Can you prove the existence of God?

By AERYCK on March 29, 2012 8:06:40 PM from

AERYCK

Join Date 01/2005

Today is a very special day for me.

Why? Well, I've come to the end of a seven year journey of trolling internet forums engaging in countless discussions about God and in particular the topic of Christian Apologetics.

This post will be a gradual assembly post, to which I shall add bits and pieces of discussions that I've had with many very clever and some not so clever folks.

Not all the bits and pieces will be from the actual discussions. Some of them will be from books I've read, lectures I've listened to as well as music, poetry and Oriental writings. As a matter of fact, it's going to be a regular smorgasbord of delights. You are most welcome to leave your berries, pearls, one-liners and wisecracks, plus any insightful comments in the appropriate space provided at the end of this page.

For starters, I'm considering a question that my son asked a panel of smarties on the 15.09.2005.

The post title was: "Can you prove the existence of God?"

The post read: 'I was approached recently by a friend who asked me how to prove the existence of God without using the Bible. Can you help?'

Have fun.

Peace,

Eric

+)(+

1. Here's something to nibble on. The following site has certainly grown, in fact it has changed. It used to be called "apollos", I suspect it was named after 'Saint Apollos (Ἀπολλώς; contracted from Apollonius) an apostle who was also a 1st century Alexandrian Jewish Christian mentioned several times in the New Testament' It's now called "Last Seminary" Though there is certainly a wholesome collection to read, I was immediately attracted to the Philosophy of Religion Articles.

2. The Argument From Conscience by Peter Kreeft is one of several papers (in pdf. format) under the heading 'Moral Argument' at "Last Seminary" and another by C.S Lewis might suffice.

a. The Argument From Conscience by Peter Kreeft

Excerpt:

"The simple, intuitive point of the argument from conscience is that everyone in the world knows, deep down, that he is absolutely obligated to be and do good, and this absolute obligation could come only from God. Thus everyone knows God, however obscurely, by this moral intuition, which we usually call conscience. Conscience is the voice of God in the soul. Like all arguments for the existence of God, this one proves only a small part of what we know God to be by divine revelation. But this part is significantly more than the arguments from nature reveal about God because this argument has richer data, a richer starting point."

'And, of course, that raises a very big question. If a good God made the world why has it gone wrong? And for many years I simply refused to listen to the Christian answers to this question, because I kept on feeling "whatever you say, and however clever your arguments are, isn't it much simpler and easier to say that the world was not made by any intelligent power? Aren't all your arguments simply a complicated attempt to avoid the obvious?" But then that threw me back into another difficulty.

My argument against God was that the universe seemed so cruel and unjust. But how had I got this idea of just and unjust? A man does not call a line crooked unless he has some idea of a straight line. What was I comparing this universe with when I called it unjust? If the whole show was bad and senseless from A to Z, so to speak, why did I, who was supposed to be part of the show, find myself in such violent reaction against it? A man feels wet when he falls into water, because man is not a water animal: a fish would not feel wet.

Of course I could have given up my idea of justice by saying it was nothing but a private idea of my own. But if I did that, then my argument against God collapsed too— for the argument depended on saying that the world was really unjust, not simply that it did not happen to please my private fancies. Thus in the very act of trying to prove that God did not exist—in other words, that the whole of reality was senseless—I found I was forced to assume that one part of reality—namely my idea of justice—was full of sense.

Consequently atheism turns out to be too simple. If the whole universe has no meaning, we should never have found out that it has no meaning: just as, if there were no light in the universe and therefore no creatures with eyes, we should never know it was dark. Dark would be without meaning.'

From: Mere Christianity by C.S. Lewis

3. Awareness of God by Illtyd Trethowan is one of several papers (in pdf. format) under the heading 'Religious Experience' at "Last Seminary"

Excerpt:

"The belief that God is present to the human mind (or soul) and can be found there is part of the Christian tradition. Many Christian philosophers seem to regard this as the concern only of specially devout persons and of no interest for philosophical purposes. The evidence for it, they think, it too slender to be taken seriously by academic philosophers without particular interest in religion, who tend to regard anything in the nature of religious experience as suspect. So philosophical discussions about religion are usually concerned with rational arguments for and against theism, usually of a technical kind. In this article, I want to suggest that there is another attitude of mind which has become more widely shared as the century has advanced..."

4. Has Religion Evolved ? , Evolution of Morality and Is Human Behavior in the Genes? by Dr. David Lahti ( a series of lectures presented at 'The Faraday Institute of Science and Religion' between July and November 2011.) Also, refer Multi-Media for audio/video recordings of a wide selection of lectures, debates and discussions.)

5. Here are a couple of replies which were presented to my son, in response to his question. (ref: ' my' opening post - above ) The first reply was by a Mormon bishop and the second was an anonymous reply:

I'm sorry to have to be the bearer of ill tidings, but it is not possible to "prove" the existence of God from the Bible, or any other book for that matter. Nor is it possible to "prove" the existence of God using reason alone.

I know that there have been some great thinkers who have come up with arguments for the existence of God, but there are brilliant men who have heard those arguments and have been unconvinced.

If you are looking for "evidence" of God, well that's a bit easier. But again, any evidence will not be absolute or unabiguous nor will it be uncontended.

So your friend can't prove the existence of God, but then again, the nonexistence of God can't be proven either.

It boils down to a matter of faith. Do you choose to believe? What are you willing to stake on that belief? How much will be give up for that faith?

Those are the fundamental issues that each person must wrestle with and come to grips with.

You really can't prove that God exists. It's just the most plausable explenation given the universe we live in and the impressions of God on the human mind: an all powerful, all knowing God made everything and can do anything.

I really believe that the question "Can you prove God exists?" is disingenuous most of the time people ask it. There are some people who are trapped in a logical impasse about the existence of God, but I think most are mad at God for the way the world is. I'd ask the person you're talking to, "Suppose you could know for certain that God is real. What would you think of that?" And start the conversation from there.

6. ( Dr. William Lane Craig - Existence of God (ref: Podcasts @ Reasonable Faith) , Prof. Jeff Scholoss = website etc. )

Evolution and Religion - Prof. Jeff Schloss

7. ( Prof. Alvin Plantinga = website , Dr. Michael Sudduth = website etc. )

God, Design and ID - Prof. Kenneth Miller

Science and Religion : Where The Real Conflict Lies - Professor Alvin Plantinga

God & Evolution: Where the Conflict Really Lies - Professor Alvin Plantinga

What is a properly basic belief? interview with Prof. Alvin Plantinga

Discussing property warrant (in the video) Professor Alvin Plantinga states that , 'A belief has warrant for you if it's produced by cognitive faculties, memory, perception, mathematical, logical, intuition that are functioning properly, not subject to some sort of dysfunctional and the kind of environment they're designed for either by a god or evolution, according to a design plan (so if they're designed they've got a way of working right and a way of working wrong) that's successfully aimed at truth.' ( at 15:40 )

'Belief in God is warranted, only if belief in God is true' Professor Alvin Plantinga.

Science and Religion : Video Discussion at the Veritas Forum : . Alvin Plantinga , Dr. Richard Gale , Dr. Quentin Smith and Dr. William Lane Craig. Wow! Now that's a room full of hothouse flowers.

8. The Extended Mind (pdf) by David Chalmers (Published in Analysis 58:10-23, 1998.) - The Extended Mind Revisited (video: 2009) , David Chalmers on Consciousness , TEDxSydney - David Chalmers - The Extended Mind (video: 2011)

9. Does Evil Disprove God - Robert Lawrence Kuhn interviews Dr. Alvin Plantinga.

10. The Transcendental and the Transcendent and Pragmatic and Transcendental Arguments for Theism (A Critical Examination ) by Professor Sami Pihlström ( Professor of Practical Philosophy (University of Jyväskylä), Docent of Theoretical Philosophy (University of Helsinki) )

Excerpt 1:

"As an obvious source of relevant examples of transcendental reasoning about the transcendent, I shall consider a particular language-game, or a group of language-games, namely, the religious one(s), and briefly examine two specific problems pertaining to religious language-use, namely, the problem of the existence of God (section 2.1) and the problem of evil (section 2.2). I have chosen to focus (in section 2.1) on a transcendental argument for theism drawn from Charles Taylor’s work, instead of, say, the more explicitly transcendental 'Martin – Frame Debate' on TAG (the transcendental argument for the existence of God) vs. TANG (the transcendental argument for the non-existence of God)."

Excerpt 2:

"Commenting upon some recent literature on the topic, this paper examines two strategies by means of which one might try to defend theism: (1) a pragmatic(Jamesian) strategy, which focuses on the idea that religious belief has beneficial consequences in the believer’s life, and (2) a transcendental (Kantian) strategy, according to which theism is required as a condition of our self-understanding as ethically oriented creatures. Both strategies are found unsatisfactory, unless synthesized and thus supported by each other. While no argument, either pragmatic or transcendental, can demonstrate the existence of God, a pragmatic transcendental argument might have a legitimate role to play in the philosophy of religion. The problem of relativism arises, however. It is concluded that it remains unclear whether a religious believer could justify her or his beliefs to anyone who does not already share those beliefs."

