E
empther
Guest
:bigyikes: :bigyikes: :bigyikes: :bigyikes:
I for one have had enough of this.
- Status
I for one have had enough of this.
T
tdgesq
Guest
I guess I don’t understand the title of the thread. I thought this was supposed to be a mystical proof for the existence of God. All I’ve seen is somebody claim he’s had a mystical experience of God. How that constitutes proof of anything to somebody who hasn’t had the same experience is what I find mysterious.
M
Mystic3
Guest
I have six arguments:
The statements of the enlightened. They see God as light in the world in the form of love, peace, and happiness. God is a term for the perception of the enlightened. Every real religion establishes itself around an enlightened master. Every real religion has a word for God, (Tao, Nirvana, Brahman, Allah, Yahwe).
The near death research refers to the independence of the soul from the body and the continued existence of the soul after death. Wikipedia supports my view on these things. At the same time, Wikipedia also brings up the arguments of the opposition. Everyone can read the discussion there. The most important witness is Pam Reynolds. She has seen the light of God in the afterlife, and learned that there is a paradise area. She has also demonstrated that her otherworldly experience was real. She heard the doctors during her out-of-body experience and could reproduce exactly the conversation later on. The gauges showed during her out-of-body experience that her brain could not think. There were no brain waves. And yet she has heard the conversation. Pam Reynolds could have heard the conversation of the doctors only with her soul. Her ears were stoppered while the operation.
Physics refers to the existence of a higher cosmic information field (Amit Goswami, God as higher consciousness). The string theory supports this point of view.
Parapsychology researches spiritual abilities such as thought transfer, the ability to see into the future, and to perceive and sense over large distances. This field has collected many cases of aforementioned topics.
Scientific happiness research has proven the context between enlightenment, peace, happiness, and love. They have recognized the principles which lead to a happy life. They have researched Matthieu Ricard as an enlightened person.
I live as a hermit. I have been in various states of enlightenment. I have seen God as light in the world, and as happiness, love, peace, and truth in myself. I maintain that enlightenment and God exist. I maintain that it is better and happier to be enlightened than unenlightened. I maintain that it is good to live in God.
The statements of the enlightened. They see God as light in the world in the form of love, peace, and happiness. God is a term for the perception of the enlightened. Every real religion establishes itself around an enlightened master. Every real religion has a word for God, (Tao, Nirvana, Brahman, Allah, Yahwe).
The near death research refers to the independence of the soul from the body and the continued existence of the soul after death. Wikipedia supports my view on these things. At the same time, Wikipedia also brings up the arguments of the opposition. Everyone can read the discussion there. The most important witness is Pam Reynolds. She has seen the light of God in the afterlife, and learned that there is a paradise area. She has also demonstrated that her otherworldly experience was real. She heard the doctors during her out-of-body experience and could reproduce exactly the conversation later on. The gauges showed during her out-of-body experience that her brain could not think. There were no brain waves. And yet she has heard the conversation. Pam Reynolds could have heard the conversation of the doctors only with her soul. Her ears were stoppered while the operation.
Physics refers to the existence of a higher cosmic information field (Amit Goswami, God as higher consciousness). The string theory supports this point of view.
Parapsychology researches spiritual abilities such as thought transfer, the ability to see into the future, and to perceive and sense over large distances. This field has collected many cases of aforementioned topics.
Scientific happiness research has proven the context between enlightenment, peace, happiness, and love. They have recognized the principles which lead to a happy life. They have researched Matthieu Ricard as an enlightened person.
I live as a hermit. I have been in various states of enlightenment. I have seen God as light in the world, and as happiness, love, peace, and truth in myself. I maintain that enlightenment and God exist. I maintain that it is better and happier to be enlightened than unenlightened. I maintain that it is good to live in God.
E
empther
Guest
None of these is a proof of God if others can’t see them as proofs.
Even an atheist can see Aquinas’s five proofs of God, although an atheist obstinately rejects them.
T
tdgesq
Guest
Mystic,
For now, I just want to focus on your first argument. To constitute evidence these enlightened person must first be found to be trustworthy. Then their subjective experiences need to be shown to be actual experiences of God, rather than mistakes or misperception. At base, it is an appeal to the authority of these people. Appeals to authority are not always fallacious, but they do require a demonstration that the authority is trustworthy and is otherwise accurate in his judgments. I see a real problem in appealing to multiple authorities on this issue.
