Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Susanna on June 1, 2009 at 3:43pm

Jeff - This may be a great place to ask this question, then. I was raised in a faith that taught mostly the same things you believe about the Bible. The big difference, though, was that they also believed in a lot of nonsensical prophecies and changed Bible texts in their translation. When I learned that, I didn't just lose faith in that group - I lost all trust in everything, even the reality of my perceptions. With time, I've accepted the necessity of taking those for granted, but day-to-day, I live my life wary of being duped again.

So here's the question - how does one go about finding out the accuracy of a spiritual question, such as the existence or nature of God, without faith in "feelings?" Without trusting any group, any ancient text. With only the here and now, no hearsay, how does one prove God? There are arguments for both sides, of course, and I'm not asking for you to prove it, but for everyone's input on what a logical step-by-step investigation would be.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by James S Saint on June 1, 2009 at 4:28pm

Susanna,

All anyone can do is the best they can with what they have. If something seems to make sense, then accept that it "seems to make sense". If something doesn't, ask to see if you understood the issue correctly and go from there. All anyone can do is to be truly honest with themselves and seek understanding (just as Proverbs suggests).

To seek understanding, seek what seems to be certainly true even though you can't really be sure. If you keep an eye out for what MUST be true regardless of any doubt, you slowly, very slowly, begin to discover more and more of what is very probably true to the point that eventually you learn of the few things that you really can be absolutely certain of. It is a slow process, which is why so few actually do it.

The testimony of others tends to be weak, especially if they have not done as described above. Humility to reality and truth is all you have to guide you. There is an effort within you that is a part of you that really wants to understand. That part keeps track of everything you think and do. It knows when to actually have confidence in your judgment because it knows every single time you have assumed or lied about anything even to yourself. It is trying to answer your question every moment.

Be in harmony with that part of you that knows your honesty or lack of it and joins with you in doing things when it can see that you have not deceived yourself. It is the source of your confidence and the source of your doubt. It is the truly honest part of you. Be honest with it and you will never really need any more than what is brought before you.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Jeff H on June 1, 2009 at 7:26pm

Whether you relate it to scripture (Seek and ye shall find, knock and it shall be opened unto you) or just want to trust your gut on this one... God wants to be known. God is light (another pesky scripture) and the nature of light is to shine and illuminate.

I had all the head knowledge in the world, but had to sink into alcoholism to come to seek Him with my heart, soul, and life. When I stopped looking for my designer God, and started seeking Him in His own perfection, I found he had been there next to me all along.

JWs don't come to my house anymore. They used to, but after several conversations that left the newer converts with very difficult questions for the elder that they called in to help field the issues I raised, I think I'm on the "Don't poke the bear" list. ;-)

By the way... www.blueletterbible.org is a fantastic way of doing you own analysis of the "Ancient Texts", and taking them back to the greek and hebrew/chaldeean. I understand your distrust, but don't toss out God, or scripture because someone took good stuff and made a cult... Happens all the time.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Zijan on June 1, 2009 at 8:38pm

James S Saint said:

Can you think of any possibly higher authority over you than the total sum of all that is?

Yes, actually I can. But not anything I would reference with the term "authority". Running the risk of being misinterpreted, may I rephrase the question?

Can you think of anything greater than the sum total of all there is?

Yes. The Source of all there is. Non-Being.

All there is, as you pointed out, is "being". One cannot have Being without Non-Being. Non-Being is difficult for a temporally located awareness to grasp, especially since our entire method of assembling a cognitive reality is currently subjected to the perception of matter, space, and time as "concrete" phenomenon.

Even our meager science and technological advancements have shown these as outdated and inaccurate models of reality. "Matter", at its most fundamental level (well as small as we can see so far, 10ˆ-32m), is not matter. We don't quite yet know what it actually is, but we know it isn't "solid". Time, relative to the speed of light, is relative to the speed of the observer, as shown by the Special Theory of Relativity. All I need to do to affect a shift in time is move faster, so Time too is out.

Basically, the above quoted definition of reality is currently in question, and is based on an old paradigm.

The above quoted definition of God/god is founded in a subjective view of this outdated model of reality. A house of cards…

Which brings us back to the concept of Non-Being. Is Non-Being "God?"