+)(+

The Mad Hatter's Tea Party (stuff that I thought about but forgot to add)

1. Cornelius Van Till - Biography - Resources by Subject.

2. Dr. William Lane Craig's - Existence of God (audio lectures) at Reasonable Faith.

3. Selflessness and Altruism:

Altruism is a concern for the welfare of others. It is a traditional virtue in many cultures, and a core aspect of various religious traditions, though the concept of ‘others’ toward whom concern should be directed can vary among cultures and religions. Altruism is the opposite of selfishness.
Altruism can be distinguished from feelings of duty and loyalty. Altruism is a motivation to provide something of value to a party who must be anyone but the self, while duty focuses on a moral obligation towards a specific individual (for example, a god, a king), or collective (for example, a government). Pure altruism consists of sacrificing something for someone other than the self (e.g. sacrificing time, energy or possessions) with no expectation of any compensation or benefits, either direct, or indirect (for instance from recognition of the giving).
The term altruism may also refer to an ethical doctrine that claims that individuals are morally obliged to benefit others. Used in this sense, it is the opposite of egoism.

From: Alruism @ W.O.E

a. Prof. Viktor Frankl

“Again and again I therefore admonish my students in Europe and America: Don’t aim at success – the more you aim at it and make it a target, the more you are going to miss it. For success, like happiness, cannot be pursued; it must ensue, and it only does so as the unintended side effect of one’s personal dedication to a cause greater than oneself or as the by-product of one’s surrender to a person other than oneself. Happiness must happen, and the same holds for success: you have to let it happen by not caring about it. I want you to listen to what your conscience commands you to do and go on to carry it out to the best of your knowledge. Then you will live to see that in the long-run – in the long-run, I say! – success will follow you precisely because you had forgotten to think about it.”

b. Prof. Jeff Schloss

Altruism and Selfless Love : Theistic and Naturalistic Perspectives

Washington University, St. Louis
29 March 2010

‘Evolution might be able to explain biological diversity, but can it explain self-giving love? How do we make sense of altruism in a world of competition? In this Veritas Forum, two perspectives are brought to the table—theistic and naturalistic—both from practicing scientists. Jeffrey Schloss is a Professor of Biology at Westmont and a Christian; Robert Sussman is a Professor of Anthropology at Washington University and a non-theist. The event is moderated by Professor in the Laboratory and Genomic Medicine Division at Washington University in St. Louis, S. Joshua Swamidass, MD PhD.’

To watch the video > http://www.veritas.org/Media.aspx#!/v/912
Join the Veritas Forum, to download.

The "End" of Love: Evolutionary Psychology, Altruism, and Human Purpose

Evolutionary evil and a good creation?

⁴³ “You have heard that it was said, ‘Love your neighbor^[i] and hate your enemy.’ ⁴⁴ But I tell you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, ⁴⁵ that you may be children of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. ⁴⁶ If you love those who love you, what reward will you get? Are not even the tax collectors doing that? ⁴⁷ And if you greet only your own people, what are you doing more than others? Do not even pagans do that? ⁴⁸ Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect.

[i] Matthew 5:43 : Lev. 19:18

http://www.biblegateway.com/audio/mclean/niv/Matt.5

For ‘thespian and artistic type’ lovers : Selflessness by John Coltrane (in two parts)

4. Prayer - Meditation - Contemplation and the pursuit of God:

Part I

Why would anyone choose a deity who ‘….is untouched by pleasure and pain, good and evil’ yet who it is said, ‘….dances in supreme joy and creates, sustains and destroys with the rhythm of His dancing movements’ who it is also said, ‘….is the most awe-inspiring and terrifying deity, Rudra, with Trisul or trident in His hand’ and who it is said, ‘…. is the source of all knowledge and wisdom’ who it is said, also ‘….conducts the work of creation according to His will and pleasure’ who it is said, ‘….is distinct from Brahma, Vishnu and Rudra’ and who it is said commands, ‘…. Brahma, Vishnu and Rudra’ who ‘are the trinities of the world’ who it is said that whoever ‘…. regards the three deities as distinct and different, Siva Purana says, is undoubtedly a devil or evil spirit’ and yet of whom it is said, ‘The most auspicious and useful work beneficial to mankind ever carried out by Lord Siva, is to impart the knowledge of Yoga, Bhakti, Jnana, etc., to the world. He blesses those deserve His grace and who cannot get out of Samsara without His grace. He is not only the World-Teacher but also an ideal example to the Jivanmukta or sage. He teaches by His very actions in His daily life’ ? Is it perhaps because, ‘Lord Siva through His third eye of wisdom burnt passion to ashes’ ? Is it your hope to ‘overcomes waking and sleeping state and through meditation’ and thereby merge yourself ‘…. in the object meditated upon in’ your ‘waking state itself’ ?

Quotes from SIVA TATTVA Chapter 2 from LORD SIVA AND HIS WORSHIP by SRI SWAMI SIVANANDA

Or, is this life closer to the ideas of Epicurus?

Those things which without ceasing I have declared to you, those do, and exercise yourself in those, holding them to be the elements of right life. First believe that God is a living being immortal and happy, according to the notion of a god indicated by the common sense of humankind; and so believing, you shall not affirm of him anything that is foreign to his immortality or that does not agree with his blessedness, but you shall believe about him whatever may uphold both his blessedness and immortality. For truly there are gods, and knowledge of them is evident; but they are not such as the multitude believe, seeing that people do not steadfastly maintain the notions they form respecting them. Not the person who denies the gods worshipped by the multitude, but he who affirms of the gods what the multitude believes about them is truly impious. For the utterances of the multitude about the gods are not true preconceptions but false assumptions; hence it is that the greatest evils happen to the wicked and the greatest blessings happen to the good from the hand of the gods, seeing that they are always favorable to their own good qualities and take pleasure in people like to themselves, but reject as alien whatever is not of their kind.

( Lives, 10.123 )

Or, is this life closer to the ideas of writers of the book of Acts?

While Paul was waiting for them in Athens, he was greatly distressed to see that the city was full of idols. So he reasoned in the synagogue with both Jews and God-fearing Greeks, as well as in the marketplace day by day with those who happened to be there. A group of Epicurean and Stoic philosophers began to debate with him. Some of them asked, “What is this babbler trying to say?” Others remarked, “He seems to be advocating foreign gods.” They said this because Paul was preaching the good news about Jesus and the resurrection. Then they took him and brought him to a meeting of the Areopagus, where they said to him, “May we know what this new teaching is that you are presenting? You are bringing some strange ideas to our ears, and we would like to know what they mean.” (All the Athenians and the foreigners who lived there spent their time doing nothing but talking about and listening to the latest ideas.)
Paul then stood up in the meeting of the Areopagus and said: “People of Athens! I see that in every way you are very religious. For as I walked around and looked carefully at your objects of worship, I even found an altar with this inscription: TO AN UNKNOWN GOD. So you are ignorant of the very thing you worship—and this is what I am going to proclaim to you.”

“The God who made the world and everything in it is the Lord of heaven and earth and does not live in temples built by human hands. And he is not served by human hands, as if he needed anything. Rather, he himself gives everyone life and breath and everything else. From one man he made all the nations, that they should inhabit the whole earth; and he marked out their appointed times in history and the boundaries of their lands. God did this so that they would seek him and perhaps reach out for him and find him, though he is not far from any one of us. ‘For in him we live and move and have our being.’ As some of your own poets have said, ‘We are his offspring.’

“Therefore since we are God’s offspring, we should not think that the divine being is like gold or silver or stone—an image made by human design and skill. In the past God overlooked such ignorance, but now he commands all people everywhere to repent. For he has set a day when he will judge the world with justice by the man he has appointed. He has given proof of this to everyone by raising him from the dead.”

When they heard about the resurrection of the dead, some of them sneered, but others said, “We want to hear you again on this subject.” At that, Paul left the Council. Some of the people became followers of Paul and believed. Among them was Dionysius, a member of the Areopagus, also a woman named Damaris, and a number of others.

Acts 17 ( Listen )

The Laws of Manu by George Bühler.

‘ Friedrich Nietzsche is noted to have said “Close the Bible and open the Manu Smriti. It has an affirmation of life, a triumphing agreeable sensation in life and that to draw up a lawbook such as Manu means to permit oneself to get the upper hand, to become perfection, to be ambitious of the highest art of living” ( Friedrich Nietzsche, The Will to Power, vol. 1. ) Contra Nietzsche, Nipissing University philosophy professor W.A. Borody has coined the phrase “sublimation-transmogrification logic” to describe the underlying ‘state of mind’ lying behind the ethical teaching of the Manu Smrti—a ‘state of mind’ that would have found Nietzsche’s concept of the Dionysian Übermensch abhorrent, and a ‘state of mind’ or ‘voice’ that has always been radically contested within India’s various philosophical and religious traditions. ( W.A.Borody,“The Manu Smrti and Neo-Secularism”, International Journal of Humanities and Social Science, Vol I, No. 9 (Special Issue, July, 2011 )

From: W.O.E – Manusmṛti

TRIMURTI

The personalities of the Trimurti (Hindu trinity) are also sometimes referred to as Guna avatars, because of their roles of controlling the three modes (gunas) of nature,( 55 ) even though they have not descended upon an earthly planet in the general sense of the term ‘avatar’.

