I feel we can have proof of “God” if we define “God” in a way in which we can observe and not assume more than we do.
“God” is simply an analogy for the universe.
Now sure, we do not know everything about the universe and therefore do not know everything about God, but that is where the definition and proof stops. We can only define God by what is empirically comprehensable. The enigma or speculation of “beyond” the comprehensable Universe or “God” can detract from the definition of the comprehensible Universe or “God,” so it is up to us to explore the Universe or “God” before we explain it.
Again, the definition of God is limited to the extent of a comprehensible and empirical universe. No omniscience, miracles, …; just simply the comprehensible God aka Universe.
The Pantheists seem to offer the best explanation for God I have encountered and the hardest to refute.
technically, Pantheism is a version of monotheism, Meester.
a sum is just that: one sum. but i agree that re-defining God to suit an empirical proof of his existence is an intellectually bankrupt excercise.
So what? “God” has been redefined throughout the ages. Is it really that big of a deal if we approach defining God to the extent of our empirical understandings of the universe as opposed to defining “God” through pretentious assumptions claiming that we understand “beyond” our empirical understandings of the universe?
I feel comfortable claiming that God is what we can empirically observe. But my definition of “God” stops there because it immediately becomes assumption beyond what we have empirically come to understand.
I’m sure it is more “intellectually stimulating” to use your imagination in defining God beyond our empirical understandings of the universe, but you are claiming to understand not only what is empirically feasible through contemporary understanding and exploration, but much more. This is very intellectually dishonest because it is based on nothing more than a completely nonempirical-based proposition claiming knowledge beyond the borders of our understanding.
Pardon me for defining “God” out of a sense of what is observable contrary to defining God out of what is redundantly incomprehensible.
The huge problem with Pantheism is that it makes everything morally permissable- at least Spinoza’s version. I think its very elegant and a overall good peice of philosohpy (despite it being wrong.) I for one am not willing to say that Micheal Jackson is just a facet of the divine.
The idea that God is the sum of everything that exists makes total sense to me, but then again, I see the universe as a functioning organism that follows certain processes and take certain forms to provide a format for meaning.
BTW: It’s nice to see some Eastern philosophies here
As to an empirical proof for God, one of my philosophy teachers said once: “Aristotle proved that God exists simply by doing this --” and moved his hat back and forth on the table. : )
What is interesting about your post is that in the West, God is many times seen as standing behind the universe, and the resplendence of creation is a mirror in which we see its Creator. What evidence would show whether God is the world or whether He stands behind it? I think I could argue that the universe is made of the transitory whereas God is thought of as being eternal (or perhaps He would need a God Himself), but i’m not sure how convincing that would be to you.
It’s within my means to understand the universe itself as proposing what is “behind” the universe. I think that is where the problems start mounting with such a definition of God. It is one thing to claim that God consists of the universe we can actually observe, but to theorize beyond that is just redundant to me. We have no clue what is beyond our empirical comprehension of the universe, so why act like we do when defining “God?” I think it is a pretentious claim. We are claiming a definition of a entity (God) “beyond” an entity (universe) we can actually grasp.
I just find comfort in recognizing a God that is honest about what we understand rather than a definition that claims to understand more than it does. That’s why I can appreciate accepting “God” as the universe and only through our understandings of it. These definitions claiming that “God” is eternal, “beyond” the universe, … allow the imagination to run wild. Defining “God” as the universe eliminates the necessity to fill in the blanks with rationalizations that contradict and confuse more than actually answer.
God is the universe. It’s simple, effective, and honest. Mysteries remain, and that is a good thing. It is better to admit a lack of understanding than claim to understand more than you actually do. We know nothing beyond our limited understandings of our empirical universe. Let’s be honest and worship what we do understand and only that.
We can point to the mysterious with models, maps and symbols. We are the symbol makers of this planet.
We can only understand that which is less complex that we ourselves. How can we understand that which is far more complex that ourselves?
