juantoo3's comments in 'Proofs for God's Non-Existence' thread

[earl]

If I'm understanding your dialogue correctly, linear time at least as typically discussed in Christian theology posits a relatively clear beginning point and end-point, with clear directionality and sense of over-all purpose-some of the things i believe you were hinting at with discussions of evoution, development of morality, etc. Buddhist discussion of cyclic time does not posit any clear beginning or ending or directionality or "development" in the usual sense of the term-in a sense then it seems almost circular-there is merely delusion of ultimate Truth and enlightenment and all types of beings in a sense circulating among various realms of being-lokas-until enlightened. The spiral image, (think corkscrew shape), suggests a general movement toward some "goal," while at the same time cyclical. In buddhism there has long been a debate (at least in zen0 between what was called sudden enlightenment & gradual. The former essentially took the position that enlightenment was like pregnancy-you couldn't be a little bit pregnant, while the latter conceded the obvious-that much ground-work had to go into place to create the conditions to allow for the possibility of enlightenment. Effort is a form of goal-directedness which is devoted to a goal which is always at hand, (right here, right now), pending the right factors.V, I believe you saw my post in the creation myths thread re my offered myth that perhaps the "Big Bang" is just 1 among infinite "respiratory" cycles of "God." That may be cyclic heading forward toward "something." So, as the Hermetics said, "as above, so below;" perhaps what is true re the apparent spiral nature of "enlightenment," we circle around gaining ever deeper, clearer insights into the nature of reality until the final release, is also true on a genral cosmological and metaphysical scale. don't know if that clarifies where I'm coming from, but probably as clear as i can get tonight. Have a good one, Earl

[earl]

Oops, I meant "J" not "V" above, though "V" might have also seen what i was referring to. For those of you who've gone around the bend of age 50 like me, you'll know the mind "corkscrews" & can't think straight some of the time-or maybe it's that typing dyslexia thing of mine. At any rate, I'm hitting the sack. Have a good one, Earl

[Kelcie]

Wanting to prove Gods existence seems to be a pursuit of our intellects or our ego. It can be likened to a cat chasing its tail. An endless pursuit if you will.

If one holds a concept of God no amount of circmstantial, religion, texts will prove to someone who cannot conceive the concept of god. Therefore, what one cannot conceive he will not believe. Also, if one has an experience with "God" (if thats what they want to call it) this too cannot be proved with all the language available in the world today.

Whether it is a concept of God or an experience of God one embraces, no one is right or wrong. They are just on a path to unfolding the best way they know how. If they have no belief in God at all then that is fine too. For truth will always find a way to express and reveal itself no matter what our minds choose to believe.

Trying to prove God does not exist, for me is also a path that will eventually lead to truth. As the old saying goes. It is not the destination but the journey that counts (or something like that)

Kelcie

[juantoo3]

Kindest Regards, Earl!

Thank you. "Corkscrew" instead of "cone." OK. To a degree I guess I already have some vague comprehension, like the ebb and fall of the tide, rise and set of the sun and moon, a woman's cycle (men too, just no blood), the rotation of the seasons. But in each of these there is a beginning and an end. Perhaps those ends are out of our sight, and all we can do is pull out a segment, (like a 24 hour day, for example), and show a start and finish. I suppose in reality it continues, even after we are gone. The moon will continue to wax and wane long after we are turned to worm food.

But I have been discussing, albeit rather vaguely because what we know is somewhat vague, a particular stretch of human history. I have been attempting to use the language of science and logic so that my presentation does not seem overly religious (read that as: irrational, illogical, unfounded, pure speculation, i.e.: false and impossible). Since this thread was started from chance comments that were based on this rationale, and pulled out of the initial context for clarification, my initial responses were aimed with no reservation toward my initial critics. It was an invitation to show how irrational and illogical my words were, yet I stood my ground and demonstrated that my position held merit precisely because it was specifically based in logic and reason.

