The irrefutable existence of God

[Stanton Moore]

It is said that the 'fear' (reverence) of God is the beginning of wisdom. I'd like to personally add that the beginning of the reverence of God is realizing that beyond God there is no greater being. It can be a challenge to wrap one's head and heart around, I think because God is the only one this applies to, and everything else we're used to functions in some kind of hierarchy where there is something above as well as below. With God there is nothing 'above', and all things are below.

At first, this can be a terrifying thing to accept, but the truth is God is a Creator, not a destroyer, and at that, a Creator that loves His creation with such a love that He gave His begotten son. Know any fathers who would allow their children to die for you? So on one hand, God is the only one in which we ought to fear, and yet if we believe on His Son we can come before God without fear of destruction.

Did Vishnu have a son? I wasn't aware of that. Zeus had several.
So which infinite being are you refering to? which is the true god? Your explanations so far are quite finite, and reliant on time and place...
Needing explanations can be seen as a form of fear. accepting that you just don't (and may never be able to) know may feel uncomfortable, but is closer to the truth than the escape valve of the sentient god concept.

 

[Sanctus Iacobus]

Indeedy there is, since more often than not the words themselves don't have any meaning or comprehension. The three infinite you gave are wonderful examples.

How do you know all of this? What is your criteria for making this determination?

Personal experience, relative objectivity, and historical comparison. My personal experience is that I tend to see God as a kind of alien lifeforms, who is very far away and very different. It took a revelation for me to realize that God is a living being, and that what He wants most is an active relationship with every person. So the question isn't what is God, but who? and what are this person's qualities?

God is indeed a person who thinks, feels, and acts. God is also a personal God who is relationship oriented. This should be easily recognizable because humans are made in the likeness (think "I want to be like ___!") of God. However, God is different in the sense that He is the essence of the good human qualities. For instance, I was just recently watching Youtube videos of the world's strongest man... our vocabulary is hierarchal, with words like strong, stronger, strongest. God, however, does not fit into our finite hierarchy. God, on the other hand, is strength.

If you ever go to church and look closely at the words of the songs they sing, it says things like "The Lord is my strength". So, God is strength, and to trust and rely on God in a relationship-sense means God, the essence of strength, is what you use as strength rather than your own.

So which infinite being are you refering to? which is the true god? Your explanations so far are quite finite, and reliant on time and place...

That's a matter of belief. Jesus is the true God, and I know this because I know Jesus. However, people believe others are God... Buddhists believe Buddha was god, Islam believes Muhammad was god, etc. I need to point out, though, that Jesus was the only man to claim He was God, none of the others ever made such a claim. So Jesus is either telling the truth and in-fact Himself God, or the greatest liar of all time. The question is, who do you believe? Jesus? Buddha? Muhammad? Nobody? Yourself?

 

[Qlip]

That's a matter of belief. Jesus is the true God, and I know this because I know Jesus. However, people believe others are God... Buddhists believe Buddha was god, Islam believes Muhammad was god, etc. I need to point out, though, that Jesus was the only man to claim He was God, none of the others ever made such a claim. So Jesus is either telling the truth and in-fact Himself God, or the greatest liar of all time. The question is, who do you believe? Jesus? Buddha? Muhammad? Nobody? Yourself?

Ummm.. I see where you're trying to go.. but I just can't let it go.. Buddhists do not believe Buddha was God and Muslims don't believe Muhammad is God, only his prophet.

 

[Sanctus Iacobus]

Ummm.. I see where you're trying to go.. but I just can't let it go.. Buddhists do not believe Buddha was God and Muslims don't believe Muhammad is God, only his prophet.

That's right... actually Buddhists don't believe in God. However, followers worship these people... it's more or less the same thing.

 

[Lark]

That's right... actually Buddhists don't believe in God. However, followers worship these people... it's more or less the same thing.

I dont believe they do, I studied the buddhist faith, its not for me but it interests me all the same being a spirituality, one which even in some schools has a cosmology and supernatural order and afterlife, but which is Godless (in no prejorative sense).

It would be right to say that Buddha is revered, or that Mohammed for muslims is revered, but that is different entirely from worshipped. You could as easily, and as mistakenly, suggest that Martin Luther, John Calvin, Munster, Wesley or Knox were worshipped by Protestants and the congregation of saints worshipped by RCC followers. To their respective followers these individuals are considered enlightened, teachers and truthsayers but that's it. Perhaps they believe that invoking their names or teachings will facilitate their intervention or intercession but that's more an individual thing I would suggest.

 

[Nicodemus]

Still not convincing, Zang.

 

[Sniffles]

Buddhists do not believe Buddha was God

Meh....it can depend on which form of Buddhism you're talking about.

 

[Qlip]

I'm actually one of the few on the board that isn't annoyed by this type of conversation. But the problem in this whole 'debate' is it's just the archtypical example of the worst unresolvable argument that can exist. We're discussing things that are ultimately subjective (though important), using terms and definitions on which nobody agrees on, with each point of view rooted in a world-view. And, world-views are never changed with rational arguments. Okay, that might be a strong claim, but that's an argument for another thread if you don't agree.

