|
Post by paulh on Jul 20, 2009 22:45:38 GMT
First I have to prove anything exists outside my imagination. I recall many years ago in a Transcendental Meditation study course there was a question something like: Q: What does a person say having experienced cosmic consciousness? A: I am! Thus proof of one's own existence is no longer required by those experiencing cosmic consciousness. In a similar way, most humans do not require proof of the existence of the Sun. Its existence is completely obvious to those with sight. So too with God
|
|
|
Post by whistler on Jul 21, 2009 3:09:11 GMT
"I recall many years ago in a Transcendental Meditation study course there was a question something like:
Q: What does a person say having experienced cosmic consciousness?
A: I am!
Thus proof of one's own existence is no longer required by those experiencing cosmic consciousness.
In a similar way, most humans do not require proof of the existence of the Sun. Its existence is completely obvious to those with sight.
So too with God" So I Imagine that paulh posted this on a forum I imagine exists.
Quest - my posting was not in jest. Within my personal imagination I certainly do not need to go into a Transcendental Meditation to ask lofty questions as posed by Paulh.
If the Creator is within the cells of my big toe, and also within the cells of my heart. Perhaps I am indeed God - it would be hard if I had to decide which parts of me contained the Creator and which ones didn't
|
|
|
Post by maat on Jul 22, 2009 0:35:47 GMT
Can you prove God exists? Yep. I would bet a million dollars that pure chance, or evolution, would never get a pile of flour, eggs, sugar, cocoa to form a chocolate cake. It takes intelligence to create specific things from 'ingredients'. I therefore deduce that it must have taken Intelligence to create the specific seeds, plants and animals that were needed for this experiment. Indeed the Intelligence was intelligent enough to know that he also needed to create something extra to get His chocolate cake to take form .... wo/man. Chaos -> Order -> Chaos -> Higher Order -> Chaos -> sick of chocolate cake, lets move onto something else -> Higher Order etc etc... -> Maat
|
|
|
Post by maat on Jul 22, 2009 0:37:07 GMT
PS ... God said to say hello
|
|
|
Post by magusmasonica on Jul 22, 2009 2:57:53 GMT
Can you prove God exists? Yep. I would bet a million dollars that pure chance, or evolution, would never get a pile of flour, eggs, sugar, cocoa to form a chocolate cake. It takes intelligence to create specific things from 'ingredients'. I therefore deduce that it must have taken Intelligence to create the specific seeds, plants and animals that were needed for this experiment. Indeed the Intelligence was intelligent enough to know that he also needed to create something extra to get His chocolate cake to take form .... wo/man. Chaos -> Order -> Chaos -> Higher Order -> Chaos -> sick of chocolate cake, lets move onto something else -> Higher Order etc etc... -> Maat Bro.Maat, You know you are one of my favorites ;D still that is a hunch or perhaps a theory but it is hardly proof. Love and Light,
|
|
|
Post by brandt on Jul 22, 2009 3:16:10 GMT
Maat, There is a chance that this whole ball of dust, water and space did come about by accident. Sure the odds are not very good, yet it did happen some how, perhaps it had something to do with immeasurable time before the creation? Plenty of time to go through the odds there nay? I am not saying that there is no god. I am trying to discuss the question that was asking for proof. I am safe in the assumption that "proof" was meant in a scientific context?
Brandt
|
|
|
Post by vajranagini on Jul 22, 2009 4:34:22 GMT
God can only be perceived when one is in a particular state of mind. If you attain that state of mind, you will have all the proof you need. How to attain that state of mind? You have only to read A. Crowley's "Eight Lectures on Yoga"; all the instructions are there. summed up neatly. The book is HILARIOUS, as well.
|
|
|
Post by maat on Jul 22, 2009 6:26:26 GMT
My contribution was meant to be a tongue in chocolate cake How do we know we exist, we do tend to disappear when placed under microscopes?
|
|
|
Post by paulh on Jul 22, 2009 7:39:03 GMT
I am safe in the assumption that "proof" was meant in a scientific context? This presumably is a science of matter rather than a science of consciousness or a science of spirit. With a science of matter, only matter is measured. This may make it difficult to detect any precursor of matter. The best we can manage is to notice the gaps: missing links/matter/energy I wonder if Masonic science is a science of matter.
