Welcome home! Please contact lincoln@icrontic.com if you have any difficulty logging in or using the site. New registrations must be manually approved which may take several days. Can't log in? Try clearing your browser's cookies.
How can we know "God" exists?
DaftChris
Spiritually conflicted. Not of this world. Veteran
As some of you might know, I'm an Agnostic who draws inspiration from many faiths and philosophies. Primarily Buddhism, Hinduism and Paganism. Still, one of the biggest difficulties I have is the notion of "God".
How do you view God? As a literal metaphysical being in the sky? As a state of being? As a force that transcends all? Not literally real, but a symbol that points to something beyond what we can comprehend?
Is there any evidence for God? Scientific, anecdotal or otherwise?
I want to believe that there is something. I certainly have a spiritual heart, but I also have a skeptics mind
How do you view God? As a literal metaphysical being in the sky? As a state of being? As a force that transcends all? Not literally real, but a symbol that points to something beyond what we can comprehend?
Is there any evidence for God? Scientific, anecdotal or otherwise?
I want to believe that there is something. I certainly have a spiritual heart, but I also have a skeptics mind
0
Comments
It's the Great Ocean.
The Father (God) is Emptiness/Mind; the Son is the Transformation Body (Human Form); the Holy Spirit is Buddha-Nature, which is God manifesting in Human Form... which applies equally to Buddha and Jesus. That's one way to look at it anyway!
If you wonder why sins are really against God, it's because they are against us, not simply because they were arbitrarily decided. They are life harming life, no true "self" and "other" (just "us"), and so these acts are delusion-based and separate us from our true unified reality. If we embraced our true nature, the Holy Spirit or Buddha-Nature, these issues would resolve themselves! Again that goes with the other perspective of Mind/Emptiness = God you'd have to accept first.
I'm not saying that it's true or that it's verifiable, but what exactly do you mean by anecdotal that's not one of those things?
And as far as science goes, particle physicists are busy trying to prove that there is a "God particle" with kasmillionbillion dollar machines in underground laboritories in a few different spots in the world.
A lot of people (Christians) say that to just look outside is evidence of God, but that is really just a creationists point of view. Some say they experience Miracles, but as I stated earlier I think this is just using God as an answer to things we just can't explain yet.
If you want to believe in something spiritual Buddhism has plenty of stuff that is contrary to a physicalist philosophy. The notion of a mental continuation beyond a single life or the idea of karma that goes along with that. Not that all Buddhists believe that way but its there.
Reason #1: According to the texts, a beginning point to samsara (literally 'wandering on') isn't evident (SN 15.3). This can be interpreted two ways — that a beginning point to the continual cycle of death and rebirth of beings isn't evident, or that a beginning point to the continual cycle of death and rebirth of the conceit 'I am,' the self-identification that designates a being (satta), isn't evident — and they're not mutually exclusive. Either way, the point is the same: all that really matters in the here and now is whether suffering is present, and if so, how it can be overcome.
Reason #2: I think it's safe to say that Buddhism is essentially non-theistic in view. However, I also happen to be of the opinion that, if we dig a bit deeper, the idea of a creator God is incompatible with certain aspects and teachings that, if taken to their logical conclusion, seem to reject the idea of, or a need for, a creator God. For one thing, the logic of dependent co-arising, while primarily concerned with the psychological process by which suffering arises in the mind, negates the idea of a creator God in that it precludes a first cause or a causeless cause when applied to cosmology.
Then there's this famous problem of evil passage from the Bhuridatta Jataka (although, to be fair, this is most likely a later addition that some date to the 13th century): At best, God would have be more like the impassive and impersonal God of Aristotle, existing outside of time and space, to find a place within Buddhist cosmology; and anything existing outside of time and space would logically be completely static, meaning that God would be an undynamic being if God exists at all. Since everything within the range of our experience (i.e., within space and time) is subject to change, however, it's more logical to conclude that everything within our realm of experience is impermanent, meaning that for God to able to interact with our universe, God would also be temporal and subject to illness, aging and death just like every other being, hence not God.
