Comments on Proof of God's Existence

Go to How the Universe looks from hereAdd a commentGo to Proof of God's Existence

I like that description, Ciel.

posted by Oceandancer on April 22, 2005 at 12:49 PM | link to this | reply

Metta, the analogy of the ocean and drops fits very well,

including that illusion that each drop imagines itself individual.  Individuality is part of our 'classroom' here, an important 'reality' that we come here to experience-- or perhaps to have our experiencing shaped by it. It is part of the forgetting what we know as spirit, so as to come to the learning opportunity with a child-like perspective and focus.   But when we come to the realization that it is illusion, however useful in this time-and-space place, then we begin to outgrow our need for it.  So I believe...

Thanks for sharing the verse, too.

 

posted by Ciel on April 21, 2005 at 11:15 PM | link to this | reply

Hi, Sannhet! That looks more like a description than a proof--
but I would be interested to hear your proof in greater detail. 

posted by Ciel on April 21, 2005 at 11:04 PM | link to this | reply

kinda like - God is the Ocean... and we are all little drops of the Ocean (thinking we are separate from each other)... but we are not only drops - we are the Ocean (the Ocean is us) - once our consciousness is able to expand we are no longer separate drops... no... we are inseparable from the Ocean...

Today, walking alone,
I meet Him everywhere I step.
He is the same as me,
yet I am not Him.
Only if you understand it in this way
will you merge with the way things are
~Tung-Shan

posted by Metta on April 21, 2005 at 4:56 PM | link to this | reply

Ciel -

Well written and well thought out, I think. Here's my proof:

Unconditional love + consciousness = God

posted by sannhet on April 21, 2005 at 3:02 PM | link to this | reply

much more than that, I think, EHP!

posted by Ciel on April 21, 2005 at 2:17 PM | link to this | reply

god is

that of which we are conscious

posted by Xeno-x on April 21, 2005 at 1:57 PM | link to this | reply