"How do I know God exists?" - the first step to atheism

[Tiberius]

You're jumping around, do you or do you not think there is knowledge of a god? Seems pointless that you even quoted me in the first place, there's literally nothing we're arguing about.

I do not believe there is knowledge of God, no. On the contrary though, there is something we are arguing about, and that is whether there is actually knowledge of God or not. You asserted:

There is no "knowledge of god"

This is an absolute statement, and one which I called you on. Now, if you meant "I do not believe there is knowledge of god", then we are fine, assuming that you understand that your belief that there is no knowledge of god in no way makes it so.

I didn't bring up the god-tale, it's not my job to do that, it's the claimers. This is ridiculous, you started quoting me for no reason, how could any Atheist have a problem with my original post if they dont disagree, seems you're being more anal about how I said it than anything I'm actually saying. Maybe I stated it wrongly in my analogy but I was talking about how theists tell us we deny god by using the "Not God" Answer instead of acknowledging that we dont believe it so we cant deny anything.

Again, this isn't about any "god-tales". The concept of a god is easy enough to understand, without asking which specific god it is. A god (generally speaking) is some supernatural deity. If you believe in *any* kind of supernatural deity, then you believe in *some* form of god.

Sorry, but whilst the response "which god" might be amusing and make someone think twice, it still doesn't answer the very simple question of whether one believes in the concept of god or not.

[Abracadabra]

It's rather sad. I don't think Atheists are evil or less good people because of this. But they miss out on awesome knowledge that is the foundation of the soul's existence and have to life a life in fear of death, with little hope of everlasting life.

That's true. And ironically atheists never do give up on the hope of everlasting life really. There are many scientific documentaries that address the question of the survival of the human species. The most obvious question is whether humanity will ever evolved technologically enough to travel to distance planets, in order to avoid the inevitable destruction of our own solar system when our sun dies.

Most atheists believe that it's 'rational' to believe that since we have several billion years to evolve and advance before the sun dies we'll surely have grown in terms of technology far enough to meet the challenges of interstellar travel thus avoiding certain doom. So they are keeping the hope of eternal life open if only in terms of the human species in general.

And I also believe that many atheists have a secret hope that some form of reincarnation is actually possible so that they will be there to experience that future of humanity.