They do not all agree on the existence of God, the definition of God or the attributes of God. Classical Buddhism is quite agnostic when it comes to the existence of an all powerful creator. Nirvana is not a synonym for God. It is a spiritual state of being. While there are many different forms of Taoism, Tao is usually referred to as the method or way of reaching a type of spiritual enlightenment. Many of these religions are unmistakably polytheistic while others are pantheistic, which are antithetical to traditional Christianity.
Unless we want to give up logic and reason, an appeal to contradictory accounts from these authorities cannot be trustworthy. At least some of them must be mistaken. Perhaps all of them are mistaken. So while I know you mean well here, your primary argument seems to undercut proof of God’s existence.
M
Mystic3
Guest
You are confused. I discused four years with atheists on the internet about this. It is the only way to overcome them. But first you have really to understand the arguments.
You see things clear. And so you find the problems. I mean it well. You are right. The basic of the argumentation is enlightenment. And for that science is very clear. You can read it in Wikipedia. Enlightenment exists. Enlightened have an experience of God. Atheists cannot really argue against it.
Wikipedia: Enlightenment in a secular context often means the “full comprehension of a situation”, but in spiritual terms the word alludes to a spiritual revelation or deep insight into the meaning and purpose of all things, communication with or understanding of the mind of God, profound spiritual understanding or a fundamentally changed consciousness whereby everything is perceived as a unity. Mysticism is the knowledge of, and especially the personal experience of, states of consciousness, or levels of being, or aspects of reality, beyond normal human perception, including experience of and even communion with a supreme being. Many if not all of the world’s great religions have arisen around the teachings of mystics (including Buddha, Jesus, Lao Tze, and Krishna); and most religious traditions describe fundamental mystical experience.
The basis of the term God is the experience of the enlightened. The proof of God must start with this point. Most enlightened are trustworthy. We can trust in their words. Then we get the problem, that Jesus spoke of God, Buddha from Nirwana, Laotse from Tao and Hindu from Brahman. It is important to understand, that all these words mean the same. God is a mystery. He can described with different terms. God can described as a person or as a higher dimension in the universe. God can be described as light, love and power. Or as darkness, nothingness, because the ego must dissolve if you want to see God. You must go through the darkness (Nirwana) to get into the happiness of God. You must integrate the darkness to live permanently in God. Nirwana and God are the two sides of the same coin.
E
empther
Guest
forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_khaki/viewpost.gif
None of these is a proof of God if others can’t see them as proofs. Even an atheist can see Aquinas’s five proofs of God, although an atheist obstinately rejects them.
Mystic3 relied:…
You are confused. I discused four years with atheists on the internet about this. It is the only way to overcome them. But first you have really to understand the arguments.
Your arguments are very easy to understand, because there is no logical connection between “evidence” and conclusion… That they are not proofs of God is also very easy to understand.
There can’t be one other member on this board who thinks your arguments are proofs.
I mean, it would be impossible!
F
fhansen
Guest
I think the definition of the word ‘God’ might be an issue here. Many accounts of enlightenment from eastern disciplines seem to lack any reference to a god, especially to a personal god-the experience is often reported to be of new knowledge/perception gained, a new understanding of ones relationship with the universe with little specific knowledge about the nature of the afterlife or the nature of God, for example. Such questions are almost treated as unnecessary for those once enlightened. Peace is spoken of as one result; love may or may not be mentioned. But the accounts from Catholic mystics speak of contact with a separate, personal being-and of that knowledge as undeniable- part and parcel of the experience, in fact. The experiences, while incomparably profound, aren’t so much about a new outlook as they are about confirmation and strengthing of a faith already possessed- and sometimes include very specific knowledge about some spiritual or even mundane truth via visions, locutions, etc. An inneffable, super- abundant uncondional love is suddenly made knowable when in the presence of the One orchestrating or controlling the experience. Inexhaustible peace, joy, well-being, happiness are the instantaneous result. It’s understood, in fact, especially once the experience is past, that this depth and quality of peace is dependent on this other Being.