Vishnu – As controller of the mode of goodness ( sattva )
Brahma – Controller of the mode of passion and desire ( rajas ) (Not to be confused with BRAHMAN )
Shiva – Controller of the mode of ignorance ( tamas )

BRAHMAN

‘….one supreme, universal Spirit that is the origin and support of the phenomenal universe.’ ( The Oxford Dictionary of World Religions , ed. John Bowker, OUP, 1997 )

‘….is sometimes referred to as the Absolute or Godhead’ ( Sarvepalli Radhakrishnan (1888—1975) / Sarvepalli Radhakrishnan )

‘…. which is the Divine Ground’ ( The phrase ‘Divine Ground’ was in modern times coined by Aldous Huxley in his widely read comparative study of mysticism The Perennial Philosophy. Divine Ground (Paul Tillich popularized the expression ‘Ground of Being’ to refer to God) is a neutral term to express the common experience of mystics in diverse religious traditions of an Absolute Ground in which phenomena appear to have their root and origin. Theistic religions refer to this ground as God or Godhead whereas Eastern transtheistic religions use terms such as Tao, Dharmakaya or Clear Light. Among modern authors who use the expression ‘Ground’ is Tibetan Buddhist teacher Sogyal Rinpoche (see his book The Tibetan Book of Living and Dying) ) ‘of all being’

‘…. is conceived as personal (“with qualities”), impersonal (“without qualities”) and/or supreme depending on the philosophical school. Hindus worship Brahman through statues called murtis, almost as a portal to Brahman. Different aspects of Brahman are represented in these murtis.
The sages of the Upanishads teach that Brahman is the ultimate essence of material phenomena (including the original identity of the human self) that cannot be seen or heard but whose nature can be known through the doctrine of self-knowledge (atma jnana).’

According to Advaita , a liberated human being ( jivanmukta ) has realised Brahman as his or her own true self (see atman ).

The Mundaka Upanishad ( pdf – SWAMI KRISHNANANDA / pdf – Swami Nikhilananda ) ( ….it is not, like other Mantras , to be used for sacrificial purposes. Its only object is to teach the highest knowledge, the knowledge of Brahman, which cannot be obtained either by sacrifices or by worship (Upasana), but by such teaching only as is imparted in the Upanishad. With its beautiful style, lucid metres, serious wording, and lofty feelings each mantra of this Upanishad gives joyous reading.) says:

AUM – That supreme Brahman is infinite, and this conditioned Brahman is infinite. The infinite proceeds from infinite. If you subtract the infinite from the infinite, the infinite remains alone.

‘ The Satapatha contains the oldest speculation on Brahman, or the Absolute Principle. Jung painted an image of the relation of the individual person to Satapatha Brahman or the Self ….’ Dr. JG Friesen from Jung and Western Mysticism

‘Brahma’s job was creation of the world and all creatures. His name should not be confused with Brahman, who is the supreme God force present within all things.

Brahma is the least worshipped god in Hinduism today. There are only two temples in the whole of India devoted to him, compared with the many thousands devoted to the other two.’

From: BBC Religions – Brahma

Why is Brahma not worshipped so much?

Though there doesn’t seem to be too much written about this, though there are two Hindu myths that indicate that Brahma created the earth and made a very beautiful woman to aid with his job of creation. ‘She was so beautiful that Brahma became infatuated with her, and gazed at her wherever she went. This caused her extreme embarrassment and Shatarupa tried to turn from his gaze.’ ( read more, for the two possible accounts of how things got out of control – Wikipedia Online Encyclopedia – I notice that there are no sources, yet. )

“Lord Brahma’s day, consisting of his 12 hours, lasts 4 billion 320 million years, and his night is of the same duration.”

From: Bhaktivedanta VedaBase

‘Brahma’s prayers are recorded in the Brahma-samhita. From this scripture we know that Brahma is a devotee of Om the empty space everlasting peace and abode, and what is home for both material, non-material and spiritual universes. According to Brahma’s authority we can know that Om is the Supreme God. Brahma says: Om is the Supreme God. He has an eternal blissful spiritual body. He is the origin of all. He has no other origin and He is the prime cause of all causes. Brahma lets us know that all Brahma is one of many Brahmas who is one of many material universes which appear from Om’s breathing out.’

Link: Wikipedia Online Encyclopedia

THE INCARNATIONS OF LORD VISHNU

There are ten avatars (dashavatara) of Vishnu commonly considered as the most prominent: (refer: The Garuda Purana Texts )

Matsya, the fish that kills Damanaka to save the vedas and saves mankind.

Kurma, the turtle that helps the Devas and Asuras churn the ocean for the nectar of immortality.

Varaha, the boar that rescues the Earth and kills Hiranyaksha.

Narasimha, the one (half-Lion half- human) who defeats the demon Hiranyakashapu (Nara = man, simha = lion).

Vamana. the dwarf that grows into a giant to save the world from King Bali.

Parashurama, A Sage, Rama with the axe, who appeared in the Treta Yuga.

Rama, Sri Ramachandra, the prince and king of Ayodhya and killed Demon King Raavana.

Krishna (meaning ‘dark coloured’ or ‘all attractive’ or the Existence of Bliss, ( Vishnu sahasranama, Sankara’s interpretation of the 57th name, Swami Tapasyananda’s translation, pg. 51. ), appeared in the Dwapara Yuga along with his brother

Refer this narrative which is based upon the commentary of Shankaracharya:

(57) Krishnah -The word Krishna means in Sanskrit ‘the dark’. The Truth that is intellectually appreciated, but spiritually not apprehended, is considered as ‘veiled behind some darkness’. Vishnu Sahasranama means the “Thousand Names of Vishnu.”

Balarama, the avatar of Aadi Sesha, the serpent on which Supreme Lord Vishnu sleeps, Svayam Bhagavan’.’ This viewpoint is specific to Bhagavata, Gaudiya, Vallabhacarya and Nimbarka sampradayas. (refer: Sri Dasavatara-stotra and Upaaya )

Kalki (“Eternity”, or “timeless”, destroyer of time or “The Destroyer of foulness”), who is expected to appear at the end of Kali Yuga, the time period in which we currently exist.

From: Wikipedia Online Encyclopedia : VISHNU

Part II

A Talk With Ramana Maharshi

‘Apart from its historical usage, the term meditation was introduced as a translation for Eastern spiritual practices, referred to as dhyana in Buddhism and in Hinduism, which comes from the Sanskrit root dhyai, meaning to contemplate or meditate. The term “meditation” in English may also refer to practices from Islamic Sufism, or other traditions such as Jewish Kabbalah and Christian Hesychasm. An edited book about “meditation” published in 2003, for example, included chapter contributions by authors describing Buddhist, Christian, Hindu, Islamic, and Taoist traditions. Scholars have noted that “the term ‘meditation’ as it has entered contemporary usage” is parallel to the term “contemplation” in Christianity.’

From: Wikipedia Online Encyclopedia : Meditation : Etymology

‘Apart from its historical usage, the term meditation was introduced as a translation for Eastern spiritual practices, referred to as dhyana in Buddhism and in Hinduism, which comes from the Sanskrit root dhyai, meaning to contemplate or meditate. The term “meditation” in English may also refer to practices from Islamic Sufism, ….’

From: Wikipedia Online Encyclopedia : Meditation : Etymology

‘….in Buddhism:

As a meditative state, dhyana is characterized by profound stillness and concentration. It is discussed in the Pali canon (and the parallel agamas) and post-canonical Theravada Buddhist literature , and in other literature. There has been little scientific study of the states so far.’

An Anthology from the Pali Canon by Thanissaro Bhikkhu

Live Science: <strong>Study: Zen Meditation Really Does Clear the Mind by Charles Q. ChoiDate: 02 September 2008

Web Extra: Mindfulness for the Masses by Katie Unger

Scientists are taking advantage of new technologies to see exactly what goes on inside the brains of Buddhist monks and other so-called “Olympian” meditators — individuals who meditate intensively and regularly. The neuroscientists hypothesize that regular meditation actually alters the way the brain is wired, and that these changes could be at the heart of claims that meditation can improve health and well-being.

From: Science Explores Meditation’s Effect on the Brain by ALLISON AUBREY

‘in Hinduism:

According to the Hindu Yoga Sutra , ( Yoga Sutras of Patanjali – Swami Jnaneshvara Bharati / The Yoga Sutras of Patanjali The Threads of Union Translation by BonGiovanni ) written by Patanjali, dhyana is one of the eight limbs of Yoga, (the other seven being Yama, Niyama, Asana, Pranayama, Pratyahara, Dharana, and Samadhi).
The entire Eight Limbs of the Patanjali system are also sometimes referred to as Dhyana, or the meditative path, although strictly speaking, only the last four limbs constitute meditation Pratyahara, Dhyana, Dharana, and Samadhi. The preceding steps are only to prepare the body and mind for meditation.

‘….practices from Islamic Sufism’
‘Classical Sufi scholars have defined Sufism as “a science whose objective is the reparation of the heart and turning it away from all else but God”. Alternatively, in the words of the Darqawi Sufi teacher Ahmad ibn Ajiba, “a science through which one can know how to travel into the presence of the Divine, purify one’s inner self from filth, and beautify it with a variety of praiseworthy traits”.

