Please Log in to Vote.
2 out of 2 members found this useful.
proof
do we need any more proof of god's existence than the fact that we are here at all ?
- Please Login to Add Comments
- show all sub-comments
- Report Abuse
Please Log in to Vote.
2 out of 2 members found this useful.
Can we disprove God's existence?
Posted October 28th, 2008 by camfreeYes, the Mystery is the sheer fact that we are here at all, but rather than trying to prove the existence of God, we could take the reverse side and ask a much more provocative question:
"What would have to occur or to have occurred to constitute for you a disproof of the love of, or the existence of, God?" (Anthony Flew 1951)
Can the existence of God be falsified? If not, then belief in God is either meaningless or untenable...
--
"Become passers-by" (Jesus of Nazareth)
Please Log in to Vote.
1 out of 1 members found this useful.
falsification
Posted October 29th, 2008 by Christophe Witz in response to Can we disprove God's existence?O that's interesting. I don't know who Anthony Flew is, but that's a really good question.
What would have to occur... or to have occured... to disprove the love or the existence of god?
???
How about this last century with all the catastrophes, war, terror, and millions of innocent dead?
How about the Holocaust, the Schoah? Where was god's love in Auschwitz? Was he out of office? Going for a walk? Busy on some other planet or solar system?
I don't want to ridiculize the belief in God. If you are a believer, that's totally fine with me. But me personally I have serious doubt that there is a superior being with superior knowledge, holding his/her hands above us, guiding and protecting us from harm, because more often than not, this is not the case. This is a childish belief, and as such, approriate for children. Again, as long as you are a child, there is nothing wrong with it. But... sooner or later we should grow out of it.
Don't you think?
Please Log in to Vote.
0 out of 1 members found this useful.
if only it was so easy
Posted October 29th, 2008 by Jerry Sherwood in response to falsification-- Oh, if only it was so easy. To look out and see misery and injustice and take this as "proof" there is no loving god.
But, for me, it has not been so. On a personal level I have seen and experienced my share of tragic events (not as many as some, a bit more than others) and injustice. Yet, I look back and see how the dark nature of those events (as they were experienced then) turned into light over time, resulting in much more good than I ever imagined possible at the time. ( and probably far more than I am aware of even now). It is now far more difficult to for me to judge (absolutely) what is good or ill. That is not to say there is no value in relative discernment. It is just to recognize its relative nature.
Looking at apparent violence and destruction from a purely personal point of view is severely limiting for me. I consider this, death and dying are clearly essential for Life. If the big bang theory has any validity; then from the point of view of the initial singularity, it died when it exploded. You might say it died so that we might know Life. (sound familiar?)
If Love is simply equated with preservation then clearly there is no loving god. But, if Agape (unconditional Love) is understood in terms of it capacity to include then its infinite nature places it beyond the grasp of the intellect. We are returned to the Mystery of Life. (call it what you may)
It is in the clarity of Conscious Awareness that Truth is revealed.
Please Log in to Vote.
0 out of 0 members found this useful.
oh, if only
Posted October 29th, 2008 by Christophe Witz in response to if only it was so easyI agree that we can not make conclusions based solely on our own experience. This is too limited. Someone who has lived a lucky life would say: "Oh, God loves me and everybody else, too" and someone who lived his life without a home, sleeping under bridges would say "Well if I ever happen to meet God in person, then I'll break him a tooth or two" and both of them would be right, kinda.
But it's something else when we look at our collective history. Catastrophes like the Schoah happened, and God did not intervene. Why not? The Catholic church under pope Pius XII sure prayed every day that God may guide and protect us, but he didn't. It took a 'seven nation army' to stop the killing in the concentration camps. Positive thinking would NOT have done the same instead.
Okay I admit we may not be talking about the same God. What do you mean by 'God'? The mythic, human-like father? Some abstract, transrational concept? Clarification needed.
BTW falsification means that, if one black swan is spotted, the hypothesis falls, no matter how many white swans you ever saw in your life.
AND I fully agree that Life always wins in the end, no matter how hard the knocks were. But I don't see why this should speak for the existence of a God. Again, this depends on the definition of the concept 'God'.
Best,
Please Log in to Vote.
0 out of 0 members found this useful.
