God? What I need as proof!

Posted: Tue Feb 05, 2008 1:10 am

This may come off as being a little abrupt, so please pardon me for what I'm about to express.

The whole idea of God as being an 'entity' of some type stems specifically from the 'exoteric" reading of mythological symbols.

The esoteric traditions have God symbolizing nothing more than existence itself, as being a great mystery to the human mind at its infinite depth.

All pondering over a literal 'deity' boils down to operating on the exoteric level of understanding, which, as most know, is the level of the uneducated general masses. It serves to hide the inner meaning from the uninitiated people of the community. (see Manly P. Hall's, "The Secret Teachings of All Ages)

So for someone being aware of the esoteric understanding, I'm looking at the question of what it would take in order for me to believe that God, an anthropomorphic symbol for existence, actually exists.

This gets pushed back to questioning whether or not existence exists.

I assume that it does.

But existence is not a literal physics defying human image looking being, its merely the realm that we exist in. Existence is everything - the universe and beyond.

Deism suggests a literal supreme being of some type, which is very exoteric at its foundation. That means that it's based on a misunderstanding of the mythological symbolism of God.

I've been considering this issue recently.

Newbie First Class Joined: Dec 21, 2005 Posts: 44

Nah that's not abrupt enough, mate, keep 'em comin'.

One of my points is that it well known that god can alledgibily talk to an individual but I bet he can't talk to groups of people. Like we can with TV tranmissions.

Posted: Tue Feb 05, 2008 12:55 pm

For me, the idea of God talking to people is equivalent to existence talking to people.

The only time that existence speaks, is when things that exist speak. Right now, existence is speaking as we speak. It's not something separate from us, it is us.

The funny thing here in this consideration is that existence quite often speaks falsely, as people quite often speak falsely. Existence is trying to understand itself, as people are trying to understand themselves.

God will never speak through every preacher around the world simultaneously because God is an abstract philosophical suggestion - not any one specific mind, consciousness, or supreme being type thing.

So your argument is rather well founded from the esoteric understanding.

Posted: Tue Feb 05, 2008 1:24 pm

“The Secret Teachings of All Ages”

“There are, however, but few mature minds in the world; and thus it was that the philosophic-religious doctrines of the pagans [ancients] were divided to meet the needs of these two fundamental groups of human intellect--one 'philosophic', the other 'incapable' of appreciating the deeper mysteries of life.

To the discerning few were revealed the esoteric, or spiritual, teachings, while the unqualified many received only the literal, or exoteric, interpretations. In order to make 'simple' the great truths of Nature and the abstract principles of natural law, the vital forces of the universe were 'personified', becoming the GODS and GODDESSES of the ancient mythologies.

While the ignorant multitudes brought their offerings to the altars of Priapus and Pan (deities representing the procreative energies of the universe), the wise recognized in these marble statues only symbolic concretions of great abstract truths.

In all cities of the ancient world were temples for public worship and offering. In every community also were philosophers and mystics, deeply versed in Nature's lore. These individuals were usually banded together, forming seclusive philosophic and religious schools. The more important of these groups were known as the Mysteries. Many of the great minds of antiquity were initiated into these secret fraternities by strange and mysterious rites, some of which were extremely cruel. Alexander Wilder defines the Mysteries as "Sacred dramas performed at stated periods. The most celebrated were those of Isis, Sabazius, Cybele, and Eleusis." After being admitted, the initiates were instructed in the secret wisdom which had been preserved for ages. Plato, an initiate of one of these sacred orders, was severely criticized because in his writings he revealed to the 'public’ many of the secret philosophic principles of the Mysteries." - Manly P. Hall

Posted: Tue Feb 05, 2008 5:41 pm

I have decided that the only thing that would make me believe in god is that if I were god.

I'm not sure what all your other talk about god is supposed to tell me.

Posted: Tue Feb 05, 2008 6:21 pm

Are you not existence?

That's what the highest God is symbolizing in a given mythology. You are that which you seek to know. That's whole point of the Hero's journey.

I assume that you haven't taken it.

Posted: Tue Feb 05, 2008 8:55 pm

PantheistWorldView wrote:

Are you not existence?

That's what the highest God is symbolizing in a given mythology. You are that which you seek to know. That's whole point of the Hero's journey.

I assume that you haven't taken it.