The Healing Power of Sufi Meditation by as-Sayyid, Nurjan Mirahmadi (Author), Hedieh Mirahmadi

‘…. Many people Muslim or others were directing themselves to Yoga, Meditation, Reiki and many New Age philosophies. Believing that Sufism does not have these options, much to their surprise Sufism is the custodian for these ancient realities’ a result of Shaykh Hisham Kabbani and the Baraka of our Sultan al-Awliya and all Mashaykh Naqshbandi pushed the renewed concept of Sufi Meditation and went after those teachings to bring the Light of Mawlana Shaykh to these people and direct many of them to the realities of Sayedena Muhammad [s] and Tariqat Naqshbandiyyat-il-`aliyyah.’

From: The Healing Power of Sufi Meditation ( Sufi Meditation – Step by Step )

‘…. or other traditions such as …. and Christian Hesychasm

From: Wikipedia Online Encyclopedia : Meditation : Etymology

An ancient mystical tradition was lost to the Western world nearly a thousand years ago. Now, at the dawn of the new millennium, this profound yet practical path of transcendence is being rediscovered. Its name is hesychasm, from a Greek root meaning “to be still.”

‘Hesychasm’s roots extend back almost two thousand years to the beginnings of the Christian church. Today much of what we know about this spiritual path has been gleaned from the writings of mystics who populated the Middle Eastern deserts in the fourth century. These early ascetics are known as the Desert Fathers.

In the eleventh century, the Christian church split into the Roman Catholic and Orthodox churches. Catholicism rejected hesychasm, which encouraged individual experiences of the divine. As a result, hesychasm disappeared from Western culture but survived because the Orthodox church embraced and preserved this tradition of quiet meditation.

For the last millennium, hesychasm has remained shrouded in obscurity in the West. Why? One reason is that hesychastic texts preserved by the Orthodox Church were written in Greek or the languages of various eastern European countries. This made them inaccessible to most Westerners. Only recently have classics such as The Philokalia and The Ladder of Divine Ascent been translated into English. Another factor has been the cultural and political differences that separated Eastern Europe from the West. The fall of these barriers is permitting greater access to, and understanding of, this spiritual path. ‘ ( read more )

From: Hesychasm: A Christian Path of Transcendence by Mitchell B. Liester

‘…. or other traditions such as Jewish Kabbalah and Christian Hesychasm. ( Daniel Goleman (1988). The meditative mind: The varieties of meditative experience. New York: Tarcher. ) ‘

From: Wikipedia Online Encyclopedia : Meditation : Etymology

‘So what is meditation really ? ….’

Daniel Goleman discusses Meditation in a two part video playlist: Click Here

Kaballah (lit. “receiving”) is a discipline and school of thought concerned with the esoteric aspect of Rabbinic Judaism. It was systematized in 11th-13th century Hachmei Provence (Southern France) and Spain, and again after the Expulsion from Spain, in 16th century Ottoman Palestine. It was popularized in the form of Hassidic Judaism in the 18th century.

Kabbalah is a set of esoteric teachings meant to explain the relationship between an eternal and mysterious Creator and the mortal and finite universe (His creation). While it is heavily used by some denominations, it is not a denomination in and of itself; it is a set of scriptures that exist outside the traditional Jewish scriptures.

Kabbalah seeks to define the nature of the universe and the human being, the nature and purpose of existence, and various other ontological questions.

It also presents methods to aid understanding of these concepts and to thereby attain spiritual realization.

Kabbalah originally developed entirely within the realm of Jewish thought and constantly uses classical Jewish sources to explain and demonstrate its esoteric teachings. These teachings are thus held by kabbalists to define the inner meaning of both the Tanakh (Hebrew Bible) and traditional rabbinic literature, their formerly concealed transmitted dimension, as well as to explain the significance of Jewish religious observances. (Primary Source:Kabbalah Online: Imbued with Holiness ‘The relationship of the esoteric to the exoteric in the fourfold Pardes interpretation of Torah and existence.’ )

What is Kabbalah? : What is Kabbalah …And Why? : Beginners Start Here :Introductory

Primary Website: The Kabbalah Centre : Video – Where to begin?

The sacred texts of Judaism : Kabbalah Unveiled

‘…. An edited book about “meditation” published in 2003, for example, included chapter contributions by authors describing Buddhist, Christian, Hindu, Islamic, and Taoist traditions. ‘

From: Wikipedia Online Encyclopedia : Meditation : Etymology

Experience of Meditation: Experts Introduce the Major Traditions by Jonathan Shear

Jonathan Shear is Affiliated Associate Professor of Philosophy at VCU, where he has taught since 1987. He received his Ph.D. in philosophy from the University of California at Berkeley, and was a Woodrow Wilson Fellow there, and a Fulbright Scholar in philosophy of science at the London School of Economics. Since the early 1960’s his work has focused on the use of meditation practices and related scientific research to expand our knowledge of human consciousness. He has published and lectured widely in North America, Europe and Asia, and was the founding Managing Editor of the Journal of Consciousness Studies.

Ruth A. Baer , Ph.D., is a professor of psychology at the University of Kentucky in Lexington, KY. She conducts research on mindfulness and related processes and teaches and supervises mindfulness and acceptancebased interventions. She is a renowned expert in mindfulness-based cognitive therapy (MBCT), dialectical behavior therapy (DBT), and mindfulnessbased stress reduction (MBSR).

ASSESSING MINDFULNESS AND ACCEPTANCE PROCESSES IN CLIENTS – Illuminating the Theory and Practice of Change

‘…. Scholars have noted that “the term ‘meditation’ as it has entered contemporary usage” is parallel to the term “contemplation” in Christianity.’

From: Wikipedia Online Encyclopedia : Meditation : Etymology

Prayer, meditation and contemplation in Christianity

From meditation to contemplative prayer

In the Western Church, during the 15th century, reforms of the clergy and monastic settings were undertaken by the two Venetians, Lorenzo Giustiniani and Louis Barbo. Both men considered methodical prayer and meditation as essential tools for the reforms they were undertaking.( 28 ) Barbo, who died in 1443, wrote a treatise on prayer titled Forma orationis et meditionis otherwise known as Modus meditandi. He described three types of prayer; vocal prayer, best suited for beginners; meditation, oriented towards those who are more advanced; and contemplation as the highest form of prayer, only obtainable after the meditation stage. Based on the request of Pope Eugene IV, Barbo introduced these methods to Valladolid, Spain and by the end of the 15th century they were being used at the abbey of Montserrat. These methods then influenced Garcias de Cisneros, who in turn influenced Ignatius of Loyola. ( 29 ) ( 30 )
The Eastern Othodox Church has a similar three level hierarchy of prayer.(31 )( 32 ) The first level prayer is again vocal prayer, the second level is meditation (also called “inward prayer” or “discursive prayer”) and the third level is contemplative prayer in which a much closer relationship with God is cultivated. ( 31 )

Abhishiktananda

Jim: Won’t some people say that you have returned to a Christian apologetic that wants to again set up Christianity as the truth over other religions?

Glenn: Well of course some people will say that. Other people say that I am still interpreting Christianity in terms of Hinduism. I am not responsible for how other people think or react. I can only say that, in large part through my studies of Abhishiktananda, I have learned to see Christianity differently, and I know that it is true. This knowing is more than an intellectual acceptance of what Abhishiktananda called "petrified" and "idolatrous" dogma. And this is not to say that God cannot also reveal Himself in other religions. But it seems to me that Christianity does have a distinct emphasis on love as self-giving, following the model of Christ’s kenosis. And this has practical consequences. We must ask why it was that it was a Western friend who came to the aid of Abhishiktananda as he was lying in the street of Rishikesh after his heart attack.

From: An Interview with Dr. J Glenn Friesen - Abhishiktananda

Thomas Merton

'Hence contemplation is more than a consideration of abstract truths about God, more even than effective meditation on the things we believe. It is awakening, enlightenment and the amazing intuitive grasp by which love gains certitude of God's creative and dynamic intervention in our daily life. Hence contemplation does not simply "find" a clear idea of God and confine Him within the limits of that idea, and hold Him there as a prisoner to whom it can always return. On the contrary, contemplation is carried away by Him into His own realm, His own mystery and His own freedom. It is a pure and a virginal knowledge, poor in concepts, poorer still in reasoning, but able, by its poverty and purity, to follow the Word "wherever He may go."

From: New Seeds of Contemplation by Thomas Merton

5. The Influence of Classical Ideas in the Humanities:

‘….the influence of classical ideas in many humanities disciplines, such as philosophy and literature, remains strong; for example, the Gilgamesh Epic from Mesopotamia, the Egyptian Book of the Dead, the Vedas and Upanishads in India and various writings attributed to Confucius, Lao-tse and Chuang-tzu in China.‘
From: W.O.E. – Humanities – Classics

For those who may be unfamiliar with any of the above mentioned books or authors, here are a few links that might be helpful to those who are not yet acquainted with them.