If forced to answer, I would give my answer as "No". Non-Being is so far removed from my ability to grasp that to say that Non-Being is God is to aggrandize the ego which attempts to define that which is beyond syntax. The same as the old paradigm where earth was at the center of the solar system, indeed, the whole universe. (Still is, according to the Great Controversy of the Judeo-Christian mythos.)

Rather than waste effort on defining the ineffable and indefinable, I would much rather contemplate this non-being in silence.

Truly, does not the limitless wonder of the universe fill one with awe and serve to gently hush the ego with all its burdensome self-importance?

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Kernel John on June 1, 2009 at 9:28pm

Woody, I'm not sure either how successful these syntactic (synthetic) rules will be - especially to new comers. It's like code with implicit meaning that may or may not be agreed to by the larger RG community.

Woody said:

James S Saint said:

Btw Susanna,

The all caps version, "GOD", is intended to mean "reality itself", not the "first letter cap" version, "God". Your title is not what was intended. See how easily things become different than their origin intended? Imagine such small variations going on for 6000 years unnoticed.

:))

I am not sure how successful we can be in enforcing syntactic rules like "GOD", "God","god", and "g-d" have different definitions and should not be used interchangeably, but I am willing to voluntarily comply with such definitions (assuming we can agree on what they are!) Sysnonyms for each would be helpful:
GOD: Reality (which includes everything, not just what humans can perceive, conceive, and feel)
God: Spirit (which includes all consciousness, transcends good and evil, is mysterious, and may influence Reality in unpredictable ways)
god: Lord (worshiped by humans, by definition anthropomorphic, powerful, capable of reward and punishment, perceivable by and willing to enter into relationships with humans, has a plan for human destiny that is revealed through prophets, is in control of human history, may be referred to by the pronoun "She" although more frequently "He" and is recognized as being greater than both)
g-d: A partial synonym for god (syntactically used by believers in god to indicate reverence for their Lord).

I make this proposal for use on this site to help disambiguate anticipated conversations in future debates. Please note that these definitions are not mutually exclusive. GOD includes God (if Spirit exists) and may be worshiped as god (Lord) by some of us on this site, who may choose to refer to this god (Holy Spirit) as g-d.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Kernel John on June 1, 2009 at 9:50pm

Susanna said: So if GOD is only Reality, than God (the person) doesn't exist. I don't see how you can have both.

James responded:
I don't see the logic in that. As Woody pointed out, naming one has nothing to do with whether the other exists.


John said to James: Isn't that what Susanna is saying - that God the person does not exist. . . like a unicorn?

. . . Interesting discussion. Rather than listen and understand what someone means or is really trying to say, we get obsorbed in our own points of view and the differences seem to be what matter most. Personally, I'm having little problem following. Susanna started by saying she didn't feel confident to debate the idea of GOD - God and god . . . but would like more of an explanation.

Then Susanna asks: Does the statement that "GOD is Reality" mean that God (the Almighty) is a metaphor for reality - either physical existence or spiritual existence? If not, Does that mean there is both God and - separate but related - GOD?

Then she says: I'm just trying to tack down the implications of the statement. Is it intended to be neutral?

Reasonable statements Susanna. I await the clarification.
I think for some of us, it's about agree or disagreeing while for others its about understanding.

James S Saint said:

Susanna said:

So if GOD is only Reality, than God (the person) doesn't exist. I don't see how you can have both.

I don't see the logic in that. As Woody pointed out, naming one has nothing to do with whether the other exists.

Also as Woody pointed out. The reason we have different spellings of words is so that we can distinguish which possible meaning a person is referring to when they write. In the case of "GOD" rather than using different letters, I merely suggested using all caps so as to signify to which is being referred.

The definition of a word has nothing to do with the real existence of to what the word refers. The word "unicorn" refers to something we accept doesn't exist. But the idea still needs a definition if it is to be discussed.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by James S Saint on June 2, 2009 at 1:46am

Zijan said:

James S Saint said:

Can you think of any possibly higher authority over you than the total sum of all that is?

Yes, actually I can. But not anything I would reference with the term "authority".

You can think of an authority but it isn't an authority? Doesn't that really mean "No"?