Some atheists are so disturbed by the thought of humanity ending that they even imagine that humanity will continue to evolve even beyond interstellar travel to potentially travel between imagined parallel universes thus escaping the certain doom of our very universe. Humans are quite tenacious when it comes to wanting to stay alive. And that certainly includes the atheists as well.

~~~~

When it comes to questions of "God", I prefer to not even think in terms of that word. That word has become highly contaminated by ideas of external personified anthropomorphic beings living in a totally separate spiritual world. I'm fairly well convinced that no such 'gods' exist.

I can also rule out certain myths as being utterly absurd. The Biblical God, for example, would not even be nearly as benevolent as myself. How could a supposedly divine all-benevolent God be less benevolent than me? That's makes absolutely no sense, thus those fables are necessarily false man-made superstitious myths (very poorly written ones to boot)

However, if you define "God" in terms of a spiritual essence to life which is the foundation of my very own existence, then it's quite easy to know God. All I need to do is recognize that I am this universe being aware of itself. And that is blatantly obvious. In fact, the only way that could not be true is if I was something other than the universe experiencing itself.

But wait a minute! If I'm something other than the universe experiencing itself that very concept would require that I be something other than this universe! In other words, that very idea would force an idea of an external 'soul' that does not belong to this universe.

When when it comes to this Eastern Mystical picture of "God", where the idea is "Tat t'vam asi" meaning "You are it". Then it becomes crystal clear that I not only know that God exists, but I am that very being.

Reincarnation then becomes obvious. For it can be no other way. The only way to avoid reincarnation would be to imagine I'm an 'external soul'. Something external to this universe. But like I say, that very idea requires a believe in some external soul itself.

So as far as I can see, not only can I know that "God" exists. But it's also impossible for me to be anything other than this God. I am this universe perceiving itself. There's simply nothing else to be. There are no other choices available. Unless of course a person want to get into imagining the existence of "souls" that are somehow totally separate from the universe.

So for me, it's pretty straight-forward open-and-shut case. I am necessarily this universe experiencing itself and there was never a time when I was not, nor will there ever be a time when I will cease to be.

So for me "God" is impossible to deny.

But clearly not if you're going to demand that some make-up character in ancient Hebrew fables represents "God". Those fables are very easy to deny as being representative of anything real. They are just poorly written fairy tales. So poorly written that they created an image of God that isn't even as benevolent as me. It seems to me that the only people who could believe in those tales are people who are far less benevolent than the God depicted in those tales. In other words, they would need to believe that being cruel and violent toward other people is a 'divine solution' to problems. They would need to believe that it's benevolent to support male-chauvinism against women, and hold religious bigotry toward non-believers of the tales, and to carry a judgmental hatred toward same-gender love, etc.

Believers would need to be all that and worse, in order to believe that the biblical God is more benevolent than themselves.

It's certainly not going to work for me.

So, yes, I have no choice but to believe in "God" in an Eastern Mystical sense, because it not only can't be denied, but no other explanation could even be made to work without invoking and external 'soul' anyway.

So the fact that I am this universe is pretty obvious to me. And reincarnation is an unavoidable and necessary result of that. I will always be this universe. There was never a time when I was not this universe, nor will there ever come a time when I will cease to be this universe.

I am primordial and eternal. I am the alpha and omega.

It can be no other way.

[LastPoet]

It can be no other way.

And there you have it, the essence of your thought, ignorance. It can't be no other way in your self deluded mind, but please, stop beating the poor strawmen you made of atheists.

Now, ramble on.

[Abracadabra]

It can be no other way.

And there you have it, the essence of your thought, ignorance. It can't be no other way in your self deluded mind, but please, stop beating the poor strawmen you made of atheists.

Now, ramble on.

In that case, will you please explain how you can be something other than this universe experiencing itself.

And if so, what is your evidence that this other thing exists?

[LastPoet]

In that case, will you please explain how you can be something other than this universe experiencing itself.

We don't experience the universe, we have a very limited experience of it, but, by the scientific method we were able to weed out the bullshit you want us to believe, from things we can all believe. But the answer is simple, just provide us with testable means for us to detect spirits in a consistent way. The burden of proof is on you buddy, you are the one that objectively need to show us that 'spirits' exist, so stop being the snake-oil saleman. Stop your ramblings and show us a way to detect those spirits you say. If you know astronomy, we are just an infinitesimal part of the universe, and a long way from understanding it. I admit I don't know all. But you say there is something else, 'spirits' an extraordinary claim, so it is you that must show your claims, not me.

And if so, what is your evidence that this other thing exists.

All I know is that there is perfectly natural ways for this universe to exist, now, stop being the forum idiot and please satisfy me, give me a way to detect those spirits you say.

[Cosmic Ape]

I do not believe there is knowledge of God, no. On the contrary though, there is something we are arguing about, and that is whether there is actually knowledge of God or not. You asserted: There is no "knowledge of god" That is an absolute statement

I should've put that I know of, but since you confirmed it, I can generalize pretty well cant I? See, it's pointless for you to be quoting me.

Again, this isn't about any "god-tales". The concept of a god is easy enough to understand, without asking which specific god it is. A god (generally speaking) is some supernatural deity. If you believe in *any* kind of supernatural deity, then you believe in *some* form of god.

It is to the theist I was talking to before you decided to give your 2 cents on semantics. So sorry I was too absolutist for you to made a broad statement that you agree with, way out of line for me......

Sorry, but whilst the response "which god" might be amusing and make someone think twice, it still doesn't answer the very simple question of whether one believes in the concept of god or not.

It's one of the best questions to ask, and it should make someone think twice.

[Oldandeasilyconfused]

now, stop being the forum idiot and please satisfy me, give me a way to detect those spirits you say.