I'm all for the mythology thing. Read all the Joseph Campbell and everything.

I think god has always been and still is the equivalent of a dog barking at piece of trash blowing in the wind under the assumption that it's conscious.

Posted: Tue Feb 05, 2008 9:32 pm

Good, then you must certainly understand the whole issue of the mystery of the metaphor - it's the subject of every book and lecture.

"Is he or is he not, neither is nor is not"

You're certainly correct for stating that the consciousness ideas are illusory. That's one of the deeper points that Campbell made. The consciousness aspects are on the level of the 'second best things' that are merely trying to point towards the first best thing, which can not be spoken. The second best things can be confusing in that respect.

I don't know if you've noticed this yourself, but in posting on various religious forums I've noticed that a lot of people claim to have read Campbell, but very few of those people seem to have caught on to the lesson.

It's always evident in their approach to the deeper philosophies. As Hall stated, there are but two types of intellect in the world, one philosophic and capable of appreciating the deeper mysteries of life and existence, and other un-philosophic and incapable of understanding any of it at all.

Unfortunately the vast majority of people are still incapable of understanding the myth's even in this day and age.

I'm sure that you already knew that Campbell's main point was that the God is a psychological representation of ourselves, as we are the great mystery that we seek to know. It's not some consciousness out there apart from our own.

What I don't quite understand is why someone who knows this Campbellian perspective would say that they will only believe in God if they are God.

You must have already known that you are God in the first place.

We're you just toying around?

Forum Master Joined: Oct 04, 2003 Posts: 10155

PantheistWorldView wrote:

This may come off as being a little abrupt, so please pardon me for what I'm about to express.

The whole idea of God as being an 'entity' of some type stems specifically from the 'exoteric" reading of mythological symbols.

The esoteric traditions have God symbolizing nothing more than existence itself, as being a great mystery to the human mind at its infinite depth.

All pondering over a literal 'deity' boils down to operating on the exoteric level of understanding, which, as most know, is the level of the uneducated general masses. It serves to hide the inner meaning from the uninitiated people of the community. (see Manly P. Hall's, "The Secret Teachings of All Ages)

So for someone being aware of the esoteric understanding, I'm looking at the question of what it would take in order for me to believe that God, an anthropomorphic symbol for existence, actually exists.

This gets pushed back to questioning whether or not existence exists.

I assume that it does.

But existence is not a literal physics defying human image looking being, its merely the realm that we exist in. Existence is everything - the universe and beyond.

Deism suggests a literal supreme being of some type, which is very exoteric at its foundation. That means that it's based on a misunderstanding of the mythological symbolism of God.

I've been considering this issue recently.

Based on your name alone I put you in the same boat as an outright theist. If you have to ponder "existance" after typing this post, you need to lay off the acid.

There is a huge differance between being aware of existance, and existance actually existing. A rock does not have a clue that Brian37 just typed this post. But it is absurd for the congitive ability to deny that I just posted this.

This is just as absurd as the line in "Revenge Of The Nerds part 2" when Ogar said, "Hey guys.....what if C-A-T acutally spelled D-O-G?"

This is no different than the absurd argument, "If a tree falls in the woods and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound?"

YES, the laws of physics dont cease because there is nothing around to observe it. Was the earth a triangle before scientists dicovered it was round?

Posted: Tue Feb 05, 2008 10:35 pm

The thing here is that existence existed well before the human mind had evolved to contemplate existence -it's not as if we're making it up. The universe, Sun and stars, the earth and life, all existed prior to humanity and the human perception of existence. A rock is existence just as we are existence, the only difference is that we have the ability to become aware of this fact.

I've never tried taking acid, I'd probably get off on some bad trip. I've just avoided it altogether. It's not a moral thing, I just don't care to try it.

As far as Pantheism goes, here's the belief statement of the World Pantheist Movement (WPM):

1. We revere and celebrate the Universe as the totality of being, past, present and future. It is self-organizing, ever-evolving and inexhaustibly diverse. Its overwhelming power, beauty and fundamental mystery compel the deepest human reverence and wonder.

2. All matter, energy, and life are an interconnected unity of which we are an inseparable part. We rejoice in our existence and seek to participate ever more deeply in this unity through knowledge, celebration, meditation, empathy, love, ethical action and art.