1. Ancient Near East : The Epic of Gilgamesh (courtesy of Sacred Texts)
2. The Egyptian Book of the Dead (courtesy of Sacred Texts)
3. The Vedas (courtesy of Sacred Texts)
4. Upanishads (courtesy of Sacred Texts)
5. Confusion and Traditional Chinese Beliefs (courtesy of Sacred Texts)
6. Lao-tse (604BC) – Taoist Texts (courtesy of Sacred Texts)
7. Chuang-tzu(4th century BCE) – Musings of a Chinese Mystic by Lionel Giles (courtesy of Sacred Texts)

‘Chuang-Tze had made himself well acquainted with all the literature of his time, but preferred the views of Lao-Tze; and ranked himself among his followers, so that of the more than ten myriads of characters contained in his published writings the greater part are occupied with metaphorical illustrations of Lao’s doctrines.’ (read more: here or here )

‘Of what is great one must either be silent or speak with greatness. With greatness–that means cynically and with innocence.’ FN

Did Jesus Exist?

Peace.

From this pilgrim who enjoys reading and studying Evolution, Philosophy and more recently Atheism and Nihilism in Art.

Finis.

Aeryck

Fossil Finds by rogue66

ps. A while ago I met an Australian bloke who was totally into something he called 'Lay Gnosis' which he explained to me in some detail as well as informing me that my skepticism would be solved by visiting the website AFTERLIFE EVIDENCE (authored by a lawyer Victor Zammit), but one peculiarity stuck out and that was his use of the phrase "GOOGLE-IT"

Well, as I was thinking of a way to end this thread (now that the comments have fizzled out), I decided to do just that and type 'can you prove the existence of god' into my Google browser and post up the results.

Who knows maybe Google will shutdown one day just like Geocities did and there'll be a record of it here.

Here are the links: (from my "GI" / Google It!)

1. CAN YOU PROVE GOD EXISTS? PETER KREEFT

2. CAN YOU PROVE THE EXISTENCE OF GOD? EVERY STUDENT

3. IS THERE A GOD EVERY STUDENT

4. EXISTENCE OF GOD WIKIPEDIA

5. HUNDREDS OF PROOFS FOR THE EXISTENCE OF GOD GODLESSGEEKS

6. CAN SCIENCE BE USED TO PROVE THE EXISTENCE OF GOD THE GUARDIAN

7. IF YOU CAN READ THIS, I CAN PROVE GOD EXISTS COSMIC FINGERPRINTS

8. HOW DO YOU PROVE THE EXISTENCE OF GOD ICHTHYS

9. CAN YOU PROVE THE EXISTENCE OF GOD PLIM REPORT

10. CAN YOU PROVE THE EXISTENCE OF GOD? JOEUSER FORUMS < LIKE A MAP (HERE WE ARE)

1st SA Bluesman and Smeagologist in Cyberspace

Thanks for your comments and may you stay forever young kids.

Peace,

Aeryck.

North Walsham Guide

Quoting 137,

reply 32

I would contend that lulapilgrim's stance is quite consequential. As Guénon diversely put it, nihilism and utilitarianism may be seen as aspects of the same materialistic attitude.

Reread the quoted passage. Guenon's argument is that materialism results in nihilism. Fagan's argument is a simple conflation, i.e. that nihilism recognizes "utilitarian" ends. The latter is conceptual nonsense.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Quoting lulapilgrim,

reply 42

It's been over 2,000 years since the Birth, Life, Death and Resurrection of Christ and the spread of Christianity. From then through today, there are thousands of records of people having mystical experiences and visions of Christ and/or His Blessed Mother Mary. Here are six great examples transcending localities and centuries that come to mind.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_Faustina_Kowalska

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bridget_of_Sweden

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teresa_of_%C3%81vila#Mysticism

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sister_Lucia

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marguerite_Marie_Alacoque

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthony_of_Padua[/quote]

Quoting lulapilgrim,

reply 42

Well, for Catholics, the experiences of these six have certainly been passed on to us. In some cases, cathedrals, hospitals, missionaries, schools, religious orders, etc. were founded as a result of the experience.

137 posts: [quote who="137" reply="49" id="3119738"]It's not their experience which has been passed to you, but your interpretation of the external appearance of theirs, seen through the lens of culture and tradition as well as your subjective mindset.

I understand it's not the actual experience in and of itself.

But that's not what I was referring to when I posted those mystical experinces of hearing, of speaking with or of seeing Christ,

Take the miracles at Lourdes, France.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S8UhRpJRc4w

In the 1800's, St. Bernadette experienced seeing and speaking with the Blessed Virgin Mary and that experience ended up healing at least 67 people.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Quoting 137,

reply 37

Everything is initiated by God, therefore, the distinction between something which is from God and something which isn't, is meaningless.

Quoting lulapilgrim,

reply 43

Sin (moral evil) is not initiated by God.

Quoting 137,

reply 49

But the sinner is.

My reply stands.

You assert that everything is initiated by God, but that's not correct.

Moral evil which is Sin is not from God neither is sin iniatiated by God.

Since your initial assertion is incorrect what follows the "therefore.." is also incorrect.

Quoting 137,

reply 37

Everything is initiated by God, therefore, the distinction between something which is from God and something which isn't, is meaningless.

Quoting 137,

reply 49

But the sinner is.

The sinner is not from God.

It's the sin that makes the sinner and God is not responsible for sin. Sin is the result of man's wrong use of his free will which is a gift from God.

God does not will or cause sin. He forbids it and will punish the sinner. God created mand free to choose good or evil. He wishes us to choose good, in order that we may merit heaven. But since we are free, we can, if we so wish choose evil (sin). God is not responsible for our sins.

Finally, the possession of reason and intelligence cannot be without freedom of will.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Quoting 137,

reply 49

There is a certain hiddenness to God, and He is not patent for all to see,

Truly you are a God who hides himself, O God and Savior of Israel. Isaiah 45:15 NIV

True there is a certain hiddenness to God and this is exactly what Isaias 45 verse 15 is describing. Almighty God is unfathomable, a mystery to the finite mind of man. God acts through persons and events in history without letting Himself be seen. This is very much in line with the election of Cyrus as the person God uses to advance His salvation plans.

Very interesting that you mentioned this because the Church Fathers saw in Cyrus as a figure, a "type" of Christ. God acted in a hidden way through Chyrus to bring about the salvation of the Jews and even more so was the Godhead hidden in Jesus. The Greek Septuagint translates "Truly thou art a God Who hidest thyself" as "Thou art God and we did not know it" which is why the Fathers read as a reference to the divinity of Christ: "the SOn of God has always been present, though He hid who He was. When He war revealed in His glory after the Resurrection, the people confessed: You are God and we did not know it."

My Douay Rheims Version has verse 15 as "Verily, thou art a hidden God, the God of Israel the Saviour."

Quoting 137,

reply 49

It's not their experience which has been passed to you, but your interpretation of the external appearance of theirs, seen through the lens of culture and tradition as well as your subjective mindset.

If not by direct actual experience, how can we know God who is hidden and unfathomable? We know God exists by our natural reason and conscience becasue He's revealed Himself through natural revelation. But God has also revealed Himself beyond the ordinary course of natural revelation. This is supernatural or Divine Revelation. Some revealed truths are beyond the power of human understanding. We could never by our own abilities have known such truths if God had not revealed them.

Divine Revelation has come down to us through Holy Scripture written down under divine inspiration, and through Divine Tradition, truths passed down orally from Apostolic times. From Adam and Eve at different times God inspired men to write down His revelations. These passed from generation to generations as 45 sacred books composing the Old Testament.

Finally, our Lord Jesus Christ came to earth to reveal Divine truths and after His death His Apostles and disciples wrote about Him and His teachings. There were 27 of these books composing the New Testament. The Church gathered them together in one book, we call Sacred Scripture or the Bible.

Successfully updated karma reason!

You are a proof that He is a existence. Take or leave.

Personal, I see big problem is that tiny prideful human want to eye with thier flesh eye and see, sightshort if you will, problem is that Elohim or God is not a man, even though man is His image, Yahweh's Mind is not same as man's mind, man's mind are limited, slave to flesh, time, matter, ect while Yahweh not slave to time, matter (make sence, after all He create all those thing, why He slave to those time, matter, ect..) Reason, No man see Him and live, even best humble sevart or even children of Yahweh (not mean a fleah body, but rather personal, if you deny yourself and follow His Word whole and guard His Word (some called law but I'm not sure that right word) you become children of Him, it's based of personal, not body or flesh body, that is. Problem is human are too prideful, thinking they know all, if they don't know, they deny it.

I mean do human ever live in sun or star or far, far away to understand pain, feeling, do they know what to be like a cell or ant in ground to understand? No, though human try to know what they see and feel, but no matter how hard human try to study or even try to changed because they can't welcome truth. So many problem, human is so easy ignorance but often they said ignorance is bliss, but I disagress, now Ignorance can be good if they knew truth but deny it, then they better off as ignorance, on other hand ignorance can be not good if they knew

truth and welcome it, not deny truth. My though.

Edit: Messiah did told Peter see Him, I think it's based Love, mercy, rejoice from Him, if Love, mercy, rejoice, humble, ect show to you, you might see Him. IF angry (selfish), bitter, seek to detory at all coat (selfish), Lie(selffish), murder, lust, proud, pirde you might see satan or demon. LOL. or so I though. hmmm.

Many people think proud or pride is good and not sin, at least in amercian,but that is trap, there is nothing to be prideful. Basic, if you allow feel high in you (pride) You might welcome demon in it and they build you up in thier path of wicked without you know it. I could be mistake, after all I'm human and making mistake, but I try able not to deny what truth gave to my mind.

