Does God Exist?

Didn't you read? I found Jesus--he was hiding behind the couch the whole time.

OK, seriously----my response is not dependent on their being a god, rather it is dependent on responding to the question, 'does (do) God(s) exist?' in a non-reductionist manner.

You on the other hand are taking the reductionist position that,

Granted, I agree that the religious God is largely a projection of man's Superego. But to assume that this explains all of mankind's experience of believing in God is wrong. The religious God is the God of civilization, and it is based on a dualistic interpretation of reality that evolved from the early Planter Culture's understanding of in-group/out-group.

You are making an assumption that I am making your point for you by justifying God’s ‘evils’ as incomprehensible. But this has several problems. First of all, if good and evil are human terms, and are therefore not a universal, then God cannot be ‘evil.’ We can label God as evil from a human perspective, but it is only a human label placed on an entity, or even, as you suggest, a projection of the collective super-ego.

There are sharks that kill people and eat them. In fact, even more horribly, they eat them alive. Are sharks therefore evil? Or—is a super-ego projection in any way evil? How can a projected concept be evil?

So, if we ignore the fact that you are still using a human concept as if it was a universal, then let’s consider the other part—that I am justifying the unjustifiable by dismissing God’s evil as incomprehensible. As I pointed out, you are using a concept of God and reality that is based on dualism born in the planter cultures of our early ancestors as they began to develop the institutions of civilization.

All organized religions have this dualistic concept of God. Only certain schools of Buddhism made much headway away from this concept. But it too carries a legacy of dualism based on heaven-spiritual-male VS. earth-physical-female. I do not include Taoism or Shintoism in the category of religion, or organized religion, because they are of much older spiritualities and have not fully developed the institutional aspects of religion. Shintoism copied its institutional structure from Buddhism as it was exported into Japan, and therefore never developed into a bona fide religious institution of its own. I suspect that Taoism did a little of the same thing by turning Ural-Altaic shamans into priests. However, Taoism better avoided the political and Nationalistic aspects of the institution. More importantly, neither belief system adopted a Post-Planter culture dualistic zeitgeist.

There are therefore views of reality and God that are not based on a duality, and a universe that is filled with only good and evil (God & Devil, up & down, left & right, male & female, in & out, yours & mine, etc.). One of the main belief systems that does not incorporate this is the older multiplistic understanding of animism (of which Taoism and Shintoism are a part). They all see reality as a multiplicity of forces rather than two opposing forces fighting against each other. Such belief systems seek to achieve balance in life, rather than struggle repressively to be ‘good.’ Therefore such belief systems do not engender such inflation of the ego-shadow complex that you see among the ‘civilized’ religions, and the people are less driven to achieve an ego-ideal. In other words, there is no need to project a super-ego concept of God.

It is not incomprehensible to these people that bad things happen on earth—because they do not project good or evil onto their concept of God. Instead, the universe is made up of benevolent forces, non-benevolent forces, helping forces, trickster forces, and everything in between. They lack any concept of secular and non-secular, and put more emphasis on the interrelatedness of all things, rather than the division of things.

They do not have any religious sense that their Gods or beliefs are any different from someone else’s gods or beliefs, at least until they are forced to deal with an organized religion, and the missionaries or soldiers create this concept for them. There is only one case of animistic people fighting for their God, and this is in the case of World War II and Shintoism—but this was clearly a political perversion of Shinto belief arising from the institutional dynamic borrowed from Buddhism. And in truth it never was an actual war for a God, as there was no moral justification that God wanted it, or would benefit from it, rather it was based on Nationalism with a demi-god figurehead (the emperor) grounded upon an objectivistic sense of duty (the most obvious aspect being the way of the samurai or bushido) that again, was adopted from China. Otherwise there is no case of an animistic belief system being used to justify a war. Such a concept would be incomprehensible for them. War and other bad things are simply a condition of being out of balance. To try to force too much good or too much bad, is to move out of balance. This disrupts the natural flow of nature and nature will snap back—bad things happen.

Therefore in such cases, God’s evils, are not dismissed as incomprehensible, because there is no projection of a strictly Good God. (And after all, a strictly good god, just like the ego-ideal, or the Super-ego, which tries to force good, is actually evil in that it denies the elements of the shadow as being a part of one’s self, even though they are—which is why they were repressed into the shadow, and still secretly appear as characteristics of the self.) In this case I am not trying to justify the unjustifiable. Instead, I am pointing out the unjustifiable position that human values can be considered as universals, and that such an argument does not answer to the existence of God, only to a specific concept of god.