Zijan said:

Running the risk of being misinterpreted, may I rephrase the question?
Can you think of anything greater than the sum total of all there is? Yes. The Source of all there is. Non-Being.

1) "Non-Being" means "non-existent".
2) Non-existent means having no affect whatsoever.
3) If anything is a "source" for something, then it has effect.
4) Thus, if something proposed has no effect, how can it be the "Source" for anything at all?

Zijan said:

All there is, as you pointed out, is "being". One cannot have Being without Non-Being.

Not true. One cannot define "being" without defining "non-being". One cannot ever have "non-being". One cannot possess nothingness (although your bank might disagree).

Zijan said:

Non-Being is difficult for a temporally located awareness to grasp, especially since our entire method of assembling a cognitive reality is currently subjected to the perception of matter, space, and time as "concrete" phenomenon.

That is because it doesn't exist (by definition). We can only imagine a fantasy void.

Zijan said:

Even our meager science and technological advancements have shown these as outdated and inaccurate models of reality. "Matter", at its most fundamental level (well as small as we can see so far, 10ˆ-32m), is not matter. We don't quite yet know what it actually is, but we know it isn't "solid".

Actually, depending on the "we", we DO know what it is. Matter is formed as soon as an electric charge moves in a circle (or a doubled circle for 3 dimensions). Inertia is the aberant effect of the charge already moving at the speed of light at each point on the circle. If you try to move the center of the circle, you are trying to push one bit of the charge faster than light, faster than it will go. This causes that point to lag the entire bundle, which is why it resists your push. It has mass and that "matters". :)

Zijan said:

Time, relative to the speed of light, is relative to the speed of the observer, as shown by the Special Theory of Relativity. All I need to do to affect a shift in time is move faster, so Time too is out.

The measurement of time is relative to the observer, not time itself. Time is the relative changing of state between objects. To affect time, you merely need to change their ability to change state relative to each other. Speed does this for you, but only in the direction the objects are traveling. If you cause all objects to travel at the speed of light, then none are changing relative to the others, thus time would no longer exist.

Zijan said:

Basically, the above quoted definition of reality is currently in question, and is based on an old paradigm. The above quoted definition of God/god is founded in a subjective view of this outdated model of reality. A house of cards…

Not so at all. I suspect that you are confusing all matter with "all that is". Reality being defined as truly all that has any affect whatsoever included absolutely anything that can cause even the tiniest change in anything else regardless of its make. The "paradigm shift" has nothing to do with this.

Zijan said:

Which brings us back to the concept of Non-Being. Is Non-Being "God?"

If you want to worship nothingness, then non-being (non-existence) can be your god, but I really don't see the advantage. I suspect that Reality will haunt you regardless of the attempt to ignore it in favor of non-reality worship.

Zijan said:

If forced to answer, I would give my answer as "No". Non-Being is so far removed from my ability to grasp that to say that Non-Being is God is to aggrandize the ego which attempts to define that which is beyond syntax. The same as the old paradigm where earth was at the center of the solar system, indeed, the whole universe. (Still is, according to the Great Controversy of the Judeo-Christian mythos.)

The only argument from Christianity is not that the Earth or humanity is the center of the universe, but rather the center of your concern. Your concern should begin with yourself and work outward to things further away from you and thus less affecting upon you. It is an issue of focus, not physical position.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Susanna on June 2, 2009 at 11:28am

James S Saint said:

James S Saint said:

If you want to worship nothingness, then non-being (non-existence) can be your god, but I really don't see the advantage. I suspect that Reality will haunt you regardless of the attempt to ignore it in favor of non-reality worship.

LOL @ James! But I agree with what I think you were implying above that - that Reality is far more than just the material universe. We are familiar with only the barest basics of it.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Jim G on November 18, 2009 at 5:46pm

I think Ernest Holmes in the 1920's when writing Science of Mind and so forth, also used "One Reality Principle" or something akin to that, in part, and so God = Reality also sounds kind of New Thought-ish to me (as does God = cosmic mind.)

I don't claim to know if it is bogus or not. I just don't think it is new. (So there should be a lot of existing material on this for anyone interested.)

• ▶ Reply

▶ Reply to Discussion

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• Next ›
• Page