There is no proof of God ...

[Aupmanyav]

It is true that no thing (classical objects) lives on, but thingness is just a veneer of what we really are (that is, if one believes, as I do, that we are connected to deep convergent reality that is different than the surface “reality” which we have a tendency to believe it’s all there is). Big IF, I know. But at least it clarifies my position, and, possibly a point of disagreement if you thing of reality in terms of material existence, or “matter.” I believe there is something more akin to energy deep within matter, and then something akin to mind within that. My metaphysical belief jives with the (Vedic, I think) gross body (surface), subtle body (intermediate depth), and causal body (deepest level, base).

I agree to what you say. Energy and matter are the same (oft repeated E=...) and energy has its properties.

 

[Ceres]

It is presumptuous to claim that there is no proof of God, unless, that is, a person knows all the proofs of God. A bigger and to me a more relevant issue is that many claims about God's existence or attributes don't clearly describe what kind of God is being thought of, or why a particular sort of God should be expected or required to have any particular attributes, such as wisdom, love, power, timelessness, existence. The arguments that do address those are the interesting ones. I have read a few arguments against the existence of any such thing as God that almost persuaded me (I thought of myself as an atheist for a short time), and many arguments that persuade me for the time being that there was a Something before the so-called Big Bang, whether it is called God, Mind, Nature, or something else. "God" is as good a name for the unconditioned pre-Big-Bang Reality as anything else.

 

[otherbrother]

Cool! What type of music do you perform or compose?

That is cool.

 

[otherbrother]

I agree to what you say. Energy and matter are the same (oft repeated E=...) and energy has its properties.

Do you also think both are rooted in something else, akin to mind? A basement from which we can enter various rooms above it?

 

[Aupmanyav]

No, IMHO, absolutely. There is no universal mind.

 

[otherbrother]

Being a professional musician who made his living as such for about 50 years . . . not impressed in the least.

Amir, Regarding your lack of being impressed with the potential lyrics, I was more interested in sharing the ideas/message than the artistic value. As an artist, your emphasis might be on the opposite. At a poetry forum I had one poem critiqued as telling too much instead of only showing. Too transparent with the ideas.
My favorite poet is Wallace Stephens who does also mix philosophic thoughts with poetic imagery. But most folks seem to lean either left brain to philosophical thought, right brain to poetic/artistic expression, or alternatively either way but not both at once. I’m a both at once kinda of guy who is willing to sacrifice artistry with message.
Poet/philosopher? Or just bad artist? My identity is closer to poet/philosopher, at whatever level I can achieve.

Thanks for the critique though,
Darrell

 

[otherbrother]

No, IMHO, absolutely. There is no universal mind.

I do believe that connecting with one’s own individual “spirit” (essence?) can be trusted to seamlessly connect with a bigger Mind if there happens to be one. So I’m not willing to say we have to focus on (or even believe in) a universal mind. In fact, too much emphasis on an Other could alienate ourselves from whatever mind we can experience and operate from. It can be contrived, not authentic.

On the other hand, I’m not willing to say there’s NOT a universal mind either, not willing to drive a wedge between my mind and one that might extend well beyond what could be considered as “mine.”

I might be a formal agnostic, although I’m a functional theist in the sense that I pray to “God.”

 

[Aupmanyav]

I might be a formal agnostic, although I’m a functional theist in the sense that I pray to “God.”

I am a strong atheist, which means I reject even the possibility of existence of God or soul.

 

[juantoo3]

I am a strong atheist, which means I reject even the possibility of existence of God or soul.

Steadfast...but also closed minded.

Where does all in the universe come from? Is there not a wellspring, a "source" from which all matter and all energy originate? Call it G!d, or don't, doesn't really matter - it exists. I believe some call it the Big Bang?

There are aspects of reality we as material, physical beings do not understand, no matter how well we delude ourselves into believing we know everything. We prattle on about evolution when we still have no idea how genetics and speciation operate.

According to one experiment, the human soul weighs 21.3 grams: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/21_grams_experiment , the research being dismissed for faulty methodology - and yet no other researcher has taken to confirm or deny his findings, or develop any other methodology. Curious, why not set the record straight? Perhaps because the human soul is easier to dismiss if there is no evidence?

Sounds like adverse Covid vaccine reactions, and some of our current legal manipulations particularly regarding voting inconsistencies. It is easier to say "there's no evidence!" if no evidence is sought or acknowledged. It is easier to look away and pretend not to see.

