is there a God? An answer...part 1

I could have attached this post to one of the various other strings concerning this topic but I have chosen instead to start a new string in order to isolate this answer and offer it as a foundation on which to build a new dialogue.

Is there a God? Why should anyone believe in something that cannot readily be measured or quantified/qualified by our natural sensibilities? For what reason or reasonS has humanity (in general) saught to establish its identity in light of the “divine abstraction”?

The concept of “GOD” is evidence enough for me to believe there is a “GOD”. Even if GOD were only a human concept/idea, that idea never the less is a reality. A reality so potent it seems to have engendered itself within the mind of mankind at the dawn of time. I would go so far as to say the concept of GOD itself was what procured the development of the “self aware individual”.
It is thought by some that man invented God as a place holder for the “unknown”. A name for the nameless, a word for something that doesn’t exist, at least not wholey within the limits of mortal perception. And in a way i imagine that they are correct…

Follow me for a minute…

In a manner of speaking, GOD (in some ways) is like the spacial coordinates we use to develope a working knowledge of where we are in the universe. A way of relating to our surroundings in order to achieve a harmonious equalibrium wherein we might naturally progress and change for better.
Comparitively speaking humans are rational/reasonable creatures. Though often driven by instinct as all other natural creatures, what sets us apart is not only our ability to speak and give meaning to life through words, but also to derive meaning through reason and be inspired thereby to accomplish reasonable sciences. It is human nature to know purpose, to reason the order of the universe. And in so doing we realize (we create/discover) who we are. However this idea is contrasted by the fact that what we are was always there waiting to be revealed in time through the natural tendency of man to gravitate towards his"purpose/destiny/identity". Its as if who we are is (has always been) concelead within a large stone, waiting to be chisled out by the artist who is our experience and inspiration in life(our personal god). You see that is how God relates to mankind, through the experience of the moment. By the inspirations spawned thereby.

I understand how convoluted all this is, but when dealing with “the meaning of life” you have to put aside conventionalism.

Another way of going about it is by saying that the existence of GOD(the “infinite”) is necessary to balance the "definite"qualities of the cosmos we percieve to be.It is within this infinite GOD that we are eternaly reaching out to discover. The more we learn about THe inifite God the more we discover about our definite selves. Polarity is expereinced everywhere. It is the natural paradox at the center of all things.
The concept of God is at the root of human reason, it is natural for us to concider GOD. Seeking to discover the meaning of life (the reason for all things), reaching out to discover ever more, to push to the outer limmits, to dive to the inner most depths, humanity (and with him all life) will spread throughout the vast expanse.

GOD is existence, what all things share. GOD is what defines existence. God is everywhere, in all things. Just because you may no bet aware of the subtle connections which weave the fabric of being, doesnt mean that they are not there. These connections are the pantheon of powers through which GOD relegates all things. Angels or gods if you will, subtle thought forms/reasons/iteligences that integrate the network of existence.

Seing God is a choice, You have to look for GOD in everything, because thats where GOD is. Within us all, even those who choose not to see.

This is why I prefer to define God as “meaning”. Logic cannot destroy it. Whatever conclusion is logically reached the question of what does it mean still remains. If a person is lucky and it is important enough, the question can shift from the literal mind to the intellectual parts of our emotions and result in true “pondering”. What may be revealed at first establishes the limitations of the literal mind and advantages of a broader approach to the scope of reason for oneself.

Peesaw- The meat of your argument (please correct me if I’m wrong here) seems to be that God is defined by you as the sum of the unknown. You also appear to suggest that God is apparent in our experience of the universe as it is revealed to us.

While there’s nothing wrong with what you’ve said as a general proposition, you’ve forwarded no rational basis on which your argument should be beleived over any other. Essentially what you’re saying here is “I beleive in God, and I think god is like this”. That’s fine. However, as an answer to your original question (as posted in the thread title) it’s not particularly satisfying. Except, presumably, for you.

