Can spirituality exist without God?

Joseph Ramos11 said:But how did you come to that conclusion?...

I figured it out. How about you?
I mean, if we start from the idea that God is the creator behind everything—including you, your spirit, your body, your mind, your whole soul... then I guess we can conclude that without Him, there's just nothing. And honestly, that pretty much answers the question asked at the very beginning.
Or, if you haven't quite grasped it yet, maybe God exists regardless of whether you're there to perceive Him or not—independent of your mind, your physical self, your spirit, or anything else for that matter.😉

"God" himself—it really makes you wonder who actually brought the concept of a "creator God" into existence in the first place, doesn't it?
Or is it simply impossible for anyone to truly "create" anything, given the logical loop where you'd always need someone to create the creator, leading us down an infinite regression?

silentnomad23 said:"God" himself—it really makes you wonder who actually brought the concept of a "creator God" into existence in the first place, doesn't it?
Or is it simply impossible for anyone to truly "create" anything, given the logical loop where you'd always need someone to create the creator, leading us down an infinite regression?

Look, if you're supposedly God, do me a favor and just whip up another Earth. This one's getting pretty crowded, and honestly, it'd be nice to have a backup plan ready in case everything goes south here.😂
As for God, the whole idea is that He's always been there—eternity itself. He's the source of everything, so I don't think anyone could have "created" Him, since nothing even existed before Him.😉
There was simply no "before."😲

I think you’re missing my point; I’m not talking about a process of creation, but rather one of absolute indivisibility.
Then you go on to claim that nothing could have been created because it didn't exist prior to its inception—that there is no "before."
Don't you see the paradox there? If there truly is no "before," then there can be no "outside," which means there is no such thing as being "separate from" anything else.

mistybison said:Is believing in something greater than ourselves—a deeper purpose behind our existence—merely the initial spark that sets us on a spiritual journey, or is it a constant companion along the way? Can spirituality truly exist without God, regardless of how one defines Him? Is it possible to be spiritual without being a believer? Furthermore, if you feel you "know" something for certain, how do you distinguish actual knowledge from simply having faith in what you know?

Not really—you either live in awareness of God or you don't. We aren't self-made, after all. If spirituality is at the core of what a human being is, then it was given to us by God and originated from Him. So, the answer is no.

mistybison said:Is believing in something greater than ourselves—a deeper purpose behind our existence—merely the initial spark that sets us on a spiritual journey, or is it a constant companion along the way? Can spirituality truly exist without God, regardless of how one defines Him? Is it possible to be spiritual without being a believer? Furthermore, if you feel you "know" something for certain, how do you distinguish actual knowledge from simply having faith in what you know?

No.
*(I mean, sure, there are evil forces or demons that lean on Satan—but even that is just another form of dependency on God. Anyone acknowledging the existence of Satan is, by default, acknowledging God.)

mistybison said:Is believing in something greater than ourselves—a deeper purpose behind our existence—merely the initial spark that sets us on a spiritual journey, or is it a constant companion along the way? Can spirituality truly exist without God, regardless of how one defines Him? Is it possible to be spiritual without being a believer? Furthermore, if you feel you "know" something for certain, how do you distinguish actual knowledge from simply having faith in what you know?

No, because you’re always believing in something.

mistybison said:Is believing in something greater than ourselves—a deeper purpose behind our existence—merely the initial spark that sets us on a spiritual journey, or is it a constant companion along the way? Can spirituality truly exist without God, regardless of how one defines Him? Is it possible to be spiritual without being a believer? Furthermore, if you feel you "know" something for certain, how do you distinguish actual knowledge from simply having faith in what you know?

Based on my own specific experience.
It's a bit complicated to put into words—I've tried explaining it a few times before and it didn't really go anywhere, so I think I'll skip the effort this time.

mistybison said:Reading through your posts, I get the impression that most of you view the spiritual journey as being synonymous with personal religion. If we were to set aside faith entirely—even one's own private beliefs—could we still speak of spirituality? What would a spiritual path look like without faith? Is it even possible for such a path to exist?