Humans have convinced themselves they know everything already, and have probably done so far back into antiquity. Only grudgingly does new information or ways of looking at reality come to be accepted. Quantum Mechanics is nice, but Newtonian Physics was sufficient to put a human on the moon. Using the phases of the moon to plant or harvest crops may seem outdated and superstitious, yet it works VERY well, predictably well.

A closed mind cannot learn. One shouldn't be so open minded their brains fall out, yet one cannot put more into a bowl that is already full. One cannot learn if one already knows. Knowing shuts off the ability to learn.

Humans historically have a tendency to "know" things that turn out not to be true. I posit that tendency continues still, today.

What is matter? What is energy? How are they related?

 

[otherbrother]

No, IMHO, absolutely. There is no universal mind.

At this interfaith forum are we talking merely about beliefs (such as whether or not there is universal mind) or what we have faith in, so that we can emotionally maintain ourselves during the difficult times?

I think the assumption is that a person has certain beliefs (a faith tradition) that helps cue up the stabilizing type of “faith.”

I can only guess (or ask you) what belief assists the actionable faith.

The concept of a True Self seems to come up in the absence of a belief in God or Universal Mind. And I recently suggested that one’s “spirit” (essence?) could be seen by some theists as a sufficient thing to have faith in, since it would be sufficiently connected to God or whatever realities beyond (or unaccounted for) that might support us in the process of shoring up our courage to face and deal with life’s curveballs.

Perhaps not even a belief in an individual spirit or essence is needed, as long as we truly believe in “wholeness” as an attainable state. A recent song of mine contains the lyric “I’m blessed with a part whole, pothole, portal.”

For our purposes here, I’d like to focus on the intended meaning of the phrase “part whole.” If we can anchor our mind and psyche/soul on even our partial wholeness, we have suitable staging area for greater degrees of wholeness. I may be lame, but at least I’m still managing to ambulate. Build on a positive.

An atheist could well believe in a workable kind of wholeness that allows oneself to have faith, grace under pressure, as opposed to falling apart (a part, into a state of only parts) .

But if “god” means “called one” , as some maintain, then wholeness IS “God” to the presumably rational atheist who also believes in living life to its fullest. Wholeness is a called upon THING at least.

And perhaps if we keep our eye on the “ball” of wholeness, an unknown and previously unacknowledged Reality Beyond will step in to source/supply our wholeness. To become whole would be akin to being in the “image” of God (in this scenario, Wholeness).

So, “part whole” might be a fuzzy, low resolution, but just discernible enough, image of Wholeness. Becoming increasingly whole would be akin to a clearer, higher resolution, image of Wholeness, called one (Thing).

These thoughts motivate me to consider writing a book called Let’s Get One Thing Clear. The one thing would be oneself becoming a clearer picture of wholeness.
I’m assuming that atheists believe in higher states of integration and the possibility of achieving them. Perhaps that is plenty of belief to facilitate active faith.

 

[otherbrother]

Steadfast...but also closed minded.

Where does all in the universe come from? Is there not a wellspring, a "source" from which all matter and all energy originate? Call it G!d, or don't, doesn't really matter - it exists. I believe some call it the Big Bang?

There are aspects of reality we as material, physical beings do not understand, no matter how well we delude ourselves into believing we know everything. We prattle on about evolution when we still have no idea how genetics and speciation operate.

According to one experiment, the human soul weighs 21.3 grams: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/21_grams_experiment , the research being dismissed for faulty methodology - and yet no other researcher has taken to confirm or deny his findings, or develop any other methodology. Curious, why not set the record straight? Perhaps because the human soul is easier to dismiss if there is no evidence?

Sounds like adverse Covid vaccine reactions, and some of our current legal manipulations particularly regarding voting inconsistencies. It is easier to say "there's no evidence!" if no evidence is sought or acknowledged. It is easier to look away and pretend not to see.

Humans have convinced themselves they know everything already, and have probably done so far back into antiquity. Only grudgingly does new information or ways of looking at reality come to be accepted. Quantum Mechanics is nice, but Newtonian Physics was sufficient to put a human on the moon. Using the phases of the moon to plant or harvest crops may seem outdated and superstitious, yet it works VERY well, predictably well.