Therefore, let me restate your argument for you: “Your (being your opponent) religious concept of God is fallacious because it is based on the premise that your God has given you universal values of Good vs. Evil, just as every other god has given the followers of their religions such universal values, and then your God, allows, encourages, or even incites you to go out in his name and commit such evil things against others in his name and for the purposes of good, even as those of other religions likewise do the same to you. However, clearly such values are not universals, but rather human concepts we use to understand the reality of our situation. This does not even address the next problem that if your God is so all-good, all-powerful and all-knowing that he would allow such evil and bad things to take place, even to his own people.”

That is the argument asserted in a better manner. But it still does not answer the question, “Does God (or do gods) exist?”

Then there is the point of unjustifiable in its general sense. This reminds me, to explain that religion evolved from man’s need to justify the unjustifiable, is overly simplistic. Anyway, I will go over this idea of unjustifiable when I answer the OP’s question in another post.

Also I would like to point out that you are moving onto shaky ground when you start employing a collective super-ego, or any other form of a collective conscious.

The concept of collective conscious was created by an essentialist (someone who believes that essence, rather than existence, is the ground of being, i.e. someone who believes in other realities (such as spirit) in addition to the physical)—Carl Jung—in an attempt to explain an essentialist concept in rational and objectivistic terms.

Sure he couched the concept in seemingly rationalistic and almost imperialistic terms suggesting that it is an inherited physical structure in the human brain. But in the end I think it is clear what he truly intended, especially after going so far as to state that he is in fact, an essentialist.

So----we must therefore wonder is it right for any red-blooded atheist to argue his or her point using a concept that refers to a non-physical sharing of consciousness between members of a species. (Oh it’s just a group dynamic…? Ok if you say so… Good luck with that one.)

 

I know we are not our bodies. If you don't know it, that doesn't mean it isn't so.

Don't learn about damnation and salvation, if you don't want to.

But if your mind and heart are open to learning about things you don't know, here's an example. Remember, very many people do not CHOOSE as Scotty has chosen. More often than not, it is a *social* choice and people choose whatever is more socially (and sometimes, financially) rewarding .. instead of spiritual, intellectual and heart-wise values.

http://seattletimes.com/html/faithvalues/2002439183_driscoll13m.html

 

Just tell her I love her! There's nothing retributive in her divine resolution. :-D

 

She's mine! You can have that big-balled bastard that had me fooled for all these years.

 

gina:

I know we are our bodies. The planet-sized bollocks you're presenting us with in your knowledge are going to be more than difficult to fit into the shorts you're using. lol

Your link doesn't work. The Seattle times are disabled lol

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YwfDFpBBZ9E"]Subnation - Scottie - YouTube

 

You haven't known ginalee before January of 2014 because ginalee did not exist prior to January 2014.

 

Oh, the link works just fine but your lie isn't working at all.

Your song link is evidence of what you are CHOOSING to ignore.

 

THAT'S why I can't recall!

You remind me of Bob Dole . . .

I gotta go before I start getting giddy.

 

Wolf:

In your dreams wolf! :-D

 

gina:

No, when I click on it, it says it's disabled and then redirects me to the seattle times home page. Were you trying to link to a specific article?

Hang on, what are you saying about the track I played?! Are you getting the right one? I posted a remix accidentally the first time. :-D Refresh.

 

Like I said, the link works just fine but if it really doesn't work, for you, then maybe space aliens.

 

Do you think I'm "ridiculing" your experience to ask questions about it? Your experiences are veridical for you, but those of us who haven't had them and want to know more ask questions. I try to keep an open mind on miracles, and am fascinated by such phenomena as the stigmata, which many have received. Secular science explains such things as psychosomatic. I'm not convinced. Likewise with near death experiences. I haven't had contacts with charismatics before, so forgive me if I don't simply accept your claim without further scrutiny. I appreciate your willingness and courage to share your experiences with us. It makes me think about an area of Christian life that's unfamiliar to me. If you told me that you've raised the dead or cast out demons in the same manner as recorded in the New Testament, I'd ask questions, because I haven't seen that done before. I have the problem of making my way in the world on the basis of the experiences and evidence available to me, and so I'll evaluate your claim as I do others. I have friends who have reported all sorts of amazing experiences that are outside my comprehension: seeing auras, being miraculously healed by sleeping in a pyramid, etc. These are people who I know well, and know to be rational, sensible, honest human beings. I store their accounts in my mental X-files for further exploration. I know you to be rational and sensible, as well, and I sense your honesty and sincerity. I won't dismiss your account of glossolalia, since Lord knows lot's of others have experienced similar things; but I'll suspend judgment pending further evaluation--because it's different from what I've personally encountered. I hope you understand that not all Christians have such vivid personal encounters with the Holy Spirit. You're blessed! But mine is a left-brained ministry.