There is definitely a bit of a hurdle here, mostly because spirituality has traditionally been framed through this dualistic lens of the natural versus the supernatural. It’s that classic split between spirit and body—a divided existence.

But, if we redefine "spirituality" as our emotional response to simply *being* in this world—that sense of wonder and active exploration of our surroundings, without needing to summon any divine entities—then the answer to your question is a resounding yes.

When we ask those big questions—who are we, where did we come from, where are we headed, what is our purpose, what can we actually know, or what is the true nature of reality?—anyone asking them will inevitably run into God, angels, demons, past lives, adepts, forces, nature, emptiness... everything. Every single answer is just an attempt to transcend the limitations of daily life; it's a search for meaning.

In my spare time, I dabble in amateur astronomy. I’m often out at night with my telescope, observing the stars and jotting down some notes... and honestly, more than once, I've found myself tearing up just from the privilege of being able to witness it all. I am in deep awe. It's that feeling of oneness, that concept in Zen where every new moment is dependent on everything else. Nothing exists in a vacuum. Everything that appears arises because of something else. In those moments, it isn't even about my perspective or my angle of observation—it's just that intuitive connection to nature... to the universe... a state of total openness. It feels like coming home.

Brenda Cook4 said:There is definitely a bit of a hurdle here, mostly because spirituality has traditionally been framed through this dualistic lens of the natural versus the supernatural. It’s that classic split between spirit and body—a divided existence.

But, if we redefine "spirituality" as our emotional response to simply *being* in this world—that sense of wonder and active exploration of our surroundings, without needing to summon any divine entities—then the answer to your question is a resounding yes.

When we ask those big questions—who are we, where did we come from, where are we headed, what is our purpose, what can we actually know, or what is the true nature of reality?—anyone asking them will inevitably run into God, angels, demons, past lives, adepts, forces, nature, emptiness... everything. Every single answer is just an attempt to transcend the limitations of daily life; it's a search for meaning.

In my spare time, I dabble in amateur astronomy. I’m often out at night with my telescope, observing the stars and jotting down some notes... and honestly, more than once, I've found myself tearing up just from the privilege of being able to witness it all. I am in deep awe. It's that feeling of oneness, that concept in Zen where every new moment is dependent on everything else. Nothing exists in a vacuum. Everything that appears arises because of something else. In those moments, it isn't even about my perspective or my angle of observation—it's just that intuitive connection to nature... to the universe... a state of total openness. It feels like coming home.

I’m sorry, but I have to disagree here—what you’ve laid out actually runs completely contrary to Zen philosophy. In Zen, the core idea is that everything exists "of itself," and ultimately, everything is part of the "Void." All these "things" we see are really just mental constructs that pop into existence the very second we start perceiving the world through objects (basically, through our thoughts) while ignoring the non-dual nature of reality (the Tao). But in truth, everything that is—and even everything that isn't—exists on its own terms... without a specific cause... it's just this constant, spontaneous, and fluidly inclusive change.

William Gonzalez3 said:Does Buddhism actually involve a concept of God?
And I suppose one might wonder—are those who build our physical structures somehow connected to the spiritual realm?

I’ve always felt that Buddhism is much more of a dialogue than some rigid ideology. At its core—at least the way I see it—it isn't really preoccupied with those heavy theological debates or trying to prove the existence of a higher power. Instead, it focuses almost entirely on the nature of your own consciousness and the reality of who you actually are. It’s an exploration of the self, handled through continuous conversation and inquiry rather than just following a strict, step-by-step manual or a checklist of rules.

William Gonzalez3 said:Does Buddhism actually involve a concept of God?
And I suppose one might wonder—are those who build our physical structures somehow connected to the spiritual realm?

