Fadl

We've discussed the existence and non-existence of God in this forum before, but recently I had an interesting realization about the matter.


In many ways, God is not unlike the concept of zero. People can argue about the properties of zero and whether or not zero actually exists or not, but you can never set it aside and do without it. Disagree about the essence or nature of zero if you will, but without it, the foundations of mathematics crumble. Similarly, we may disagree about the nature or essence of God, existent, non-existent, but without God, the foundations of human society crumble and deteriorate. For example, if we should deny the concept of "God-given rights" then we settle for the concept of self-given, man-given, or government-given rights, the flaws and dangers of which are self-evident.

Timothy248

Wow, this is an amazing and mathematically beautiful way to understand the concept of god .

Napkin

Who argues the existence of zero? I hope this thread is a joke

Lunitik

God is beyond the concept of existence and non-existence.

Without duality, what can possibility be said to exist? Yet God is absolute oneness, like your concept of zero because it does not correspond to 1 or 2 or 3, -1 or -2 or -3. All of reality emanates from this "primal point", and the duality is necessary to experience the complexity of reality, yet a perfect balance must always be kept overall - else God gains an attribute, is no more absolute.

Love is the merging of opposites, of -1 and 1, a return to zero. It is also the merging of object and subject, of hot and cold, of seen and seer, of heard and hearer, everything we take as distinct is actually one in reality.

Of course, we will no more take ourselves as something distinct, for seeing this truth we know it is only the love of the process we call our life which gives us a notion of "I", but this feeling is dependent wholly on all around us, we are not independent of anything.

All is simply love.

Jak08

Perhaps my knowledge of the hindic numeral system is completely wrong here, but the numeral 0 doesn't represent anything truly tangible. It doesn't exist. It exists as a placeholder for notation. The history of various numerical systems is fascinating If you get bored some evening I truly suggest you look into some of them. Great way to kill several days thoroughly researching something that isn't practical.

Pete in Panama

That would be like asking what color is zero because existence and color are simply not relevant properties. I like math though, it's NEAT! If we really want a mind bender then we should talk about imaginary numbers, like √-1.

Back on topic. Logically, God doesn't exist, and saying He exists is like saying zero is 'blue'. I mean, you can if you want but it's a bit childlike.

Pete in Panama

You beat me to it; you must have a turbo-charged keyboard or something...

Fadl

Nicely said, my brother.

Yes indeed, "God exists" or "God does not exist" are really equivocal statements, and God is beyond any attribution including singularity and plurality which can be found in our writings as well as all the beautiful names and attributions that we have despite it.

PS, it is good to see you back. We've sure missed you!

Fadl

Good points, Pete.

It gets wonderfully more confusing the deeper it gets! And despite the fact that God is above any attribution whatsoever, it is good for our souls to attribute God with the most beautiful names and qualities, so long as we keep these words of Baha'u'llah in mind when we do it:

“He, the Divine Being, hath been veiled in the ineffable sanctity of His exalted Self, and will everlasting continue to be wrapt in the impenetrable mystery of His unknowable Essence… Ten thousand Prophets, each a Moses, are thunderstruck upon the Sinai of their search at God’s forbidding voice, ‘Thou shalt never behold Me!’; whilst a myriad Messengers, each as great as Jesus, stand dismayed upon their heavenly thrones by the interdiction ‘Mine Essence thou shalt never apprehend!’” “How bewildering to me, insignificant as I am,” Bahá’u’lláh in His communion with God affirms, “is the attempt to fathom the sacred depths of Thy knowledge! How futile my efforts to visualize the magnitude of the power inherent in Thine handiwork—the revelation of Thy creative power!” “When I contemplate, O my God, the relationship that bindeth me to Thee,” He, in yet another prayer revealed in His own handwriting, testifies, “I am moved to proclaim to all created things ‘verily I am God!’; and when I consider my own self, lo, I find it coarser than clay!” (The World Order of Baha'u'llah, p. 37)

LordOfGoblins

nice to see you again...

LordOfGoblins

Not a fan of the 'god doesnt exist' and 'god exists' mentality...
sorry...

my equivelevent to the notion that God doesnt exist would be his name 'the unseen' or 'the hidden'...
check out the long healing prayers for all the names Baha'u'llah attributes to God. Each name we should be able to find a sign for in creation or in his way of dealing with us...