Also, it would help others to swiftly comprehend your line of argument if you engaged in less obfuscational non-sequiturs.

As prose, it’s, I don’t know, probably a little purple for my taste, but still okay. As a philosophical line of reasoning it’s basically non-existant.

This is a link to a lecture transcript dealing with what constitutes a rational argument. Extremely interesting reading. Try not to be put off by the title of “Scientific Method”, it’s much more general than the name would imply.


Nick_A- Isn’t the definition of “meaning” already amply filled by, well, meaning? I mean to say, meaning is either the the dictionary meaning:

…or it is the quale thereof. I assume you’re talking about the latter, but as an absolute location for God, my subjective experience of “meaning” seems a little, well, subjective.

Completely changed my argument on account of my original one being complete tosh

Hi Phaelix

Yes. But the question remains: What is the meaning of this meaning within meaning?

Meaning is relative. We are subjective beings. We are limited in our comprehension of what we find as meaningful by our subjectivity which is partially determined by our heredity and partially by preconceptions we have acquired during our life experiences.

It is subjective and that is the point. God as meaning is objective but can only be experienced by us subjectively. This is a loss of wholeness.

We can subjectively define the meaning of a tree for us. The tree acquires a different meaning in the context of a forest. How do we view the meaning of tree while putting it into the context of the life of the forest? Its meaning changes.

But the forest exists within a country. It is all related as part of the larger context of meaning so a tree has subjective meaning if we are defining it within the context of the country itself. Then of course the country exists on the planet earth so the meaning of the tree must be also considered from the perspective of the earth itself. The world of “tree” exists within the "world"of our earth.

So meaning is relative not only by itself subjectively determined by different people but grow in perspective when considered the context within.

Does meaning exist beyond our ability to intend it or conceptualize it? We do not know and must leave the question open inviting the search for meaning. From the “Sense of Cosmos” thread:

A person wishes to become open to"meaning". He wants to feel his existence beyond his self imposed limitations. Maybe this meaning exists in a similar manner as it does with a tree where it has its own but also must be considered as part of the forest which in turn is part of the earth.

If this is true, then meaning at the highest level has intent in the perspective of wholeness beyond our subjective comprehension initianing from a “part”.

But meaning also exists on the level of the “part”. What provides the greatest meaning for the part is its god. But this meaning can rise in perspective so a person’s God concept can rise in perspective. Finally a person comes to see that meaning is beyond our subjectivity and so God is beyond our subjective perceptual limitations. The “intent” of something beyond our subjectivity cannot be classified yet we can feel its results.

This is why I define God as meaning. We have our Gods that reflect our subjective intent. Money is a god to some for example. Yet a person can come to see that there are patterns beyond our subjective intent. This is the gradual transition between our Gods reflecting one level of meaning and the one God the meaning of which is beyond our comprehension and in which everything is related. The searcher tries to grow in their understanding to get beyond their self imposed limitations in order to experience meaning in which they are connected.

This seems to be taking the approach that philosophy is a competitive sport: The goal is to prove “God” exists. To do so, define the word “God” in the most vague, undefeatable way you possibly can. God = Meaning? What? God is the sum of the unknown? What? If the goal is to come up with some definition of God that can’t possibly be defeated, then why not define Him as your own shoes or the letter “H” or something like that?
The point is, before you can approach “Does something exist” you need some agreement on what it is. Each possible understanding of God is a seperate question unto itself. Meaning exists, and ‘the sum of the unknown’ exists. Are they both Gods? If it turns out that meaning, the unknown, and an Omnipotent creator-person all exist, then our language is all screwed up because we’re using the same word for like 10 different things.

[b]Uccisore wrote:

Well, get out the gold star and stick it on the calendar. I agree with you.

The concept of that which we call “God” is completely subjective and meaning relies on perspective. Saying “God” is the same as talking to yourself. We all know what we mean, but only from our own perspective. If there is any agreement as to what the concept contains, it is both happenschance and superfluous. Any assumption that my understanding is your understanding is stupid and subject to surprise. I still like the word ineffable. That, and silence.