Since Buddhism isn't actually an ideology, anyone who goes around calling themselves a "Buddhist" has clearly missed the entire point. Think about it—to be a Buddhist, you’d have to embrace a specific set of dogmas or a rigid belief system, but that core ideology doesn't even exist (outside of the watered-down version you see in pop culture religion). So, really, any kind of self-identification with "Buddhism" is just a roundabout way of proving you don't actually get what it's all about.

casualmaker13 said:I figured it out. How about you?
I mean, if we start from the idea that God is the creator behind everything—including you, your spirit, your body, your mind, your whole soul... then I guess we can conclude that without Him, there's just nothing. And honestly, that pretty much answers the question asked at the very beginning.
Or, if you haven't quite grasped it yet, maybe God exists regardless of whether you're there to perceive Him or not—independent of your mind, your physical self, your spirit, or anything else for that matter.😉

Well, you "figured it out" my foot...

HOW did you figure it out? WHAT did you use to figure it out? Where do this God and this spirituality of yours actually come from? They come from your own mind. You can't really talk about any god or any spirituality, because all you're talking about is what you can think about. Both are just concepts—products of the mind. If some kind of God or spirituality actually exists, it’s way beyond the reach of a thinker. It can't be described or captured using the tools of the mind. You think you're discussing divinity, but you're really just talking about your own thoughts and nothing else. But I guess that's not surprising. It’s a standard issue for the whole human race... everyone builds sandcastles and thinks they're constructing skyscrapers.🙂

Joseph Ramos11 said:Well, you "figured it out" my foot...

HOW did you figure it out? WHAT did you use to figure it out? Where do this God and this spirituality of yours actually come from? They come from your own mind. You can't really talk about any god or any spirituality, because all you're talking about is what you can think about. Both are just concepts—products of the mind. If some kind of God or spirituality actually exists, it’s way beyond the reach of a thinker. It can't be described or captured using the tools of the mind. You think you're discussing divinity, but you're really just talking about your own thoughts and nothing else. But I guess that's not surprising. It’s a standard issue for the whole human race... everyone builds sandcastles and thinks they're constructing skyscrapers.🙂

It seems like you haven't caught on to a single thing yet, but hey, I guess it's not your fault...😁
I suppose your God just descends from outer space in a flying saucer, sporting a hundred arms and legs, looking in every direction at once, just waiting to suck your blood through a straw.😂😲😂

Yeah, back in the day, the whole idea of God as the Creator was tossed aside—honestly, it happened in a pretty hilarious fashion. 😁

Still, they kept onto concepts like Nirvana and karma, so I suppose Enchi’s question probably applies to Buddhists too.

Anyway, Edward Flores4, what's your actual basis for separating Buddhism from this "popular religion known as Buddhism"?

Edward Flores4 said:I’m sorry, but I have to disagree here—what you’ve laid out actually runs completely contrary to Zen philosophy. In Zen, the core idea is that everything exists "of itself," and ultimately, everything is part of the "Void." All these "things" we see are really just mental constructs that pop into existence the very second we start perceiving the world through objects (basically, through our thoughts) while ignoring the non-dual nature of reality (the Tao). But in truth, everything that is—and even everything that isn't—exists on its own terms... without a specific cause... it's just this constant, spontaneous, and fluidly inclusive change.

.........wrong.....
Look, you aren't the first person to trip up on this, and I actually run into this quite often—people just don't grasp how Zen works. That "emptiness" specifically means that nothing can exist purely on its own; everything relies on everything else. Nothing possesses its own isolated nature: "self is empty of inherent nature." Think about it—if something actually had its own fixed, inherent nature, it could never change. It would be an unchangeable, ultimate reality. So, anything that undergoes change lacks an unconditional, inherent nature of its own.

They are the two truths doctrine, emptiness (sunyata) and dependent arising or co-dependent origination (pratityasamutpada).

Here's an example: we call it a "table" because we've agreed to call it that. A table is dependent on wood—on its various parts. A table doesn't have any existence outside of the material it's made from, the people who built it, and our shared agreement/language to label it a "table." Our tendency is to mistake this for the ultimate reality; we objectify it and, in doing so, we mistakenly grant things this sense of "self-existence."