------
....
I call on Thee O Glory, O Beauty, O Bountiful One!
I call on Thee O the Most Trusted, O the Best Lover, O Lord of the Dawn!
I call on Thee O Enkindler, O Brightener, O Bringer of Delight!
I call on Thee O Lord of Bounty, O Most Compassionate, O Most Merciful One!
I call on Thee O Constant One, O Life-giving One, O Source of all Being!
I call on Thee O Thou Who penetratest all things, O All-Seeing God, O Lord of Utterance!
I call on Thee O Manifest yet Hidden, O Unseen yet Renowned, O Onlooker sought by all!
I call on Thee O Thou Who slayest the Lovers, O God of Grace to the wicked!
...
--------------
I love that prayer..

ahanu

We can say what God is not, so is it childlike to state God does not lack intelligence? God is not imperfect, so God must be perfect. Follow Abdu'l-Baha's logic here:

Therefore, to me, saying God does not exist is like saying, "imperfections do not exist," for without God's existence, without the existence of perfection, how can we have imperfection in this world?

Fadl

Denying God's existence is merely denying that God is in anyway part of his creation (existence) and that God is neither composite nor reducible. Basically, anything that exists can be reduced to fundamental particles and waves. If you want to say God exists, then its suggests that, like all existent things, that God is in someway composite of some sort of particles and waves as is all existence.

If you say that God is not composed of anything, (particles, waves) then God is essentially not existent, unless you hold that He is existent in abstract, like zero.

ahanu

I see your point. To say that It is nonexistent merely states It--the Essence of God--does not exist at this level of reality, but, to me, that means your saying "God does not exist" is a half-truth, depending on what perspective you take. I think your view is correct, but I simply just like the other view.

For example, assume I have the technology to build a virtual reality that is indistinguishable from reality. I am something like a godlike creator. The beings inside debate whether or not I exist. Some say I am nonexistent, yet others say I exist. None can look at the virtual reality from the outside and say what it is like "out there." To me, both views are correct. I just have a preference.

Fadl

I prefer to say "there is God" and "God is, such and such" the same as you do, but I do so realizing this far short of reality when I do it.

I like conceding "there is no God" when I talk to atheists, which diffuses a great deal since, that's kind of what they are saying, and they are largely correct. ;-) Atheists and I both agree that any sort of God that is in any way material or part of this universe can't withstand the scrutiny of even basic logic and simply doesn't exist. Where we part, is I believe in the possibility of a God who transcends any sort of material existence whatsoever and has an abstract and spiritual reality beyond comprehension.

Lunitik

Science concedes there is no such thing as matter, which any true seeker of truth will come to realize. Spirituality is a concept which is opposite matter, it references the space in which matter does not even apparently exist - for it means "breath" or "wind". There are many devices which are intended to bring us into this space, but God is still an idea, and you will not encounter a correlation to any imaginings you may have. God is only a word, and what is the result of seeking truth is not a word at all, it is a direct experience of infinity, eternity, our true nature.

In this, every cell in existence is experienced as ecstatic - not only the cells in our own body, and indeed there is no sense we are limited to any body. This completeness, without any separation or distinction, lack of other entirely, this is oneness, and nothing else is referred to when I say we are love. This is union, but only perceived as such because we have believed there is division. We are each an incarnation of God, for there is nothing but God in truth - where God is Love (1 John 4:8)

All that does not look like love, whether hate or fear or whatever, it is only love along with some misunderstanding. It is love for subjective reality, what we say as "me". It is an attempt to protect this sense of separateness, and without overcoming this sense it is impossible to truly overcome these negative arisings. All positive arisings are also just the manifestation of love, of union, whether happiness, joy, peace, whatsoever it is. When love is truly understood, when we bring this love to its peaks, when distinction utterly leaves us, bliss is our natural state. Even in every day life though, what we consider as feeling "normal" is actually love, just as there is no overpowering sensation when we are around our parents or children. Still love is there, we just take it for granted because we have not known its lack.

LordOfGoblins

but doesnt love make you very vulnerable?
In my experience it does.
Can you love a girl without becoming very vulnerable to her?
Thats why they say love is pain.
If there is an arrow sticking from your back you are sensitive to the arrow and the arrow rules over you. The arrow of love is a devestating thing.

LordOfGoblins

why does something have to be a particle or wave to fall into the category of existance?
Is the holy spirit a particle or wave?
Is the kingdom of Abha a particle or wave?

