Why God Exists

In the spiritual world, the convention is to use CAPS for that which refers to the non-intellectual and lower case for that which refers to the intellectual.

The intellectual is that which can be "understood." The intellectual constantly changes because the inputs that make up everything intellectual constantly change. The intellectual has a birth, a life, and a death, existing within time Although it is referred to as understandable, it [technically] isn't for many of the reasons we have discussed previously.

The non-intellectual is that which exists outside of our intellect. In other words, when our minds are quiet and no thinking is taking place, this is non-intellectual. It just is, no commentary necessary. The non-intellectual is therefore unknowable [intellectually], has no birth, no life, and no death, it simply is...existing outside of time.

God "exists" in the non-intellectual. He cannot be known, only experienced. If you can still your mind, then you can experience God. Easier said then done, but doable just the same

 

You need to divorce yourself from the need to think of this in terms of real or not real. What is real, anyway? You still do not understand what God is. God is not something you can understand like you understand what a Coke tastes like. God [and the non-intellectual] transcends the duality. No need for this and that. No need for real and not real. Only being. Let it go for a moment...

 

That is an insult to religion.

The Pope has a well developed intellect.

And, it is the pretense that intellect is to be despised.

 

I think what you are actually saying is that god, ANY god, must be accepted on faith alone.

For Christianity, this is stated in the Bible.

And, your capitalization idea is still there for the single purpose of denigrating those gods that you choose not to take on faith. After all, you're calling for all those who believe in ANY god to capitalize it to mean the god that they personally choose to take on faith.

In that case, one has to delve into what god that individual actually believes.

Surely it is more useful to use "god" to mean any god.

 

You are misunderstanding. There is no judgement of anything involved here.

 

Of course there is.

You capitalize the god of the religions you like and leave the rest uncapitalized.

That is a strongly proclaimed judgement by you.

In fact, you appear to make judgements concerning who has developed intellect and who does not.

As noted, there have been normal approaches to this issue of gods and religion, and I don't see a reason for that other than to benefit your personal religious beliefs.

 

If that idea comforts you, then, all the power to you. For me, I have forgone down the rabbit hole with the Cartesian method on this topic. A question; what created God and who does God pray to?

 

The version of god in the OP is basically 'God is my feelings'. Facts don't care about your feelings.

 

A valid, but unanswerable question. No matter the explanation, we know that this entire Universe, some 14.3 By ago did not exist. Then, it came from nowhere, at least nowhere we can measure or document in any meaningful way. In fact, we don't know, and probably never will, how big it even might be, as some stars and galaxies are so distant from us that their light doesn't and will never reach us.

Where did that come from? OK, let's assume for argument sake, we actually figure that out. Let's call it Fred. Fred made the Universe, somehow. Where did Fred come from? Any explanation, whether natural or supernatural has the same infinite regress problem, and it's likely something we won't understand until we are no longer living in these bodies, and maybe not even then.

I said above that raw, pure consciousness is the Source of everything. Where did it come from? What if it doesn't even know the answer to that?

 

this one?

http://www.tfd.com/deists

de·ism (dzm, d-)
n.
The belief, based solely on reason, in a God who created the universe and then abandoned it, assuming no control over life, exerting no influence on natural phenomena, and giving no supernatural revelation.

 

What makes the experience you have while meditating “god”?

 

Again, the convention is to capitalize those things designated as non-intellectual, e.g., God, The Way, etc. OTOH, things that are intellectual, like many of the other gods that are knowable, lower case [except proper names, of course]. I didn't make this up. It has been in use for as long as I am aware.

Really? You are not understanding what I am saying. Chatting about the intellectual and non-intellectual is not about anybody in particular or anybody's intelligence. Read it again [without wanting to burn me at the stake as a heretic].

 

You wish to use the intellectual to understand the non-intellectual and it just isn't going to happen. I could just as easily ask you why person A falls in love with person B. Beyond the obvious, nobody knows why two people connect on such a level, right? But it happens just the same and [nearly] everybody accepts this.