Without emptiness (sunyata) there could be no two truths. Without emptiness, there could be no dependent arising (pratityasamutpada). What is important to realise about emptiness is that it does not deny the existence of things (conventional reality)but says that all things (everything) have no intrinsic essence. In other words, nothing exists on its own, divorced or separated from other things. Therefore, everything is interconnected and cannot exist without these ‘other things’, including the self. It’s also important to realise that Nagarjuna really does mean everything, without exception, including the Self, including thoughts, volition,beliefs—quite literally everything. For example, Nagarjuna argues that spatial properties cannot exist on their own. A location cannot exist without an object tobe located in that space and, conversely, there cannot be an object without a location for it as all objects must have a location for them to exist in. Both object and location are dependent on each other. (Garfield & Priest, 2003) Nagarjuna goes on to show that everything is dependent on something else to exist. Nothing can exist without something else existing. This is the meaning of emptiness—and this is dependent arising (pratityasamutpada)

Or, as expressed in verse: 😬

Whatever is dependently co-arisen
That is explained to be emptiness
That, being a dependent designation
Is itself the middle way.

Something that is not dependently arisen,
Such a thing does not exist.
So, a thing that isn't empty
simply can't exist.

....that's really the core of it....

....people often mistake the 'great void' for being an absolute nothingness, but that's not how it works from a Zen perspective. Think of it this way: the great emptiness isn't a lack of everything; rather, it's the absence of obstruction. It's what allows everything else to actually happen. Matter is essentially just form, and by its very nature, form creates obstacles. But emptiness? It doesn't get in the way. Instead, it acts as the essential foundation that allows matter to function. If it were to obstruct, nothing could ever come into being. Sunyata shouldn't be viewed as a mere 'vast vacuum,' but as the bedrock for all phenomena—both form and mind. That is the true essence of all things; it's the fundamental principle of existence itself.

To put it plainly, if the universe weren't characterized by emptiness and impermanence, none of the phenomena we see would ever emerge through the interplay of different causes. There would be no rise and no fall. In that sense, the nature of sunyata is actually profoundly positive!

Edward Flores4 said:I’ve always felt that Buddhism is much more of a dialogue than some rigid ideology. At its core—at least the way I see it—it isn't really preoccupied with those heavy theological debates or trying to prove the existence of a higher power. Instead, it focuses almost entirely on the nature of your own consciousness and the reality of who you actually are. It’s an exploration of the self, handled through continuous conversation and inquiry rather than just following a strict, step-by-step manual or a checklist of rules.

Since Buddhism isn't actually an ideology, anyone who goes around calling themselves a "Buddhist" has clearly missed the entire point. Think about it—to be a Buddhist, you’d have to embrace a specific set of dogmas or a rigid belief system, but that core ideology doesn't even exist (outside of the watered-down version you see in pop culture religion). So, really, any kind of self-identification with "Buddhism" is just a roundabout way of proving you don't actually get what it's all about.

I don't know about that. People seem pretty consistent when it comes to identifying with just about everything—and hey, it worked for the author of your signature, I guess. It's just one more little identification. Isn't it better if they identify with something that at least promises access to a state where identification doesn't even exist?

It’s not like reading a single sutra is going to snap them out of the habit of identifying with things instantly.

Just a few thoughts...

If "spirituality" is defined as self-discovery, then believing in God isn't strictly necessary. In fact, you don't even need to believe in a "soul" or any other concept we can't verify with absolute certainty. It seems to me that when embarking on this journey, one is better off traveling light—stripping away everything that might clutter the mind or lead us astray through preconceived patterns of thought. Nothing more than self-belief is required, and most of us are quite certain of our own existence. 😉

On the other hand, if "spirituality" is a search for God, then faith in God becomes the prerequisite for the journey. Typically, we look for God in the external world first before turning our gaze inward. While the process of self-discovery involves searching for the source of our being and our purpose, seeking God means looking for the entity we believe to be our ultimate origin and meaning. Have you ever noticed how reality seems to reshape itself to align with our convictions? Once we commit to a belief, we suddenly encounter endless evidence supporting it, almost as if the universe is conspiring to confirm we are right, making it incredibly easy to convince ourselves that we have found the absolute TRUTH. However, just as nothing in this world is permanent, our beliefs shift as well. Throughout my life, my understanding of "God" has evolved many times, mirroring my own internal growth.