Is trans-rational spirit an object of knowledge?
Posted October 29th, 2008 by camfree in response to oh, if onlyYes, that's the critical question here: what does God mean? The Holocaust is direct evidence that a mythic or supernatural God 'out there' that intervenes to stop unspeakable horrors from happening is indeed dead...
But when it comes to trans-rational Spirit, then the traditions basically agree that God is not an object (i.e. Consciousness without an object), God is not a substance or entity that we can grasp, or get a handle on - which means that the existence of God is simply not a matter of knowing. Knowledge requires a subject and an object, a knower and a known - and it is precisely this relation that breaks down in trans-rational approaches to Spirit. So we cannot know God at trans-rational levels in the same way that physicists can know, say, the fundamental constants of nature...
That is, with trans-rational approaches to spirituality, God is not an object of knowledge - but rather something has us before we have Him/Her/It... so I'm not sure that this God can be empirically verified or falsified (maybe that's why we call it 'trans' - rational)
In this sense I do not 'know' that there is a God, but I do believe, I do have faith, and I do encounter the incomprehensible Mystery that we call God, but this is more like radical not-Knowing that having any kind of objective, verifiable proof...
--
"Become passers-by" (Jesus of Nazareth)
Please Log in to Vote.
0 out of 0 members found this useful.
being itself
Posted November 3rd, 2008 by Dee Black in response to Is trans-rational spirit an object of knowledge?
if god is "being itself" .. faith falls into the same category as hope and fear and belief
- Please Login to Add Comments
- Report Abuse
Please Log in to Vote.
0 out of 0 members found this useful.
clarification on God?
Posted October 29th, 2008 by Jerry Sherwood in response to oh, if only-- Hello Christophe
Thanks for engaging in this discussion
It is interesting that you note, "Life always wins in the end ...." in this sense you speak of Life as an entity. I realize of course that this is a linguistic convenience and not neccessarily a statement of fact for you.
I find it most interesting because you have asked me directly to clarify what I mean by God. And, for me I have found the only english term that comes close to what I have come to know as God, is Life. I don't mean life in the limited biological definition. What I mean by Life certainly inludes life but transcends it too. In the right hand quadrants this points to the Process as a whole, both manifest and potential. In the left hand quadrants Life as the Process of experiencing transcends yet includes immediate experience.
I can speak of Life as an entity (a convenient figure of speech) but clearly Life is beyond all such notions. I can speak of Life as intelligence (an appropriate metaphor) since it required such a finely tuned set of variable for this Process to culminate in carbon based life forms. But, this is clearly an Intelligence beyond any comparison to human intelligence. So, my notion of Life (God) is really beyond the limits of rational thought. I can speak of Life as Consiousness clearly it is not consciousness as it is usually defined.
No one can argue against the existance of this overall Mysterious Process of Life. Whether it is an intelligent Process or not can be debated but the answer will probably never be accertained.
It is in the clarity of Conscious Awareness that Truth is revealed.
Please Log in to Vote.
0 out of 0 members found this useful.
life as entity
Posted October 31st, 2008 by Christophe Witz in response to clarification on God?Yes, thank you for the oppurtunity for this discussion.
I want to add that I'm not very happy with my phrase "Life always wins in the end". What I was trying to say is, that I do have a positive view on things, and I know human beings can deal with tragedy in a way that is fruitful. Maybe it gets more clear when we look at the opposites of Life and Death, then I 'd say that Life is the stronger part (in the long run), individuals may die but we as a species will live on, and even if we as a species would extinct, Life in form of some bacteria or maybe cockroaches would move on. To give you a picture: My point is that 'The seedling will always crack open the asphalt', so to speak. And that's some kind of a belief, I guess. My hope is that this is a transrational belief.
I think we can agree on the fact that the mythic, anthropomorphic god is dead. Great. That's a major step.