I get that you really want to understand the concept of God but that's what makes God [and all things non-intellectual] what they are. If you can intellectualize them, then you can corrupt them with your [humanity's] inability to properly perceive reality in any functional way. So, God stays pure [just the way man needs Him to be].

This is well thought out stuff. You're not the first person to question. And think about it in context when life was an absolute BITCH for everybody...everyday. And this is the way it was up until about the turn of the 20th century.

 

You can do better than that! This isn't about feelings. If I were you, I would reconsider how reliable some of your facts are. Facts, like all things, have a shelf-life and reproduce themselves every moment. The one exception is morality where facts have some serious staying power.

 

The 10,000,000USD question!

Let me preface this with suggesting again that God "exists" in the non-intellectual realm. In the non-intellectual, all things are One. God is the same as everything else, which is why God is omni-everything. You don't have to call this God, but many people do [because they have added-on the intellectual]. The idea of God is religion, the intellectualization of God [or whatever the religion's main thing happens to be].

When meditating and your mind has stilled, you are in that realm. You can call it whatever you wish. What you experience is not intellectual. Therefore, it cannot be explained in words. It is purely experiencial. Again, it would be like trying to explain to somebody [who has never] what falling in love is like. No words...only experience.

 

This is at least one area you lose me. I tend to agree with the person who has called you out for what you capitalize and what you don't, because when I see the word 'god' capitalized, to me that just screams buybull-thumping xtian of some flavor, who thinks we live one life to get wrong or right, and if we get it wrong by any one of millions of different ways, some as simple as having a scientifically curious mind, and questioning the orthodoxy of "priestly teachings", when in fact I don't think otherwise, I don't believe otherwise, I KNOW otherwise, because I have, for however brief a moment it was, been in the hereafter, and while there was taught many, many things, only a little bit of which I recall, at least so far.

Part of that is that we play this game of physical life (in our case in the here and now, as members of the homo sapiens species on a planet we call Earth in some uninteresting little solar system in the outer arms of a galaxy so big it takes 100,000 years at the speed of light to get from one side to the other. And that is just one of countless trillions of others that we can see, and we know there are countless trillions to the trillionth power more that we can't! All of which have countless uninteresting but inhabited solar systems, some by intelligent species, some by giant lizards.

So we bounce around, not just from life to life, but planet to planet, one part of the galaxy to a whole other one, where Dyson sphere's are so yesterday's news, and then off to live as some animal on a rock in a whole other galaxy or even an entirely different Universe, with an entire different program running the place (metaphorically speaking, natch), meaning rules of physics that would turn our scientific knowledge into sludge.

Why? Because Source wants to become more and more and more intellectual, to know everything there is to know, to experience everything that can be experienced. To be a slave in one life and a master in another, a King and a serf, and even a bug and some animal who swats at it.

It's not at all unlike teenagers playing video games, except this has a purpose.

What is this Source? Where did it come from? If that information is even known (or knowable), it was not shared with me, at least that I recall.

But the point is to increase intellect, not exist in the absence of it.

 

Remember, the non-intellectual is just a intellectual name for it. And they are not mutually exclusive.

I couldn't agree with your point more other than to add that it is critical to understand the limits of the intellect and its constantly changing nature. I use science all the time.

You might wish to view the spiritual [non-intellectual] world as complementary to the intellectual. You use your intellect for many practical things, but you also use the non-intellectual for very important things, as well. For example...

How do you believe it is possible to drive on a crowded interstate highway at 80+mph with other vehicles all around you? IOW, imagine the number of calculations necessary to figure out all the micro-adjustments you [and everybody else] are making to your vehicle's position/speed in real time [when there is a lag-time in perception]. Everybody is doing this at the same time [and keeping alive!].