Who are you searching for—yourself or God?

There are countless paths toward self-knowledge and infinite ways to seek God. Some follow the well-trodden trails left by those before us, while others choose to blaze their own unique path.

Are you still walking the spiritual path, or have you reached its end? Have you truly grasped the essence of yourself or God? Is such a feat even possible? Or is it more practical to simply let go? How can you be sure that what you claim to KNOW isn't merely FAITH in ideas that happen to suit your current stage of personal development? How do we distinguish between FAITH and KNOWLEDGE in a spiritual context?

Brenda Cook4 said:.........wrong.....
Look, you aren't the first person to trip up on this, and I actually run into this quite often—people just don't grasp how Zen works. That "emptiness" specifically means that nothing can exist purely on its own; everything relies on everything else. Nothing possesses its own isolated nature: "self is empty of inherent nature." Think about it—if something actually had its own fixed, inherent nature, it could never change. It would be an unchangeable, ultimate reality. So, anything that undergoes change lacks an unconditional, inherent nature of its own.

They are the two truths doctrine, emptiness (sunyata) and dependent arising or co-dependent origination (pratityasamutpada).

Here's an example: we call it a "table" because we've agreed to call it that. A table is dependent on wood—on its various parts. A table doesn't have any existence outside of the material it's made from, the people who built it, and our shared agreement/language to label it a "table." Our tendency is to mistake this for the ultimate reality; we objectify it and, in doing so, we mistakenly grant things this sense of "self-existence."

Without emptiness (sunyata) there could be no two truths. Without emptiness, there could be no dependent arising (pratityasamutpada). What is important to realise about emptiness is that it does not deny the existence of things (conventional reality)but says that all things (everything) have no intrinsic essence. In other words, nothing exists on its own, divorced or separated from other things. Therefore, everything is interconnected and cannot exist without these ‘other things’, including the self. It’s also important to realise that Nagarjuna really does mean everything, without exception, including the Self, including thoughts, volition,beliefs—quite literally everything. For example, Nagarjuna argues that spatial properties cannot exist on their own. A location cannot exist without an object tobe located in that space and, conversely, there cannot be an object without a location for it as all objects must have a location for them to exist in. Both object and location are dependent on each other. (Garfield & Priest, 2003) Nagarjuna goes on to show that everything is dependent on something else to exist. Nothing can exist without something else existing. This is the meaning of emptiness—and this is dependent arising (pratityasamutpada)

Or, as expressed in verse: 😬

Whatever is dependently co-arisen
That is explained to be emptiness
That, being a dependent designation
Is itself the middle way.

Something that is not dependently arisen,
Such a thing does not exist.
So, a thing that isn't empty
simply can't exist.

....that's really the core of it....

....people often mistake the 'great void' for being an absolute nothingness, but that's not how it works from a Zen perspective. Think of it this way: the great emptiness isn't a lack of everything; rather, it's the absence of obstruction. It's what allows everything else to actually happen. Matter is essentially just form, and by its very nature, form creates obstacles. But emptiness? It doesn't get in the way. Instead, it acts as the essential foundation that allows matter to function. If it were to obstruct, nothing could ever come into being. Sunyata shouldn't be viewed as a mere 'vast vacuum,' but as the bedrock for all phenomena—both form and mind. That is the true essence of all things; it's the fundamental principle of existence itself.

To put it plainly, if the universe weren't characterized by emptiness and impermanence, none of the phenomena we see would ever emerge through the interplay of different causes. There would be no rise and no fall. In that sense, the nature of sunyata is actually profoundly positive!

The Void isn't just "nothingness"—think of it more as "no-thing-ness." It's the sum of everything that exists and everything that doesn't, without trying to slice non-duality into little pieces called "things." In fact, if you look at it closely, the word "thing" is really just a derivative of the act of "thinking"... which means anything you try to say about Zen is technically off base. Words are just categories, but Zen is the category of all categories—it sits completely beyond the reach of human thought or language.

driftingraven122 said:I don't know about that. People seem pretty consistent when it comes to identifying with just about everything—and hey, it worked for the author of your signature, I guess. It's just one more little identification. Isn't it better if they identify with something that at least promises access to a state where identification doesn't even exist?

