"Does God exist?" Only someone, already in God, can know!

[Gottservant]

The question "Does God exist?" has provoked many answers. Perhaps the most simple answer is simply that you have to be in God, before you can know. What are the implications of this? Allow me to extrapolate!

You cannot be in God, and deny God. (Because if you knew, it would be because you agreed to be in God.)

You cannot be in God, and not have worked. (Because if you experienced being in God, it could only be because you did something).

You cannot be in God, and not have believed something. (Because if you started work by which to experience and be in God, you would have had to keep your mind fixed)

You cannot be in God, and want to be called God. (Because if you agreed to start work by which to experience and be in God while keeping your mind fixed, you would not want to be distracted)

You cannot be God in God, and want to be called God, for your own sake. (Because if you agreed to start work by which to experience and be in God while keeping your mind fixed, without being distracted, introducing selfishness would have unpredictable results at best)

What is happening here? The question is being asked "Does God exist?" and as evident truths are being expounded, it is becoming clear that even if you were God Himself you would not be completely sure.

Why is that? Discuss.

(You might want to discuss specifically whether you can arrive at the knowledge of God by process of elimination, such as the above)

EDIT: For the sake of those late coming, given the wild jousting that follows in this thread, I will just quote an important detail:

In a thread about being in God, whether or not you actualize the knowledge of God as a result, you cannot be said to have used your brain, unless you at least attempt it.

Someone who has attempted to be in God, knows that He is harder to find, than a guess at the place of a raindrop in the universe!

 

[Paradoxum]

Does this only apply to God? Can it also apply to Fairyland?

 

[ToddNotTodd]

The question "Does God exist?" has provoked many answers. Perhaps the most simple answer is simply that you have to be in God, before you can know. What are the implications of this? Allow me to extrapolate!

You cannot be in God, and deny God. (Because if you knew, it would be because you agreed to be in God.)

You cannot be in God, and not have worked. (Because if you experienced being in God, it could only be because you did something).

You cannot be in God, and not have believed something. (Because if you started work by which to experience and be in God, you would have had to keep your mind fixed)

You cannot be in God, and want to be called God. (Because if you agreed to start work by which to experience and be in God while keeping your mind fixed, you would not want to be distracted)

You cannot be God in God, and want to be called God, for your own sake. (Because if you agreed to start work by which to experience and be in God while keeping your mind fixed, without being distracted, introducing selfishness would have unpredictable results at best)

What is happening here? The question is being asked "Does God exist?" and as evident truths are being expounded, it is becoming clear that even if you were God Himself you would not be completely sure.

Why is that? Discuss.

(You might want to discuss specifically whether you can arrive at the knowledge of God by process of elimination, such as the above)

Define "in God".

 

[Gottservant]

I suppose if you are in fairyland, you can determine whether fairyland exists, yes.

In God, simply means "in Love"...

...or to be conscious of something

...or to be dreaming

...or to be awake

...or to be watching

...or to be following

 

[Dave Ellis]

So in short.... people that believe there's a God, think he exists.

What a stunning revelation.

Now only if these people could provide evidence for their beliefs, they would have reason for believing what they do. Until they do that, we have perfect reason to assume they are mistaken in their beliefs.

 

[Gottservant]

I don't think you get it. If you believe there is a God by faith, you can never prove there is a God, you can only prove you are in God long enough for them to have faith also (by being in God).

You miss the whole point, because you think you know what being in God is, but have never actually tried.

I'm not trying to accuse you, I'm trying to say "I understand your accusation" its just that what you said to me was so faithless that it has come back sounding like I am trying to argue you with (you).

That's not anyone's fault but the Devil's, I can't help that (yes, you can be in God, for nothing, that is always a possibility)

How many people do you think can be in God? If everyone was in God, do you think anyone would know if it was actually true?

 

[super animator]

You mean a person image of god?

 

[Gottservant]

You mean a person image of god?

I was not giving specifics as to what kind of thing you could be, being in God, although I think what you said points to both the fact that you need to be something and that you could be anything.

So yes, as an image of God, you will know if God exists, if you are in God (assuming you want to know).

 

[Ken-1122]

In God, simply means "in Love"...

...or to be conscious of something

...or to be dreaming

...or to be awake

...or to be watching

...or to be following

I am capable of all of those things, yet I am not "in God". Got anything else?

