If god dosent exist

Exactly. Egoism applies to exactly one person, and makes sense from the viewpoint of exactly one person: me. Everyone else (assuming you're not all robots) is also their own 'me', but since I can't prove that, I don't care. I only need to assume that reality is what I experience.

How can philosophy be real if our eyes aren't

It isn't though, philosophy is a fuggen spoog lmao. As for eyes, eh, I kinda have to assume they're real in order to function to satisfy my ego.

If it applies to everyone from their own point of view wouldn't that mean egoism applies to everyone and not just one person? I don't got what you mean when you say it applies to exactly one person.

I'm sorta coming at it from a solipsistic standpoint, I can't prove that other people exist, therefore I shouldn't try to apply my philosophy to them, but if they do exist, the same argument applies for them.

there's no point
luckily he does exist

buddhism has supernatural elements too, even hell afaik

a literal retard post from a literal retard frogposter

back to Reddit, friend

The west has always picked chosen what part of christianity it chooses to uphold. The self-oblation message of Christ has always fallen by the wayside push comes to shove. I also think it's funny you arbitrarily choose Christianity, when you could go back even further because of all the pagan influences that permeate through the culture. Any objective meaning was semblance, and a product of the zeitgeist of the time.

God is the point of everything. God is meaning. I will explain this.

Has a point.. Why suggest this off the bat?

What is taught in ancient indian scriptures is called Yoga. In modern times we call yoga 'psychology'. When spiritual teachers came from the east to the west in the 1970s (Suzuki, Prabhupada, and others) they explained the esoteric system of yoga in terms that matched our science of psychology. Psychology is the science of the mind. The Eastern claim is that The Mind -is- the universe from beginning to end, and that understanding your own mind, you understand everything.
Most of the spiritual teachings that Eastern Religion teaches stems from the set of texts called The Upanishads, which are the distilled essence of sages' realizations after meditation. Most of the Upanishads are a series of Q and A's with guru and disciple.
One thing that should be noted is that ANY text will never DIRECTLY/OBJECTIVELY point to God/The Absolute, but by NEGATION, it will say everything that is NOT God and allow YOU to arrive at the conclusion of what exactly is God/The Divine and you're relation to it. Once you say what 'that' is, it ceases to be it, and becomes words.
The Chandogya Upanishad, the question is asked, 'What is 'that' by knowing which everything is known?' Western Philosophy has never asked such a question, because 'we' have tended to see knowledge as categorization & nothing beyond. But the Upanishad is trying to get at the root of thought, the root of existence. Anyway, this is becoming long winded, but I want to hit a point strongly here which I hope will answer OP's question directly. That is that there is a physical process by which one can realize the root of one's existence, and that is by seated meditation & going into trance or Samadhi.
Samadhi, I think, is best explained by Patanjali. I'll use the example of a musician learning guitar. At first, the guitarist picks up the instrument and he can pluck a few notes, it generally sounds awful. Then she begins to practice daily, putting her mind on the object of making a sweet melody. She follows an instructor, and eventually she is playing the classics. She still has to look at the sheet music for new things, but generally she is getting it. Eventually she can play on stage, and drown out the audience cheering for her, so she can focus on what she's doing. It's this focus which leads one to Samadhi. The Samadhi of the Guitar happens when, at long last, our guitarist is able to play without looking at the notes, without even relying on muscle memory, every time she plays now, since she's mastered it, since she's put her mind on the concept again and again unwaveringly, she now can play in a way that is actually 'child-like' (not child-ISH) and 'creatively'. She has found New Meaning out of the act of guitar.
Now, mastering guitar is a physical-outer type of Samadhi. By looking for that high in the outer world, one becomes corrupted, just look at any rockstar. The high of mastery lasts while on stage, then you need drugs and sex just to relive the high. Imagine getting the same type of concentration on the inner root of existence. Finding Meaning and being Creative with Your Own True Essence.

Morals exist in the relative plane. If you transcend morals prematurely, you will still feel the results of your actions. You must be moral to proceed in yoga or psychology. To be psychologically well, you have to discover your orientation, what is right and wrong. If you skip this step, you will fail.

It is the transcendent that informs the material. You need leaders that can get in touch with the super-conscious state, and bring back what they learned. This is why societies always had magi/shaman/court wizards and all that.

The proof of God's existence is your own existence. This is a toughie, and requires some deep thinking.
Do you exist? Are you certain of your existence? What is existence? How do you exist? Are you borrowing your existence from something? If you don't exist, then who is thinking/questioning?
You must be certain of your own existence. But you/we/the chair/the table/everything IS existence. We all exist within Pure Existence itself. God is that undifferentiated Existence. God is not the chair, but He is the Existence of Chair with the name and form of Chair projected on to it by your mind.

Hope that helps, t. eastern religion scholar.

I really don't get people's obsession with eastern mysticism.

Sounds a lot like Spinozism, which I've always seen as a sort of apophenia. Also, why is the chair being projected onto it? Even if you were to take an idealist route with that, you would have to explain why the chair is a projection, and you're not a projection in concert with the chair.