Hi Uccisore

It may be a competitive sport to some but not to me. The idea isn’t for me to make something as vague as possible to dodge an argument, it is just admitting my limitations as a human being to conceptualizing quality of “being” itself that is beyond time and space. There is nothing to argue since we cannot comprehend God.

How can there be any agreement on what it is if it is beyond our comprehension. Yes all our possible understandings is a separate question but in reality is far below the level of God.

Vibration is an essential relationship. We can hear sound within a range of vibratory frequencies. We can say they no longer exist when we cannot hear them. Yet we invent ways to begin to sense them. When these vibrations reach such a higher frequency that even our sophisticated equipment can no longer sense them, do we say that they no longer exist or do we leave open the possibility that they exist in matter beyond even our most sophisticated apparatus to perceive? Such a frequency of vibration is beyond our capacity to know of.

Yes. .Each can be a god for a person. Some people are compelled to find God and others are compelled to conceptualize the sum of the unknown. But they are different because of the limitations of our capacity for perspective. We conceptualize very superficially so meaning and the sum of the unknown are superficial concepts for us in comparison to their objective existence. If God is ultimate meaning, then nothing in its essence is really unknown since they are fractions of God manifesting in creation. From this perspective it is all “Meaning”

For meaning to exist there must be consciousness and relationships. Are you going to argue that God is without consciousness and ignorant of the interconnectedness of everything existing?

This is the advantage of the word “Meaning”. It is flexible and opens the mind to a sense of scale and relativity. We can minimize it with all sorts of theories but each if you notice, is open to the question “but what does it mean?” How many students have been taken out of school and secretly shot by teachers who couldn’t take hearing the question “but what does it mean?” any more. :slight_smile: It is the worst thing you can say to a fixed rigid mind. Simple right and wrong begins to psychologically lose its significance in the presence of this question. It is most annoying also because temporarily we face our own mortal limitations. That’s worth ten sessions on the couch in the psychologist’s office to make you lose that insight.

 It's not so much that I'm saying we all have to agree on what God is, or that God is comprehensible.  What I'm saying is, "Does the sum of all things man does not know exist?" is a stupid, uninteresting question. Of course it does. Anyone who understands the question knows the answer.  "Does meaning exist?" can be a good question, if you discuss philosophy of values, but it can be discussed without any reference to 'god' or 'religion' and any of that, and I don't see any reason to bring the two elements together.  The worst thing is, we can spend years discussing "Does meaning exist" and never get closer to "Does an omnipotent creator-person exist". For that reason, calling meaning 'God' can be misleading and counter-productive, I would think.

Ok, now that we have resolved whether god exists or not, we can move on to the far more interesting questions like “how do we get to never never land” and “what do leprechauns eat”

“flying” and “Lucky Charms”.



IMO the mistake you are making is limiting meaning to our subjective conception of values. Meaning is beyond our values. Our conceptions of values exist within objective meaning as a distortion.

Of course values can be discussed without any God concept and it is just a discussion of subjective appreciations of values. There is no reason to bring them together other than to experience the humility that the values we equate with our existence are in opposition and exist in this distorted form within something higher.

We can spend a year discussing if an omnipotent creator-person exists but if we accept the fact that God is beyond our three dimensional limitations nothing conclusive can come from such discussion. Its prime value is in the killing of a good bottle of Merlot. The bottom line is that we have to grow in ourselves to have any realistic appreciation of these questions but we only want to grow intellectually so no answer can ever be satisfactory.

This is the benefit of pondering “meaning” rather than arguing God’s omnopotence. Pondering opens the mind while arguing closes it.

Dr.Satanical asks:

Re-birth gives access to heaven while top shelf scotch and various narcotics will get you to never never land. It is a choice of direction for us.