Now, I suppose it could be just as well to argue "this" religious philosophy with "that" philosophy, which would entail an entirely different audience. Not to mention, appeals to authority that are not exactly conducive to logic. Authority may well be a reason, but it is not universally rational to independent thinkers. Hence, my motivation for arguing from the bottom up, rather than beginning with the assumption God exists and arguing from the top down. Likewise, with any noted religious authority, unless and except if one is arguing specifically within the confines of that specific faith and belief path. God means something to me, but not to many others. Buddha means something to others I do not dismiss, but means nothing to me. Were we to both appeal to our distinct authorities, we could never agree. In that, Vajra is most correct. So for discussion, I have laid aside my beliefs, and used instead what I have discovered in historical anthropology and human psycho-social development to demonstrate certain aspects of why I believe.

I am rambling now, aren't I? Guess I'd better quit while I am a-head. :P

[earl]

Rather than strain my meager brain more than I can afford not to mention essays might explain what I was getting at re the 3 apparent choices of linear, cyclical, & spiral notions of time-here's a web article that looks at those models of time/evolution and might give some sense of what i meant-at least probably explains it better than I could for those still wanting to deconfuse themselves from my rambling. If I'm feeling particularly spunky some day might even return to this thread to heretically point out ways in which 1 could interpret Buddhist notions of "karma/enlightenment" in spiral ways. But not today . take care, Earl

http://www.metafuture.org/sarkar/framing_the_future.htm

[juantoo3]

Kindest Regards, Kelcie, and welcome to CR!

Originally Posted by Kelcie

Wanting to prove Gods existence seems to be a pursuit of our intellects or our ego. It can be likened to a cat chasing its tail. An endless pursuit if you will.

Not quite sure I follow. Yes, it requires a degree of intellect to rationally discuss a subject as wide and deep as God. So your point is...?

If one holds a concept of God no amount of circmstantial, religion, texts will prove to someone who cannot conceive the concept of god. Therefore, what one cannot conceive he will not believe. Also, if one has an experience with "God" (if thats what they want to call it) this too cannot be proved with all the language available in the world today.

While in the most general terms I can agree, still we grow in our knowledge and understanding of the subject. What we know today is not what we knew 5 years ago, and what we know 5 years from now is not what we know today. That is called "growth."

Whether it is a concept of God or an experience of God one embraces, no one is right or wrong. They are just on a path to unfolding the best way they know how. If they have no belief in God at all then that is fine too. For truth will always find a way to express and reveal itself no matter what our minds choose to believe.

My faithful mind can hear and accept without question. My curious mind demands proof. You can easily satisfy my faithful mind. My curious mind is not so easily satisfied. It is all too easy to simply ask you here for proof. Not personal, subjective proof. Objective, universally observable proof. That is what I have been trying to deal with in this discussion.

Trying to prove God does not exist, for me is also a path that will eventually lead to truth. As the old saying goes. It is not the destination but the journey that counts (or something like that)

Since you came a little late to the party, I will help clarify. The original thread dealt with "proof" of God's existence, which as anybody who has spent any time in sincere discussion on the subject knows, cannot be done either way. Some comments I made in that thread were pulled aside for clarification here. The other thread still exists. In fact, there is another thread besides dealing with the opposite conundrum, equally frivolous. So that we are clear, my point has always been the demonstration of "something" being out there, not the reverse. I see far too much circumstantial evidence to rationally see otherwise. And that has been my point all along.

[juantoo3]

Thanks, Earl!

If I'm feeling particularly spunky some day might even return to this thread to heretically point out ways in which 1 could interpret Buddhist notions of "karma/enlightenment" in spiral ways.

I can relate to "heretic." I am thinking of changing my username...how about "Harry Tich?"

[Kelcie]

Hi jantoo3,

Originally Posted by juantoo3

Kindest Regards, Kelcie, and welcome to CR!

Thank you for you welcome, it is good to be here

Not quite sure I follow. Yes, it requires a degree of intellect to rationally discuss a subject as wide and deep as God. So your point is...?

Okay let me explain....When a cat chases his tail, does he ever catch it? No. Is the tail on something other than the cat? No. Therefore when the intellect keeps trying to prove GODs existence "out there" when in fact GOD is "in here" do you think that the intellect will find the GOD it seeks?

