Top Proofs For The Existence Of God

[zurew]

6 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

Even logic requires observation to make sense of it.

That sounds like that you are using a completely different definition of observation compared to how not just most people, but how a good chunk of philosophers use those terms.

Which is all fine, but substantially your claims and arguments in that case are not impressive at all, because they can be boiled down to a set of trivially true statements that all philosophers can agree with.

[Leo Gura]

@zurew

The problem is that nobody is conscious of what observation really is.

Observation is Existence/Truth.

The only reason anyone can know anything is because things are illuminated by virtue of being Truth or Existing.

Observation is not some material process. It is Truth being True.

The reason you can know God is the reason you can know anything. Because its True. If nothing was true, nothing would be known or observed.

Knowing is Being.

Edited March 9 by Leo Gura

[Davino]

Oh Leo wanted to thank you for this video. I've been having truckloads of insights and micro-to-macro epiphanies. I'm just one third in, it's so condensed it takes a lot of time to digest. I feel words make no justice to the value and impact this episode has made in me. I still have 2/3 to go which blows my mind honestly. In my eyes this is the best work you've ever produced. Congratulations.

Have you thought of enabling the option of YouTube super thanks? 

Btw, in an immense download of insights it came to me that sunbathing would make you good. Idk, but just wanted to communicate it for respect to that epic state of consciousness in which the insight came, you may ignore this paragraph.

[LastThursday]

@Leo Gura Half way through the vid and it's good so far.

I've argued for the process of evolution on here before being able to explain the intelligence of biology, no God required. But you're quite right that without knowing how life itself arose from non-biological matter, then evolution doesn't have a firm base (because evolution implies a very long chain of cause and effect). My two ideas are that 1) there isn't a difference between dead and alive matter, it's a completely smooth sliding scale from one to the other. 2) life bootstrapped itself from non-life by obtaining a sense of self or identity, i.e. to be alive any alive thing needs to keep itself intact against everything else.

My other observervation is about infinity. You exlude mathematical infinity in the arguments, but any discussion about infinity really does have to be mathematical in some sense. The definition of an "absolute" infinity being the lump sum of everything is ultimately circular; because who's to say that there are infinitely many things to lump in? A better definition of infinity should always say something about unboundedness and not how much it can contain. It's non-obvious that reality is unbounded in every aspect.

I'm hoping for some subjective idealist arguments in the second half, here goes...

Edited March 9 by LastThursday

[Nemra]

I think that the reason why God is thought of as a separate being is that survival requires people to think of the world as materialistic. Atheists are more honest about that than religious people.

I think that religious people are actually materialists lost in spiritual beliefs.

[Princess Arabia]

@Leo GuraBeautiful video. Thank you for your service and hard work.

[Nemo28]

As he said in the video, religions serve (major) social function as well as they point to that ultimate reality. But ofc no one religion holds the Truth. I would argue though that they do hold the lesser Truth if you equate it with the relief from suffering (mental, emotional, physical, financial etc), more importantly from despair and anguish of the soul that you feel when you become terrifyingly alone. So alone that reality disintegrates and you are spiralling into eternal madness with no hope ever that you would return normal, Im sure Leo knows that experience (probably times 100x). Religions have that support structure that can take you out of that despair. And lets be honest, if you are suffering really, really bad, all you want is relief and you would hold to anything, believe in anything (even in a lie) if that would alleviate it. So lies are important, they can easily become truth under right circumstances. Truth is relative (and always present, hello).

[freddyteisen]

5 hours ago, Davino said:

Btw, in an immense download of insights it came to me that sunbathing would make you good.

I agree—Leo needs more Sun—The Life source on earth.

and Yes, an amazing, very dense episode.

[Terell Kirby]

Brilliant episode, @Leo Gura

Your intelligence of late is blossoming in ways I haven't seen in all my years following your content.

Edited March 10 by Terell Kirby

[Staples]

Me when people need proof for God.

[Staples]

Kidding, great episode. Lots of tools here for understanding God.

[ExploringReality]

Thank you for your analysis of mankind's leading edge conversations on understanding reality and God.

That last proof and argument for God through mystical experience is one I resonate with more.

I've had a few Awakenings but I know there is more, I truly don't know.

All of my assumptions are ready to go in the trash to avoid self deception.

Can you make a video in the future of a guided inquiry into realizing God. An experiential inquiry and guided visualization. That would be powerful .

Edited March 10 by ExploringReality

[Leo Gura]

1 hour ago, ExploringReality said:

Can you make a video in the future of a guided inquiry into realizing God. An experiential inquiry and guided visualization. That would be powerful

That already exists.

[JosephKnecht]

There is no greater proof than a guy who has done Sunday sermons on YouTube for 10 years.

The existence of the sermons is proof enough.  

[Sugarcoat]

I am in the way of god 

Meaning the self is in the way of god. I can’t see god as long as I’m here. 

[Rafael Thundercat]

I want to recommend here two readings that may be curious for those who wish to check maybe one of the origins of Atheism,Materialism and Modernity. I stumbled in this old book called ON THE NATURE OF THINGS by Lucretius a Poet Philosopher of ancient Rome. 

Also a Book about the Adventure of this Book Hunter from Italy called Poggio Bracciolini. The book is "The Swerve" How the Renaissance Began"

As the book say, Poggio went in 1417 to Southhern Germany to hunt for Manuscripts in a Monastery, Monasteries were the best places to find such treasures. Here he found Lucretius book. The book have some claims that for the Dogmas of those times were basicaly sufuric acid.I will list below some of the Premisses Lucretius rise. Better read the original, he mix arguments with poetry, is like a poet scientist of a Richard Dawkings with a Poetic vibe.