Now while it must be acknowledged that all such experiences are only glimpses into a reality that we’re a part of and yet one that’s infinitely larger than us, so that none of us can claim to have some sort of exclusive complete grasp on all things transcendent, and while there are plenty of ways the various experiences overlap or compliment each other, I still can’t help but wonder where the differences between some of the relgions or disciplines come from. I don’t think they can be explained by merely pointing to influences coming from dogma/teachings which perhaps could shape or provide structure for the experiences because they seem to transcend any such influences, whether or not they turn out to agree with them.
E
empther
Guest
Completely meaningless.
Since God can’t be seen directly, and therefore is not directly self-evident, we can only know God exists from his effects, that is the universe.
If somebody claims he’s seen a vision of God, or something like that, it does me no good.
It’s not a proof.
I pity anybody who can’t understand this simple idea.
M
Mystic3
Guest
Very good. We have to understand, that God is a mystery. There is no complete definition of God. It is impossible to describe and define God. We only can experience God and then say some things about that. Most important is, that God exists for sure. You can experience God. Jesus did it. Many catholic mystics did it. Many mystics of other religions did it. The differences come from the culture, the language, the depth of the experience and the way to the experience. For me God in his center is the same in all religions. All mystics with a deep experience see the same. The most important difference is the way to God. There are many ways to get enlightenment. There are many buddhist ways. And there is a specific christian way. This is the way of love to God and to all other people. You can go a christian way or a buddhist way or a mixed way. And you can fail on the spiritual path. I mean that most people fail, because the path to enlightenment is small and difficult to find. In each religion you can make big mistakes on your way.
Jesus saw God. Many catholic mystics like Teresa von Avila, Pater Pio and Meister Eckhart saw God. The universe is not God. The effects in the universe don’t prove God. They can declared through many ways.
F
fhansen
Guest
Ultimately God is an experience for us- that’s what the Beatifc Vision is-the direct experience, or knowledge, of God. So St Paul says that now we see dimly, but then we’ll “see” face to face. This is the goal for man, without which everything would stay in the relatively mundane manner they more or less are in this life.Completely meaningless.
Since God can’t be seen directly, and therefore is not directly self-evident, we can only know God exists from his effects, that is the universe.
If somebody claims he’s seen a vision of God, or something like that, it does me no good.
It’s not a proof.
I pity anybody who can’t understand this simple idea.
But if someone we’re gifted in some way, if God were to give them a taste of this “vision” in the here and now, so that in giving their testimony they can provide confirmation and encouragement to those of us who hear truth in their words, then that does me some good. It’s really just a confirmation and expression of my own faith, not that we’re obligated to believe them, of course.
Now while growth in the knowledge of God should be the goal of all Christians, this is a progressive process in this life, not a one-time event that leaves one in a profoundly new state or world-view, which is generally how I understand the term “enlightenment” to be used. But we could still certainly say that Jesus was enlightened, bringing light into the world, the light of revelation-His direct knowledge of His Father-but this never seemed to me to be the equivalent of, say, Buddha’s testimony. That kind of enlightenment I can’t relate to, as far as I know.
S
Skeptic92
Guest
No you have not had the Beatific Vision- please look up the meaning of the term before saying such a thing, it is borderline heresy if you truly understand that term. In fact for you to be alive and stating you have received the Beatific Vision is blasphemy! Please look up the term before you use it again, the Angelic Doctor defines it several times in the Summa.Joan of Arc was a mystic. Jesus was a mysic. I had the beatific vision too.
F
fhansen
Guest
The BV is considered to be a permanent state after death in heaven. However, the testimonies of some of the saints hints at the prospect that they’ve “tasted” of it, experiencing God in an immediate or direct manner, if only for a short time, with the accompanying overwhelming, peace, joy, and happiness this encounter brings with it. Whether in this life or the next this would only be possible for us by His will and His enablement, as we have no natural ability to achieve it on our own.
E
empther
Guest
I would like to read some Pope’s, or Cardinal’s, or Bishop’s testimony that somebody in this world during his lifetime had a “taste” of the Beatific Vision, experiencing God in an immediate or direct manner, if only for a short time.
I’m not holding my breath waiting for that.
I’ll also read some Saint’s similar claim about themselves.
:coffeeread: 
F
fhansen
Guest
I’m not sure why you’d doubt it off-hand. Even St Paul’s description of being taken up into heaven could well have been just that sort of experience. Whether in heaven or on earth we’re still incapable of that vision on our own-it’s a gift either way, impossible for us, easy for God.I would like to read some Pope’s, or Cardinal’s, or Bishop’s testimony that somebody in this world during his lifetime had a “taste” of the Beatific Vision, experiencing God in an immediate or direct manner, if only for a short time.
I’m not holding my breath waiting for that.
I’ll also read some Saint’s similar claim about themselves.
E
empther
Guest
Do you have any explanation of how anybody could be given even a “taste” of the BV,
and then have it taken away without leaving the person devastated? And apparently unable to talk about what was revealed to him, mysteries of theology, as well as more mundane things like exactly what was Adam’s sin and what happened to Judas?
No. You don’t. You don’t address the issue directly.
F
fhansen
Guest
I’m not sure what it would have to with mysteries of theology, etc, as if all things would necessarily be known. It has to do with a more direct and profound knowledge of God, rather than simply knowledge about God, which is what our faith is about. But even our faith is more than that. The Catechism recognizes the supernatural aspects of this gift and how it already makes the encounter with God real in the here and now:
1**63 Faith makes us taste in advance the light of the beatific vision, the goal of our journey here below. Then we shall see God “face to face”, “as he is”.47 So faith is already the beginning of eternal life:
When we contemplate the blessings of faith even now, as if gazing at a reflection in a mirror, it is as if we already possessed the wonderful things which our faith assures us we shall one day enjoy.48 **
And the person is left devastated, in a sense, after the experiences I’m referring to because once the experience is over, the hunger and thirst for it, for God, becomes greater, His absence more painful, sometimes extremely painful. I’d read more of the saints. I could be wrong on this but I won’t be the first and their accounts in any case speak of very immediate encounters, way out of the norm.
Even with that, their experiences constitute “private revelations” and, while the Church recognizes that such revelations do occur, and recognizes the authenticity of the revelations of certain saints, we’re not compelled to accept any of them.
E
empther
Guest
So…
there are plenty of “private revelations”, we all know that,
but no Saint has claimed a “taste” of the BV, hunh?
Seems like at least one would. It would give everybody hope!
Apparently, it never happens.
Very likely, many people in the last twenty centuries have claimed to have seen the Beatific Vision. We have one on this board.
***But the Church has never canonized any of them. ***
What does that tell you?
there are plenty of “private revelations”, we all know that,
but no Saint has claimed a “taste” of the BV, hunh?
Seems like at least one would. It would give everybody hope!
Apparently, it never happens.
Very likely, many people in the last twenty centuries have claimed to have seen the Beatific Vision. We have one on this board.
***But the Church has never canonized any of them. ***
What does that tell you?
F
fhansen
Guest
Well, maybe if you seek a little harder you’ll end up with a private revelation yourself and can then tell the rest of us the dfference with understandable authority. For myself, when I read the saints accounts of unitive states or mystical unions, with ecstasy, ineffable peace and joy the result, I understand them to be describibg an experience of Gods immediate presence to them. And I also understand the BV to be the direct encounter with God and that encounter itself to be the very source of the ecstasy that ensues, in both cases seemingly the same in this respect. Therefore, to separate the two may well be to make a distinction without a difference, except that, as I mentioned, the BV is defined as a permanent state in heaven rather than an impermanent taste. Anyway, this is no more than an opinion that’s been expressed by myself and others, not a particularly important one, and certainly not worth risking permanent emotional damage over. It makes sense to me in any case that God would give a foretaste of things to come for the edification of His flock. Don’t know what else to say on the matter.So…
there are plenty of “private revelations”, we all know that,
but no Saint has claimed a “taste” of the BV, hunh?
Seems like at least one would. It would give everybody hope!
Apparently, it never happens.
Very likely, many people in the last twenty centuries have claimed to have seen the Beatific Vision. We have one on this board.
***But the Church has never canonized any of them. ***
What does that tell you?
S
Stylites
Guest
Mystic3 hasn’t had the Beatific Vision of seeing God’s face. But seeing God in this life is entirely possible.So…
there are plenty of “private revelations”, we all know that,
but no Saint has claimed a “taste” of the BV, hunh?
Seems like at least one would. It would give everybody hope!
Apparently, it never happens.
- Status