knowledge is the only thing that will set one free which is why it is theologically opposed at every opportunity.

Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
April 2, 2012 8:38:48 PM from JoeUser Forums JoeUser Forums

Can you prove the existence of God?[/quote]

 

Quoting lee3908870,
Also a wall of text cannot answer the question you have proposed. 

Not really. The question can be answered with an unhesitant affirmative and the simple fact is it has been done.

Man has been able to arrive at the truth God exists by reason and the fact of conscience. 

http://www.innerexplorations.com/philtext/ex.htm

And besides that, St.Thomas Aquinas answered the question quite succinctly in his Summa  Theologiae Ia, q.2, a. 3. The Five Ways of proving (by demonstration) that God exists are the proof from motion, from causality, from contingency, the degrees of being, and order in creation. 

After that comes the argument from finality or purposefullness of nature and the argument from design. What is so cool about St.Thomas' arguments for the existence of God is that they begin with plain everyday things with which we are all familiar.

Quoting lee3908870,
Believe what you want, but except the fact there will be others who will not and for reasons of their own will not agree with you.

True. But even so, Atheists can understand perfectly an argument for the existence of God and even clearly see that the conclusion is i.e. that God exists is true, and yet reject that conclusion---for like you say, reasons of their own that may have nothing to do with the argument itslef.

Consider how the Pharisees rejected incontrovertible proofs of Our Lord's divinity, which He offered them in abundance. They had eyes but they saw not. They chose not to believe the evidence of their own eyes. Such is the perversity of the human heart. 

Quoting GirlFriendTess,
Truth be told, you cannot prove that god even exists anywhere besides in your head; let alone that he always was.

God exists in my head alright ...also in my heart and soul. The truth is God exists and has been proven. Have you ever even read Aquinas' Five Ways and given them any consideration?  

 

Quoting lee3908870,
Ha!, the question that no one as the answer to; comes to mind:  "Who created the creator?" 

Quoting GirlFriendTess,
Reason has nothing to do with denials of our scientific prowess simply because you cannot figure out some compatibility. Reason has little to do with religion itself because it is one of the first things that has to go during the conversion process.

 

Where does this come from? GFT, you sound and write alot like BT. Both reason and true science point to the existence of God. 

The Vatican Council Sess. ii, ch. 4 teaches plainly that Catholicism is not the enemy of science and that faith cannot contradict reason. "Faith and reason are of mutual help to each other; by reason well applied, the foundations of faith are well established, and in the light of faith, the science of divinity is built up. Faith, on the other hand, frees and preserves reason from error, and enriches it with knowledge. The Church far from hindering the pursuit of the arts and sciences, fosters and promotes them in many ways...." 

Science deals with truth regarding natural things, going no further back in the processes of nature than matter and motion, not to the Maker of them, who being God belongs intellectually to the sphere of theology as a science. Yet, to God alone can scientists attribute the mysteries that grow in numbers with the growth of knowledge with the laws of nature and the universe. The discoveries of the physical scientists continually lead more and more to the realization of the existence to what many mathematicians and physicists call a "Creative Power", God.

Quoting GirlFriendTess,
Reason has nothing to do with believing in the biblical age of the universe, Adam and Eve, the Ark and the flood or many other such impossibilities ... it has to do with faith only ... and that is why it is called blind.

[quote who="GirlFriendTess" reply="46" id="3119454"]Knowledge is the only thing that will set one free which is why it is theologically opposed at every opportunity.

Knowledge in religion and knowledge in science call for belief by both faith and study. Faith proceeds all study. Religion begins with Divine faith that will not deceive, whereas science begins with human faith that is fallible. It's utterly impossible to study any scientific subject as well as religion without accepting first principles upon faith, without faith in the teachers (i.e. authorities). Most of the knowledge depends not on personal investigation,but on the authority of others. No progress would be possible n any science or art unless a man started with data gathered by his predecessors. Historians aren't able to read all the original documents. Physicists haven't the time to test every experiment of their forebears. Lawyers can't study every case, and physicians can't test every drug before they accept anything as true. Science, like religion, begins with mysteries, truths that will never be fully understood. Science doesn't know what electricity is in substance, or what the waves the voice travels ...those are natural mysteries, yet their manifestations prove their existence. 

Science is knowing how God works in the natural order, and Faith is knowing how God works in the supernatural order. Faith teaches things so profound that they are above reason. Also Faith in both true religion and true science does not teach anything opposed to reason or to those sound principles necessary to reason rightly. 