Concerning the more advanced, transrational concept of god, that's more difficult. I do believe that the universe itself is alive, that there was an intelligence involved in the creation of the world. But this intelligence cannot be easily grasped in human terms. Yes, conciousness was always present, before the creation of time, this really makes sense to me. I appreciate the wisdom of the BigMind concept, and how it makes sense of the German idealists (Fichte, Hegel, & others). I do believe the creative force that forged the universe burns inside every single one of us. I do NOT believe that there is a plan for everything that was written down once and for all. I think it's more playful, more creative and more flexible than that. I do believe that God was present in Auschwitz, in 1st person, as Ken put it in his dialog with Rabbi David. I do believe there is something to be learned out of this disaster of the last century. I do believe we are here for a reason, to learn and to grow, and to play our role in the cosmic play, and yes I think it's okay to do a little improvisation now and then, a little jazzy solo, only to return later to the chorus in which a bigger harmony can be heard, every single voice fitting nicely in the overall key of the universal song, until the end, when there is only the echo of it, and then silence.
It's difficult for me to write about this. I'm a psychologist, after all, and not a theologist or philosopher. I lack the exact vocabulary to say what I mean. And I'm aware that in America, the cultural context may be slightly different (e.g. creationism vs. Intelligent Design). I'm sorry if I put my foot in one of these. And it sure doesn't help that I don't align myself with a particular tradition, as you might know I'm not baptized and nothing. So take the above thoughts as what they are: a pondering about God from an atheist's view.
Yours,
Please Log in to Vote.
0 out of 0 members found this useful.
Life life, taste death...
Posted November 2nd, 2008 by camfree in response to life as entityAn interesting post Christopher, thanks for yr input... I agree "life always wins in the end"... There is secret impulse in evolution to go beyond what went before it... this creative advance into novelty, I would just add that it is precisely at the "edge-of-chaos" that life undergoes this process of "self-realization, through self-transcendence"...
It's what Martin Luther King called "that power that can find a way out of no way", where the creative tension between too much 'order' and too much 'chaos' moves evolving systems to that critical threshold where seemingly impossible obstacles are overcome...
Or just like those massive supernovae explosions at the death of a star as they synthesize the building blocks of life and usher in the chemical enrichment of the galaxies...
And just as the major ecological decimations and mass extinction events of our planet that have opened the way for the emergence of altogether new and more complex body plans and an abrupt re-juvination of the biosphere.
It's by moving through and absorbing death (pain, loss) that life finds it's capacity to "win in the end"... so it's not so much that life conquers death , but that Life (if there is such an entity) finds it's essence in tasting death, in embracing the contradictions of living a fully human life... as Neitzsche said "one must have chaos within them, to give birth to a dancing star"
"Become passers-by" (Jesus of Nazareth)
Please Log in to Vote.
0 out of 0 members found this useful.
dancing stars
Posted November 3rd, 2008 by Christophe Witz in response to Life life, taste death...Hi cameron,
thanks for your appreciation. Yes, me too I like the Nietzsche quote. :)
And thanks once again for bringing up the question of dis-proving God that 'got' me into posting my thoughts in the first place. I follow your postings for a while, and it's always a pleasure and food-for-thought to read it. I especially liked your take on Derrida as a Jewish prophet lately. Keep it on! I hope to contribute (more or less) meaningful comments now and then.
C.
- Please Login to Add Comments
- Report Abuse
Please Log in to Vote.
0 out of 0 members found this useful.
Common Ground
Posted November 3rd, 2008 by Jerry Sherwood in response to life as entityGood Day Christophe,
Indeed, there is much common ground here. In fact I would venture to say that we are in full agreement. But, certainly it is always helpful for each of us in these discussions at IL to get beneath the usual interpretations of the words in matters as deep at this. Even in the lighter subjects it is wise to be sure we clearly understand what the other person "means" as opposed to what we "hear". As a psychologist I expect you are already aware of just how much we can distort another person's view when we impose or project our own past and viewpoint onto their side of the conversation.
The only differences I would point out are probably not differences in viewpoint, just in how I word my point of view. For example, I would not say the mythic god has died. I would say the mythic god was never alive. What is extinguished in individuals is their meta narrative about such a god - the stage appropriate story they told themselves to make sense of what at first glance appears to be senseless.
Never mind that the story was not rational. It was not the product of a rational mind nor was the intended "audience" a rational mind. That is not to say it did not serve a valuable purpose. But, needs change with each stage of evolution of consciousness and when the mythic story becomes a hindrance to seeing the deeper aspects of Life it is optimum that the story comes to an end. How it genuinely comes to an end can be the topic for another post.
