Can We Prove or Disprove the Existence of God?

Category God

People have been trying to do this for thousands of years, haven’t they?

People have even gone to war and killed one another based on their ideas about the existence of God and what he wants.

Still, to this day, no one has been able to definitively say that they’ve come up with proof that God exists in the first place, and there’s been some pretty smart people over the years. Scriptures, miracles, messiahs, imagination… the mind can take all of these and use them as a evidence to both prove or disprove the existence of God, to say he is or isn’t real.

Let’s take a look at how we (as intelligent human beings) would traditionally define something to be real or not.

1. The physical and tangible is real.

If I can hold it in my hand and touch it, it’s real.

A cup, a person, a bird. These are all real. I can play with this physical thing and thus it must be real.

But wait, some things are a little more abstract, like color, and even though I can’t hold color in my hand, it’s still real.

2. That which I can scientifically measure is real.

Wind may not be as tangible as a solid physical object, nor electricity or gravity, but I can still feel the effects of it. It certainly influences my life. I can measure how strong the wind is blowing, the current and voltage of electricity, or the pull of gravity.

So even if I can’t hold it in my hand, like color, I can still devise a tool to quantify the amount of something.

This is the level of today’s scientific world. It’s the level of reason, the dominance of the intellect.

What happens when one tries to measure something such as Happiness, Peace, or Love? Can you really measure Love?

When two people are madly in Love with another, we could measure their heart rate, perspiration levels, pupil dilation, how much time they spend together.

But these things aren’t actually Love. They’re something we could measure when Love is or isn’t present. They are the objective characteristics that may change in the presence of Love, but they are not the subjective experience of Love. There’s a difference between a direct experience of the actual thing and a measurement of the results that happen in the presence of that thing.

Not only that, but trying to scientifically ANALyze Love in this way really takes a lot of the magic out of it, don’t you think?

You see, feelings and states of being are not experienced through the mind, can not be adequately described through the mind, or measured by any physical tool.

Thus we can not use the mind or any tool to prove or disprove Love.

It’s like trying to measure the speed of a racecar using a thermometer. A thermometer measures temperature, not velocity. It’s simply the wrong tool for the job. It’s in the wrong domain.

The mind is the wrong tool for the job when it comes to knowing God.

Does Love exist? Sure. We can all experience it in our own Lives and verify it through our own personal experience.

Experience is necessary. The feeling of it is necessary. Words are empty and pale in comparison to direct experience.

When a little child asks his parents what Love is, often times the answer is something along the lines of, “When you experience Love, you’ll know. I can’t tell you and make you understand.”

You can read every book on the subject and listen to every poem and song inspired by or talking about Love, yet until you experience it, it’s all a poor substitute and will never lead to true knowingness.

God, Peace, Love, and Joy are all the same way. They can be experienced and felt, but never proven through the mind, through simply reading about or talking about.

People have been trying to prove or disprove the presence of God for thousands of years and to this day people still quarrel.

So how do we know something not provable through conventionally accepted means?

Who does one have to be to know Peace? Peaceful.

Who does one have to be to know Love? Loving.

Who does one have to be to know Happiness? Happy.

Who does one have to be to know God?

Continued Discussion | Post a Forum Comment

_______________________________________________________________________________________

If you enjoyed this article, subscribe to updates via RSS, Twitter or email to receive fresh content free of charge.

This site is supported by your generous donations. If this site has provided you with value, consider donating as a way of expressing your appreciation. =)

9 Responses to “Can We Prove or Disprove the Existence of God?”

Anthony said:

I would like to expand on your comment ‘ the mind is the wrong tool when it comes to knowing god..’

I find the mind is and awesome tool in facilitating contact with all-that-is. It’s all about how you use the tool. Remember, the mind controls focus and attention, and you can choose what you see. I see god all around me, in plants, trees, animals, people & myself.

All-in-all… all discussion on ‘god’ really is leading away from God. All we need to do is be. i use my mind as a part of that process.

We’re all different. Some ppl use their minds to ‘ponder’, others use it to ‘redirect focus’. There are no absolute answers and i often wonder when people get caught up in definitions, because they’re missing the point. The minds logical, left-brained abaility is to disern, but the right-side create element is to absorb and join together, seeing how everything fits together as ‘one whole’

Considering if i didn’t have a mind, i’d be dead, i would have to say the mind is a great tool for knowing god.

