Is the reality of God subjective?

yes

 

Yeah, I think that we can believe in something so deeply and fully, that we manifest it into reality for ourselves (not necessarily others though). I believe that some people can do this with 'god' or any other deity. Just like a schizophrenic creates an entirely new world to live in, a drug produces mass hallucinations, I believe that we can "believe" god into existence.

The only thing that I don't agree with in your post, is that god (or the belief in god) is any different than gravity. Sure, gravity is more plausible, and in the context of every day life the belief in gravity is important, but I wouldn't call it any more concrete than god. I believe all reality is subjective, and we honestly can't be 100% sure about any of our assumptions about the world around us. For all we know, we know nothing.

 

The reality is not subjective, but the experience of that reality is.

There is a great deal of experience with mysticism and the spiritual life over millenia....in my opinion too much to flatly ignore if one is to be intellectually honest. Yet with all this experience two things stand out: 1) there are great similarities in the inner workings of the great spitritual traditions and 2) the indiviual's experience and personal journey is vital to understanding....you can't read a book and "get it."

 

I don't know why I get discomfort when I hear "believe" instead of "knowing". Believing in something in my opinion is different than knowing something. I know that God exists rather than believing that it exists. And yes, this knowing is quite subjective because everyone is entitled to their own free will of believing what they want and experiencing all there is to experience. Some of us are atheists because we don't want to know that there is a superior being and not because they are unintelligent but because they have a subjective knowing that there is no God up there.

You may ask "how do you know that God exists?" I simply answer "the same way that you know that you exist.

.

 

Memetic control mechanism.

 

I would say that a memetic control mechanism is appropriate to some religions but when talking about a creator of the universe I would say that there is much more than a memic to explain it. I'm not judging anyone because that would contradict to what I posted above about each own's free will.

So how do you think that a universe and this reality was made? Just out of coincidence, accident?

 

Yes, it is subjective.

 

And, since all we have is experience, i.e., that which we have taken in through our senses (and then, processed in our minds and stored as memories), our "reality" can only be subjective.

Note, one might argue that mysticism is generated within. I submit that it is completely dependent on and derived from experience. Thus, a person without any sensation (i.e., sensory input) has no reality, except perhaps one continuous, formless nightmare.

 

If we had the power to make God exist (or not) through belief, then we would be God.

 

Agree. If something exists, then it's existence trumps my feelings of whether or not i believe it exists. The earth was round, and was always so. So, even when we strongly believed the world was flat based on how we saw it, it was still round. If something exists, it exists.

 

Made? That is a teleological statement. If you assume the universe was "made" then you assume it was created. That it had a Creator. The universe is not a watch! If you observe the life on this planet, you can see natural selection, you can the progress of evolution through the generations. There is no creator in that process. Things really do assemble themselves. If there were a creator, it set in motion all the forces that formed this universe, and there is no credible evidence that it has intervened since. For all intensive purposes, the universe itself could be said Creator, or at least its corpse. This universe could have even budded off of another dying universe. Nonetheless, the concept of "God" and "Creator" are not synonymous.

 

We tend to think in very, very linear terms when it comes to God. Some writers speak of knowing God by "unknowing" God...and there is some validity to this. Our minds have to let go of limited constructs if we are to see something more substantial and true.

 

Kierkegaard has an interesting view on this.

He states that man is in a relation to a particular object, he can view the "truth-hood" of this particular object through an objective or subjective lens. In the case of the former, the object's truth in-and-of-itself is examined. This would be like a person knowing that Socrates bought apples yesterday because he said he would and Socrates never lies.

Subjective truth is concerned with the relationship between object and the viewer of that particular object. This would kind of be like examining the apple and knowing it is real through the sound it makes as you bite into it, the taste of it as you chew it in your mouth, and the satisfaction you might feel once you have finished your snack.

Kierkegaard argues that each of these positions, by themselves, is undesirable. Objectivism, when pondering the truth of God, would require a set of proofs and premises that would need to be flawless, as a minor argument's falsehood could crumble the proof one might have constructed for this divine being. Subjectivity is not necessarily better -- it could potentially lead someone to believe something is true that might not exist at all.

It is clear that man is a synthesis of subjectivity and objectivity, but this synthesis is not in a state of finality. His fixed nature (genetics, perceptions and limitations of others, situation) shall always be in conflict with his infinite nature (the part of man that can create, develop, change, and transcend). Therefore, there is only one authentic way to believe in God. A believer must be in the state of passion that arises when subjectively believing in a God, while realizing that His existence is a potential objective falsehood.

I know that wasn't very eloquent, but I hope I did an okay job of reciting a general idea of Kierkegaard's beliefs. Any other existentialism enthusiasts should feel free to correct me if I failed to explain a point clearly.

 

We can manifest anything we want. We have to believe in god and in ourselves. If you are believing something you can achieve, then see dream of it, go very near to your dream, look after it, Don't forget to take necessary action. Without action you can't achieve anything, you know that. Do work with good feeling, this is most important.

 

Well said!!

 

Yes, I do believe it is created and I do believe in a creator.

Once you have created a watch, why would the creator of that watch needs to intervene in it's function? The same thing with the species on earth, once the creator had created life on Earth, why the need to intervene with it if it can function by itself?

Once again, why would the creator would want to intervene in something that it is already functioning? My hypothesis, once its creation has stopped working, and it's happening right now, then said creator will have to intervene.

I don't see why not. Though, I wouldn't put my finger on it.

Hmm, I apologize, I always thought they were the same thing.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&...&oi=glossary_definition&ct=title&ved=0CAcQkAE

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/Creator

 

Hey, if you want to argue a deist conception of a Creator then all the power to you, but that is far from a Christian concept of a God who causes global floods and crams two of every animal on the planet on a boat.

How has creation stopped working?

Well they aren't. A Creator does not necessarily have to be a God. A Creator can be a completely natural phenomeon, whereas a God is supernatural. And a little lesson in linguistics, just because words can be used synonymously does not mean they are synonymous. Red and Rose can be used synonymously, but it doesn't mean they are the same thing.

 

Meh, I wish not to argue about this Satya. I've done it and it's led me nowhere and just to make things clear, I never mentioned in believing the Christian concept of "God" so I don't know why you brought that up.

Just look around you: global warming, climate changes, increase violence, over-population, ignorance. I'm not talking about the stop of the creation of species but rather a halt in the creation of humanity.

Thank you for clearing that misunderstanding. I believe I was misusing the proper terms to describe it then.

 

Yes.

I believe that some sort of creative source exists that drives life, and not believing in it can't cease it from being but will make it personally false to your perception.