I am not saying that it is the non-intellectual that is taking over, but this example points out that there are many things going on that we have zero clue about. The non-intellectual is one of them [by definition]. Everybody has experienced this [to some degree] when they become so involved in doing a task that time seems to disappear and an hour has gone by that feels like minutes. What exactly took place?

Stilling the mind allows a different type of "perception" that nobody can explain. It can only be experienced. It has nothing to do with discounting anything intellectual. It's different and has been around for thousands of years, so there's got to be something to it, no? The thing is that it takes a great deal of practice and perseverance to be able to do it. Quieting the mind is no easy task.

 

You just reiterated the problem in your first two sentences.

You want to differentiate your personal god as somehow special above all the gods that other people believe in or have believed in.

And, the idea that religions today are differentiated on the basis of intellect doesn't make any sense. I don't know of a significant religion that hasn't involved serious intellectual advancement.

I don't know of a religion that has a god that isn't accepted on faith. Do you?

 

I am curious; how do you ‘make’ someone a better person?

 

Why, by taking to heart the OP.

 

that's an easy one. you don't "make" someone a better person. the term "make" implies the use of force and forcing someone to take a positive step is counter-productive. you do "give someone the opportunity" to become a better person. you give them information. you lead by example, acting in what you perceive to be a "better" manner. you believe that they are capable of becoming something superior to the boorish animal that most humans exist as. you may pester, cajole or even insult in this pursuit, but it must always be with the understanding that they are at least capable of making wise decisions.

i must admit that i have almost entirely given up on such endeavors. as i read through even just this one thread i am reminded that most people are completely beyond true critical contemplation. most folks would rather scoff at those things they have never really given a chance. no, faith is a gift i have never been lucky enough to receive. i do, however, have a certain amount of respect for those who manage to retain such beliefs in the face of an uncaring world. no matter how pretentious they may seem, they do have information that may some day come in handy.

 

So rare to have somebody give others a look inside. Thank you for that.

It's easy to get caught up in all the social craziness and institutional lying going on, but most likely this airing out of our dirty laundry [and having folks expose themselves and their bizarre ideas] will lead to much better times ahead. We should be grateful that we live within a system that has a propensity for cleansing and self-renewal.

Helping people is simply being normal, staying even, and showing others that despite what's going on, you can still hold your center and move forward. Each individual is engaged in a lifelong battle, so don't allow their demons to become yours.

Having faith is simply believing in yourself 100%...that no matter which path you take, things will be fine. If you can keep your center, then you become like a passenger on a train looking out the window watching life go by moment after moment. Resist the temptation to get off the train and engage in all the craziness. This is where the suffering resides.

God is whatever people need Him to be. Knowing God is knowing all things. Knowing all things is knowing yourself. And knowing yourself has always been the goal.

 

There are many quasi definitions for God in this thread; if we can’t agree on a-definition it not only makes God difficult to discuss, but it also makes it difficult to discuss faith in the Context of God or science.

 

An easy one? What does better mean… pretty subjective, don’t you think. Can you, for instance make a psychopath a better psychopath?

 

how does one "define" a creator beyond the understanding of man? religions have been failing to define god for millennia, but still the myth exists.

perhaps you should do something about this total failure in reading comprehension. my very words were "you don't make someone a better person". taking this into account, you would not be "making" someone a better psychopath, you would be trying to give that psychopath the tools to become a better person.

as for what "better" is, that is a valid question. i, along with most reasonable people, would tend to take that in the spirit in which it seems to be presented. more humane, more empathetic, wiser (no, wisdom has nothing to do with academic achievement or the rigors of scientific endeavor), more understanding and less prone to those knee-jerk reactions that we use to promote ourselves at the expense of others. if all of this "subjective" mumbo-jumbo confuses you or makes you uncomfortable, then i would suggest you find a convenient rock to hide beneath. even our most objective observations are shaded by the subjective nature of our perceptions.