Proofs for existence of God

[Vajradhara]

actually.. that rather strange statement was coined by Renee Descartes, the french philosopher.


from our point of view, of course, what this statement clearly demonstrates is that Mr. Descartes was not able to get past his ego barrier and thus, in his final analysis, he concludes that the propert of "thinking" can only be applied to a self.

of course, in the Buddhist analysis of consciousness, this is a major obstacle to overcome and... not to put too fine a point on it, it is a significant accomplishment on the journey to the Other Shore should the concept of a self be resolved.

of course... this has nothing to do with any God whatsoever... so... i'll stop derailing the thread!

metta,

~v

[Proph 1]

Originally Posted by Vajradhara

actually.. that rather strange statement was coined by Renee Descartes, the french philosopher.


from our point of view, of course, what this statement clearly demonstrates is that Mr. Descartes was not able to get past his ego barrier and thus, in his final analysis, he concludes that the propert of "thinking" can only be applied to a self.

of course, in the Buddhist analysis of consciousness, this is a major obstacle to overcome and... not to put too fine a point on it, it is a significant accomplishment on the journey to the Other Shore should the concept of a self be resolved.

of course... this has nothing to do with any God whatsoever... so... i'll stop derailing the thread!

metta,

~v

LOL. We're all being Philosophical and its great. We're all thinking very deep thoughts that I personally find cool and not to mention, intelectually stimulating. What I find funny though, is the irony in all of this. We're all talking about if we exist or not, and qouting from famous philosphers; whom we all heard of subsequentally. And yet, we still cant agree that we exist.

Go figure!

[InLove]

Hello, Peace to All, Namaste--

No one "derailed" this thread. It was predestined.

God Bless, Metta,

InPeace,
InLove

[Quahom1]

Originally Posted by Proph 1

LOL. We're all being Philosophical and its great. We're all thinking very deep thoughts that I personally find cool and not to mention, intelectually stimulating. What I find funny though, is the irony in all of this. We're all talking about if we exist or not, and qouting from famous philosphers; whom we all heard of subsequentally. And yet, we still cant agree that we exist.

Go figure!

I exist. I said so, and God confirmed it, therefore that settles it. If the rest of you are "ghosts" you managed to "impress" onto the keyboards in front of you, your words pretty well...

v/r

Q

sha boom sha boom, life is but a dream...

[Proph 1]

sha boom sha boom, life is but a dream...

Hey, Im a young dude, brough up in the hip hop generation. But, I like that song. La la la lalala

[Bandit]

Originally Posted by InLove

Hello, Peace to All, Namaste--

No one "derailed" this thread. It was predestined.

God Bless, Metta,

InPeace,
InLove

LOL it is like taking candy from a kid...so i just let them have there candy .

[Bandit]

Originally Posted by Quahom1

I exist. I said so, and God confirmed it, therefore that settles it. If the rest of you are "ghosts" you managed to "impress" onto the keyboards in front of you, your words pretty well...

v/r

Q

sha boom sha boom, life is but a dream...

i agree. because God said so & i said so too.
let the church say AMEN!
end of discussion.

[Awaiting_the_fifth]

Originally Posted by Proph 1

Understand that just thinking requires existence. One cannot think if he does not exist. Still, we exist and ask "what is the sound of one hand clapping," or the proverbal question, "Who came first the chicken or the egg." Yet in all the awe of philosophical thinking, we forget the obvious:

"I think, therefore I am."

Quite true, but this only proves that I exist, because I am the only person who I know for sure is thinking, the actions of everyone else may be all in my head.

So you can prove to yourself that you exist but can you prove to me that you exist?

[Proph 1]

Quite true, but this only proves that I exist, because I am the only person who I know for sure is thinking, the actions of everyone else may be all in my head. So you can prove to yourself that you exist but can you prove to me that you exist?

Interesting! Yet, I imagine that if I exist in your head, I may or may not be real. But, I exist nonetheless.

[Awaiting_the_fifth]

quite true, I make a simillar point in my thread on the philosophy section - "Mickey mouse exists! Do you?"