In addition, according to AN 3.61, the belief in a supreme being can be unskillful and interfere with Dhamma practice if it leads to the belief that everything a person experiences is due to such a supreme being, a denial of the efficacy of kamma (literally 'action') and a life of inaction: Reason #3: In relation to the four noble truths and the practice of the noble eightfold path, the matter of the existence of God is, soteriologically speaking, unnecessary. The impetus of the practice is a strong conviction in the efficacy of actions and the intentions underlying them, not the existence of a supreme being (e.g., see MN 61).
Of course, this doesn't mean that people can't believe in God and still practice the Dhamma, especially some of its more contemplative aspects; but it does mean that, at the very least, such views can negatively impact the practice when held inappropriately. Moreover, it's my opinion that attempting to insert a Judeo-Christian type of God into Buddhism, or interpreting Buddhism proper through the lense of theism, would do violence to the entire spiritual and philosophical tradition. It'd be like trying to fit a square peg into a round hole, and would do a serious disservice to the Buddha's teachings, which are geared towards reshaping our experience of the present in ways that limit and even eliminate suffering.
Your mileage may vary, however.
As for the nickname 'the God Particle,' it was given to the Higgs boson by physicist Leon M. Lederman in his book The God Particle: If the Universe Is the Answer, What Is the Question? because the particle is "so central to the state of physics today, so crucial to our final understanding of the structure of matter, yet so elusive." However, he originally called it 'the Goddamn Particle,' but changed it because the publisher wouldn't let him and his co-author call it that. Unfortunately, this nickname has engendered a great deal of confusion about what the particle is and what it actually proves.
I do believe in a God, but not in the same sense as most Christians do. I've sometimes given the analogy of having a field outside your house, and one day you wake up and discover piles of boards, 2X4s, shingles, panes of glass, nails, bricks, bags of cement, and so forth. Would those piles and boxes of materials be a house? No. Someone still has to construct the house.
Back at university, in my studies of invertebrate paleontology, we learned about Stanley Miller's early tests where he took the substances that make up living things, essentially electrified the materials, and ended up with amino acids -- the building blocks of life. But it always bothered me that via evolution the first life form -- blue-green algae in the form of oceanic stromatolites would have haphazardly evolved over time into the iris of my eye, my heart, my brain. Too much of a mere coincidence to me.
But I also see no evidence that a God behaves in the way that most Christians feel "he" does. That he knows what we are thinking. That he decides all the important aspects of our lives. At best I feel we are created and then it's pretty much up to us what we do with our lives.
"One who sees the Dhamma sees the Tathagatha. One who sees the Tathagatha sees the Dhamma.
One who sees not the Dhamma, though grasping at the robe of the Tathagatha, cannot be said to have seen the Tathagatha. "
Dhamma is the "Buddhist" God.
It is a profound and hidden power, which is neither human being, nor celestial being, nor any other kind of being.
It has no individuality or self, and it is impersonal.
It is natural and intangible.
It is what we call the Law of Nature, for this Law is responsible
for creation and for the coming into existence of all beings..
Natural Law governs all things.
Natural Law has power over all things.
Extracted from "Two kinds of language: Everyday language and
Dhamma language " by Bh Buddhadasa
The final barrier to finding God is the word “God” itself and the concept of God.”
"Whether or not there is the arising of Tathagatas, this property stands — this steadfastness of the Dhamma, this orderliness of the Dhamma: All phenomena are not-self.
"The Tathagata directly awakens to that, breaks through to that. Directly awakening & breaking through to that, he declares it, teaches it, describes it, sets it forth. He reveals it, explains it, & makes it plain: All phenomena are not-self."
Dhamma-niyama Sutta: The Discourse on the Orderliness of the Dhamma
(Correct me if I'm wrong) The Buddha said that worrying about gods is not something we should be doing in this life.
