Does God really exist, in any shape or form ?

[Meno_]

Get on it please

[Meno_]

Pretend you were at death's door, and the answer needed to be made, in light of the urgency to know for sure where you were headed. Or, would you hold on as long as you can, in an effort to remain conscious until seeing some proof of what's ahead.

You would suffer the pains by refusing all meds that may undermines those efforts, as now it is standard protocol in hospice situations to overmedicate with drugs like oxycontin, phentanyl, and morphine to end it all.

It is , admittedly a hidden form of euthanasia not openly talked about, and at times when the patient is overruled by family who have lost interest, ( or funds) to sustain life support, this venture may come to an abrupt end.

Nevertheless, it would entail an interesting thought experiment, at the very least, especially to those, who have tried to fool around with efforts to remain conscious as long as possible.

Efforts to hold one's breath unruly auto erotic affixiation or some yogis practice reaches the ultimate limit.

Then, that limit may bring about some glimpse of what comes next.

[promethean75]

"I'm sorry, I don't understand the question" - gnome chomsky

[WendyDarling]

^Classic.

[Meno_]

"I'm sorry, I don't understand the question" - gnome chomsky

Sorry for that.

In terms of comprehending the relevant question of God's existence ; , could I or anyone, facing a terminal illness, think through the relative certainty , or the probeable assurance of heading toward a place where a beneficiant God exist?

[Meno_]

^Classic.

Classic what , Wendy?

[Gloominary]

This reminded me of that 1990 film Flatliners.

[Meno_]

Flateliners as a movie earned an F by most critics.

However flatlining may not give credit to an inquery of this sort, unless such endeavor is meant to fail. What will hapoen, as opposed to what certainly will, has always been a contentious effort, and the reflected movie is understandibly should consist of an inflected negative.

The failures if the movie didnt take away from what must be recorded .

[WendyDarling]

^Classic.

Classic what , Wendy?

Promethean75, duh.

[WendyDarling]

In Flatliners, the temporarily dead created their own Hells which will happen to the permanently dead too. A Hell loop, so you disbelievers can be rest assured that your stream of consciousness will continue, but you will judge yourself as either worthy of peace or hell. Just sayin...

[zinnat]

People often ask this question and try to get answers both for support and against it. But, I think that it is not the right question which should be asked before any other.

To me, it is like trying to solve the questions of calculus before knowing algebra completely.

So, instead of looking for the proofs of the existence of the god, the first question should be----

Whether anything exists beyond what we consider as physical reality or not.

If anything of that kind exists, then there may be some possibility of the existence of the god, otherwise it would be a futile exercise.

With love,
Sanjay

[Mowk]

The question and how it is phrased is troubling. Does god really exist, in any shape or form?

Sounds like it is already an assumption and their is question of it's corroboration? Not a question whether god exists at all. Shape and form are constituents of, not a refuge where it may still be hiding.

My guess if a god exists at all it can be found in all shape and form. Omnipresent and all that riff. Now whether or if anyone is looking there, is an entirely different question.

[zinnat]

The question and how it is phrased is troubling. Does god really exist, in any shape or form?

Sounds like it is already an assumption and their is question of it's corroboration? Not a question whether god exists at all. Shape and form are constituents of, not a refuge where it may still be hiding.

My guess if a god exists at all it can be found in all shape and form. Omnipresent and all that riff. Now whether or if anyone is looking there, is an entirely different question.

You may guess whatever you like, which may be true or not but you will never get a convincing answer, even philosophically whether god exists or not.

With love,
Sanjay

[Mowk]

Sanjay, Which is why I won't base a philosophy or a government or an economy on a god. Personal choice, what ever ritual is required of it. Just don't expect my participation. Don't print you trust in it on money. I don't. A god that would depend on "my" trust, how long is that going to last, a few more years or never.

I questioned the phrasing as indicative of motive.

What are you talking about?

[Pedro I Rengel]

It's a good point that the first question is "what is God?"

If we are ever to pretend to be philosophers or anything.

Augustine really got a lot of people confused. Because the Platonic or Aristotelian God is a trick, it is not really a God. It is just an idea, about ideas.

The Heaven Meno_ is pining for is not really a place, like Lethe, but the disembodied perfection about the idea about ideas that Plato had.

Plato was the first philosopher to sell his wares as religion.

It's so deeply dishonest that people still fall into it.

The idea of a god is a much more simple concept. And, unlike Plato, it refers to something other than an idea. (This is one of the things I have against Jung. He declares that Gods are ideas, as if he was discovering something in nature, or the psyche, which is part of nature, when what he is discovering is the old Socratic manipulation.)

But, being deeply dishonest, him and his cronies sold his idea that only refers to ideas as the actual essence of gods, which existed well before the rich philosphical tradition that allowed Plate to come up with his monstrosity. It's a mess.

What is God?

There shall you start, young philosopher.

That's also where Leibniz has a head on all his detractors, including in this board for sure. That is where Leibniz started. What is God?

[Pedro I Rengel]

Romans don't really have to wonder, because Romans feel God. But I don't know how it is with you pagans.

[Pedro I Rengel]

In reality, God has nothing to do with an afterlife. Well I mean there are Gods of the afterlife, and of death, but not in the way Meno_ means.

And it is a great slander against the Jewish religion that this is attributed to it.

God as the revealer of The True Nature Of Things As And In Afterlife is a Platonic innovation. And, again, it doesn't actually refer to God or a god.