 

[Lark]

I'm actually one of the few on the board that isn't annoyed by this type of conversation. But the problem in this whole 'debate' is it's just the archtypical example of the worst unresolvable argument that can exist. We're discussing things that are ultimately subjective (though important), using terms and definitions on which nobody agrees on, with each point of view rooted in a world-view. And, world-views are never changed with rational arguments. Okay, that might be a strong claim, but that's an argument for another thread if you don't agree.

Perhaps.

There are filters and blinkers at work in most threads and on most topics, religion I dont believe is entirely rational or logical, its more hoilistic a concept and means of conceptualising than all that, but I do think these sorts of threads are worthwhile and can influence my opinions. I'd not expect anyones worldview to be changed by them but perhaps it could spark an interest and they'll go and read up on the topic.

Is there really a variety of buddhism which has deified buddha? I find that harder to believe, although mind you one of the only sources I've read on the topic, away from the pop publishing and dali lama press, is an older "religion of the samuari" book which was free for kindle and which suggested that buddhism was a sort of spirituality for athiests without even the concepts of karma, rebirth/cycle or nirvana/enlightenment, at least in the "higher" form (it suggesting there were two seperate forms).

The cycle of birth and death in buddhism is interesting to me because it seems like purgatory in my understanding of the idea, however the idea of steapping of the cycle of birth and death into a state in which personal survival or personality does not exist and there is no God is something akin to oblivion and hell in my reckoning. I dont mean that in any prejorative sense either, its just observations of what it all means to me and I can honestly say that in my own understanding it would be entirely possible for that to have objective reality alongside that which I believe of this life and the next.

 

[Mole]

God and Geography

God was plausible when we lived in limited geographical areas, but now we find that each geographical area has its own God.

So it is implausible to believe in a God or Gods limited by geography.

 

[Sniffles]

And the discussion takes a new turn.

 

[Qlip]

Perhaps.

There are filters and blinkers at work in most threads and on most topics, religion I dont believe is entirely rational or logical, its more hoilistic a concept and means of conceptualising than all that, but I do think these sorts of threads are worthwhile and can influence my opinions. I'd not expect anyones worldview to be changed by them but perhaps it could spark an interest and they'll go and read up on the topic.

Is there really a variety of buddhism which has deified buddha? I find that harder to believe, although mind you one of the only sources I've read on the topic, away from the pop publishing and dali lama press, is an older "religion of the samuari" book which was free for kindle and which suggested that buddhism was a sort of spirituality for athiests without even the concepts of karma, rebirth/cycle or nirvana/enlightenment, at least in the "higher" form (it suggesting there were two seperate forms).

The cycle of birth and death in buddhism is interesting to me because it seems like purgatory in my understanding of the idea, however the idea of steapping of the cycle of birth and death into a state in which personal survival or personality does not exist and there is no God is something akin to oblivion and hell in my reckoning. I dont mean that in any prejorative sense either, its just observations of what it all means to me and I can honestly say that in my own understanding it would be entirely possible for that to have objective reality alongside that which I believe of this life and the next.

This is going to sound sappy, but that's why I'm a lot more in favor of sharing and understanding instead of arguing. It's the only way anyone is going to get any kind of value out of a religious discussion. So, pretty much what you said.

Peguy should expand on the whole deification of Buddha thing. I've always been more interested in Zen because it's very essential and stripped down. But I notice other groups have gone in different directions with it, ones I haven't bothered looking into.

 

[Mole]

The Implausible God

The existence of God is refutable simply because it is refuted. And so God's existence is not irrefutable simply because it is being refuted here.

However a more interesting question is, "Is the existence of God plausible or implausible?".

And the answer is simple and it is that the existence of God is plausible, for the existence of God is found plausible by billions of people alive today.

However I found the existence of God to be increasingingly implausible since I could refute Thomas Aquinas' proofs for the existence of God from high school.

And then with the discovery of more and more Gods based on geography, God became increasingly implausible.

 

[Sniffles]

Peguy should expand on the whole deification of Buddha thing. I've always been more interested in Zen because it's very essential and stripped down. But I notice other groups have gone in different directions with it, ones I haven't bothered looking into.

It merely depends on which Buddhist tradition one is referring to. The Theravada tradition does not see Buddha as a divine being, but the concept does carry more currency within Mahayana and Tibetan Buddhism.

