Does God exist?

[modest]

Oohhh, I like that. I think that's the best commentary on reality and belief I've ever heard—no kidding.

~modest

[Moontanman]

Deleted, Off topic, started new thread.

[Michael Mooney]

Just a little housekeeping, as the below was moved to another thread, appropriately so because it was attached to off-topic material:

MM:

Pamela, thanks for the compliment. Not everyone is born into mystic gnosis...
... direct realization of the omnipresence of "cosmic consciousness" by whatever name.

Consider the following statement implied in most of the above criticisms of what I call Gnosis :
"Since I have never experienced transcendence of personal consciousness/identity, let alone the direct experience of cosmic or God consciousness, it is impossible and in fact merely false belief or delusion."

Do all you critics above endorse the above?

I "believe" that science and mystic realization, as above, will one day find common ground and learn to "play well together"... as long as "creationism" doesn't persist in calling itself science!
(I,m half mystic and half lay scientist, and these aspects have coalesced well within... not at war in any sense.)... the dynamic creation of cosmos is an always ongoing project... always "a work in progress." (The key may be found in the "intelligence" between entangled particles in quantum physics... or in how "remote viewing" works... tho still very controversial. Check out "The Intention Experiment"... author escaping memory at the moment.
Michael

[modest]

Originally Posted by Michael Mooney

Consider the following statement implied in most of the above criticisms of what I call Gnosis : (Edit: This from the "Does God Exist?" thread... also no reply.)
"Since I have never experienced transcendence of personal consciousness/identity, let alone the direct experience of cosmic or God consciousness, it is impossible and in fact merely false belief or delusion."

Who said this, or who expressed a similar sentiment? Can you link the post or posts?

Originally Posted by Michael Mooney

Do all you critics above (Ed: ... in the "Does God Exist" thread... closely related) endorse the above?

I'm pretty sure none of the "critics" you're referring to would endorse that statement. To say 'I have not experienced X and therefore X does not exist' is a basic logical fallacy called Burden Of Proof or Proving a Negative. As the pithy saying goes: "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence."

In my experience Hypography members are largely very rational and would not make such an obvious logical fallacy which is why I'm wondering which post or posts you're talking about.

~Modest

[Michael Mooney]

M: "Consider the following statement implied in most of the above criticisms of what I call Gnosis :
"Since I have never experienced transcendence of personal consciousness/identity, let alone the direct experience of cosmic or God consciousness, it is impossible and in fact merely false belief or delusion."
Modest:
"Who said this, or who expressed a similar sentiment? Can you link the post or posts?"

Sorry the 'source' of the quote was so obscure. It was my own fabrication of what seemed implicit "in most of the criticisms" of "believers" in this thread.
An obvious trap, really, as no one would endorse such a statement, tho the essence of it seems implied in the criticisms.
OK?
Michael

[Essay]

Originally Posted by pamela

let's define god

As there is no imperical evidence in support of an actual deity, then we must look at what has become real or viable to the individual. Perception for the believer lies within the mind and not the external observation.The "knowing" is derived from the belief and not factual knowledge. This knowing has formed a pseudo-reality, in which they move throughout their lives. The god, and it's existance has become a reality in the cognitive mind of the individual that believes.Therefore, to them, god exists. For others, who do not subscribe to this cognitive reality, god does not exist

Yes, we can either define God into, or out of existence:

I define the basic eight dimensions, from which our familiar four are derived, as God.
That eight dimensional "space" is the source of Creation--with spacetime being derivative--and that source also informs and frames the laws that rule our derived spacetime; thus--Creator & Ruler--fulfilling def. #1.

...and fulfilling def. #5 if you see the basic eight dimensions as Time (not spacetime) plus the other seven, "Life, Truth, Love, Mind, Soul, Spirit, Principle."

I find the metaphor of the "Flying Spaghetti Monster" composed of eight "strings" of--long spaghetti--the dimesions, Time, Life, Truth, Love, Mind, Soul, Spirit, Principle, as a colorful and useful image.
===

Personally I like to define the basic eight dimensions as dichotomies such as: Harmony/dischord, Transparency/deception, Intention/apathy, Cognition/time, etc.
I come up with a different eight dimensions every time I think about it--which is why the FSM is convenient.
===

[sidenote]
Even the idea that Creation happened ~6000 years ago is compatible with this view.
It makes perfect sense that, as a derivative of those fundamental eight dimensions, any Creation would begin with a fully formed foundation or basis--as if all physical and biological evolution leading up to that Creation event had actually happened.
Heck, for that matter, every instant we may be Created again--anew, with a fully formed history.
===

But this all goes against:

Originally Posted by Michael Mooney

"Ontology 101" starts with the obvious fact that everything in the universe (the real stuff) did not magically appear...

[Pyrotex]

Or... Ontology 211 starts with the obvious fact that everything in the universe (the real stuff) is magically and continuously being created in every instant. This does not contradict Ontology 101.

[REASON]

Originally Posted by Pyrotex

Or... Ontology 211 starts with the obvious fact that everything in the universe (the real stuff) is magically and continuously being created in every instant. This does not contradict Ontology 101.

Define instant.

[Pyrotex]

Originally Posted by REASON

Define instant.

Well... you know... instant. Like you just add water, and there it is!

Seriously, we seem to have so much fun straining at gnats, that we forget that what we came to do was drain the swamp.

Philosophy should not be treated as true or false, but rather as a description of what one sees from a particular point of view. Ontology 101 and 211 are two such descriptions. There are others. They all contradict, but that's not relevant, because we're not dealing with truth, but with usefulness and inspiration.

What is an instant? Now. That was it. You almost missed it.

[REASON]

Originally Posted by Pyrotex

Seriously, we seem to have so much fun straining at gnats, that we forget that what we came to do was drain the swamp.

Philosophy should not be treated as true or false, but rather as a description of what one sees from a particular point of view. Ontology 101 and 211 are two such descriptions. There are others. They all contradict, but that's not relevant, because we're not dealing with truth, but with usefulness and inspiration.

I like the bolded phrase. To me, this is always the point when it comes to discussions about god. Except that people tend to think that the philosophy they hold is the truth, or else, of course, it wouldn't be their philosophy. It is evident that those who's philosophy is that god exists will go to any length, including inventing a pseudoscientific explanation in Intelligent Design, to defend it. It is their philosophy, and it is their truth.

To me, one important aspect of science is that it helps us distinguish between what are OUR truths, and what is more apt to be THE truth through the gathering of FACTS. When it comes to facts in support of the existence of god, there are none. So all that is left is the way in which the concept of god is "usefull" or "inspirational" psychologically to those who find it so important to believe in god's existence.

Originally Posted by Pyrotechs

What is an instant? Now. That was it. You almost missed it.

You know what I love about now? I'm comforted by the fact that it's always with me.