You are interpreting the word anything to be a physical meaning.
But cant things be outside the materail realm? Like spiritual things?

ahanu

Why does it have to be "outside" the material realm? How about "outside" the material realm as we know it?

LordOfGoblins

who knows. I dont know how many dimensions god has made. THere is the spiritual dimension the material dimension etc. Baha'u'llah uses the word "WORLDS OF GOD" as an equivilent to my word is "Dimensions".
The dream world is an example of a world of God. But isnt it like a dimension as well?
It doesnt exist inside the material dimension per say but most certainly it exists otherwise you cant enter it!

Anis

The answer is simple, of course God exists. Why? Because He is the Divine Origin and we are the created. And if no such origin were to exist, then the creation would be able to create itself; the physical existence would be random and the quantum most particles would lawlessly appear from vacuum. Which is not true, evidently the forces are conserved.

Yeshua

Brother Fadl

You might be interested to know that there is a tradition of what is known by academics as "mystical atheism" in Catholic mysticism. Obviously, ordinary lay Catholics don't often think of it in this way but scholars do, A Buddhist online friend once asked me to explain it to him. He said:


The modern Catholic mystic (and convert from Atheism), Simone Weil (brought up in a secular Jewish family), explained thus:



Hence why Saint Edith Stein, a Catholic martyr of the Holocaust who died in a concentration camp because of her Jewish ethnicity (she converted from Judaism to Catholicism after a wander into agnosticism), once said about her mentor from her atheist days:



If Arthra joins this thread he will likely tell me off ( ) however I think that this will genuinely be of interest to you, so I'm going to plough ahead anyway like I haven't done in a long time:


God has always been creating, always "birthing" beyond all time in the Eternal Now. He sits on a maternity bed ceaselessly giving birth, says Eckhart, for all eternity. It is not a time-bound historical event ie there was "no universe" and then God decided one day, "oh, lets create the world!".

That is not God as known by the mystics. God is impasssible, unchanging and unconditioned and does not exist, he is "Nothing":



In fact Sam Harris, the famed atheist neuroscientist, admitted last year that he enjoys reading Catholic mystics and actuually "gets" them:


God is one unchangeable, eternal act. All language attributing human characteristics to God - such as "anger", "happiness", "joy", "sadness" etc. - is all analogies for our benefit. In fact they are projections - illusions - that we foist upon God so as to try and bring him down to the human level. This is natural however it can lead to extreme error because in a sense it can be a subtle and well-meaning form of idolatry, since we make up in our own minds a God we can imagine and thereby lose the reality of God, which is far above and beyond all thought, forms and is ineffable, inexpressible and infinite.

Dionysius the Areopagite perhaps explained it best:


I think there is a kinship between these Catholic mystics and Buddhist philosophers such as Nagarjuna:

Yeshua

This too:

Fadl

Love it.

Lunitik

The type of love I am speaking of should not be something projected onto any object...

Certainly, it makes you utterly vulnerable, but are you ever really trusting life or God or existence if you do not ever permit vulnerability?

Love is certainly pain if it is projected onto something which is not permanent, I have already said this is not the type of love I am speaking of though.

The Bible says God is love, the Vedas say Love is God, Buddha speaks of nothing but finding the truth of love, Baha'u'llah's time around Sufi's has created of him a lover... religion itself IS love.

The Seven Valleys speaks of lover and beloved ceasing to be two, this is the whole point of religion, to cease the appearance of separation with existence itself. Love alone remains, we are love itself.

Lunitik

This is a very logical conclusion, yet we ignore the question of who created God. This creates a logical conundrum, for we can go back infinitely saying this created that, and never arrive at any end.

The Catholics say we are co-creators, it is because we are conscious, and consciousness itself is the creative power - creativity being the transcendence of creator and created which is just another duality.

Buddhism tells us all is interdependent, and that there was never a beginning at all, all things come about by cause and effect, but without each and every cause the current effects which are our present existence would be impossible. Now, we can say God is the original cause, but no belief system which claims belief in God can explain why such evil is in the world. If God created everything, we must conclude just by looking about this planet that this God is at best incompetent. Instead, it is better to recognize we are creating our reality, and thus have the power to correct what is wrong. The very fact religions teach ethics and good will show that God can't do anything for us, cannot force us to behave a certain way, and as such the responsibility moves to us, we cannot put it off on some super natural entity.