 Yes, you've tried to make this point with a lot of folks- I suppose I do still fall into using human conceptions when I think about stuff. That's a 'mistake' I will probably continue to make as long as I am human. 
 Maybe you're wrong, maybe I'm wrong, but the simple fact is that your reasoning here is chock full of the "Most people are incapable of thinking about things in the right way, and thankfully I, Nick_A am cured of that affliction", and I simply have no time for that attitude.  If it's not expressable rationally, it's baloney.


Yes, "Most people are incapable of thinking about things in the right way. Jesus said this in Matthew 13;

I never said I was cured of this affliction. I’m just honest enough to admit to it and seek the ability for understanding.

Read Matrthew 23 and tell me what it means . The seven woes suggest to me problems with these rational thinkers. … version=31

Well then you’re saying that Jesus is full of baloney since he explained the necessity of speaking in parables. Maybe he’s right and higher understanding requires a different quality of eyes and ears to absorb higher rationality.

I’m not at all ashamed to admit my limitations and strive for these new eyes and ears.

First of all, the passage you cite need not be interpreted as a treatise against reason, even when it pertains to religious matters. In fact, I’ve never heard it interpreted that way. Secondly, what we can’t speak about rationally, we must ‘pass over in silence’. Even if you succeded in showing that matters of God and religion are untouchable by rationality or human faculties, you contradict yourself by typing pages and pages about those same topics, for, despite what you may think, you don’t really have any other tools in your toolbox. If rationality is inadequate, irrationality can only be worse.


The passages are not a treatise against reason rather they describe the limitations and abuse of reason. It is good and necessary in its place but cannot take the place of the conscious experience of the teaching. What do you think Jesus means by:

Is he speaking of a rational or emotional understanding? We easily admit to different qualitative levels of intellectual knowledge. A person with a degree in higher mathematics has a greater knowledge of math then a person limited to addition and subtraction. Emotional understanding is also qualitative but cannot be demonstrated as it is in math. It is experiential and primarily valuable for oneself. Jesus is speaking of a quality of emotion that is not the norm for us being so caught up in our negative emotions.

How can there be any other tools in the toolbox on an Internet site. We type posts. All I’ve tried to suggest is that there is more to this then normally supposed especially in these modern technological environments. There is something beyond argument that being caught up in argument keeps us oblivious of.

Nick_A- it appears that you subscribe to the christian bible in one of its various incarnations. The Bible’s definition of God, such as it provides, does not place God as “meaning”. Do you beleive in a biblical god or some self-devised, re-invented God? Is yours a mix-and match God?

The voice of the passage you quoted offers no arguments to support his assertions. Effectively you present us with an argument from authority. I do not consider the bible to be a trustworthy authority, and so I am disinclined to lend its assertions any particular weight.

Proceeding by any path other than rational discourse is essentially putting your fingers in your ears and shouting “I’m right!” at the top of your voice. A rational position can be clearly established, assailed and defended, it’s truth established through discourse. This flawed argument from authority you put forward amounts to “it is true because Jesus says”. As it relies on the voice of Jesus for its weight, the only way to assail it is to attack the character of Jesus, a very rapid way to propel a discussion into a row. Suffice it to say I am unconvinced.

The platitudes and bald statements that you quote here are extremely contentious assertions masquerading as truisms. Please feel free to quote from a biblical text if it elucidates a point with more concision than you can manage, but don’t present it as a catalogue of the truth.

Hello Phaelix

Yes I do believe that the Bible expresses a very profound psychology often overlooked.

As I said,God is meaning beyond the limitations of time and space. I don’t see how this could be mixed and matched.

For those that sense its significance, it invites us to explore inwardly as in the Socratic axiom “Know Thyself”.

Actually it is precisely the opposite. One must take their fingers out of their ears, pull the wool from their eyes, and express as is natural for a state of “presence” which I assure you is not shouting.

