Is There a God?

[bahman]

Unexpected, right? Ask Christ how heavy the cross was.

What you said just does not make logical sense: "The main thing is that once you prove his existence, he ceases to be a god.

Because god cannot be something that is comprehensible and attainable,

That is not correct. God by definition is the creator of everything from nothing.

he will lose his function as a god and will be crucified."

So you are a Christian? If so you should believe that there was a purpose for the death of Christ!

[VVilliam]

Advaita Vedanta, and Einstein nailed this rather perplexing conundrum eons ago. Now, in present day tense, it's as new as it's old, it never changes, because reality has NO theory, or story, reality is a blank open book, that fills itself, by itself, and for itself, all alone, all one.

This "fills itself, by itself, and for itself, all alone, all one" sounds a lot like a "god-being" or even The Universe.

1. The Universe exists, and therefore, it can be considered a Being.
2. If the Universe did not have a beginning, it qualifies as an uncaused being which also is able to cause things to happen (to begin, to exist, and to end) within itself.
3. Since it is known that the Universe exists, but unknown if it had a beginning, it is logical and rational to acknowledge, until shown otherwise, that the Universe appears to be the only example of an Uncaused Being that we can study.

[VVilliam]

You cannot prove whether there is a God or not.

The main thing is that once you prove his existence, he ceases to be a god. Because god cannot be something that is comprehensible and attainable, he will lose his function as a god and will be crucified.

The Universe is a thing in that has existence, and could be regarded as a "god" because it is something that is is a least, neither easily comprehensible and nor easily attainable within our experience of it.

[nemos]

.. The Universe is a thing in that has existence, and could be regarded as a "god" ...

Why not ? God is not a person but a position. So it doesn't really matter who takes him, let it be the universe. If something goes wrong, someone else can always be hired in this position.

[VVilliam]

.. The Universe is a thing in that has existence, and could be regarded as a "god" ...

Why not ? God is not a person but a position. So it doesn't really matter who takes him, let it be the universe. If something goes wrong, someone else can always be hired in this position.

We do not know that God is or isn't both personal and positional without assuming mindlessness as the initial default.

[Dontaskme]

Advaita Vedanta, and Einstein nailed this rather perplexing conundrum eons ago. Now, in present day tense, it's as new as it's old, it never changes, because reality has NO theory, or story, reality is a blank open book, that fills itself, by itself, and for itself, all alone, all one.

This "fills itself, by itself, and for itself, all alone, all one" sounds a lot like a "god-being" or even The Universe.

1. The Universe exists, and therefore, it can be considered a Being.
2. If the Universe did not have a beginning, it qualifies as an uncaused being which also is able to cause things to happen (to begin, to exist, and to end) within itself.
3. Since it is known that the Universe exists, but unknown if it had a beginning, it is logical and rational to acknowledge, until shown otherwise, that the Universe appears to be the only example of an Uncaused Being that we can study.

There is definitely something that is living and growing all manner of 'life forms' no matter what those forms take, there is something alive and living as and through matter, giving life and also giving death, and humans are part of this one whole living breathing organism.
Although it is known and self-evident without doubt or error, there is no knowledge of what IT IS - and neither is what IT IS ever seen.

Only concepts can say WHAT IT IS .. and it seems 'what it is' is everywhere at all once. ( Omnipresent ) meaning, nothing can ever really know itself, nothing can only BE itself, which is everything.

Therefore, God is just another word for Every thing - A single distinct meaningful element of speech or writing. When one single thing is known, everything is known.

All KNOWLEDGE/KNOWING is based on personal experience and interpretation appearing, apparently, within what is ultimately this immediate indifferent impersonal universe. The contrast, or personal and impersonal, is the dream of separation, the duality that is the false illusory claim to know thyself. Albeit illusory.

[nemos]

We do not know that God is or isn't both personal and positional without assuming mindlessness as the initial default.

I'm not talking about god because it makes no sense to talk about something that can't even be proven to exist. I am talking about how people exploit the concept of god. Everyone tries to gain some benefit and spit on the "god's" own interests, because everyone has their own shirt closer.
Speaking of good and bad - could this form of exploitation be considered as good?

By the way - does "god" have his own interests?

[VVilliam]

Advaita Vedanta, and Einstein nailed this rather perplexing conundrum eons ago. Now, in present day tense, it's as new as it's old, it never changes, because reality has NO theory, or story, reality is a blank open book, that fills itself, by itself, and for itself, all alone, all one.

This "fills itself, by itself, and for itself, all alone, all one" sounds a lot like a "god-being" or even The Universe.

1. The Universe exists, and therefore, it can be considered a Being.
2. If the Universe did not have a beginning, it qualifies as an uncaused being which also is able to cause things to happen (to begin, to exist, and to end) within itself.
3. Since it is known that the Universe exists, but unknown if it had a beginning, it is logical and rational to acknowledge, until shown otherwise, that the Universe appears to be the only example of an Uncaused Being that we can study.

There is definitely something that is living and growing all manner of 'life forms' no matter what those forms take, there is something alive and living as and through matter, giving life and also giving death, and humans are part of this one whole living breathing organism.

This is very apparent when investigating the Earth.

Although it is known and self-evident without doubt or error, there is no knowledge of what IT IS - and neither is what IT IS ever seen.

There is no absolute knowledge but there is knowledge...within the human experience of consciousness.

Only concepts can say WHAT IT IS .. and it seems 'what it is' is everywhere at all once. ( Omnipresent ) meaning, nothing can ever really know itself, nothing can only BE itself, which is everything.

I think that even if consciousness existed without "things" consciousness would require itself to acknowledge its own existence.

Therefore, God is just another word for Every thing - A single distinct meaningful element of speech or writing.

I am currently looking at it this way.

1.Matter and Energy have always existed.
2.Mindfulness has always existed.

We do not know to what extent these three things are separate "things"(to each other) or simply concepts we have come up with to attempt explanation within the scope of our human experience.

When one single thing is known, everything is known.

This is an interesting concept which I think may explain why The Universe (of current things) came to be the way it is.
I do not think that this signifies a beginning of mind/matter/energy but an expression of a moment when one single thing knew itself and thus knew everything.
Humans call it the Big Bang. Perhaps the Big Bang was the mind-fields "AH HA!" moment, followed by the shaping of its next reality experience of then taking that self-revelation through a process which itself creates a gateway to the next level?

All KNOWLEDGE/KNOWING is based on personal experience and interpretation appearing, apparently, within what is ultimately this immediate indifferent impersonal universe. The contrast, or personal and impersonal, is the dream of separation, the duality that is the false illusory claim to know thyself. Albeit illusory.

We do not need to interpret anything as "real" or "illusion" as each implies the other, which is the definition of dualism.

However, the current Universe has a dualistic nature and it is for us to wonder why, and even perhaps work it out together.

[VVilliam]

We do not know that God is or isn't both personal and positional without assuming mindlessness as the initial default.

I'm not talking about god because it makes no sense to talk about something that can't even be proven to exist.

I am talking about "God" in the sense what can be proven to exist = "God", altogether.

I am talking about how people exploit the concept of god. Everyone tries to gain some benefit and spit on the "god's" own interests, because everyone has their own shirt closer.

I acknowledge the Big Bag (age) which comes from the Big Bang.

Speaking of good and bad - could this form of exploitation be considered as good?

Ultimately it gathers minds under a semblance of oneness.

By the way - does "god" have his own interests?

Perhaps the Big Bang was the mind-fields "AH HA!" moment, followed by the shaping of its next reality experience of then taking that self-revelation through a process which itself creates a gateway to the next level?