|
|
|
Post by whistler on Jul 22, 2009 9:02:47 GMT
Science is like truth they are both temporary and certainly don't survive the test of time. Whose science said the earth was flat, Were they similar folk who said Thalidomide was good for women I suspect so
|
|
|
Post by maximus on Jul 22, 2009 14:42:28 GMT
How do we know we exist, we do tend to disappear when placed under microscopes? One can study what exists and how consciousness functions; but one cannot analyze (or “prove”) existence as such, or consciousness as such. These are irreducible primaries. (An attempt to “prove” them is self-contradictory: it is an attempt to “prove” existence by means of nonexistence, and consciousness by means of unconsciousness.)
|
|
|
Post by QUEST on Jul 22, 2009 16:00:32 GMT
Maat, There is a chance that this whole ball of dust, water and space did come about by accident. Sure the odds are not very good, yet it did happen some how, perhaps it had something to do with immeasurable time before the creation? Plenty of time to go through the odds there nay? I am not saying that there is no god. I am trying to discuss the question that was asking for proof. I am safe in the assumption that "proof" was meant in a scientific context? Brandt Thanks Brandt, I guess I was not clear enough in my post. And Whistler, I did not take your comment in jest. But it really was something to think on. Like most here, I believe that God exist. But a friend got me wondering, is there objective proof of a Divine Beings existence. I would guess this is another reason that they(religious ppl) call it faith and not science. But, I do believe that faith and science are two sides of the same coin. A friend once told me; show me an ant that understands man, and I will show you a man that understands God.
|
|
|
Post by magusmasonica on Jul 22, 2009 22:25:04 GMT
I would not say that I "believe" as belief for me is associated with fact. I.E. I believe my netbook is pink. Well, it is. So that belief is warranted.
I state that I am a Deist. That means that just as in a court of laws "beyond a reasonable doubt" I have a "resonable acceptence" of a Creator.
Either way I would say that the Creator plays no active role in my life.
Love and Light
|
|
|
Post by paulh on Jul 22, 2009 23:13:59 GMT
I would say that the Creator plays no active role in my life. What would the Creator say?
|
|
|
Post by magusmasonica on Jul 22, 2009 23:22:18 GMT
I would say that the Creator plays no active role in my life. What would the Creator say? I cannot even begin to comprehend.
|
|
|
Post by whistler on Jul 23, 2009 4:00:07 GMT
""Either way I would say that the Creator plays no active role in my life. "
I reckon we are all Pawns in the creators great game -
|
|
|
Post by brandt on Jul 23, 2009 12:55:28 GMT
There is no objective proof that "god" exists. I am not sure why humanity has spent so much of their free time trying to put an all-powerful, all-knowing deity in a box to be studied and probed but we seem to enjoy it. If it can be measured at all then it is not god.
Brandt
|
|
|
Post by vajranagini on Jul 24, 2009 3:30:24 GMT
As I see it, the cosmos itself is "objective proof of God". The earth was once a smoking ball of rock, and the only "life" on it at one time was slime on that rock. We have come a LONG WAY since then. When I sit and think about THAT, and contemplate all that has taken place between THEN and NOW, I have all the "proof" of a "greater consciousness directing existence" that I need.
|
|
|
Post by brandt on Jul 24, 2009 12:43:58 GMT
That may be all the proof that you need, which is fine but it is not objective. Sure, there was the slime on the rock time yet the pieces do fit together. This may offer a "manifest appearance of design" but it just an appearance. There are rational explanations as to how we came to be from slime on a rock. We do understand the procedure including the most rational explanation as to how a eukaryotic cell evolved from a prokaryotic cell. With the addition of the mitochondria that eukaryotic cell (originally prokaryotic) the cell was then able to construct 10 of the amino acids itself. That combined with the essential amino acids and the production of mRNA from DNA the cell was able to construct all the different proteins from which our bodies are made of. This provided a very flexible foundation of life and natural selection provided the differentiation of form that lead to the diversity of species.
Brandt
|
|
|
Post by humbleseeker1 on Jul 24, 2009 12:57:27 GMT
I do not think that the creator wants us to have objective proof. Of course we have heard of stories of divine encounters but those are few and to the ones who will not believe it is of no effect. I once heard a quote from a famous magician David Blaine "Believers do not need proof ones who will not believe no evidence at all will suffice". I believe God works through faith, and through faith we can come closer to God.
|
|