The second "tweaking" to your wise words would be about the "opposites of Life and Death". It appears at first glance to work well for Truth that you were looking to express - that death does not put an end to Life (with a capital L) it only marks the end of a particular form. This is a fact we both have observed. But what this points to is that Death (with a capital D) does not really exist. There is only the death that is the opposite of birth, two end points within timeless time (time as continuum) that mark the emergence and demise of countless forms.
When this view point is clarified then we are free to consider the deeper question. Does the Life (as consciousness) that "informed" the temporary "form" continue on? If so, in what form? What, if anything, might be retained? What can we actually know about such a Life form? And, of course, there is also the question of whether or not the belief in "life after death" is really helpful or not? I suspect this last question, like the question of a mythic god, is best addressed in stage specific terms.
Thank you so much for your well thought out and well worded response. Our exchange together is a great example of how two people can dig together below the words and into the meaning and find their common ground. And that ground turned out, in this case, to be our virtually common worldviews.
Later,
Jerry
--
It is in the clarity of Conscious Awareness that Truth is revealed.
- Please Login to Add Comments
- Report Abuse
Please Log in to Vote.
1 out of 1 members found this useful.
the proof is in
Posted October 29th, 2008 by Jerry Sherwood-- Whatever name or designation is given, God, Allah, Ain Soph, Emptiness, Brahma it always comes down to an unamable and unknowable mystery. So it has ever been, not only for mystics but for anyone that dares to look deep enough at Life.
With this in mind it should be noted that with more than two hundred years of scientific exploration (whether it is admited or not) the deeper they look the more mysterious it becomes.
They stare into the face of God (by whatever insufficient name we may choose to use) and (most of them) know it not.
It is in the clarity of Conscious Awareness that Truth is revealed.
- Please Login to Add Comments
- Report Abuse
Please Log in to Vote.
0 out of 0 members found this useful.
YHWH
Posted October 29th, 2008 by Dee Black
hey witz .. have u heard the current feature with rabbi david ingber about integral judaism ? great conversation ! i love the jewish definition of god he speaks of :
" that which was .. is .. and will be .. or being itself "
it is this version of god which i was referring to .. (not the mythic version)
- Please Login to Add Comments
- Report Abuse
Please Log in to Vote.
0 out of 0 members found this useful.
proof
Posted October 30th, 2008 by Dee Black
i love that cam !
to those who say prove god exists: prove god DOESN'T exist
Please Log in to Vote.
2 out of 2 members found this useful.
Atheists are really agnostics...
Posted October 30th, 2008 by camfree in response to proofHey Dee... Yes, even atheists like Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris and Christopher Hitchens will admit that they cannot prove that God doesn't exist... and so they are technically agnostics, so to speak... The question of proof seems to apply only if we assume God is an object 'out there' which we can grasp in a rational-scientific way...
In this respect, Ken Wilber has argued that his Three Strands of Scientific Knowledge (injunction, experience, verification) can offer proof for the question of God's existence... But I'm personally unconvinced about this - there are plenty of people who take up meditation (a scientific injunction) for 3-5 years and - nothing happens... they end up saying things like "there's nothing to attain" and the innermost truth is "ever-present silence"... precisely what we expect from someone who sits quietly in a room everyday...
And even more disturbing for me is that Mother Theresa spent the last 20 or 30 years of her life talking and writing about the "darkness" and the absence of Christ.... while the spiritual literature is full of mystics writing about God as absent, dark nights of the soul, long periods in the spiritual dessert, etc... But this doesn't prove that there isn't a God either... these experiences of God as absent are said to be profoundly fruitful in regards to the development of one's faith... i.e. to move forward in spite of all evidence to the contrary...
--
"Become passers-by" (Jesus of Nazareth)
Please Log in to Vote.
1 out of 1 members found this useful.
God's Game
Posted November 12th, 2008 by steven martini in response to Atheists are really agnostics...Can we imagine a Game more fun for God than one in which the players are never really fully sure He exists at all?
- Please Login to Add Comments
- Report Abuse








.jpg)
Please Log in to Vote.
1 out of 1 members found this useful.
Postcard
Posted October 28th, 2008 by steven martiniMan: Wish you were here.
God: I Am.