A little unkind, I don't think Abra is THE forum idiot,merely one of 'em,and by no means the worst.. (here the term 'idiot' is not necessarily literal. In this context it can also simply mean 'fool') I may be very wrong,but my impression is that Abra is an adolescent or very young man yet to acquire critical thinking skills. If so, I think there is a lot of promise once he grows up.(assuming nobody kills him for being such a smartarse)


Me? Well,contrary to common perception,I'm not really a nasty,bitter,cynical, misanthrope and cunt. I'm simply a romantic who has been in a very bad mood for 30 years and who does not suffer fools.

[Abracadabra]

All I know is that there is perfectly natural ways for this universe to exist, now, stop being the forum idiot and please satisfy me, give me a way to detect those spirits you say.

You are the spirit I'm talking about. If you aren't satisfied with your own experience of existence I can't help you on that one.

You claim the following:

The burden of proof is on you buddy, you are the one that objectively need to show us that 'spirits' exist.

No poet. The burden of proof is entirely on your shoulders.

You're the one who is attempting to suggest that we are something other than the universe experiencing itself. Therefore it's up to you to describe and prove the existence of something other than this universe.

I have no need to prove anything. My observations are self-evident.

You're just confused by western reductionism is all. You have been brainwashed into believing that everything can be treated as being separate from everything else. It's the western reductionist approach to trying to categorize everything into separate phenomenon that has you confused about your true nature.

Where do you think you 'stop' and the rest of the universe begins?

Also, what is it that you believe your are if not the very essence of this universe. Even Einstein showed us that our western reductionist approach of trying to separate matter and energy into two entirely separate things was a false illusion. He even showed us that we do this same thing with our illusions of time.

So what exactly is it that you think you are?

A specific temporary configuration of stardust?

And what are you suggesting is having that experience? The stardust itself?

You can't very well point to a few atoms that make up your brain and say, "They are me! That is what is having this experience."

Atoms can't have an experience. So how could you be a mere clump of atoms having an experience?

Clearly there is something deeper going on. Something far more mystical than the western reductionist approach to physics could ever hope to uncover.

In fat, the western reductionist approach itself totally falls apart at the quantum level in the "individuality' of things breaks down. Scientists are currently hoping beyond hope to resurrect individualism via String Theory. But that's nothing more than a faith-based religion in its own right.

In fact, the very hope of resurrecting individualism is truly nothing more than a hope that the best and most successful theory of science to date (i.e. Quantum Mechanics) will ultimately fail, or be over-ridden by another theory that can lay claim to reductionism beneath the quantum level.

So as ironic as it is, scientists are hoping and praying that their current scientific knowledge will ultimately turn out to be wrong.

The Eastern Mystics are having belly rolls laughing at the silliness of western scientists.

Sure, the reductionist approach paid off in terms of technology, and the Eastern Mystics recognize this. But as a basis for a religion called "Atheism" the scientific method is a complete and utter joke.

Science is far better off remaining the observational method of inquiry rather than trying to become a religion that renounces a concept of 'spirit'.

In truth science doesn't even support a "non-spiritual" view of life at all. That's neither it's purpose of science, nor can the scientific method of inquire ever hope to achieve such a 'goal'.

So who are the forum idiots?

Well, clearly it would be the people who try to hold up science as if science could somehow be used to support a "non-spiritual" view of life.

When anyone does that all they are doing is displaying a huge ignorance of the Eastern Mystical philosophies of life, and pretending that the reductionist approach of scientific inquiry implies that they can separate themselves from the essence of which they are made.

That's ridiculous. When thought about deeply enough it should become vividly apparent that such an approach to a philosophy of reality would be utterly futile and hopeless.

The holistic approach of the Eastern Mystics is truly the only was to make sense of reality.

So Eastern Mysticism wins hands down.

And the scientific reductionist approach to reality (whilst useful in terms of technologies) is totally useless in terms of trying to get at the heart of reality.

If you are made entirely of stardust, and you can have an experience. Then clearly stardust can have an experience too. Yet, everything is made of stardust, even the stars themselves.

If anything our scientific observations have only gone to prove that the Eastern Mystics were right all alone. We are nothing other than this universe experiencing itself.

There simply isn't anything else we could be.

Unless you believe that you can introduce something other than this universe into the picture. But then you would be the one who requires a burden of proof, not me.

I have no burden of proof when I claim that you are this universe. My only 'burden' would be to show that nothing else exists. But until someone else can come up with a theory of something else, then there is nothing for me to refute.

So the burden of proof is entirely on you to renounce my claim that you are this universe.

Good luck!

---

I'm simply a romantic who has been in a very bad mood for 30 years and who does not suffer fools.

Gee, that sounds so sad.

Why the bad mood? Has someone convinced you that the universe and life cannot be a 'romantic place'?

I wouldn't take that lying down if I were you.

[Cosmic Ape]

See Abra, I was right, you wont even define what a spirit is or what spirituality is, its just some vague bullshit you made up or heard saying we are the universe experiencing itself, you havnt shown how that proves spirits or how you got from universe to spirit or universe to us to spirit..nothing. You are so obviously the one with the burden of proof, you wont find many who agree with you here.

[Abracadabra]

See Abra, I was right, you wont even define what a spirit is or what spirituality is, its just some vague bullshit you made up or heard saying we are the universe experiencing itself, you havnt shown how that proves spirits or how you got from universe to spirit or universe to us to spirit..nothing.

I don't claim to have "proof" of anyone else's concept of spirit.

In fact, I couldn't very well make such a claim without first hearing how they define "spirit". And even then, why should I even care to prove or disprove their ideas? Shouldn't they be the ones to take responsibility for that?

All I'm doing is saying that there exist Eastern Spiritual Philosophies, that not only cannot be ruled out by our current scientific knowledge, but they actually make perfect sense if a person takes the time to consider them.

If you chose not to believe me that's fine.

But if you're going to argue with me claiming that you can rule them out using modern scientific knowledge, then burden for proof for your claim would be on your head, not on mine.