Edit: If truth gaven to you and you obeyed, more truth given to you, if not then it's might truth taken away from you and let lie build up you, personal not funny at all.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Quoting Humility,

reply 55

Humility

Nice to hear from someone new and you seem to be sincere, that is a blessing too. However, I am an apatheist so I hope you understand that everything you have stated assumes that god exists and is in control of well everything everywhere, and that is not acceptable to me. An extraordinary claim requires extraordinary evidence not a complete lack of it. You have demonstrated your belief in some god, but provided nothing to prove his existence. If no one can see god and live as you think … how could you even know of him except by word-of-mouth, let alone the other things you claim are his due? I am proud of many things such as my children, some of my personal accomplishments and even my dog to name a few, there is nothing wrong with pride as it is just being human. But pride in things you do not know or cannot prove, well that is just ignorant (arrogant) pride and that is harmful.

Successfully updated karma reason!

GirlFriendTess,

Though our newcomer is probably not English speaking or perhaps has a very poor command of grammar I think that the first sentence alludes to a rather ancient idea.

Humility wrote: You are a proof that He is a existence.

I could write an essay tracing this idea from it's ancient roots to what we know now and still not be one millionth of millimeter closer to making a connection between us and any deity/ies. The point is that we don't know what we're meant to be looking for. If I was a detective (a fantasy) and some cool blonde dame came up to my offices and asked me to help her find herself and after I'd stopped raising my eyebrows asked me to help her find God, I'd give her a beady-eyed look and tell her that finding God was no problem but finding herself was a total impossibility.

Yet, the truth is that finding ourselves and God are so interwoven and mysterious that even the psychologists, psychiatrists, anthropologists, neuroscience and evolutionary biologists would be happy to hand over these matters to teddy bears, fairies, garden gnomes, kids and those folks who have learned how to revive the child inside. Now what was it that Jesus said about the Kingdom of God?

Successfully updated karma reason!

You are a proof that He is a existence. Take or leave.

Not really. My existence is not logical proof of God's existence, as I infact have no real knowledge that my existence is real. The fact that something exists, which is undeniable, again has no logical relationship with God. To get there you must follow another route.

God is completely beyond the extension of thought, according to the Sepher Yetsirah. Which is true. Jesus, whom you are discussing, is a mystery just because of the unknowability of God. Because in him there is a coincidence, that the Highest is knowable and unknowable at the same time.

Revelation is ἀποκάλυψις, or unveiling. As such it is only a limited, partial, nebulous knowledge in metaphor, a reference with loss of meaning. God is a mystery, God is hidden, although patent, although present. God is terrible, and creatures should love Him, but I must disagree with Paul, in love there is fear too, for we are small.

42 Then Job answered the Lord and said:

²“I know that you can do all things,
    and that no purpose of yours can be thwarted.
³ ‘Who is this that hides counsel without knowledge?’
Therefore I have uttered what I did not understand,
    things too wonderful for me, which I did not know.
⁴‘Hear, and I will speak;
     I will question you, and you make it known to me.’
⁵I had heard of you by the hearing of the ear,
    but now my eye sees you;
⁶therefore I despise myself,
    and repent in dust and ashes.”

The Bible is truth but it is not Truth. There is only one Truth, and such is beyond us. Jesus too, has a very special stance, but there is a great mystery involved, and if I were to tell that I know I would lie.

I understand it's not the actual experience in and of itself.

But that's not what I was referring to when I posted those mystical experinces of hearing, of speaking with or of seeing Christ,

Take the miracles at Lourdes, France.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S8UhRpJRc4w

In the 1800's, St. Bernadette experienced seeing and speaking with the Blessed Virgin Mary and that experience ended up healing at least 67 people.

While I have an understanding that those in Lourdes may be miracles, I have to believe them to be such. Scientifically speaking, the only attribute of miracles is that they are unexplainable facts given our current knowledge of the laws of nature.

As someone who has experience in research methodology, I have to tell you that there are several logical paradoxes, some yet controversial, involved in demonstration, refutation and experimentation, and noticeable fallacies in taking single case evidence as proof.

Although I myself have an interest in and a sympathy for miraculous healings in Lourdes, these to a rational scientific scrutiny merely remain unexplained facts, not miracles. Labeling something a miracle is merely a subjective assessment of an event's improbability and association with ritual and/or mystical experiences. Statistics doesn't support miracles, nor does it oppose them.

As to the real importance of miracles and seeing Jesus, John 20:29.

New International Version (©1984)
Then Jesus told him, "Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed."

Successfully updated karma reason!

Knowledge is a very special thing.

In hebrew, the verb is Yeda: ידע.

The root is analogous to that of friendship, associated with the letter Ayin, which means "eye". So knowledge is like the experience of seeing something you love, or loving something you see.

In greek, it is very similar, Oida: οἶδα. It means to know in the sense of to be aware.

The root is part of the paradigm of ὁράω (horao), to see.

The german root wid, from which wisdom, witchcraft, etc. comes, is the same. Consult a limited etimology there.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/wise

Successfully updated karma reason!

“Death is a natural part of life. Rejoice for those around you who transform into the Force. Mourn them do not. Miss them do not. Attachment leads to jealously. The shadow of greed, that is.”

“Size matters not. Look at me. Judge me by my size, do you? Hmm? Hmm. And well you should not. For my ally is the Force, and a powerful ally it is. Life creates it, makes it grow. Its energy surrounds us and binds us. Luminous beings are we, not this crude matter. You must feel the Force around you; here, between you, me, the tree, the rock, everywhere, yes. Even between the land and the ship.”

Yeda=yoda

Successfully updated karma reason!

In a way.

Successfully updated karma reason!

"The Babel fish," said The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy quietly, "is small, yellow and leech-like, and probably the oddest thing in the Universe. It feeds on brainwave energy received not from its own carrier but from those around it. It absorbs all unconscious mental frequencies from this brainwave energy to nourish itself with. It then excretes into the mind of its carrier a telepathic matrix formed by combining the conscious thought frequencies with nerve signals picked up from the speech centres of the brain which has supplied them. The practical upshot of all this is that if you stick a Babel fish in your ear you can instantly understand anything in any form of language. The speech patterns you actually hear decode the brainwave matrix which has been fed into your mind by your Babel fish.

Now it is such a bizarrely improbable coincidence that anything so mindbogglingly useful could have evolved purely by chance that some thinkers have chosen to see it as the final and clinching proof of the non-existence of God.

The argument goes something like this: 'I refuse to prove that I exist,' says God, 'for proof denies faith, and without faith I am nothing.'

'But,' says Man, 'the Babel fish is a dead giveaway, isn't it? It could not have evolved by chance. It proves you exist, and so therefore, by your own arguments, you don't. QED.'

'Oh dear,' says God, 'I hadn't thought of that,' and promptly vanishes in a puff of logic.

'Oh, that was easy,' says Man, and for an encore goes on to prove that black is white and gets himself killed on the next zebra crossing.

Most leading theologians claim that this argument is a load of dingo's kidneys, but that didn't stop Oolon Colluphid making a small fortune when he used it as the central theme of his bestselling book, Well That about Wraps It Up for God.
Meanwhile, the poor Babel fish, by effectively removing all barriers to communication between different races and cultures, has caused more and bloodier wars than anything else in the history of creation."

Successfully updated karma reason!

That sits better in a thread titled "jokes about God in literature". Here it is a bit off topic, although funny in its silly way.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Quoting AERYCK,

reply 57

Well said: The child in all of us plays an important role for our overall wellbeing and is an absolute necessity for the sanity of parents, but it is insufficiently reality based to be allowed emotional control of the adult psyche. Allowing for gambling, drugs or other such nonsense, we permit little of the irrational to influence us in our decision making as we plod our way through life’s ups and downs. And whenever we weaken our resolve and allow irrationality to sway us, we usually end up filling someone else’s coffers and suffering accordingly. If a consensus or a rule book is necessary for one to decipher good from evil, right from wrong or true from false, then they either haven’t spent enough time in retrospect or they are spending too much time trying to be something they are not. This innate ability is expressed throughout nature and is a necessary fundamental of the human/animal condition, until it is reconditioned by barbarism, real life experience or unfounded dogmatic differences.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Quoting Humility,

reply 55

You are a proof that He is a existence. Take or leave.

I'll take it. You hit the bull's eye.

Quoting 137,

reply 58

The route I follow to be convinced that we humans are a proof or evidence of the truth God exists is logical, rational and reasonable.

I'll argue that we humans are evidence of the existence of God as put forward by St. Thomas Aquinas' Summa Theologica.

The first proof is from causality. The universe limited in all its details could not be its own cause. It couldn't come together with all its regulationg laws anymore than a bridge could just happen or a clock could assemble itself and keep perfect time witout a clock-maker.

The end of a thing is the purpose for which it was made. The end of a clock is to keep time and the end of a pen is to write. For what purpose was man made and if we discover that we'll know his end. Look around, everything has a purpose or an end. The soil is made for plants to grow for animals and us to eat and from this we can easily see that everything in the world was made to serve something else.

Was mankind made for something in the world? The answer is no.