While in the most general terms I can agree, still we grow in our knowledge and understanding of the subject. What we know today is not what we knew 5 years ago, and what we know 5 years from now is not what we know today. That is called "growth."

I agree, life is about growth, however we must move beyond the intellect to "be" with GOD. I am not saying we cannot discuss GOD, normally this is how the wisdom of GOD is imparted and yes it is through the intellect, but wisdom is only given in order for you to "know" of GOD. There is a difference between "knowing" and "being".

My faithful mind can hear and accept without question. My curious mind demands proof. You can easily satisfy my faithful mind. My curious mind is not so easily satisfied. It is all too easy to simply ask you here for proof. Not personal, subjective proof. Objective, universally observable proof. That is what I have been trying to deal with in this discussion.

I agree, the mind of man in its nature is curious. But isnt life and the myriad of creations proof in itself. Although these things GOD created people still need proof. Perhaps one is waiting for a human to come and say I am GOD the creator. Can you imagine the response? The objective proof has always been there, it is that many have not had the eyes to see it. But if you want to "be" in communion with GOD unfortunately it is subjective. It cannot be found anywhere other than inside ourselves. Of course this is my truth and I dont expect any one to adopt it as theirs.

Since you came a little late to the party, I will help clarify. The original thread dealt with "proof" of God's existence, which as anybody who has spent any time in sincere discussion on the subject knows, cannot be done either way. Some comments I made in that thread were pulled aside for clarification here. The other thread still exists. In fact, there is another thread besides dealing with the opposite conundrum, equally frivolous. So that we are clear, my point has always been the demonstration of "something" being out there, not the reverse. I see far too much circumstantial evidence to rationally see otherwise. And that has been my point all along.

Sorry about being late to the party obviously I missed the fun parts. They were my opinions from the posts that I did read, and you may take them as you wish. Your point is well noted.

Kelcie

[juantoo3]

Kindest Regards, Kelcie!

Originally Posted by Kelcie

When a cat chases his tail, does he ever catch it? No. Is the tail on something other than the cat? No. Therefore when the intellect keeps trying to prove GODs existence "out there" when in fact GOD is "in here" do you think that the intellect will find the GOD it seeks?

OK. This is addressed a little better further on, so for now I will agree intellect alone is insufficient. However, how does one confer experience in a logical manner to another, particularly one who demands proof?

I agree, life is about growth, however we must move beyond the intellect to "be" with GOD. I am not saying we cannot discuss GOD, normally this is how the wisdom of GOD is imparted and yes it is through the intellect, but wisdom is only given in order for you to "know" of GOD. There is a difference between "knowing" and "being".

Absolutely, yet "knowing" is the door to "being."

I agree, the mind of man in its nature is curious. But isnt life and the myriad of creations proof in itself.

In a word, no. If one holds that creation is of God, then you will find agreement. How do you approach those who do not believe or understand a creator, to whom "life and the myriad of creations" is the result of chance and circumstance from a primordial cesspool? This flirts with the boundaries of the old evolution vs. creation argument, wherein "God" as creator is not sufficient evidence in and of "Himself" for those who do not acknowledge "His" authority. It may be sufficient for me, but not for all, and certainly not for those who began this thread.

Although these things GOD created people still need proof.

Proof is an element of logic. Proof is another word for evidence. Kinda hard to convict someone without evidence.

Perhaps one is waiting for a human to come and say I am GOD the creator. Can you imagine the response?

What bearing does this have on the discussion? I do not see the bearing. Those who acknowledge the Divine, will do so, without a "man" stepping up to fill those shoes. Those who do not acknowledge the Divine, will only laugh and enjoy what they will view as a good joke. Either way, I do not see any relevence.

The objective proof has always been there, it is that many have not had the eyes to see it.

Quite the contrary, objective proof in this is elusive, very elusive, as in "none." That is why this argument has continued for centuries. There are some hints, and allegations, but all so far is circumstantial. Including what I have written here. I cannot point to God and say to anyone, "see, there is God!"