So Lucretius was not in fact an Atheist. He belived that the gods existed, but he also belived that by virtue of being gods, they could not possibly be concerned with human beings.

Divinity by its very nature,he thought, must enjoy eternal life indifferent to human actions. 

If gives you pleasure to call the Sea Neptune or refer to grain and wine as Ceres and Bacchus, Lucretius wrote, you should be free to do.. but he say that nothing of this Adoration would make any difference since the gods are entirely removed from our world .

So loom like a good split from Pre-Modern to Modern Mentality here.

Now the brief list as writen in the Book "The Swerve" by Stephen Greenblatt

1. Everything is made by invisible particles,first things,first begginings,seeds of things ( yeah he use many poetic ) 

2. This particles or seeds are immutable,in constant movement,infinite in numbers,clashing with each other,coming together and apart,recombining... and are eternal,indestructible,imortal, but transitory. 

Those building blocks are permanent themselfs but they keep being redistributed, 

3. Although being infinite in number they (particles) are limited in shape and size. They are like the letters in and alphabet, a discrete Set capable of being combined in infinite numbers of sentences. And with the seeds of things as with language the combinations are made according to a code. ( but he later deny any form of inteligent designer behing it all,similar to Dawkins Blind watchmaker ideia)

4. Particles are in motion in a infinite Void. Space and Time is Unbounded. There is no fixes points,no beginnings,middles or ends, and no limits. Matter is not packed together in a solid mass. There is a void in things, allowing the constructive particles to move,collide..

Evidence for the void includes not only the restless motion that we " observe " all around us, but also such phenomena as water oozing through the wall of caves,food dispersed through bodies,sound passing through walls of closed rooms,cold permeating to the bones ( he would love study themodynamics) 

5 The universe has no creator or designer was all by chance. ( So here enter the why the book is called the Swerve) 

Lucretius claims that everything comes into being as a result of a Swerve. If all the individual particles, in their infinite numbers, feel through the void in straight lines, pulled down by their own weight like rain drops ( ops,he assume weigth here) nothing would ever exist. But the particles do not move lockstep in a preordained single direction. Instead "at absolutely unpredictable times and places they deflect slightly from their straight course, to a degree that could be described as no more than a shift of movement" The position of elementary particles is thus indeterminate. 

6 The Swerve is the Source of Free Will. In the lifes of all sentient creatures,human,animal and alike, the random swerve of particles is responsible for the existence of free will. 

Well there is more but if someone want to check just find the books. 

For me the most interesting thing is that this book with these claims was rolling in the hands of many thinkers of that time like Machiavelli,Marcilio Ficino. Ficinio was for example shanken by Lucretius book wrote a learned commentary on the Poet who the called " our brillant Lucretious" But coming to his senses and returning to his faith Ficino burned the commentary and attacked those he called the "Lucretiani" and spent much of his time adapting Plato to construct an ingeneous philosophical defense of Christianity.

In summa Lucretius had a moderate or even big influence in many Thinkers from Renaissance. 

[SwiftQuill]

I watched this episode today. I really enjoyed it. I love the format, it feels refreshing. This type of "let's explore this argument, the good parts and bad parts" analysis is interesting to listen to.

Here is my opinion on the arguments:

My opinion is almost the same as Leo's on most arguments. I find most of them to suck. Especially the most popular ones, they are terrible (Kalam, Ontological, Unmoved Mover, etc.).

I liked the "Participation within the Universe" one. Not super compelling but it's sophisticated at least. Hadn't heard it before.

Now, as an agnostic, I present you the most compelling argument for the existence of God in my opinion:

"Look at the trees."

This isn't even an argument. It's not even a syllogism. But to me, this argument is the only one that feels right. I remember one time as a teen as I was walking to school and I saw a rainbow. I was an atheist back then. But still, I remember looking at the rainbow, and even though I knew there was a scientific explanation behind it, I thought it was so beautiful. I couldn't put it into words. I saw something magical, spiritual in it.

To me, this concept of "arguments for God" is somewhat of a waste of time. I think the most effective way to go about it is through exploration of feelings and perspectives. There are things we experience which we can't explain through words. I feel it when I'm engaging with my life purpose, for instance. It's a very spiritual thing. 

 

[Davino]

I find that this video might be relevant to have another perspective on the topic. Just to see things from different angles.

For context so that words don't trip your understanding:

Quote

Jiva=ego
ParamaShiva=InfiniteConsciousness/God
25 States of Consciousness = Hindu model of the most common groups of consciousness states 
Jagat=Reality/World/Universe
Ishwara= God-Self / The Ultimate I
Devi = God in Femenine form
Sat=Truth
Chit=Consciousness
Ananda=Love

 

 

[UnbornTao]

1 hour ago, Davino said:

I find that this video might be relevant to have another perspective on the topic. Just to see things from different angles.

For context so that words don't trip your understanding:

 

 

... Jesus Christ. 

Edited March 11 by UnbornTao

[trenton]

I finished watching the video. I agree that most of the arguments are bad, but there are a couple I find compelling.

First, the perennial argument that points to many different cultures and religions. This argument was the reason I took spirituality and the possibility of God seriously. There was a lot of overlap between different cultures and it suggests that there is truth to it, but does not guarantee it.

As I investigated spirituality, I learned about mystical experiences which also seems compelling. I did some consciousness work through different spiritual books and it triggered different states of consciousness. if my degree of consciousness had this much of an impact on how I see the universe, then it suggests that a radical degree of consciousness could show me absolute truth.

Again, I am following the trail of bread crumbs. These arguments do not guarantee God from my point of view, but it makes it plausible enough to warrant investigation into consciousness work. As it stands God is a possibility to me and my intuition says God is real, but this comes without having had experiences of radical degrees of consciousness which I am pointing to.