3. We are an integral part of Nature, which we should cherish, revere and preserve in all its magnificent beauty and diversity. We should strive to live in harmony with Nature locally and globally. We acknowledge the inherent value of all life, human and non-human, and strive to treat all living beings with compassion and respect.

4. All humans are equal centers of awareness of the Universe and nature, and all deserve a life of equal dignity and mutual respect. To this end we support and work towards freedom, democracy, justice, and non-discrimination, and a world community based on peace, sustainable ways of life, full respect for human rights and an end to poverty.

5. There is a single kind of substance, energy/matter, which is vibrant and infinitely creative in all its forms. Body and mind are indivisibly united.

6. We see death as the return to nature of our elements, and the end of our existence as individuals. The forms of "afterlife" available to humans are natural ones, in the natural world. Our actions, our ideas and memories of us live on, according to what we do in our lives. Our genes live on in our families, and our elements are endlessly recycled in nature.

7. We honor reality, and keep our minds open to the evidence of the senses and of science's unending quest for deeper understanding. These are our best means of coming to know the Universe, and on them we base our aesthetic and religious feelings about reality.

8. Every individual has direct access through perception, emotion and meditation to ultimate reality, which is the Universe and Nature. There is no need for mediation by priests, gurus or revealed scriptures.

9. We uphold the separation of religion and state, and the universal human right of freedom of religion. We recognize the freedom of all pantheists to express and celebrate their beliefs, as individuals or in groups, in any non-harmful ritual, symbol or vocabulary that is meaningful to them.

More about the World Pantheist Movement:

In the WPM we take the real universe and nature as our starting and finishing point, not some preconceived idea of God. We feel a profound wonder and awe for these, similar to the reverence that believers in more conventional gods feel towards their deity, but without grovelling worship or belief that Nature has a mind or personality that we can influence through prayer or ritual.

Forum Master Joined: Oct 04, 2003 Posts: 10155

You might make a great Unitarian, but even as a member you are just as lacking in evidence for your patheism as a Christian would be for Jesus.

Having a pet project or a "warm fuzzy" idea only amounts to that.

Posted: Tue Feb 05, 2008 11:25 pm

Here's how it breaks down.

God represents the mystery of existence in the mythologies.

Everything that exists, both in the universe and beyond, is this "great mystery".

So Pantheism, meaning "All God" is suggesting "All Mystery".

It's the most rational and logical position to take towards the mythic term "God" from what I've found.

I won't claim atheism because it can be made to suggest that "God", meaning the "mystery of existence", does not exist.

Obviously we can not penetrate the mystery of existence, even today, even with our advanced physics, so the mystery of our existence is scientifically valid.

Every time we fail to solve the mystery of existence through science, we prove the mystery that the God symbolism is symbolizing. And that particular mystery is everything. It can not be somethings while not others. So Pantheism (all God) is a rather strong approach. All I have to do is prove the foundational mystery of the universe, not a deity.

So to summarize, the Christian is lacking in evidence for Jesus, while the Pantheist is not lacking in evidence for the great mystery that men have called "God". Wink

Forum Master Joined: Oct 04, 2003 Posts: 10155

PantheistWorldView wrote:

God represents the mystery of existence in the mythologies.

No, it repesents Santa for adults.

Whatever we dont know about the universe should not include clinging to ancient superstition and mythology.

Posted: Wed Feb 06, 2008 12:50 am

PantheistWorldView wrote:

Good, then you must certainly understand the whole issue of the mystery of the metaphor - it's the subject of every book and lecture.

"Is he or is he not, neither is nor is not"

You're certainly correct for stating that the consciousness ideas are illusory. That's one of the deeper points that Campbell made. The consciousness aspects are on the level of the 'second best things' that are merely trying to point towards the first best thing, which can not be spoken. The second best things can be confusing in that respect.

I don't know if you've noticed this yourself, but in posting on various religious forums I've noticed that a lot of people claim to have read Campbell, but very few of those people seem to have caught on to the lesson.

It's always evident in their approach to the deeper philosophies. As Hall stated, there are but two types of intellect in the world, one philosophic and capable of appreciating the deeper mysteries of life and existence, and other un-philosophic and incapable of understanding any of it at all.

Unfortunately the vast majority of people are still incapable of understanding the myth's even in this day and age.

I'm sure that you already knew that Campbell's main point was that the God is a psychological representation of ourselves, as we are the great mystery that we seek to know. It's not some consciousness out there apart from our own.