A closed mind cannot learn. One shouldn't be so open minded their brains fall out, yet one cannot put more into a bowl that is already full. One cannot learn if one already knows. Knowing shuts off the ability to learn.

Humans historically have a tendency to "know" things that turn out not to be true. I posit that tendency continues still, today.

What is matter? What is energy? How are they related?

I loved the fact that you acknowledged the need to be somewhat closed minded . And yet you suggested that open mindedness is the path to growth. I recently had a similar insight about a balance between the two (closed and open mindedness) but with a wise lean towards open mindedness. What some call “dynamic symmetry.” The book God’s Reach, by William Clark (as I recall) emphasizes the concept of dynamic symmetry, as well as multi dimensional reality.

 

[juantoo3]

The atomic bomb is proof energy permeates matter. Energy permeates all matter, but is easier to release in certain elements under the right (explosive) conditions.

Can a being be composed of energy? Something like, oh...a soul? And might a soul be required to animate, if not all life certainly higher order life? I personally feel it permeates all life, greater and lesser, even to the stones.

 

[juantoo3]

I loved the fact that you acknowledged the need to be somewhat closed minded . And yet you suggested that open mindedness is the path to growth. I recently had a similar insight about a balance between the two (closed and open mindedness) but with a wise lean towards open mindedness. What some call “dynamic symmetry.” The book God’s Reach, by William Clark (as I recall) emphasizes the concept of dynamic symmetry, as well as multi dimensional reality.

Reality simply is. I call it the IS, it is what materially is happening to us in this reality. "Truth" is a moving target, for many truth is what is required to maintain a certain predisposition. When I say "truth," I associate it with reality...perhaps reality as I understand reality...there is a cultural component and "formal" religious teaching, but that also serves as a basis to relate to truth as reality. G!d is real.

I just want to go home when the time comes. I don't want to dwell in the lands of the dead. I don't think hell is eternal in the commonly understood manner, I think for most it will be over in a moment. It is written of others, but I choose not to dwell in that direction, it is also possible they are required, ground to a source so to speak, for material existence.

I could be FOS, but I think I'm seeing as close as I dare look.

It isn't about what you know, it is about what you do with what you know.

Others call it "many ways up the mountain."

Rabbi Hillel replied, “What is hateful to you, do not do to your neighbor: that is the whole Torah while the rest is commentary; go and learn it.”
(https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/2312343/jewish/Chapter-7-Hillel-and-Rabbi-Akiva.htm)

Fear G!d, and keep His Commandments.

"Man has made 32 million laws since THE COMMANDMENTS were handed down to Moses on Mount Sinai more than three thousand years ago, but he has never improved on God's law. THE TEN COMMANDMENTS are the principles by which man may live with God and man may live with man. They are the expressions of the mind of God for His creatures. They are the charter and guide of human liberty, for there can be no liberty without the law." -Cecil B DeMille

“We cannot break the Ten Commandments. We can only break ourselves against them—or else, by keeping them, rise through them to the fulness of freedom under God. God means us to be free. With divine daring, he gave us the power of choice.” -Cecil B DeMille

We are not punished for our sins, we are punished by our sins. <sound familiar? wil?>

It isn't about what we think we know...religions are cuilturally centric, religion is a major component of any culture. That includes the religion of no-religion.

It is about what we do with what we know.

 

[otherbrother]

I loved the fact that you acknowledged the need to be somewhat closed minded . And yet you suggested that open mindedness is the path to growth. I recently had a similar insight about a balance between the two (closed and open mindedness) but with a wise lean towards open mindedness. What some call “dynamic symmetry.” The book God’s Reach, by William Clark (as I recall) emphasizes the concept of dynamic symmetry, as well as multi dimensional reality.

I wrote another song that had the phrase “from Christians knowing, to Christians growing (advocating a “move” from the former to the latter). Song, titled May We Move, was/is intended to be an anthem for Reconciling Churches. I happen to be a member of one of those churches.
Loved how you encouraged the same or similar “movement.” We don’t know everything. But we can grow in both skill and understanding.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Humans historically have a tendency to "know" things that turn out not to be true. I posit that tendency continues still, today.

Now that is a double edged sword. Have we understood all about nature? This will perhaps be known to future generations after a few decades or centuries. For now, I have given my view in thread 'Evolution is unscientific'. You have commented on it.