Which very few people have commented on. Im a bit dissapointed about that, I thought it was a really good thread.

[presser_kun]

Originally Posted by Awaiting_the_fifth

quite true, I make a simillar point in my thread on the philosophy section - "Mickey mouse exists! Do you?"

Which very few people have commented on. Im a bit dissapointed about that, I thought it was a really good thread.

I saw that thread, thought it was good, and filed it away in my mind (which thinks that I'm real) for futture enjoyment.

As to the subject at hand, I'll add a bit, though it doesn't go very far toward the goal of proving one's existence to another.

* * *

I think, therefore I am. To me, but not to you.

You think, therefore you am. To you, but not to me.

But if you choose to think that I am, then I am to you.

For example, I believe that all posters to this thread exist. To me, you're real people. I see no evidence of ghosts or monkeys among us. Of course, I can't prove or disprove that.

It's a matter of -- of --

*has trouble bringing himself to say it*

-- of faith.

So. I can't prove to you that I exist, but you can choose to believe that I do.

Those of us who want proof will have to go without.

*sheepish grin*

And this, after all that earnest angst I spewed over the thread earlier.

*sigh*

Guess I fit nicely into that all-too-human category of paradox. Someone said (wish I could remember who) that one of the things unique about humans is our ability to simulatneously hold true two contradictory beliefs.

This is fun, though.

Three cheers for paradox!

[Awaiting_the_fifth]

Good point Mr Kun,

I too believe that all these posters exist, I believe that they are real people because even though I cannot prove it, I do have some compelling evidence of their existence.

Which is the soundest reason I have yet heard to believe in God. It cannot be proven that he exists but there is some compelling evidence.

There is no more reason to believe in God then their is to believe in man.

Damn, I think I just proved myself wrong.

[Vajradhara]

Namaste all,


the salient question, here, is what, precisely, defines "self" or this elusive "i" that beings think that they are?

without some sort of working understanding of what we all mean by this term, we may actually all be saying the same thing! who would know?!

in the Buddhist view, the concept of self is called Atman. Atman is a Sanskrit term and has several nuanced meanings. typically, the term is meant to denote the existence of an unchanging, permenantly existing from its own side, self-sufficient entity.

so... how do you folks define "self"?

metta,

~v

[presser_kun]

Originally Posted by Vajradhara

so... how do you folks define "self"?

This may sound simplistic, but I think of my "self" as the part of me that does the thinking.

[earl]

Originally Posted by Vajradhara

Namaste all,


the salient question, here, is what, precisely, defines "self" or this elusive "i" that beings think that they are?

without some sort of working understanding of what we all mean by this term, we may actually all be saying the same thing! who would know?!

in the Buddhist view, the concept of self is called Atman. Atman is a Sanskrit term and has several nuanced meanings. typically, the term is meant to denote the existence of an unchanging, permenantly existing from its own side, self-sufficient entity.

so... how do you folks define "self"?

metta,

~v

Yes, indeed, wonderful question. The questions "what is self; what is God?" though seemingly related are in my opinion interrelated questions which like koans can occupy someone on a path for a lifetime. My understanding of most monotheistic religions is the basic notion that one is not an independent, "self"-sufficient entity. Rather, 1 is entirely "dependent" upon, has 1's being in "God" whether realized ot not. The traditional mystical Christian paths such as hesychasm were all about kenosis-emptying oneself of whatever was "not God" to allow one's being to be a vessel to receive/know-gnosis. In essence to "de-self." As with Eckhart, if fully achieved, 1 then knows "all is God, all is in God." Eckhart was apophatic and, of course, would ask one to consider what "God" without attributes might be-wonderful koan: the Old Testament"s "I Am," that was God. Buddhists seek to explore "from the inside" what is "self" and like peeling the layers of an onion find that core of sunyata-"emptiness;" without oermanent, self-sufficient attributes-what I loosely call a personal form of apophaticism. To some degree those seemingly different approaches might then at points overlap to ask the overall question from Zen tradition: all things reduce to the One, what is the One?" Take care, Earl