Uccisore defines himself as Christian so I’m putting the idea forth in Christian terms. Why do you feel compelled to argue? Such concepts require your own personal inward verification. Where does arguing enter?

Why should you be convinced. You are invited to look inwardly but prefer to argue. How could this convince anyone of the depth of such ideas one way or another? Wouldn’t it make sense for an interested person to try to experience first and then worry about arguing? If I told you that certain grapes were sour, wouldn’t it make sense to taste them yourself before arguing?

Results can be compared in discussion but nothing good can come out of arguing over matters the truth of which exists beyond the limits of the literal mind arguing is confined to.

Is said God interventionist? Did he destroy Sodom and Gomorrah? Did he guide the hand of the prophets?

You have not demonstrated that “meaning” has any substance beyond the attributes we ascribe to it. If, as I beleive and is commonly accepted, meaning is simply a human construction, how can a god composed of meaning have any power at all?

In what way do you sense it’s significance, Nick? I presume you were impressed by the cogence of its arguments?

It sounds to me like you’re advocating a kind of solipsism. In essence you’re advocating that we should listen to our feelings rather than our reason, yes? Rather than following universal, explicit logical steps we should take an intuitive leap? Why? Because it feels nicer?

So if my own personal inward verification were to tell me that, for example, anyone with green eyes is evil and must die… how would you feel about that? You’re saying to me “I don’t have to justify my beleifs logically”. You’re opening a dangerous philosophical door there. This is a philosophy talk group. What can its purpose be if not to grapple with the ineffable and see it we might not, after all, eff it? (Thankyou, Douglas.)


No, I don’t believe in an anthropomorphic God made in the image of fallen man. The essence of Man as I understand it, does reflect the image of God. God’s will manifests within Creation as the interaction of universal laws. What appears as God’s intervention is actually karma which is lawful results.

If God were dependant on our understanding of meaning, I agree that he would be powerless. However, power is within meaning.

There is a scale of energies that exist in the universe and within man as a mini universe that begins at the highest which is love and descends as a series of levels finally reaching the level of the constructive energies (Chromosomes). These levels interact and reflect meaning. Man can harness such energies and redirect them as force.

God’s power is in the laws of creation. Their interaction is its purpose. It is serving its purpose.

Have you ever felt a painting to be significant? If so, was it because of its arguments?

Esoteric ideas are like this. They produce a picture of a skeleton of objective “wholeness” that “feels human” inviting us to fill in the blanks through experiencing the process of esoteric thought. This experience isn’t the result of cogence of literal arguments.

Why do you believe that we must choose between feelings and thought? They are complimentary when a person experiences with the whole of themselves. If meaning reflects universal wholeness, how are we to really profit from the God experience without including the whole of ourselves within it? When a person acquires the ability for presence in order to experience with the whole of themselves, feelings and reason become complimentary.

You don’t understand what inward verification is. Inward verification verifies the nature of your own inner states. Normally we are creatures of reaction. We react as a machine but with no knowledge of this machine that carries us around.

A person could become angry and instead of saying “I am angry”, they say “anger is within me”. If this is so, how does this process work. How does it get in you and how does it leave. Where in you does it manifest? these are all examples of self knowledge. This has nothing to do with killing someone with green eyes.

Verification and belief are not the same. A person can believe through imagination. I agree that a logical justification of beliefs based on fear and imagination is impossible.

However, before beginning to understand the reasoning reflecting esoteric or inner verification, a person must have the experience. Then reason compliments the inner verification.

Philosophy talk is fine. At some point, after years of arguing and debate, a person may ask: “But really, what does it all mean?” Then maybe they move into second gear. For many like myself, the first gear of pure logic appears necessary. But finally, at some point, the urge can come to move into a second gear one hadn’t known before. I am suggesting that this change of gears is in response to a human need to experience the answer to: “But what does it really mean?”

After a while with this, a person’s philosophy can acquire meaning putting philosophy on an entirely different scale of quality.