You see I have to refer to something other than the contents of my own mind IE that which goes by another name. bleh
"I searched for God among the Christians and on the Cross and therein I found Him not.
I went into the ancient temples of idolatry; no trace of Him was there.
I entered the mountain cave of Hira and then went as far as Qandhar but God I found not.
With set purpose I fared to the summit of Mount Caucasus and found there only 'anqa's habitation.
Then I directed my search to the Kaaba, the resort of old and young; God was not there even.
Turning to philosophy I inquired about him from ibn Sina but found Him not within his range.
I fared then to the scene of the Prophet's experience of a great divine manifestation only a "two bow-lengths' distance from him" but God was not there even in that exalted court.
Finally, I looked into my own heart and there I saw Him; He was nowhere else."
"These words are for the sake of those who need words to understand. But as for those who understand without words, what use have they for speech? The heavens and earth are words to them, sent forth themselves from the Word of God. Whoever hears a whisper, what need have they for shouting and screaming?"
I think that if you want proof that you just have to look hard enough and you'll find it. Maybe it won't be scientific proof, I think the experience of God is subjective, but it's there if you want to see it.
The slant or emphasis that people (or traditions/religions) put on this Great Ocean differs. If you say "Emptiness" you likely envision it's completely selfless, "Mind" can mean both... either selfless or ultimate changing-self, and "God" or "Brahman" is mostly taken as an ultimate changing-self. No matter how you view it, this doesn't mean that we are or have "mini-selves"... nothing is apart from or "other than" the Ocean. If one takes Buddha-Nature to mean "true self", it's this Ocean that it's speaking of that is beyond self/other duality, not an "individual" true self.
We are just waves of the Great Ocean, meaning that the Great Ocean is "waving"... not things, not selves, just the Ocean.
People are attach to signs.
Because the reality is impossible to capture, encapsulate.
Many mystics get to this point and they recognize that any external projection of Other is their projection, thus filtering a pure perception of God.
Breaking such perception brings non dual union and the heart recognizes god as all things. This is pure gnosis.
Not really a Buddhist thought, but it common to hear and see in people who have recognized God in their hearts.
Of course that is a big fuck you to intellectualism and any rational thought. But heres the thing any intelligent person will come to the conclusion that mental objects are just mental objects. We can hope?
Buddha's and Bodhisattva's fit the description perfectly of beings who provide help and protection where they can to all beings without exception rather then attributing it to a creator who also created our experience of suffering.
:clap:
Can you tell me what is the name of sutra this scripture came from?
Thanks,
What of the Theotokos (Mother of God), Saints, and Angels? All are regarders of the cries of the world. However, neither they or the Buddha's and Bodhisattva's can help the unwilling.
Also, are the Buddha's and Bodhisattva's just aspects of one's mind, or are they beings with the capacity to help?
Neither mind, nor beings.
Dependently arisen due to the whole universe of causes and conditions.
The spontaneous activity of all, traceless activity!
Oh my, oh my!!
Can you tell me what is the name of sutra this scripture came from?
Thanks,
Not sure where that exact quote is from off the top of my head; but variants like it can be found throughout the Pali Canon. For example, SN 22.87: Another variant in relation to dependent co-arising can be found at MN 28: "Whoever sees dependent co-arising sees the Dhamma; whoever sees the Dhamma sees dependent co-arising."
“Live a good life. If there are gods and they are just, then they will not care how devout you have been, but will welcome you based on the virtues you have lived by. If there are gods, but unjust, then you should not want to worship them. If there are no gods, then you will be gone, but will have lived a noble life that will live on in the memories of your loved ones.”
― Unkown, misattributed to Marcus Aurelius
Relatively mind and being, but ultimately neither. :-)
Form is not negated, but would be seen as evidence of emptiness. Form is emptiness, emptiness is not other than form. Things truly exist, but we are mistaken in how we are conditioned to see they exist-Dependent Origination.