We see all classes or beings were created for something higher than themselves. Plants are higher than soil because they have life and soil doesn't. Animals are higher than plants becasue they have life and can feel and plants cannot. Man is higher than animals becasue he has reason and intelligence and can understand while animals cannot.

There must be something higher than man himself but there is nothing higher than him in the world so we must look beyond to find that for which he was made. And looking beyond and considering all things, we find man was made for Almighty God..to know, love and serve Him both in this world and in everlasting life in Heaven.

On this same principle that the bridge and the clock need a maker, if there were no God, there would be no you to dispute or question His existence. I believe the human mind is able to know God, our Creator and Lord with certainity in the light of human reason, by those things which have been made....from the creature, one can come to know the Creator. And as a matter of faith and the clear teaching of Scripture, "by the greatness of the beauty, and of the creature, the Creator of them may be seen, so as to be known thereby."

Then there is the argument from universal belief and from the testimony of our conscience which approves right and condemns wrong. Thus within ourselves (the Natural Law is written in our heart) there is a recognition of a Supreme Lawgiver to Whom we are responsible Who will reward the good and punish the evil that we do.

The basic idea from the argument of universal belief is the fact that people in all times have believed in some kind of supreme being and it's reasonable to conclude that that supreme being is ALmighty God. Science investigations have discovered a singular universality and samenesss in the idea of right and wrong, a moral code in all races and peoples, however primitive. For example, the wanton murder of one not an enemy and the maltreatment of children are universally looked upon as wrong. One must conclude that this universal conscience comes from One Source...Almighty God.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Oh the simple life … “Mom, why is the sky blue” hum why indeed “because god made it that way”. The progressive in the next room gives it a thought but decides that is just too childish so he sets his kid down and says something like this: “Look for the particulates floating in the air. The Earth’s atmosphere is filled with trillions of tiny dust particles. Most of these particles or particulates are too small to be seen with the human eye. The smallest particulates are by coincidence the same length as the wavelength of blue light. As the light from our Sun shines into the atmosphere most of the colors are able to reach the Earth’s surface uninterrupted. However, because blue light has a wavelength that is the same size as the particulates in the air, this light is scattered in every direction. This blue light bounces from particulate to particulate until it eventually reaches your eyes. For this reason, no matter what direction you look in the sky, it appears to be blue. This blue light originated with the Sun, was bounced around in the sky many times, and then eventually reached your eyes.” or other such scientific nonsense, pat the kid on the head and send him merrily on his way to ponder why water is blue too??? While in the other room all you could hear was “I know mom, god made it that way too.” Oh yea, the simple life when children (and adults) knew better than to ask such things, where they knew their place … or they were to be harshly dealt with, harshly indeed. As far as knowledge goes, and as to who is kidding whom, that seems obvious!

Successfully updated karma reason!

Quoting Humility,

reply 55

You are a proof that He is a existence. Take or leave.

Quoting 137,

reply 58

Not really. My existence is not logical proof of God's existence, as I infact have no real knowledge that my existence is real. The fact that something exists, which is undeniable, again has no logical relationship with God. To get there you must follow another route.

Re: the highlighted...

It goes to the marvelous gift of faith..

And can't be told any better than by the late Dr. Timothy Mitchell, who wrote the following in Pro Ecclesia, 2002.

What a marvelous gift of faith is, ...I thought while strolling leisurely through a makeshift passageway adjacent to and beneath one of Manhattan's ubiquitious high rises. For first of all, it takes faith to attempt such a high-rise endeavor on a multilingual island after the towering failure of Babel. And it takes even a greater faith for one as myself who knows next to nothing about the intricacies of the construction industry, to casually meander under such a passageway without fearing that, if not the sky, then surely the next thing to it would come tumbling down. But such is the faith of modern man, even as he faithfully disdains the thought and becomes, ...quite vocal, if not thoughtful, about it.

Faith, simply put, is the believing in something on the testimony and authority of another, whether it is religious faith, historical faith, scientific faith, or faith in the theory of evolution. For example, I believe in God becasue I have found faith in God who told me He is, and because it can be verified. I believe that certain events in the past, which I cannot verify, happened precisely becasue I have faith in the historians who tell me so. I believe that atoms exist and can be subdivided, although I can verify neither, becasue I have faith in scientists who say it's so. And I would believe in evolution (which I don't) becasue I would have faith (which I don't ) in the presence of the missing links, whose existence has not been verified.

In all, as Clare Booth Luce said to her trendy friends of years gone by, most of what we believe is through faith and most of it is considered sophisticated except the most sophisicated belief of all: belief in the Author of sophisication. And herein lies a paradox. For faith in God is backed by reason whereas faith in Atheism is not. That is, the existence of God can be logically demonstrated; His non-existence cannot.

The men of faith who believe in history, science, and evolution all hold one thing in common with the men of faith who believe in God, namely, that the world exists---it is no longer sophisticated to argue otherwise, else there would be no high-rises. Now, if the world exists, there must be an explanation. And to fathom that explanation is quite sophisticated indeed.

There are only three possible explanations. Either the world always existed or it hasn't. Now, if it has; that is the first possibility. If it hasn't, there are two other possibilities: either it caused itself or it was caused by another.

Those who have faith in history know there are causes and effects and that no thing causes itself. For this is a contradiction in terms, which posits existence before existence. Thus, they know that either the world always existed or was caused by something other than itself.

Those who have faith in science know that the world is composed of matter and for that reason could not have always existed. For the Second Law of Thermodynamics dictates to them that all matter tends towards dissolution. Thus if matter had always existed, it would have already dissolved.

Those who have faith in evolution know that they cannot explain--within their limited scope of observation--the origin of matter. Matter, for them, is a given with no questions asked as to whom the giver might be, as they go about trying to explain the origin of the species. But since matter could not have always existed or could not have caused its own existence, it must have gotten that existence from another source---a source not subject to dissolution. i.e. a spiritual source. And the evolutionists realize this. For when they stop looking at little things to consider larger things, it becomes evident to them that their given was given. They refer to this phenomenon as the big bang or some such appellation. But it is God about whom they are talking, the same God whom the ancients heard thundering in the skies and in whom men of faith believe.

In conclusion, then, the faith of the men who believe in God can be verified; for theirs is the only explanation of the world (a given) which is possible. And since it is sophisticated to believe that which can be verified, it is sophisticated-more sophisticated than fearlessly walking under a makeshift passageway in Manhattan--to believe in the existence of God.

Successfully updated karma reason!

There is a series of misconceptions involved, either from believers and para-scientific thinkers, which I seldom point out lately, because I generally do not trust in the usefulness of discussing them.

The para-scientific thinker (I use this term because a scientific thinker is someone who can do science, a para-scientific thinker is someone who has read or studied some, even many books about science) is content with the learned explanation that the sky is blue because of the peculiarities of light's diffraction and refraction in the atmosphere. Para-science is strictly connected with scientific divulgation, infact the many affected by this mental constriction often love the likes of Dawkins, an abominable example of fallacious thought and reductionism whose "scientific" life is limited to publishing his opinions on someone else's research.

This sense of contentment is the denial of all that is scientific, a denial caused by positivist preconceptions about the ability of science to discover truth. Science has no such ability. Depending on the outlook we assume on the issue, science either discovers falsehood or helps us learn methods which work.

This means, in both cases, that there is always something more to learn about things. The reasons of the order implicit in reality, an order I and others can discover, is bound to arise curiosity in those minds who accept the limits of science. Studying the issue of self-organization, structure, dissipation, etc. will not stop those people curious enough to search for more answers, from devising their own vision of how reality works on a grander scale. As such God comes as a question after knowledge, and not before it.

Believers on the other hand are content with the god of the book. That is another mistake, yet based on the same issue: lack of desire to be acquainted with the object of one's faith.

It would take a long time to discuss how both those forms of trust are undue simplifications. Thus I will end this little addition here.

Luke 18:

¹⁸A certain ruler asked him, "Good teacher, what must I do to inherit life?"
¹⁹"Why do you call me good?" Jesus answered. "No one is good - except God alone."

Successfully updated karma reason!

Quoting GirlFriendTess,

reply 66

Yes, the "why" of a child questioning. Happens all the time.

Atheism is a denial of the ultimate cause of thing, including the law of our being. Right or true religion, on the other hand, is positive. It is an affirmation of belief that binds the spiritual nature of man to a supernatural Being, God.

The mind of a child questioning his father is prompted by a pure heart.

"Why is it dark, papa?"

"Becasue the sun sets."

"Why does the sun set?"

"Becasue the earth moves around it."

"Why does the earth move around it?"

"Becasue of gravity."

"What is gravity, papa?"

"It's a law of nature."

"Where does the law come from, papa?"

"Don't ask so many questions" would be the final response of an Atheist father, for he is stuck.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Quoting 137,

reply 68

Believers on the other hand are content with the god of the book.

Ha, depends on which book!

Quoting 137,

reply 68

It's interesting, that faith comes from the latin fides, which means both trust and faith. Fides, on the other hand comes from foedus, which means "pact", "contract", "treaty". Both science and religion are based on fides, one on trusting the compact between my understanding and reality, which means that my scientific experiences are repeatable, and the other on the trust in the truthfulness of revelation, or in other words the fact that scripture is a good guidance in life.