It’s not like reading a single sutra is going to snap them out of the habit of identifying with things instantly.

Not at all! Identifying with anything just ends up reinforcing that ego illusion—it’s like, you identify with Buddhism, and suddenly you've just built another layer of identity. I mean, whether it's "better" to identify with Buddhist philosophy or a street gang is probably worth a debate, but honestly, that's just a "pick the lesser of two evils" situation, which isn't really worth our time to dwell on.

mistybison:
Reading through your posts, I get the impression most of you view the spiritual path as synonymous with having a personal religion. But what if we stripped away faith entirely—even our own personal beliefs? Could we still call it spirituality? What would a spiritual journey even look like without faith? Is it even possible?

I’d argue that having faith (in God) is essentially an admission of our own limitations as humans; it's an acknowledgment that we don't have all the answers. It implies a certain level of indeterminism regarding the fate of the world and humanity, suggesting there might be some underlying structure—some sort of guidance or laws—that defines the direction we're heading.
At its core, this seems to boil down to the question of freedom. We are deeply embedded in this physical, material reality, constantly worrying about what comes next, grappling with immediate problems, and feeling the friction between our desires and the obstacles in our way. For the most part, we're walking blindly into tomorrow.
If we can't grasp all the intentions of the Creator, or if the ultimate destiny of the universe remains a mystery to us, then it feels perfectly logical that faith and hope emerge as essential components of how we think, plan, live, and philosophize.
If we want to avoid jumping to the conclusion that everything past and future is already hardcoded, then the guiding principle has to be freedom.
Whether that’s personal freedom (divine or human...)
or a type of freedom that arises from the consequences of what we call "nature" or chaos,
in any of these scenarios, I believe faith is an inevitable byproduct that must exist.

Edward Flores4 said:Not at all! Identifying with anything just ends up reinforcing that ego illusion—it’s like, you identify with Buddhism, and suddenly you've just built another layer of identity. I mean, whether it's "better" to identify with Buddhist philosophy or a street gang is probably worth a debate, but honestly, that's just a "pick the lesser of two evils" situation, which isn't really worth our time to dwell on.

So, how exactly do you plan on getting rid of that illusion? Isn't there some form of identification inherent in your attempt to fix it (assuming you're even trying)?

Hannah Wilson3 said:God is the Source of all spirituality.
Realizing God's existence is what births faith—trying to go the other way is just a circular, futile exercise. True spirituality, if we’re being honest about what the word actually means, is nothing more than the daily affirmation of that realization of God (whether you call Him the Tao, Buddha, Allah, Christ, the Unmoved Mover, or simply Energy/Consciousness).

Faith itself? That's basically just standing behind your own convictions. It’s an act of will—like when you're absolutely certain that your actions are going to succeed and you don't flinch.

So, to answer the inevitable question: "Can spirituality exist without God?"--
The kind of spirituality you're asking about emerges within a community of people who actually live out divine principles—performing good works so genuinely beneficial that they leave no room for guilt or cause anyone harm—without needing to wrap themselves in philosophical jargon to prove it.

Since the question of God is often just a matter of terminology, in a society defined by its actions rather than its empty rhetoric, then yes—spirituality without God exists.

edit/bibliomancy based on timestamp
Galatians 5:22-23
22 But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness,
23 gentleness, self-control; against such things there is no law.

That's the gist of it, I suppose. 🙂

Otherwise, sure—the idea of God as some superior persona or entity isn't the only way a person can conceptualize existence today. There are plenty of ideas regarding something existing "beyond" the physical-material realm. Seekers might start there, or perhaps they pivot later on to search for something else entirely.
But what *is*, simply *is*.
Human misconceptions and misguided ambitions don't actually change reality. A seeker searches because they feel an intuition, or a belief, that there is something waiting to be uncovered—something that a standard scientific experiment just isn't designed to find.