Anthonys last blog post..Song – “Sapphire”

Ariel Bravy Reply:
October 22nd, 2008 at 12:50 am
Do you really see God everywhere or are you simply convincing yourself that you do and putting the same label called “God” on everything? Is it something you’ve realized or something you choosing to believe?

Enlightenment is called Self-realization and not Self-belief for a reason.

Anthony Reply:
October 22nd, 2008 at 1:02 am
It’s a realization i’ve had since birth. It involves very little thought, it’s more like an awareness that i fall into.

Why do you look at the negative possibilities? are you caught up in the continual mental masterbation of trying to ‘define’ spirituality?

A.

Anthonys last blog post..Song – “Sapphire”

Ariel Bravy Reply:
October 22nd, 2008 at 1:14 am
To think that spirituality has to do with definitions is completely missing the point. Truth is beyond all mental construction. You describe it well when you say that talk is mental masturbation.

I understand what you mean, however, about an intuitive knowingness that can’t be verbalized… something you “just know,” but what I’m pointing to is more than an intuitive hunch, but a radical shift in identity.

Anthony Reply:
October 22nd, 2008 at 1:19 am
Thats what i feel too.

I just wonder, some of these posts are great, but then some other guy comes on (like i just did) and posts his point of view, and then it seems to turn into a big debate over semantics and definitions. It just seems rather pointless to me…

I mean, we’re all seeing the SAME THING thru different eyes.

Anthonys last blog post..Song – “Sapphire”

Ariel Bravy Reply:
October 22nd, 2008 at 2:08 am
You’re right that we’re all ultimately seeing the same thing through different eyes and that it is all God, just different perspectives looking upon the same thing. I can see you get that, Anthony.

There’s this interesting phenomena upon awakening called “God shock.” What happens is that the person realizes that all the spiritual stuff they’ve read and heard is actually true. It’s like, “Whoa! It all literally IS all one! The eyes I have may see this or that, but there truly is no separation whatsoever. What I am is completely infinite, beyond name and form! Oh my GOD!!”

The words themselves are hollow compared to the actual experience.

The problem about arguing semantics and definitions is that without experience, we’re just arguing theory and what we think to be true, like the blind arguing with the blind. Without experience, we relegate ourselves to what others have said as well as our own ideas and educated guesses.

History has shown that without a sufficient level of consciousness, other people disagreeing with us leads to destruction and suffering. It would be all well and good if we could agree to disagree and allow others to believe what they want. Frankly, this’d be pretty awesome.

One problem, for example, is that many people’s religions state that they are required by God to convert the non-believers and should any non-believers refuse, you have permission to KILL THEM. Wars have been fought over our ideas about God, people have been killed, and nations have fallen. Our ideas about God are pretty important, aren’t they?

Blindly accepting and defending beliefs without true understanding leads to tragedy. All suffering is due to ignorance.

You said that arguing over semantics and definitions is pretty pointless and I agree. It’s missing the forest for the trees. What we’re really getting at here goes beyond you, me, and every person who reads this blog. It’s about the evolution of mankind itself, about the raising of mass consciousness. It goes far beyond us, but it starts with us, and so I thank you for bringing up this point.

Namaste, brother.

Anthony Reply:
October 22nd, 2008 at 2:15 am
Right ON…. or Wrong On…

No…
Ariel is ON!

I’ve always held this logic in my mind… i call it additive logic.

It’s really simple. Instead of one contradictory factor cancelling out another *call this deductive logic*, how about we use *additive logic*

Additive logic states that the ultimate truth must be what is common to all. Whilst this would lead to absolute nothingness if used 100%, on a sliding scale of focus it brings to light that which is common on different levels…

The wars over beliefs seem absurd. Whats common? Both sides want land, ownership, & recognition. Both sides belief their god is the ONLY god. Whats common here?

They both own the land (thus nobody ownes anything), and the god is the same god. Their is only one god, yes, that is true. So if there is one god, it must the same god we are seeing through different eyes.

With collaboration we can build win-win situations. With competition is always win-loose.

I AM + YOU ARE = WE ARE ALL ONE

A

Anthonys last blog post..Song – “Sapphire”
Anthony said:

One more thing… we can disprove or prove god exists, but only to ourselves… afterall it’s just a mental construct.

Anthonys last blog post..Song – “Sapphire”

Ariel Bravy Reply:
October 22nd, 2008 at 12:51 am
You’re right. It is a personal path that we must walk ourselves. No one can do it for us.

Comment on the Forums

Blog comments are now closed. You may continue this discussion in the Forums by following the link below.