It would take a long time to discuss how both those forms of trust are undue simplifications

I mentioned that science and religion are based on faith in my #47.

If faith is an intellectual assent of the mind to something not seen with the physical eye; the acceptance or belief in a truth upon the authority or word of another, though that truth may not be fully understood.

So, it seems to me that it is the object of authority in whom that faith ("trust" if you like) is placed. In science, it's dependent on human authority, that may or may not be right despite its personal intregrity. In religion, (and here I'm speaking of Christianity), it is Divine authority, "taking God at His Word".

In religion, Divine Faith is a theological virtue, a gift of God by which we firmly believe all the truths God has revealed, on the word of God revealing them, Who can neither deceive or be deceived. In short, Divine faith is belief in a truth or mystery known only because God has revealed it.

Quoting 137,

reply 68

It's interesting, that faith comes from the latin fides, which means both trust and faith. Fides, on the other hand comes from foedus, which means "pact", "contract", "treaty". Both science and religion are based on fides, one on trusting the compact between my understanding and reality, which means that my scientific experiences are repeatable, and the other on the trust in the truthfulness of revelation, or in other words the fact that scripture is a good guidance in life.

It would take a long time to discuss how both those forms of trust are undue simplifications. Thus I will end this little addition here.

Luke 18:

18A certain ruler asked him, "Good teacher, what must I do to inherit life?"
19"Why do you call me good?" Jesus answered. "No one is good - except God alone."

Scripture certainly is a good guidance in life. But do you know that Scripture itself states that it is insufficient of itself as a teacher but rather needs an interpreter (a teaching authority)? 2 St.Peter 3:16 tells us that there are "certain things hard to be understood, which the unlearned and unstable wrest (distort), as they do also the other Scriptures, to their own destruction."

Scripture is a good guidance in life. So what is Christ's teaching in St.Luke 18:18-19?

First, in verse 18, Christ is asked an important question, "What must I do to possess everlasting life?" (I'm using the Douay Rheims version.)

We must take into consideration Christ's full answer to understand the meaning of verses 18 and 19.

Luke 18:

18A certain ruler asked him, "Good teacher, what must I do to inherit life?"
19 Why do you call me good?" Jesus answered. "No one is good - except God alone.

20 Thou knowest the commandments: Thou shalt not kill: thou shalt not commit adultery: Thou shalt not steal: Thou shalt not bear false witness: Honour thy father and mother. 21 And he said, "All these I have kept from my youth." 22 And when Jesus had heard, He said to him, "Yet, one thing is wanting to thee: sell all that you have and give to the poor and you will have treasure in Heaven, and come, follow Me." And when he heard this he became very sad, for he was very rich. 24 And Jesus seeing him become sorrowful, said, How hardly shall they who have riches to enter into the kingdom of God."

There is a play on the word "good". In verse 18, the ruler addresses Jesus as "Good teacher" and asks Him the way to eternal life. When Jesus is asked about the good, He is asked about God, since God only is Good. Jesus, acting on that address, tells the man he should be seeking God, the only good one, to find the good that he must do. Jesus emphazises God because the man has obeyed only the last seven commandments, but he has not obeyed the first three commandments which deal with worshipping God. In place of God he has idolized his riches.

Quoting 137,

reply 68

lack of desire to be acquainted with the object of one's faith.

So the scene ends rather pathetically. The rich ruler goes away sad; his attachment to his riches prevails over Jesus' affectionate invitation. Jesus tries to get him to see things from an entirely supernatural point of view. If this man is to really attain eternal life, he must see in Jesus not just as a "Good teacher", but the Divine Savior, the only Master, the only one who because He is God, is Goodness itself.

Here is sadness that stems from failing to respond to God's calling with a personal commitment.

Each of the four Gospels reports this episode and in doing so, they are actually giving up a case-study which describes a situation and formulates a vocation to turn one's life to the service of God and neighbor.

Successfully updated karma reason!

GirlFriendTess,

You say:

'This innate ability is expressed throughout nature and is a necessary fundamental of the human/animal condition, until it is reconditioned by barbarism, real life experience or unfounded dogmatic differences.'

My last sentence might have presented you with a clue to positive reconditioning.

'Now what was it that Jesus said about the Kingdom of God?'

Successfully updated karma reason!

Quoting lulapilgrim,

reply 70

Here is sadness that stems from failing to respond to God's calling with a personal commitment.

First, you see, to have a personal commitment, you need to be committed to something. That is why the first verses are sufficient to understand the passage (scripture is an example of fractal compression): Jesus is telling the ruler not to be committed to a teaching, or to anything else, but to God in person.

As such, keeping the law (of scripture) is not enough, in Jesus' teaching as well. If you reread my post, you will notice that Jesus is saying exactly what I say. In the whole passage, as well. More about this later.

Quoting lulapilgrim,

reply 70

I mentioned that science and religion are based on faith in my #47.

But my etimological argument was to point out the relationship of trust and faith with the word foedus, because you see, whether I expect that my experiences are repeatable, or that obeying scripture is enough, it is this implicit contract between me and reality and God and me, which I am trusting. Both trusts are wrong.

If for one billion billion times I see that opposing electrical charges attract each other, this doesn't logically allow me to foresee that the next time I try, the same will happen. I can only reasonably bet that it's going to be so. There's a whole statistics of improbability, which a naive perception of science ignores.

The same goes with faith in scripture. Ad that is what Jesus says in this (twice occurring) logion or agraphon of Luke (D):

On the same day, seeing one working on the Sabbath, he said to him: Man, if thou knowest what thou doest, blessed art thou; but if thou knowest not, thou art accursed and a transgressor of the Law.

In other words, for scripture to be an efficacious set of rules, you must be there with your mindful presence, and, coupled with the previous passage, you must be mindful of God. Because the only significant teacher is He Himself. "If you know what you are doing", implies that scripture is not all-encompassing. Only God is perfect.

Besides,

Quoting lulapilgrim,

reply 70

Authority comes from the verb augeo, which means "to be great" or "to become great". For someone to have authority, he must be great. Not powerful, but great in the sense of outstanding and exceptional. Scripture says about greatness (Matthew 20:28-29):

But it shall not be so among you. Rather, whoever wishes to be great among you shall be your servant; whoever wishes to be first among you shall be your slave.

Quoting AERYCK,

reply 71

'Now what was it that Jesus said about the Kingdom of God?'

I will point out, for once, a gnostic apocryphon (Thomas), because it is very interesting:

Jesus said, "If your leaders say to you,

'Look, the (Father's) kingdom is in the sky,'

then the birds of the sky will precede you.

If they say to you, 'It is in the sea,'

then the fish will precede you.

Rather, the (Father's) kingdom is within you and it is outside (in between) you.

When you know yourselves, then you will be known,

and you will understand that you are children of the living Father.

But if you do not know yourselves,

then you live in poverty, and you are the poverty."

And:

Jesus said to them, "When you make the two into one, and when you make the inner like the outer and the outer like the inner, and the upper like the lower, and when you make male and female into a single one, so that the male will not be male nor the female be female, when you make eyes in place of an eye, a hand in place of a hand, a foot in place of a foot, an image in place of an image, then you will enter [the kingdom]."

Successfully updated karma reason!

Little Suzie was asking the same question to her mother last day.

Well... i dunno what her mother said, it was just before my fleet + titan killed the planet they lived on.
Metal is real, bullet too and my god is blood.

Successfully updated karma reason!

137, nice quote.

I was thinking ( should have been more specific ) of the references to the Kingdom of God as they appear in the context of the Christian sacred texts ie. Matthew to Revelation and in particular Mark. Though there are countless other references to the kingdom of God in the works of such luminaries as Leo Tolstoy and Albert Schweitzer , I found the book 'Divine Government' by RT France particularly illuminating in respect of the idea of positive 'reconditioning' though I might just as well have referred to MacDonald, Tolkien or Lewis's journeys in and out of the perilous land of Faerie.

'There can be no one place, time, event or community which is 'the kingdom of God', any more than 'the will of God' can be tied down to any specific situation or event. 'The Kingdom of God' is God in saving action, God taking control in his world, or, to use our title, 'divine government'.'

From: Divine Government by RT France

Peace,

Aeryck

'For the kingdom of God does not consist in words but in power' the apostle Paul ( 1 Corinthians 4 )

Successfully updated karma reason!

There is also a great deception in power: we should remember that the One Who wields it is not us. Positive reconditioning and positive thinking are a psychological tool for psychotherapy, but it is not the power which is considered here.

There is an amount of pragmatism to Paul (as there is to Buddha ironically). The greek of the passage reads:

οὐ γὰρ ἐν λόγῳ ἡ βασιλεία τοῦ θεοῦ ἀλλ’ ἐν δυνάμει·

Which could easily translate, the kingdom is not in the word (the meaning) but in the efficacy (thereof).

In causing our change. So it is power, but we are not its wielders: the power of Divine truth to change life. Paul is saying: it is true because it works. William James would be in agreement.

A short vocabulary entry on dynamis: physical power, force, might, ability, efficacy, energy, meaning -B- plur: powerful deeds, deeds showing (physical) power, marvelous works. ( http://concordances.org/greek/1411.htm )

Successfully updated karma reason!