Only the mystic knows the divine. Only the mystic dances with Shiva, meditates with Buddha, throws lightning with Zeus and explores the depths with Neptune.
Why try to define the divine when you have never experienced it? Why not seek the divine for yourself?
To use a metaphor, why would you try to define sex before you get to experience it in all of its joy?
The basis of all mythology, as pointed out by Joseph Campbell, is the existence of an invisible world that supports the visible world. Your metaphor for the divine denies this basic practice.
We use spatial metaphors because of our familiarity with spatial mapping. To locate the divine as “behindâ€, or â€beyond†the physical universe, points to a place beyond our reach.
If you try to grasp the divine, it rushes away like trying to grasp water. If you close your hand then you cannot have it either. Only with an open, accepting hand can you hold the divine.
So why can’t the universe and only the universe be “divine?”
Here you are telling me that I shouldn’t be defining something that I haven’t experienced, then turning around and defining the mysterious which you havern’t experienced. It is redundant.
I’m pointing out that we have experienced an empirical universe and defining that as “divine.” The “divine” is not a patent secret that belongs to mystics who exude superstition and conundrums claiming pretentious knowledge they do not have, but claim to. We all can witness and experience an empirical universe and it is worthy of worship. Let’s worship that as opposed to ostentatious claims of knowing the unknown.
Do you believe in an immortal soul? What’s the point in having a God if the meaning we attribute to everything gets snuffed out when we die? Does that mean we’re just little tinker-toys and are here for God’s amusement then? Certainly God must be more capable than that if, He’s the least bit serious about maintaining the entire Universe as a whole.
So, what’s the point in sending your kids to school if you’re going to throw them off the edge of a cliff when they graduate? Who’s to say we don’t graduate unto immortality when we die?
Oh, so the only point in having a “God” is for immortal ambition?
That summarizes a lot of perspectives quite well. “I don’t want my consciousness to end, so God …”
Well, fortunately or unfortunately (whichever view you wish) I have grown kind of fond of my mortality and can accept that it will one day end. What the point you ask? Just because it will end doesn’t mean it has already.
Yes, and who will ever know? Basically what you’re saying is God isn’t necessary, for this existence anyway. And no, the thing is your consciousness won’t end. Are you saying this is something you would rather not know about if, in fact it’s true? Anyway this is what the area of mysticism entails, and yes, it is necessary (up to a point) for some to have understanding of these things. A Church in heaven cannot be built without its foundation upon earth.
No, that is not what I am saying at all. I’m only claiming that what we understand empirically is worthy of worship and that all of the pretentious extras are not requirements for the definition of God. The heavens (also a synonym for the universe) is based upon our Earth-based knowledge.
You don’t like this, fine. Don’t accept it. Worship Jesus, Zeus, or Cow Dung for all I care. For myself, I am willing to worship the extent of our observed intellectual capacity throughout the universe as opposed to claiming to understand more than we actually do. It’s just too pretentious and egocentric for my taste. However, the extent of our empirical understandings of the universe? Plenty there to worship, praise, and hold as divine which grows daily. We live in a universe with estimates of stars that is in the billions to trillions, we barely understand the extent of our own solar system, yet you want me to believe you understand BEYOND all of this?
Do you suggest a sort of pious materialism? Maybe, making the field of science into some kind of a religion?
Being supernatural is one of the common attributes of any metaphor for divinity. The empirically observable universe lacks a supernatural quality. It is the nature that stands distinct from the supernatural.
How can the natural be identical with the supernatural?
Why do you trivialize the knowledge, wisdom and experience of the mystic by qualifying it as “pretentious†and “egocentric.â€
How much have you studied mysticism? How much effort have you made to achieve a mystical experience?
I don’t need “metaphors” that claim understandings that are “beyond” our comprehension of the encompassing universe or even witnessable universe for that matter.