Where do Moses or Abraham or any of the actual prophets even mention an afterlife? It is assumed in the Old Testament that this life, this reality, is it, is the thing. God is a God of this world. Because there is no this world, there is the world. Unless you are insane. The promise of Moses is of a promised land, in this Earth, for his people. Not some unplugging from the Matrix-type bullshit.

[zinnat]

What are you talking about?

I mean that we first try to find a answer whether something beyond normal physical reach can exist or not, not necessarily god. If we find something of that kind, at least philosophically, only then finding god would make some sense, otherwise not.

With love,
Sanjay

[Mowk]

I'm going to really try to say this without sounding like a bitch.

Sanjay, you are way ahead of me... Beyond normal physical reach?

Failing at making any sense of normal has me preoccupied.

[Destiny]

Get on it please

God is music they say. Waves are beyond physical.

[Silhouette]

I've shared proof that God categorically cannot exist several times over the years since I thought it up, most recently here (second half of the post):

1) God must be at least in part beyond human conception
(if God were wholly within human conception then He would be entirely mundane with no divinity and therefore not God)
2) Human conception is limited to that which is not in any part beyond human conception
3) All within human conception does not qualify as God

So we see that the essence of what makes God "God" is incompatible with human conception by definition.
All attempts by humans to posit "that which is beyond human conception" are within human conception so cannot bypass this internal contradiction.
Even something beyond human conception can only present itself to humans within human conception - any success here would reduce that something to being entirely within human conception and therefore no longer qualifying as God.
With any "God" only ever possibly presenting as "not God", even the initial human concept of God at all in the first place was a fallacious one, so even trying to make something fit it was necessarily never going to work, as is any imagination that there's ever going to be a point where humans can conceive beyond human conception and thus be able to have something that qualifies as God validly presented to us as God.

Just like proving there are no square circles, something as simple as "God doesn't exist" can be proven.

The question's closed.
Doesn't matter what illusions you can experience as you're about to die and your body is shutting down, along with its ability to experience reality.

[Gloominary]

This reminds me of Anselmo's ontological argument but backwards:

1) God must be at least in part beyond human conception
(if God were wholly within human conception then He would be entirely mundane with no divinity and therefore not God)
2) Human conception is limited to that which is not in any part beyond human conception
3) All within human conception does not qualify as God

Just throwing this out there:

1) The world must be at least in part beyond human conception
(if the world were wholly within human conception then it would be entirely representational with no reality and therefore not the world)
2) Human conception is limited to that which is not in any part beyond human conception
3) All within human conception does not qualify as the world

[WendyDarling]

Consciousness is not limited to the human or animal body. Consciousness is an ordered energy that exists beyond corporeal forms, ask Ecmandu.

[Silhouette]

This reminds me of Anselmo's ontological argument but backwards

Yeah it's a play on all the various Ontological Arguments.
It's a necessary consequence of them that all the authors seem to have overlooked.

I jokingly call my argument the "Epistemological Argument", because its crux is more a matter of Epistemology than Ontology.

Not sure what you're trying to imply with your substitutions of God with World.
Are you trying to say that the form of the argument can be used to prove the world doesn't exist?

When I'm being thorough I clarify how this specifically applies to internally contradictory (supposed) "beings", and not things that could potentially be verified to exist somewhere. Some things, given that they aren't internally contradictory, could exist. God, being internally contradictory in accordance with my argument, cannot exist anywhere.

If you're referring to the world in the "noumenal" sense, as in beyond the phenomenalogical, then sure - by definition, being beyond any ability to directly affirm it, it can't be said to exist. But the world, insofar as it can be verified in some way, can be said to exist - and the form of my disproof of God wouldn't apply to that.

[Gloominary]

This reminds me of Anselmo's ontological argument but backwards

Yeah it's a play on all the various Ontological Arguments.
It's a necessary consequence of them that all the authors seem to have overlooked.

I jokingly call my argument the "Epistemological Argument", because its crux is more a matter of Epistemology than Ontology.

Not sure what you're trying to imply with your substitutions of God with World.
Are you trying to say that the form of the argument can be used to prove the world doesn't exist?

When I'm being thorough I clarify how this specifically applies to internally contradictory (supposed) "beings", and not things that could potentially be verified to exist somewhere. Some things, given that they aren't internally contradictory, could exist. God, being internally contradictory in accordance with my argument, cannot exist anywhere.

If you're referring to the world in the "noumenal" sense, as in beyond the phenomenalogical, then sure - by definition, being beyond any ability to directly affirm it, it can't be said to exist. But the world, insofar as it can be verified in some way, can be said to exist - and the form of my disproof of God wouldn't apply to that.

You got the gist of what I was trying to say.
Putting noumenon/phenomenon aside, what makes God impossible for man to comprehend?
Is it our unfamiliarity with God?
Is it God's vastness?
Is it God's complexity?
Thing is, all these three qualities, unfamiliarity, vastness and complexity applies to everything in degrees.
God by definition may be (one of) the most unfamiliar, vast or complex things, but all things are more unfamiliar, vast and complex than we can comprehend, but does that mean we cannot know them at all or sufficiently?

A pencil isn't just a solid, cylindrical object you can write with, it is a world unto itself.
There's more going on inside of it and its relationships with the cosmos than you could ever comprehend in a million life times.
Since you can't even begin to comprehend a pencil in its entirety, does that mean you cannot know it at all or sufficiently?
What you can comprehend about a pencil alone, could not be used to design a pencil, I mean design it molecule by molecule, does that mean the pencil is essentially unknowable to you, and so beyond your ability to affirm its existence?