But if you want to "be" in communion with GOD unfortunately it is subjective. It cannot be found anywhere other than inside ourselves. Of course this is my truth and I dont expect any one to adopt it as theirs.

You will find me in agreement, and I said as much earlier. But our subjective experiences, however profound they may be, do not serve as objective proof to another, no matter how eloquent our speech. We can give an impassioned speech of love and mercy, or fire and brimstone, but these are not objective reality in the sense of demonstrable and reproducable at will, particularly to those who do not share the same memetic paradigm. We can plead and implore, and emote until we are blue in the face, but still we have not and cannot present objective proof. We have nothing of spirit to hold in our hands and show to another.

One can point to cave paintings in France, and any can see. One cannot point to "being filled with the Holy Ghost" and expect someone who does not or cannot agree with the concept to understand, let alone agree it serves as proof. In this, I find agreement with you and others here, that logic of itself is insufficient to fully describe the IS, the reality beyond which our human eyes (and so far, scientific tools) cannot penetrate. Experience has a vital role to play. But much like S.J.Gould pointed out in distinguishing and trying to separate the two magisteria of religion and science, experience is not logical. The two are fundamentally incompatible beyond the personal, subjective level. One cannot utilize scientific means to fully describe religion and religious experience, just as one cannot utilize religious means to fully describe science and scientific evidences. They are, for the most part, mutually exclusive.

My struggle in this is in flirting with the boundary that divides the two disciplines. I knew it would be a tough row to hoe, but I have fun with it just the same. In that sense, perhaps I am chasing my tail. But I am having fun while I do so.

Sorry about being late to the party obviously I missed the fun parts.

No worries, the other threads, and a great many other very interesting ones, are still very available. It just takes a little digging, and looking in the right places.

[Kelcie]

Hi Juantoo3

Absolutely, yet "knowing" is the door to "being."

Agreed! You cannot have one without the other.

how does one confer experience in a logical manner to another, particularly one who demands proof?

For me, no matter what you confer logically if they are not ready to recieve proof will always be insufficient for the logic.

It may be sufficient for me, but not for all, and certainly not for those who began this thread.

Agreed.

Proof is an element of logic. Proof is another word for evidence. Kinda hard to convict someone without evidence.

Yet this is what is done to God all the time.

What bearing does this have on the discussion? I do not see the bearing. Those who acknowledge the Divine, will do so, without a "man" stepping up to fill those shoes. Those who do not acknowledge the Divine, will only laugh and enjoy what they will view as a good joke. Either way, I do not see any relevence.

That was my tangent. Does it have to have relevance?

I cannot point to God and say to anyone, "see, there is God!"

Why not? There are ways to say there is God without actually saying the word God.

We can plead and implore, and emote until we are blue in the face, but still we have not and cannot present objective proof. We have nothing of spirit to hold in our hands and show to another.

Exactly!

But I am having fun while I do so.

I like having fun too!, you are not alone.

No worries, the other threads, and a great many other very interesting ones, are still very available. It just takes a little digging, and looking in the right places.

Thanks.

Kelcie

[Vajradhara]

of course well all know that Evolution never, ever, proposes anything by "chance", right? that is a typical CreationISM adherent argument.

metta,

~v

[Kelcie]

Originally Posted by Vajradhara

of course well all know that Evolution never, ever, proposes anything by "chance", right? that is a typical CreationISM adherent argument.

metta,

~v

Hi Vajradhara,

Ive pondered over your comments however I dont understand what they mean Would you like to elaborate please. Perhaps these are new concepts to me I dont know??

Thanks
Kelcie

[earl]

Eisnstein had said "God doesn't play dice with the universe" to which Stephen Hawking replied that not only did God play dice with the universe, but sometimes threw them where they couldn't be seen, (don't actually know what their own religious views were but they obviously had no trouble using the term God-do know Einstein was rather impressed with Buddhism). Of course, I don't buy into traditional creationist thesis-life is too mysterious for that. But "chance" may be looked at from many angles and levels of meaning; e.g., when chance ultimately leads to something deemed positive regardless of how many steps & phases it passes through to get there, in retrospect, seems like a wise & sentient, perhaps even loving & compassionate thing to have occurred . In fact, a rather intriguing concept which applies Juan to that notion of "spiral time" as contained in that web article I had recently noted is one taught by a contemporary teacher of advaita vedanta: Andrew Cohen, he calls "evolutionary enlightenment." For those curious re his use of this term, I'd advise you to check his discussion of this concept out at his personal website:
http://www.andrewcohen.org/teachings/evolutionary.asp

Have a good one, Earl

[juantoo3]

Kindest Regards, Kelcie!