What I don't quite understand is why someone who knows this Campbellian perspective would say that they will only believe in God if they are God.

You must have already known that you are God in the first place.

We're you just toying around?

You have a poetic way of putting things, which is copacetic with me as I have been a poet in the past. But when we are trying to talk about something concrete, poetry can just get in the way, can make the simple more complicated than it is. At these times, plain speak is to be preferred.

I also have read your post about world pantheism and most of it I agree with. Some of it I find debatable at the least.

That being said, pantheism stripped down (as I understand it) is simply replacing the term reality with god and vice versa. First, I see no use in doing this. If the two are synonyms, we can safely eliminate one altogether and no understanding will be affected.

Your mythology-talk does get a bit excessive I think. If I read you correctly you are basically saying what I already know, and that is that fiction can be useful and educational and illuminating without needing to be real; mythology would simply fall under the broader heading of fiction.

There are theories out there that god is not only a psychological representation and that when we talk to god we are talking to ourselves but that at one time prior to the coalescence of individual ego one part of ourselves literally talked to another part of ourselves and that this is where god came from.

I don't completely buy this but I think the idea may have merit. I point this out to say that I would warn against too quickly applying modern conceptualizations to concoctions of distant history. This, if anything, was Joseph Campbell's main mistake.

From all appearances, many of the things they appeared to believe as a matter of historical record they actually did believe. The strongest evidence for this is that many people today believe wholeheartedly in even the most absurd aspects of modern religions. I think the only reason we have come as far as we have is due to a slowly encroaching intellectual maturity and that this maturity advances in spits and starts because there is always a conservative backlash whenever a long cherished absurdity is finally upended.

Posted: Wed Feb 06, 2008 1:33 am

First off, I appreciate the commentary guys - it's helpful.

You know how Campbell takes on the whole connotation over denotation issue in "thou art that: transforming religious metaphor", his point is that the concretization of these Gods is a mistranslation.

This is like when a child asks there parents where the new baby came from and the parents tell the child that the stork brought it to them.

On the literal level, which is the exoteric or denotative level, the parents lied.

But the stork merely symbolizes sexual reproduction, so anyone who knows what the symbolism suggests sees past the lie. In actuality the parent merely used a metaphor that represents the truth instead of giving out the truth to the child directly.

The same applies to God. It's true in the sense of being metaphorical of the human and cosmic mystery. It's false as being a concrete figure.

Now this 'great mystery' is the mystery of why existence even exists in the first place. This is not a light mystery that can be easily solved through empirical science. We can know how existence exists but necessarily why. There can be no one fixed reason for why, it just exists. That's why it's considered the 'great mystery', or the 'unsolvable mystery'.

This understanding is suppose to bring people to the core reality of life. Existence is an absolute mystery in and of itself and it transcends all research to be quite frank. This is the job of serious truth seeking.

"He thinks he knows doesn't know"

"He who knows that he doesn't know, knows"

That's what we're dealing with here. Agnosticism is a strong position in this respect because we just don't know why existence even exists in the first place. We'll likely never know. This centers the individual in the true depth of the human experience. But that which we do not know, is the basis for everything that exists. So it's "Pan" as well. Perhaps "Pan-agnostic" is a better term to describe this.

The term God doesn't need to be involved in this ancient teaching anymore at all from what I can see. I will agree with guys on that point. We should call existence what it is and stop using symbols to symbolize it - it just confuses everyone to use metaphorical symbols. Why not speak directly?

I just think that it's important to back track and make it known to the general public that the Gods actually represented existence back then just as they do right now. This completely destroys religious fundamentalism and the "chosen few" type groups out there.

The "I am" declaring Gods completely give it away. The alpha and omega symbolism gives it away as well. The symbolic meanings of a God such as Yahweh suggests "To be", or "To exist". Isis = Is Is, while Yaweh = Am Am.

The original priests who created these symbols certainly knew what they were doing and this is a very self evident understanding for comparative mythology students. People think of these gods as historical because of the exoteric confusion that was meant to keep the uninitiated from understanding the inner esoteric content (astrotheology and philosophy).


Login/Register New account	Home · FAQ · News · Shows · Videos · Forums · Arcade · Listen & Chat · Book Store · Contact Us · Go Mobile