It is redundant and quite pretentious: “I know more than we know.”
So you feel you can honestly issue “metaphors” establishing what is beyond our empirical understandings of the universe? What are these metaphors based upon that even remotely give them any semblence of credibility?
Give me an example of what is honestly “beyond” our understandings of the empirical universe and how this example was derived:
in order to find an example of what is “honestly “beyond” our understandings of the empirical universe” you only need to look at the field of theoretical physics. in the study of theoretical physics, there is no empirical understanding. empirical implies that something is “guided by practical experience and not theory”, and this is an area that both religion and theoretical physics shares in common. neither of these can be proven by empirical means, as there is no experiment that can be used to prove them. scientists found recently that our current model of the universe, including such “constants” as G, 6.67 x 10^-11, only apply to our galaxy, and have no meaning anywhere else. the concept of dark mater is merely a theory made up to explain observations and has no empirical support and neither do concepts such as antimatter, simply as there is no way to prove them.
its because of this that you will find a huge amount of high level physicists are highly religious. as their feild of work forces them to use theories without experimental support to explain observations, other similiar theories, such as that of the existance of a god, become more plausible to them. if they use them and put their beleif in such theories every day, then there is no longer any reason for them to not belieive in god.
the question i want to understand however is what drives people to need to explain every thing through a god. blind faith is unhealthy in all regards and requires a certain amount of closed mindedness. i see god as a human construction needed to fill a void. douglas adams summarised this rather simply, likening the belief by people in a god who created everything for them and perfect for them, to a puddle in a whole that achieves sentience and thinks that as it fits the hole so well, the hole must have been made with it in mind. i can see why people in times past used to rely on the concept of religion for support and reassurance, but why now, in this modern age? how does the belief in a supreme power help in any way?
<<scientists found recently that our current model of the universe, including such “constants” as G, 6.67 x 10^-11, only apply to our galaxy, and have no meaning anywhere else. the concept of dark mater is merely a theory made up to explain observations and has no empirical support and neither do concepts such as antimatter, simply as there is no way to prove them>>
I find this hard to believe. It only works in our galaxy? You mean if i traveled to the Sndromeda galaxy (for example) all the constants would be different? Galaxy, not universe, right?
<<i can see why people in times past used to rely on the concept of religion for support and reassurance, but why now, in this modern age? how does the belief in a supreme power help in any way?>>
Good point. What is the reason for that? – Could it help in ordering our lives to the proper end, the creator of the universe?
“You mean if i traveled to the Sndromeda galaxy (for example) all the constants would be different? Galaxy, not universe, right?”
yep, galaxy not universe. it follows along the line of einstein’s theory of special relativity and states that forces such as gravity are distortions in the space time continuum caused by large bodies of mass, such as planets. it then makes sense that galaxies of differeing sizes and densities will affect this to differing ammounts and so constants will only be so inside a galaxy. they have done experiments which can support this, by using atomic clocks at both the equator and the poles, and found that they can give different readings, because of the different speed with which the are traveling.
my friend told me about it but i cant remember the webpage so when i get it off him i will post it
Would you write a master’s thesis about Macbeth without doing any research on all those who had written about Macbeth before you? No, of course not.
So then how can you define God without doing research on all those who had defined God before you?
How did you become knowledgeable about the nature of God?
Mysticism represents a common, worldwide method of practice for gaining a direct personal experience about God.
I cannot give you the kind of knowledge about God that the method of mysticism could give you. This is the essence of Gnosis. Your own personal meeting with the divine far outweighs any other evidence that I, or anyone else could ever provide you.
Or forgoing that method, how much literary research have you done about God? How many religions have you studied? How many sacred texts have you read?
Have you read the Bible, the Koran, the Upanishads, the Vedas, the Torah, the Tao Te Ching, the Analects of Confucius, and or the Pali Cannon?
If the nature is enough, then why give any attention to the word, “God” at all, with all of its different connotations?