 

That's what keeps me awake at night, Storch----every time you pop into my dreams. :-D

 

I like to tell Christians that I don't believe in God, and then watch them squirm a bit.

Does God, or do gods, exist? The answer and the proof is purely subjective.

NG said,

This is what it really boils down to. Now I skipped a few pages so I may not be using his quote the same way he meant it. Then too, I don't think that the result is always a matter of fumbling in the dark.

But there is a certain degree of proof in subjective experience, and I believe that if it is that important to you, that you can find that proof and that it will be dependent on to what degree of proof you need.

I spent my whole life looking for meaning, truth, and proof. At one point I gave up and settled for a more materialist explanation of reality. But a part of me still needed to know, and so things happened around me, at first to tweak my interest, then later I actually sought out such things. But even as more amazing things happened, my rational mind could still not accept it. But I explored further---and every experience that I encountered would tell me, yes, there are powers in this universe beyond the physical---but still I would rationalize them away and chalk them up to coincidence as a synchronicity. But then one night something happened that I could not deny, because I was left with physical evidence, and no matter how many times I went back to that spot where it happened, or tried to rationalize it, there was no denying what I had experienced. (Therefore, I don't believe in God in the sense that a belief in God implies a lack of proof and therefore a leap of faith. I had my proof, so I know now)

But it doesn't really matter to anyone else. It cannot truly be someone else's proof that God exists, or doesn't exist, because it was my own subjective experience----even if it did involve physical reality.

But this experience opened me up, so that I could experience a whole new reality----that is the problem with Modern Man---the institutions of religion and social progress have carried us down a path of objectivist thinking and rationalism that has left us culturally with the conclusion that there is no proof, and the most logical conclusion of Modernism is that God does not exist. We fail to realize the role that religion played in all of this, because early on in the rise to Modernism, religion began to be separated from science---with Kant providing the final axe blow to separate such schools of thought.

This is why Nietzsche declared that God is dead and went on to say that it was religion that killed him. But this left modern man trapped in a shell of objectivism---a disconnected observer to the world of objects around him. Modern man's total focus is on the conscious mind, and objective reality----the physical world 'out there'---outside our own subjective selves. We are so focused on the physical world that we don't even understand our own subconscious selves, and it is through the subconscious that the doorway to the spiritual lies.

Therefore none of us, it is assumed, have proof of god this side of the grave (as it was so stated). And Modern man probably cannot have such proof until he is opened up somehow, to the extent he seeks, via such subjective experience. This is why the Modern world is so filled with existential crisis, depression, addictions… This is also why Carl Jung stated in his book, The Undiscovered Self, that religion has become nothing more than a creed.

But this is not how it used to be. Proof was not needed for our ancestors. There was a time when there was no need to justify the unjustifiable. There are still people that live this way today. Native Americans who still follow the Red Road, for example, have no question of whether or not God exists. The fact that Modern Man has to ask such a question tells them that the White Man just doesn’t see reality the way they do, which is why he is destroying the earth, and everything on it. It is why a Lakota man told a white man who wanted to do a Vision Quest on Bear Butte in the Black Hills, “White people aren’t ready for that. There are things on that mountain that you won’t understand. We were raised with this stuff.”

For example, it is actually somewhat comical how Western Man assumes that indigenous people gained such a powerful knowledge of medicinal plants by way of thousands of years of experimenting. As if somewhere there where people who said, “Wow, that’s a strange plant. I wonder what it would do if I put it in my mouth?” Or, “I have a headache, I wonder if these berries would cure it? Those berries over there killed my mother, but maybe these ones will just cure my headache…” They didn’t experiment. They were taught, and I don’t mean by aliens. In fact, this teaching still happens today.