I found this to be a quite intriguing, concerning one scholar's view of parallels between this tradition and Western NeoPlatonism:

In some Mahayana traditions, the Buddha is indeed worshiped as a virtual divinity who is possessed of supernatural qualities and powers. Dr. Guang Xing writes: "The Buddha worshiped by Mahayanist followers is an omnipotent divinity endowed with numerous supernatural attributes and qualities ...[He] is described almost as an omnipotent and almighty godhead.".[31]

Buddhist scholar, Dr. B. Alan Wallace, has also indicated that saying that Buddhism as a whole is 'non-theistic' may be an over-simplification. Wallace discerns similarities between some forms of Vajrayana Buddhism and notions of a divine 'ground of being' and creation. He writes: "a careful analysis of Vajrayana Buddhist cosmogony, specifically as presented in the Atiyoga tradition of Indo-Tibetan Buddhism, which presents itself as the culmination of all Buddhist teachings, reveals a theory of a transcendent ground of being and a process of creation that bear remarkable similarities with views presented in Vedanta and Neoplatonic Western Christian theories of creation."[32] In fact, Wallace sees these views as so similar that they seem almost to be different manifestations of the same theory. He further comments: "Vajrayana Buddhism, Vedanta, and Neoplatonic Christianity have so much in common that they could almost be regarded as varying interpretations of a single theory."[33]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_in_Buddhism#Vajrayana_views

I'll have to read further into Dr. Wallace's theories to be able to further comment on such a relationship to Western concepts(this is often tricky since Eastern religions operate on different premises to Western ones), but I do agree with his basic argument that claiming Buddhism is "non-theistic"(more accurate term than atheistic in this context) is a gross oversimplification.

Tibetan Buddhism is also known for inculturating(using a Christian term here) many of the traditional folk deities and spirits of native shammanism. Which adds a new twist to the issue; even if Buddhism rejects Buddha as god, that doesn't mean Buddhism rejects the existence of divine beings per se.

 

[lunalum]

Imagining an infinite chain of collisions still begs the question, from where did this seemingly inexplicable eternal force come from?

Well actually, it doesn't beg this question. "Infinite" and "eternal" lead to this question making no sense. What does "come from" mean if the universe is eternal and space-time is infinite? The concept of infinity means there is no beginning or end... it is a grand loop of sorts.

God obviously does not need a maker, he is the answer to the chain, we know this universe cannot be infinite and eternal, but when we evoke God to solve the start of our chain, the point of invoking him implies that he has those qualities.

So you are defining "God" as this one prime mover without cause.... a very common interpretation, but one that leads to a lot of confusion since people tend to define "God" as a whole lot more than that. Like, most believers probably wouldn't be happy with their prime mover without cause being a purple drunken elephant.

But again, how do we know that the universe cannot be infinite and eternal?

 

[King sns]

The existence of God is refutable simply because it is refuted. And so God's existence is not irrefutable simply because it is being refuted here.

However a more interesting question is, "Is the existence of God plausible or implausible?".

And the answer is simple and it is that the existence of God is plausible, for the existence of God is found plausible by billions of people alive today.

However I found the existence of God to be increasingingly implausible since I could refute Thomas Aquinas' proofs for the existence of God from high school.

And then with the discovery of more and more Gods based on geography, God became increasingly implausible.

God is different geographically, that doesn't mean God doesn't exist. It just indicates that we on Earth don't understand a God and are unable to fully interpret things with what we know.

 

[Mole]

Is God short and sweet?

God is different geographically, that doesn't mean God doesn't exist. It just indicates that we on Earth don't understand a God and are unable to fully interpret things with what we know.

I think it is starting to look as though God were man-made, dear ShortnSweet.

But still, God remains immensely plausible to billions of souls alive today.

I wonder, is God plausible for you dear ShortnSweet, and if so, I suspect God is just like you - short and sweet.

 

[King sns]

I think it is starting to look as though God were man-made, dear ShortnSweet.

But still, God remains immensely plausible to billions of souls alive today.

I wonder, is God plausible for you dear ShortnSweet, and if so, I suspect God is just like you - short and sweet.

Of course God or Gods are plausible. It should be plausible to anyone who admits that they don't know everything.

 

[Sniffles]

God is different geographically, that doesn't mean God doesn't exist.

"For from the rising of the sun to its setting My name is great among the nations, and in every place incense is offered to My name, and a pure offering; for My name is great among the nations, says the Lord of hosts."
--Malachi 1:11

Yeah, if anything it opens up the possibility of Perennialism.

[youtube="gJpn6t7SQzE"]Christian twist to Perennialism[/youtube]

 

[Mad Hatter]

What we believe is always a matter of choice, or in other words, how far we feel that we feel 'convinced' or a certain idea or concept.

Whatever arguments someone may present to either prove or disprove the existence of god - what it comes down to is the simple, yet crucial fact that it always require a leap of faith. It seems that a lot of people have trouble wrapping their head around this.
Whether or not a deity or deities exist belongs to the realm of the metaphysical. And either sides tries to drag in objective truth into the realm of subjective truth. It never works. If you believe that god exists, then this is true. If you do not believe that god exists, then this is equally true.

Any attempts to 'prove', by referrals to the physical world, the existence of such deity, cannot be actual proof - they can only serve to exemplify the opinion on god you have already at the time you make the statement.
For one person, the beauty of a starry night may serve as 'proof' that god exists. This isn't actual proof though, more an elaboration of the presupposition that god exists in the first place.
Similarly, if another person makes a statement like 'there is so much bad going on in the world ... god doesn't exist, else he / she would prevent such things', this isn't actual proof for the non-existence of said god either. This person has already decided that god does not exist, and the 'proof' would merely be an example of this conviction.