For me, no matter what you confer logically if they are not ready to recieve proof will always be insufficient for the logic.

True. However, are not Christians taught to plant a seed? If it is meant for the seed to grow, it will in its own good time.

Logic works much the same way. If I can give a brief as to how I arrived at my presentation thus far, it began in the 7th grade, way back when. For a science fair, I tried to harmonize the Biblical account of creation with Darwinian evolution. Mind you, to this point I had heard of no other efforts in this direction, and I sure had no idea how controversial the matter would come to be. I was 12.

Needless to say, my project was universally panned by all of the judges. So, now you had a honor student accustomed to getting high marks in class, being effectively humiliated in a public forum like a school science fair. No reason given, just basically laughed out the door (figuratively).

Ordinarily, I would probably have dropped the subject and gone on to other things. But the subject strikes two central points of my being, my belief and my understanding. If my belief is not true, in the sense of factual and real, then why believe? If my understanding is ommitting certain elements for lack of "proof," then that must too be considered. I wish to believe the truth, whatever that truth turns out to be. Not a manufactured and convenient truth (this applies to both sides of the equation), but the factual reality of what really composes the universe we live in. I grew to not accept "truth" without "fact." That is where I stand today.

Over the years I have come to realize the politics and emotions that play into the subject. I try very hard to divorce myself from such nonsense. It gets very frustrating when I get repeatedly accused of some ulterior agenda, when such has never been the case. Yes, I am sure certain buzz words and catch phrases have made their way into my vocabulary, it is impossible not to. Certain logical phrases are bound to arise of their own. What people do with those phrases politically, is another story altogether I have gone to lengths to avoid. Still, I frequently get accused, or "labelled." Yet, my study is, and always has been, independent. I refuse to be subservient either to science or institutional religion in this seach.

(*Proof is an element of logic. Proof is another word for evidence. Kinda hard to convict someone without evidence.-jt3) Yet this is what is done to God all the time.

You lost me. Are you trying to say God is convicted without evidence all the time?

If God in some sense is real, and I have personal subjective experience that leads me in that direction, then "He" can handle being questioned. And I would think there would be circumstantial evidence that points in "His" direction. It is about interpretation. Science will not interpret evidence towards God for a list of reasons, not least of which is political undermining of the underlying premise that God is not required. Institutional religion likewise will not interpret evidence against God for political reasons that would undermine the underlying infrastructure and premise institutional religion is built upon. There is a great deal at stake for both, and neither is prepared to submit to the authority of the other.

Frankly, I do not see why either one has to submit. But that is the political choice both sides have made.

In fairness, I do realize now that there are some within both disciplines that have come to the same realization, that neither science nor religion must submit to the other. But even then it appears to me this is a matter of convenience, of trying to keep the peace between the two. I am beyond all of that, I could care less. My search is not about proving one or the other "wrong." My search is for the truth. The real, hard, genuine, factual truth. Everything else is superfluous.

That was my tangent. Does it have to have relevance?

Very well, I still do not follow the tangent.

There are ways to say there is God without actually saying the word God.

OK, how do you suggest? That is the question I have posed of our Buddhist friends. So if you have a better solution, I'm all ears.

[juantoo3]

Kindest Regards, Vajradhara!

of course well all know that Evolution never, ever, proposes anything by "chance", right? that is a typical CreationISM adherent argument.

Oh, do we? What is chaos and randomness if not chance? What is a cosmic crapshoot if not chance?

You wish myself and others not to attribute things to you or label you. The same courtesy would be appreciated, thanks.