In every religion you find very archaic motifs and traditions. The blood sacrifice, which has been handed down to Modern Man as the sanitized ritual of communion, goes all the way back to deep into the Paleolithic. Do you honestly think that these traditions would have been handed down and passed on from one tradition to another, if it had no significance? Or if it was just some attempt to justify the unjustifiable? Some such traditions and motifs may speak to us at a symbolic subconscious level. But there are others that are passed on, because they do provide that ecstatic experience with spirit. Still others are passed on because they get results. You wouldn’t go to a healer if he/she didn’t heal people. You wouldn’t continue with a dance if it didn’t get results.

All of the indigenous people along the coast of Indonesia moved to higher ground before the Indian Ocean tsunami hit a number of years ago. This was not a coincidence. Time and again, Western anthropologists have been shown the power of Native ceremony (yet time and again they seek rational answers that do not do justice to what they saw—though there are plenty of cases where the rational explanations are simply used to avoid academic ridicule, or professional chastisement). Several times it has been shown how game can be called by gifted individuals or medicine people, for example. In one case on a Pacific Island, dolphins were called, a tradition that has been passed down in cases of famine. After an overnight ceremony, dolphins appeared in great numbers in the sea in front of the village, and some actually beached themselves. These indigenous people do not need to justify the unjustifiable, because they experience a different reality all the time. And not surprisingly, they place a heavy focus on the individual and on the subjective experience. If you want proof of the existence of another dimension, proof of God, just attend a Lakota Yuwipi ceremony. But I am sure you will spend the next few days trying to figure out how they did that. But there are no tricks.

I am not writing these things as proof of God. You do not live in such a culture, so you are doomed to seeking out your own subjective experience. You probably have to be woken up. Then again, it may be your purpose in life to be an atheist---we all have our own trip on this earth. Clearly without the development of objectivism and rationalism that religion spawned, civilization would never have developed, and we would never have achieved the things that we have. But I would say that when a culture has become so alienated from its own subconscious, and so far removed from the ecstatic experience, that it has to ask, does God exist, and the answer is so elusive that it becomes a long drawn out argument---then that culture is dying, or may even be dead.

It is not an issue of religion, but rather of personal experience. For all the good that religions have done, they have also caused considerable harm. Christianity, for example, has killed far more people from the Holy conquest across old Europe, through the inquisitions, to Manifest Destiny in the New World, than any major war. It still continues in modern times with such things as the recent Civil War in Ireland. Nonetheless, many people will find that personal experience within their religion, and within that religious context, but what other choices do they have? And if it doesn’t provide the proof they need, then they should look elsewhere. But as a culture, Nietzsche was right, as he identified the problem of Modern culture—God is dead.

 

If you have a thought that I adopt who's thought is it? All being copies of life's authority we share our thoughts. Life's authority is genetically coded and my life is shared. I was given life, I didn't wrestle it away from someone.

How many times will you claim I said something that I did not say? There is nothing sick nor sinister in saying that which we invoke is essential to all our efforts. At the moment I would say your god is not serving you well as it's visage blinds you to what I am saying.

That is what I said.

invoke; cite or appeal to (someone or something) as an authority for an action or in support of an argument.
The claim I am hungry or I will be hungry is essential to our efforts of gathering food.

Obviously, there is no need for you but you exist. Don't know how it relates to what I am saying.

There is no reason you should exist but you do.
What do you know of prayer? Yoga is a common form of prayer.
And this is what god is to you, not nonexistent but needless. My god doesn't come from need but from observation.

It is the same. God comes out better as far as agreement in terms calling it our invocation to good rather than the sign of a diseased or deluded mind that inflicts, them. You know them, those characters like thedope!?

It is not my special dictionary, it is the dictionary of the english language.
The fact is stated every time someone says you can believe in things that aren't real or just because you believe in something doesn't make it so. These are statements about the naturally abstract condition of mind.

We all have our indelible invocation to our own good.
If god be that which we invoke and not some superstition you uphold then yes we have the self same god.

Your definition as I understand it is good is what good is. Well good is an attribute that you assign and you can give it and take it away. Yours doesn't appear until you claim it in the moment and even then it is often immediately in contention with other's claims on good. My definition fundamentally supports all claims. Gods love is such that it always chooses for you never against you.

So god exists for you after all, I mean that given is your basis for further inquiry into the degrees of powers of association?

Limited power is a contradiction in terms. I don't think there is anything wrong with your powers but I do think you refuse to associate and I have repeatedly referred to your self denial. "God exists, but not for me." God exists being your answer to the question does god exist.

So the part does not define the whole? What of yet to be?

Spirit is our only claim on life. Spirit means breath.