Ken

 

[Dave Ellis]

I am capable of all of those things, yet I am not "in God". Got anything else?

Ken

Try gullibility and the ability to buy into unproven wild claims.

 

[Ken-1122]

Try gullibility and the ability to buy into unproven wild claims.

I agree! Now those should have been put on top of his list.

K

 

[dlamberth]

Now only if these people could provide evidence for their beliefs, they would have reason for believing what they do. Until they do that, we have perfect reason to assume they are mistaken in their beliefs.

I'm one of those lovers of God. And your are absolutely correct. You DO have every reason to believe I'm mistaken. That's one of the reasons why I think any attempt to try to prove God to others is rather stupid. To live in the presence of God is a personal experience. Not everyone is suppose to be doing so.

.

 

[Gottservant]

I am capable of all of those things, yet I am not "in God". Got anything else?

Ken

Answer pending absence of facetiousness.

 

[Gracchus]

I'm one of those lovers of God. And your are absolutely correct. You DO have every reason to believe I'm mistaken. That's one of the reasons why I think any attempt to try to prove God to others is rather stupid. [/quote But not the only reason.

To live in the presence of God is a personal experience.

So is schizophrenia.

Not everyone is suppose to be doing so.

You know this how?

 

[super animator]

I was not giving specifics as to what kind of thing you could be, being in God, although I think what you said points to both the fact that you need to be something and that you could be anything.

So yes, as an image of God, you will know if God exists, if you are in God (assuming you want to know).

You assuming that the image of god isn't man made.

 

[Gottservant]

[paraphrase] It is a personal experience.

So is schizophrenia.

Schizophrenia is more than a personal experience. It is also partly delusion.


[paraphrase] Not everyone needs to believe.

You know this how?

It is not necessary to know that not everyone needs to believe, therefore if you can know it, if you want, and still operate in the forgiveness of God, you have not been condemned for knowing it.

Ergo if the Devil wants to be condemned, he doesn't need to believe.

Thanks in advance for more tempered wit.

 

[Gottservant]

You['re] assuming that the image of god isn't man made.

If God blesses something that is man made, is it wrong?

And if I assume that an image can be in God, is that evil?

How then do you conclude that asserting the image of God is man made, means the blessing goes to you, but not someone else? And if I keep it?

 

[Tiberius]

The question "Does God exist?" has provoked many answers. Perhaps the most simple answer is simply that you have to be in God, before you can know. What are the implications of this? Allow me to extrapolate!

You cannot be in God, and deny God. (Because if you knew, it would be because you agreed to be in God.)

You cannot be in God, and not have worked. (Because if you experienced being in God, it could only be because you did something).

You cannot be in God, and not have believed something. (Because if you started work by which to experience and be in God, you would have had to keep your mind fixed)

You cannot be in God, and want to be called God. (Because if you agreed to start work by which to experience and be in God while keeping your mind fixed, you would not want to be distracted)

You cannot be God in God, and want to be called God, for your own sake. (Because if you agreed to start work by which to experience and be in God while keeping your mind fixed, without being distracted, introducing selfishness would have unpredictable results at best)

What is happening here? The question is being asked "Does God exist?" and as evident truths are being expounded, it is becoming clear that even if you were God Himself you would not be completely sure.

Why is that? Discuss.

(You might want to discuss specifically whether you can arrive at the knowledge of God by process of elimination, such as the above)

This would eliminate the possibility of there being no God then, in which case the existence of God is certain.

And if the existence of God is certain, then one does not need to be in God to know, rendering your argument flawed beyond recovery.

 

[madaz]

How can anybody be "IN" a deity? It just makes no sense.

Perhaps you may want to define what "in god" means....

 

[Mr. Pedantic]

Going with first impressions, because that is the only way to answer the question without it falling apart, it is illogical to rely on ideologically immersed believers to disprove a hypothesis. Therefore, the best way to prove the existence of God is with non-believers.

Schizophrenia is more than a personal experience. It is also partly delusion.

Literally the only reason religious experiences are, by definition, not classified as delusions is because if they were, we'd be treating so many people our world would collapse and pharmaceutical companies would soon rule the world. In every single other aspect they are very similar to other delusions of reference.