Your misunderstanding is due to failure properly to appreciate what faith really is and the idea of authority in religion, and its basic role in the sphere of science as well as religion. Faith is not emotional, blind submission to the unknowable. Rather, its an intellectual assent of the mind to something not seen with the eye, the acceptance of truth upon the authority of some one else. In religion, it's Divine authority, "taking God at His word." In science, it is dependence upon human authority, that may or may not be right despites its personal integrity. When faith of science is accepted and not the faith of religion, it is wise to recall the Divinely inspired declaration of

 1  St.John 5:9,  "If we accept the testimony of man, the testimony of God is greater."  

And yet, men illogically reject the idea of authority in religion while they accept without question the human, fallible and ever varying authority of anti-Christian dogmatism.  

St.Thomas in his Contra Gentiles, i., 7 wrote, "Although the doctrines of faith surpass the truths of human understanding, there can be no opposition between them. Both proceed from God in their respective orders of grace and nature. And the doctrines of Fiath become as indubitable through the evidence of the divine authority revealing them, as the primary truths of reason do through their self evident testimony."

The opposition between science and faith that we hear so much about today originates either in the errors of scientists who put forth unprovable hypotheses as undoubted facts, or in the mistakes of those who teach their private false opinions as Gospel truths. 

In fact, man only comprehends what he has made himself..like understanding perfectly the mechanism of a watch becasue it's his work. But his finite mind cannot comprehend the mysteries of God's world either of nature or of grace. Perfect comprehension and perfect Intelligence belong to God only. Belief in mysteries in the very essence of religion (more specifically, the Catholic religion). A divine revelation which could only tell us what we already know or what we could readily discover for ourselves would be utterly useless and unmeaning. Only from God Himself can we learn about His inner Being, the Holy Trinity, the Infinite condensation, the Incarnation, God made Flesh, and His Infinite love for man, the Atonement, and the Holy Eucharist. 

Our assent to these dogmas is not BLIND assent, but a perfectly reasonable assent that rests solely on the authority of Almighty God who has revealed them to us. 

Unreasonable and BLIND indeed is the rationalist, materialist, atheist who without weighing the evidence, refuses a priori to accept divine truth. 

The Catholic's attitude to the supernatural mysteries of Christianity is most reasonable. According to Fr. McKenna, "he examines the documents of faith, that he may note their value and act accordingly. He knows that life is impossible without religion and religion without belief; that belief implies authority, and that authority in religion should be the very best. Antecedently, he wishes this to be so; he examines the facts, and his reason is satisfied that it is so. He accepts the supernatural on the authority of God, and bows his reason in homage to Truth, which he knows cannot be measured by human thought. He is aware that religion must of its nature rest on truths the evidences of which are not intrinsic." The Theology of Faith, 72.  

 

Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
April 2, 2012 8:55:41 PM from JoeUser Forums JoeUser Forums

Quoting 137,
Reply #39
137

  

Especially for finding the positive appraisals of knowledge in the Book of Sirach (Ecclesiasticus). I urge my son read Chapter 9  about caution with regard to women and dangerous conversations! Chapter 23 is about swearing and other vices. 

Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
April 3, 2012 3:00:16 AM from Sins of a Solar Empire Forums Sins of a Solar Empire Forums

Quoting lulapilgrim,
Well, for Catholics, the experiences of these six  have certainly been passed on to us. In some cases, cathedrals, hospitals, missionaries, schools, religious orders, etc. were founded as a result of the experience.

It's not their experience which has been passed to you, but your interpretation of the external appearance of theirs, seen through the lens of culture and tradition as well as your subjective mindset.

Quoting lulapilgrim,
Sin (moral evil) is not initiated by God.

But the sinner is. Also:

I form the light and create darkness, I bring prosperity and create disaster; I, the LORD, do all these things. Isaiah 45:7 NIV

As for matters pertaining denomination and faith, I tend not to discuss them, as they are meaningless very often. There is a certain hiddenness to God, and He is not patent for all to see,

Truly you are a God who hides himself, O God and Savior of Israel. Isaiah 45:15 NIV

There is an amount of naiveté to certain christian concepts about the simplicity of the experience of God. Fallenness, as well, has a purpose which requires intellect to be penetrated: there are graces of the mind as well as of the heart.

Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
April 3, 2012 5:12:05 AM from Sins of a Solar Empire Forums Sins of a Solar Empire Forums

The foundational Christian experience is pretty simple...you must be able to honestly say, "I have genuinely met Christ".  From there it gets more complicated

Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
Stardock Forums v1.0.0.0    #108435  walnut2   Server Load Time: 00:00:00.0001312   Page Render Time: