Did the gods really exist?

First topic message reminder :

This question always used to haunt me since I had involved in various rituals and religious chores.
Sometimes I felt that all the theologies were the offsprings of the saints or great philosophers of times and ages. But sometimes I had a deep belief of their real existence. So what do u people really think of this troubling question?

To those who says: " I don't believe in god just because I have not seen them" to them I want to say, god travel approx 300,000 kilometers per second. As we know, light is a particle but we cannot see it. similarly we cannot see the god.

As you know that light can travel through transparent object, X- ray can travel through human flesh, similarly god can travel through any solid object. so god can entered from closed door as well.

So, I think there is some un-explored power who created everything including the most complex human body and I have named that power as a god. Any way I am not sure, kirshna, shiva, allah, jegous are that un-explored power or not.

Hey same thing with devil as well

Saurav wrote:To those who says: " I don't believe in god just because I have not seen them" to them I want to say, god travel approx 300,000 kilometers per second. As we know, light is a particle but we cannot see it. similarly we cannot see the god.

As you know that light can travel through transparent object, X- ray can travel through human flesh, similarly god can travel through any solid object. so god can entered from closed door as well.

So, I think there is some un-explored power who created everything including the most complex human body and I have named that power as a god. Any way I am not sure, kirshna, shiva, allah, jegous are that un-explored power or not.

God travels 300000 km per sec........god can enter from closed doors as well

These are just assumptions...do you have any facts to prove these statements???

I mean to those who says " I don't believe in god just because I have not seen them". As I believe in god and as I have not seen it ------ yes I have assumed that------ and if researched in depth we can get facts as well.

Saurav wrote:I mean to those who says " I don't believe in god just because I have not seen them". As I believe in god and as I have not seen it ------ yes I have assumed that------ and if researched in depth we can get facts as well.

In my view enough research has already been done and there was no trace of god...

eveningpolestar wrote:In my view enough research has already been done and there was no trace of god...

what do you mean by that? "no trace of god" what kind of "research" has been done to exclusively search for god?? first of all what do you really mean by the word God?

god means different things to different people.For example, for the pagans, nature is god, for some, the sun is the god, for the star trek fans, the FORCE is the god, anyways, no matter what the definition , how can anybody conduct a so-called "research" to find god when the defintion itself is so hazy and gullible?

VforVendetta wrote:

eveningpolestar wrote:In my view enough research has already been done and there was no trace of god...

what do you mean by that? "no trace of god" what kind of "research" has been done to exclusively search for god?? first of all what do you really mean by the word God?

god means different things to different people.For example, for the pagans, nature is god, for some, the sun is the god, for the star trek fans, the FORCE is the god, anyways, no matter what the definition , how can anybody conduct a so-called "research" to find god when the defintion itself is so hazy and gullible?

Come on...I was referring to the researches that were done to verify the contents of Bible , Koran and other religious texts...Did you know that scientists found that Bible had been plagiarized from the ancient texts of Mesopotamian? Similarly various scientific researches to find if anything can travel faster than the speed of light had negative conclusions. So I guess by god i mean the conventional meaning of god (ie god as almighty power).

"God means different things to different people." The statement itself proves that god doesn't exist because god is simply a concept. A concept perceived by different people differently. God is a concept formed by people to cover the insecurities they feel when set against the vastness of the universe.

Hey frens - I believe in me, life and nature. There are the things I can see, feel touch and live. I think it is a little pointless putting faith into things which aren't completely tangible.

God is a theoretical entity that is postulated by theists to explain various phenomena, such as the origin of the universe, the design of the universe, and the origin of living things. Modern science, however, can explain all of these phenomena without postulating the existence of God. By demonstrating that God is not needed to explain anything, science has proven that there is no more reason to believe in the existence of God than to believe in the existence of phlogiston.
Moreover, God was created by man - someone that could drive fear into people. Another way to make some money... Not bad they have made BILLIONS - but the truth is that everybody believes in something - even if it’s something that nobody else believes in.

Eveningpolestar, keep up the open mind. There are so many closed minds out there that it is great to hear someone thinking for themselves. All our ideas should be open to debate. We don't need to 'respect' an ideas that god really exist.It is very difficult to change one's mind to a positive outlook when you have been raised to be negative.

VforVendetta wrote:

eveningpolestar wrote:In my view enough research has already been done and there was no trace of god...

what do you mean by that? "no trace of god" what kind of "research" has been done to exclusively search for god?? first of all what do you really mean by the word God?

god means different things to different people.For example, for the pagans, nature is god, for some, the sun is the god, for the star trek fans, the FORCE is the god, anyways, no matter what the definition , how can anybody conduct a so-called "research" to find god when the defintion itself is so hazy and gullible?

hey V..looks like i found something about the research.. check this topic in our library section

https://thenepalesedebate.forumotion.com/the-library-f14/books-for-and-against-god-collection-t295.htm#2408

well, as i said before god means different things to different people, and applies to us as well.
By god i wasn't necessarily referring to a christian god, or a hindu or allah or any particular icon.And am not definitely with the idea of the supreme old guy watching from the sky. I was however trying to get beyond the dualistic idea of god may be.Much of the discussion right now is focused primarily on a god as a being , a kind of a ruler that looks upon the universe like does a king upon his country and his countrymen. This is entirely a human conception, no doubt there, however my question is can you imagine god in some other way? not simply as a controller, simply as a subject or an object,, well i don't even have a word for it.

eveningpolestar wrote:

VforVendetta wrote:

eveningpolestar wrote:In my view enough research has already been done and there was no trace of god...

what do you mean by that? "no trace of god" what kind of "research" has been done to exclusively search for god?? first of all what do you really mean by the word God?

god means different things to different people.For example, for the pagans, nature is god, for some, the sun is the god, for the star trek fans, the FORCE is the god, anyways, no matter what the definition , how can anybody conduct a so-called "research" to find god when the defintion itself is so hazy and gullible?

hey V..looks like i found something about the research.. check this topic in our library section

https://thenepalesedebate.forumotion.com/the-library-f14/books-for-and-against-god-collection-t295.htm#2408

We r not debating on the basis of some book that is written by some people or so
but I think we need to figure out how the very first thing in the whole universe come into existence. For me it feels like there is something from the begining. What the scientist have found was if particle and antiparticle collided the whole universe came into existence. Hence nothing comes from nothing. Then where did these particles and antiparticles come from. I say some thing created it. That thing is what VforVendetta believe is god and same do I.

eveningpolestar wrote:

VforVendetta wrote:

eveningpolestar wrote:In my view enough research has already been done and there was no trace of god...

what do you mean by that? "no trace of god" what kind of "research" has been done to exclusively search for god?? first of all what do you really mean by the word God?

god means different things to different people.For example, for the pagans, nature is god, for some, the sun is the god, for the star trek fans, the FORCE is the god, anyways, no matter what the definition , how can anybody conduct a so-called "research" to find god when the defintion itself is so hazy and gullible?

hey V..looks like i found something about the research.. check this topic in our library section

https://thenepalesedebate.forumotion.com/the-library-f14/books-for-and-against-god-collection-t295.htm#2408

Book ... well anyone can write it. even you can write a book saying " god doesn't exist ". And well about research,.... science is not yet strong enough to make living beings and heavenly bodies so how can that science trace the creator of the universe.

VforVendetta wrote:well, as i said before god means different things to different people, and applies to us as well.
By god i wasn't necessarily referring to a christian god, or a hindu or allah or any particular icon.And am not definitely with the idea of the supreme old guy watching from the sky. I was however trying to get beyond the dualistic idea of god may be.Much of the discussion right now is focused primarily on a god as a being , a kind of a ruler that looks upon the universe like does a king upon his country and his countrymen. This is entirely a human conception, no doubt there, however my question is can you imagine god in some other way? not simply as a controller, simply as a subject or an object,, well i don't even have a word for it.

well, when the goes beyond the existence of god or any supreme being and it comes to about feeling ...well, i should say i have never tried to imagine god in some other ways but if any feeling would define god then it would be "compassion". When having the feeling of deep compassion i think maybe this is what god is supposed to be..what about you?

Razor Blade wrote:

eveningpolestar wrote:

VforVendetta wrote:

eveningpolestar wrote:In my view enough research has already been done and there was no trace of god...

what do you mean by that? "no trace of god" what kind of "research" has been done to exclusively search for god?? first of all what do you really mean by the word God?

god means different things to different people.For example, for the pagans, nature is god, for some, the sun is the god, for the star trek fans, the FORCE is the god, anyways, no matter what the definition , how can anybody conduct a so-called "research" to find god when the defintion itself is so hazy and gullible?

hey V..looks like i found something about the research.. check this topic in our library section

https://thenepalesedebate.forumotion.com/the-library-f14/books-for-and-against-god-collection-t295.htm#2408

We r not debating on the basis of some book that is written by some people or so
but I think we need to figure out how the very first thing in the whole universe come into existence. For me it feels like there is something from the begining. What the scientist have found was if particle and antiparticle collided the whole universe came into existence. Hence nothing comes from nothing. Then where did these particles and antiparticles come from. I say some thing created it. That thing is what VforVendetta believe is god and same do I.

what do you mean by "we r not debating on the basis of some book"???? Am i telling that since this book exists the god doesn't exist. I am just recommending v to read the book...the author must have some reasons to tell that god doesn't exist. He must have done some research and had some findings. A person doesn't just write a non-fiction book out of his imagination and it becomes a best seller....
And regarding the origination of universe there must have been sth from the beginning ..okay ...but that doesn't necessarily mean that it was god who was there from the beginning...and what does the beginning mean by the way? When was the beginning and what was there before the beginning?

Rational discussions can only achieve so much, Experiential knowledge is what is required here.There is no way to rationalize about something that might just be beyond words.We are like Blind people trying to contemplate colour.

YES god exist because this existence exist, for me god is not the one who fulfils your wish and desire but all those force that energy that makes you live, makes you thinkand makes you act in this world.

GOD for me is not some idol that creates hapiness for all, rather god is supreme power, who in one time or another created parameters for existence.who will also, in some time in future will rewrite those parameters and all of us will be turned back to our atom selves..

GOD is that belief in something that will help us in dire time where we all believed there is no one else that could help. and if for nothing else but hope; god must exist.

and one minor observation: should not the tiltle of this debate must be does god really exist rather that did gods really exists

Two monks were walking and one of them spotted a photo of a bearded buddha on the wall and asked his friend:"Why has the buddha got no beard?"

If you can understand the above story, you know what god means.

VforVendetta wrote:Two monks were walking and one of them spotted a photo of a bearded buddha on the wall and asked his friend:"Why has the buddha got no beard?"

If you can understand the above story, you know what god means.

if this is so than why this topic is created in this forum..............do u know what zen buddhist say......keep your brain out and enter....can u do it?

there is a difference between brain and the mind...or atleast that's what i beleive.Does anyone believe our minds to be more than what appears to be just a bunch of thoughts and sensations??Do our 'thoughts' have a mechanical origin corresponding to a particular set of neurons?I am basically asking :Is our entire existence confined within this slob of meat?

What do we really know really??You stare at this screen and call it a monitor.But is there anything intrinsically called a "monitor"? like the monitor's "aatma" of you will.Common sense says the monitors existence depends upon elements and systematic coordination of all the components together.If so, what about us? Are we too just a systematic coordination of particles? Are we just a program , one large biological software designed to survive??Can we really answer these questions??Who is asking? Who is asking?

Yes, i too believe there is difference between brain and mind, brain is the anatomical word and mind is more psychologically oriented word, well leave it let us see it in this way brain is the processor of all those information which comes through five sense organs and mind is something that has got no physical entity on itself, there is mind in dead people also but it can't function because the brain is not functioning, your brain creates your mind by exercising the thought , ampliphying, synthesizing, remodelling the thought,creating the so called self identity and chaos.........thats why the monk asked"why buddha has got no beard?".......if god happen to exist than there will be integration of self to the universal mind.....did something click or am i seem to expressing my neurosis?.....well v vend...your monitor example is good there is something like this in a book called milind prashna, a classic and revered buddhist text why dont you read that?......get it from buddhanet.net

on a side note here's an interesting sidetrack about SELF-INQUIRY , and investigation into the nature of self extracted from realization.org

It was Sri Ramana's basic thesis that the individual self is nothing more than a thought or an idea. He said that this thought, which he called 'I'-thought, originates from a place called the Heart-centre, which he located on the right side of the chest in the human body. From there the 'I'-thought rises up to the brain and identifies itself with the body: 'I am this body.' It then creates the illusion that there is a mind or an individual self which inhabits the body and which controls all its thoughts and actions. The 'I'-thought accomplishes this by identifying itself with all the thoughts and perceptions that go on in the body. For example, 'I' (that is the 'I'-thought) am doing this, 'I' am thinking this, 'I' am feeling happy, etc. Thus, the idea that one is an individual person is generated and sustained by the 'I'-thought and by its habit of constantly attaching itself to all the thoughts that arise. Sri Ramana maintained that one could reverse this process by depriving the 'I'-thought of all the thoughts and perceptions that it normally identifies with. Sri Ramana taught that this 'I'-thought is actually an unreal entity, and that it only appears to exist when it identifies itself with other thoughts. He said that if one can break the connection between the 'I'-thought and the thoughts it identifies with, then the 'I'-thought itself will subside and finally disappear. Sri Ramana suggested that this could be done by holding onto the 'I'-thought, that is, the inner feeling of 'I' or 'I am' and excluding all other thoughts. As an aid to keeping one's attention on this inner feeling of 'I', he recommended that one should constantly question oneself 'Who am I?' or 'Where does this "I" come from?' He said that if one can keep one's attention on this inner feeling of 'I', and if one can exclude all other thoughts, then the 'I'-thought will start to subside into the Heart-centre

well, I have not read any of Raman maharshi's books, and it was nice to read his original words, see v either hindu says aatma philosophy, buddhist say ksnanik anaatma philosophy or christ say " love thy neighbour" philosophy they were sure what they were saying , and we are interpreting or trying to understand what they had said, but have not experienced that true voidness or god inside us or that state of mind devoid of "I" entity, I think your statement to get rid of "I" is one among those hundreds of ways devised by various saints in eastern side and that process is termed as meditation, if you are really serious than read " dependent origination" theory of shakyamuni buddha, it dissects "I" as the doctors dissects the dead body in their study of anatomy

I have not go through all the posts; but personally I believe in god so I 100% believe God really exist, if not you can take it as super natural power. As these days Physics also come to consensus that anti-matter exists..so similarly..anti-u. So, some sort of power which can have hold to these should be there...and we can say that is GOD!!!

I also haven't go through all posts but I really don't believe in god.
I have taken these all a part of political which is created by ancient writers.
If you read well Hindu Epics,Bible and Kuran then you will know these all means mistakes inside of those books.
I have read many of those books so came to know and philosophy of these books(Major religions are Hindu,Christian,Budhha and Islam)but haven't got chance to read Tripitak(Except one so can't say more about Budhha).
I came in conclusion after a long time due to these books but still missing in soul of human.

About god,
I really don't believe and I don't forget the word of Friedrich Nietzsche
Which is "God is dead" and I add here now,
"I killed my god because he was basterd".