 

I've meant to tell you before, but I'll do it now. I'm really impressed by the depth of your thought. Socrates told us that the unexamined life is not worth living. You've certainly examined yours. You use basically the same method I use. You read a lot, think a lot, and draw inferences. Some people criticize that approach because it is "impressionistic" and "subjective" and the inferences might be wrong. You haven't provided scientific "proof" or even courtroom proof. But your case is rational, evidence-based, and you've shared it with us so that we can draw our own conclusions. Thanks.

Of course, as you acknowledge, you could be wrong about ultimate reality. I'd have to agree with Noxious Gas that our sharing of knowledge may simply be "fumbling around in the dark" and that experiences are an essential part of our encounters with reality. He compares it with sex, and I've used as similar (if grosser) analogy (no blasphemy intended) to describe my religious experiences, which are on-going. When you're in the midst of intercourse with a significant other, it spoils the mood to ask for proof of her existence. But I think it would be unfortunate (and impossible)to dismiss the shared experiences of books and our dialogues, which are helpful to me in evaluating my own, limited personal experiences. Humans are rational and social animals for a reason. One of my favorite sci-fi shows was the Outer Limits, and my favorite episode was one where some humans made an emergency run to another planet to obtain vaccine to control an epidemic back home on earth. But they were attacked by some giant spiders, and one of them was bitten. Next scene shows him waking up in a hospital room and being told that it's the future and he'd made it back to earth with the vaccine. But then he keeps having vivid dreams that he didn't, and he's still on the planet with the spiders and he must get the vaccine back to earth. Which was it? Neither of the above. At the end it turns out that both of his vivid perceptions were delusions induced by the venom of the spiders who've wrapped him in a cocoon and are slowly devouring him. That's life! Nothing is certain, not even that. That's why I think faith is indispensable.

My approach to the dilemma is to place my bet on the scenario that seems most real to me, on the basis of my own experiences, what I've read, and what seems to be the best available evidence, if consistent with logic and science. And realize that I could be completely wrong. I don't talk about "proof" for my beliefs; just reasonable suspicion and substantial evidence. There's a difference between doing science and doing life.

 

as holy people would speak like that in spirit , then god
responds wordily to them likewisely, free , and then very
much more simply . in kindness it is attended by a con-
firmation . no confirmation ? then the listener may as well
think the deep and booming voice from space as a pleasant
hallucination , which is fine , good enough , could be you
remember it a long time anyway .

" farl kess nuel wern tun "... itsa the strong cockily doodly doo
man crowing in the sunshine

the existence of god is a voice rational and unquestionably relational
.
.
My ma said God told her to give me a guitar .

 

Thank you Okiefreak, I think we have talked a bit about that before. I don't recall that episode of The Outer Limits-----but the ending sounds familiar. Was that one in the 1963 series or the 1995 series. Many of the 1995 series I missed because I was out of the country when it started and when I returned to the States I was either busy, or my wife didn't want to watch it or whatever so I didn't see as many epsiodes. But I loved that show, along with The twilight Zone, there was another one too that aired for a short time in the 70's...

Yes I think we are quite a bit alike---except for the reading part---I have yet to actually read a book. All that other stuff that seems like I am reading--I just make that stuff up. ...ooops! I wasn't gonna share that. Darn it!

Actually I have a very extensive library. My stepkids claim I am a hoarder because of those books. But its not like they are scattered all around the house (only the ones that I am using at the time---a constant complaint of my wife---but that is only when I am working at the dinner table, or...) Granted, I used to have a few stacks of newspapers---but I threw those away years ago. They accuse me of not reading any of them anymore---which is entirely untrue. I know just about every book I have, and many of them I use over and over in my writing.

Since I am writing, a portion of them---mainly the ones I've purchased in the past few years, provide a great tax write off that has saved me thousands of dollars in income tax (which has become a big problem now that I do not work at a job but still have taxable income).

 

but if I were God.....I would not care if people believed in me or not.....as long as they were not really hurting anyone(raping, killing)....why should I care if they believed in me or not....My purpose would be only to love all...as that is what a god to me does....just loves unconditionally......so when others try to force me to believe it is going against any god I choose to believe in, anyway....

 

It is certain you are alive and real, life's proportions however are indefinite. Faith is necessary for the formation of perception. Part and parcel of our thinking is there is good for me and I must have it. I think it is important to firmly apprehend that we are real. Regardless of what evidence may appear to support a theory or discredit one ultimately we are all measures.