The Hindus tell us "Ahem brahmasmi", it means "I am God", each one of us is That, is manifest Brahman. One of the most famous Sufi's, Al Hallaj, has claimed "I am truth", the ramifications are the same. This truth is what Baha'u'llah goes on saying should not be uttered, for surely anyone that does will be crucified, etc... yet the point is the same, Jesus' statement "I and my father are one" is the truth of each one of us, but believing ourselves something less, we ensure we never encounter it for ourselves. This is also the truth of the Muslim Tawhid, but no part can be the whole, no form can contain the whole existence. What is misunderstood here is that the mystics do not claim the body is exclusively God, the consciousness in which the form arises is God, and this is what all the religious founders have realized. This totality of consciousness is the mind which was in Christ.

The path to this truth has always been love, whether an indirect understanding through Jnana Yoga, direct encountering through meditation, encountering it through selflessness in service to humanity, or the path of the Baha'is which is through devotion. Each of these arrives at the same point, the realization that all is one, and the nature of that oneness is love. Love caused the initial division which started the Big Bang of science, and love is the force of attraction bringing all things back together, and yet also the force which divides when we come to love separation too. It is only a misunderstanding which causes division, we have only limited our love through identification. This is the very nature of ego or arrogance, seeing this presence we experience as subjectivity is utterly dependent on objectivity, seeing these are an illusion, oneness is understood. Each of us has only ever been the observer of what has arisen during what we call life, this particular play in consciousness.

Lunitik

The nature of the first division was the desire in consciousness to know itself... humans are special - at least on this world - because we are the only instances of consciousness here which can realize that intent. Obviously, oneness cannot look on itself, and so something had to be done... the answer is clear: other must be present for observation to happen. Without other, experiencing as such is impossible, and so what we call the universe came to be.

Lunitik

Many will say God is uncreated, fine, but if something so awesome as God need not be created, what is the need of a creator for anything else?

People will cite the power of God, and thus think this explains how he came to be without being created, fine, but for that power to be so, God must already be. If God didn't exist, how can he already have power?

It simply breaks down in every way imaginable.

No, God is a word, and that word originally simply meant "authority".

I do not deny this word points at something significant, but until you encounter its truth, the belief is not at all useful. Belief only masks your ignorance, it does not cause you to know.

Timothy248

This is my understanding of the nature of god the creator:
God is the first being to be reborn into a new universe after the decay of the previous, because their must be a cause for his appearance. God then creates in response to the emptiness of the new universe, and as others are born into the new universe from the previous God's will at the point of creation is, by the laws of existence, given authority because all things within this new universe are linked back to his initial act of creation, so those who go against God's will, suffer via disunity.

The origin of his infinite power and understanding is that born with no body to restrict him manifesting his own intellect and power infinitely, unlike ourselves whose intellect is limited by the stress on our minds. However God limits our potential out of love rather than egotistical reasons.

eye

I have spent alot of my life wondering whether God exists, and besides from finding a yes/no answer as i personally have, the reasons of wish i think enough has been posted on already.

My question to people who ask me if God exists has become: "Why does it matter?"
Look at the end of the day, whether 'God' exists or not does not matter. What i'm trying to say in essence is that from a clear-minded individual's point of view: even if you do not believe in God, everything that The Faith, or even religion in general (atleast in pure form), teach's coincides with living a long, healthy life to your maximum potential.

And if after a long time of following The Faith (or any religion-pure form!) you have no come to the answer of your question (the God one), then maybe you must come to terms with the possible that ones idea of what is 'God' is biased (influenced by life, world-any preconception).

Hope i have answered the question without answering it.

Because The Truth lies within

Napkin

I don't think you can compare God to zero. Zero does exist. Zero is where x and y axis meet.

I think you could compare God to (i). Imaginary number that was made up by people to replace something that does not exist.

Fadl

Zero exists? Prove it. I need to see it.

Fadl

Anis,

I think you have missed something here.

You are arguing that God is the origin and we are the created, when the discussion is about essences.

At the heart of it, if creation exists and we are created, then it is necessary that God (who is uncreated) must not exist because creation and God cannot be of the same essence. Creation is composite, it is composed of waves and particles. If waves and particles are the handiwork of God, if God created them, then God must not be composed of particles and waves himself because this would be that in some way creation creates God (from waves and particles) and God is dependent upon waves and particles (creation) to exist rather than being independent from waves and particles (the things God created).

God is not existent, because existent is what creation, the universe is. The universe is conditional, contigent, God is essential, absolute.