 

[otherbrother]

Reality simply is. I call it the IS, it is what materially is happening to us in this reality. "Truth" is a moving target, for many truth is what is required to maintain a certain predisposition. When I say "truth," I associate it with reality...perhaps reality as I understand reality...there is a cultural component and "formal" religious teaching, but that also serves as a basis to relate to truth as reality. G!d is real.

I just want to go home when the time comes. I don't want to dwell in the lands of the dead. I don't think hell is eternal in the commonly understood manner, I think for most it will be over in a moment. It is written of others, but I choose not to dwell in that direction, it is also possible they are required, ground to a source so to speak, for material existence.

I could be FOS, but I think I'm seeing as close as I dare look.

It isn't about what you know, it is about what you do with what you know.

Others call it "many ways up the mountain."

I think there must be a depth to overall reality. And processes that are more like the traditional concept of spiritual are active in deeper levels of a “fountain flowing deep and wide.” My metaphysical guess is that the fountain flows from a deep zone, which would be the “source” you mentioned. The deepest source just as well be called God. I love Thomas’ (the originator of this thread) emphasis on not putting God in a box. Thomas strengthened my value of not putting God in a box. I am grateful for his facilitation.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Perhaps not even a belief in an individual spirit or essence is needed, as long as we truly believe in “wholeness” as an attainable state. A recent song of mine contains the lyric “I’m blessed with a part whole, pothole, portal.”

For our purposes here, I’d like to focus on the intended meaning of the phrase “part whole.” If we can anchor our mind and psyche/soul on even our partial wholeness, we have suitable staging area for greater degrees of wholeness. I may be lame, but at least I’m still managing to ambulate. Build on a positive.

An atheist could well believe in a workable kind of wholeness that allows oneself to have faith, grace under pressure, as opposed to falling apart (a part, into a state of only parts) .

I follow a flavor of Advaita Hinduism which does not accept distinction of any type at all. My 'No God' and atheism derives from it.
My books said "Eko sad, dwiteeyo nasti" (What exists is one, there is no second) and "Sarvam Khalu Idam Brahma" (All this here is Brahman)
What constitutes all in the "Brahma" (universe) is Brahman. No reason to take Brahman as a God. God is fearfulness and superstition, IMHO. Even a cockroach is Brahman.

 

[otherbrother]

The atomic bomb is proof energy permeates matter. Energy permeates all matter, but is easier to release in certain elements under the right (explosive) conditions.

Can a being be composed of energy? Something like, oh...a soul? And might a soui be required to animate, if not all life certainly higher order life? I personally feel it permeates all life, greater and lesser, even to the stones.

Animating force would be at home in a quantum depth layer between matter and the deepest realm that we can only guess to resemble “mind.” Patterns independent of the stuff of energy, but organizing it. The patterned energy then assisting our material realm. But all depth layers are connected like a fountain flowing. We have minds that can go through “heaven” (a quantum realm?) all the way to the one/thing that “lives in heaven,” is inserted into it (and then embedded there) from a deeper dimension.

 

[otherbrother]

I follow a flavor of Advaita Hinduism which does not accept distinction of any type at all. My 'No God' and atheism derives from it.
My books said "Eko sad, dwiteeyo nasti" (What exists is one, there is no second) and "Sarvam Khalu Idam Brahma" (All this here is Brahman)
What constitutes all in the "Brahma" (universe) is Brahman. No reason to take Brahman as a God. God is fearfulness and superstition, IMHO. Even a cockroach is Brahman.

That is a view of wholeness that extends beyond a “self.” For self, we conceptualize an intra-personal wholeness. Interpersonal wholeness would seem to include the oneness sense that your Brahma belief entails. And I agree that there are no boundaries of wholeness. What is achieved within will reflect on, pattern, that which is outside of self. And wholeness in the world will rub off on each individual as well. Works inside out and outside in.

 

[juantoo3]

I've seen this reference to "Mind" before, I'm not personally fond of using that, primarily for anthropomorphic disagreements. It implies, in some human minds, "the old grey beard reclining on a cloud." It is a strawman, but they trot it out anyway. I don't personally view it as an intellect as such, G!d simply IS.

I think it was Amir, quoted I think Isaiah, been awhile, about G!d creating Evil. I think taken in a slightly different context for illustration, positive and negative, like energetic poles which in turn allows reality as we know it to exist.

Whether there is what we as humans might call intellect, I don't think it is even the same. There is analogue in the Tree of Life illustration, which also implies other energetic beings of either persuasion.