20 replies to this topic

[Incognito]

'A little philosophy leads him to athiesm, but a lot of it leads him to God'

Maybe that isnt entirely true, but it has some truth. Most atheists arent academics of philosophy or theology. Most outspoken atheists arent, at least.

God is physchological, it has no relevance to how the world is, for science, nor philosophy tells us what God is. Although the latter is more useful in reaching Him.

To believe God is solely, and will remain solely, an existential choice. Once one has learned that God is neither proven nor disproven, neither suggested nor unsuggested, then the decision is made. God has relevance in the outside world, only up to that point. That point in realising the trouble in trying to prove, disprove, and understand Him. For those who maintain that belief (that it is possible to prove/disprove) are fooling themselves and covering some deeper psychological issue. The open hearted will embrace his learned ignorance, and I think, only from there can one truly reach God.

The will plays its part, the desire plays another. One must have both of these in order to believe. The desire to (want to) believe and the will to submit. This is a far stronger belief than anything else. That anything language, logic, empiricism or anything else can tell us about anything, after all, we can doubt all we think we know.

There is a fundamental problem in trying to find God through reason, or trying to reject God through reason. Neither can be done, although it is essential that it must be the first stage in the process of knowing God.

[Quisant]

Hello Incognito, long time no speak... trust you are well.

A priest on a mission to convert meets an Eskimo and explains God to him:
Eskimo: "If I did not know about God and sin, would I go to hell?"
Priest: "No, not if you did not know."
Eskimo: "Then why the hell did you tell me?"


Joking apart, because there are so many religions, whose followers widely differ in the interpretations of their texts, their opinions of what practices they should condone, etc,  which God is the right one to chose?

[MysticKnight]

Incognito, on 07 March 2012 - 07:45 AM, said:

There is a fundamental problem in trying to find God through reason, or trying to reject God through reason. Neither can be done, although it is essential that it must be the first stage in the process of knowing God.

Interesting, doesn't Al-Kafi say God and religion is found through reason though?

[Incognito]

Quote

Hello Incognito, long time no speak... trust you are well.

Likewise, glad to see you are back.

Quote

A priest on a mission to convert meets an Eskimo and explains God to him:
Eskimo: "If I did not know about God and sin, would I go to hell?"
Priest: "No, not if you did not know."
Eskimo: "Then why the hell did you tell me?"

Joking apart, because there are so many religions, whose followers widely differ in the interpretations of their texts, their opinions of what practices they should condone, etc,  which God is the right one to chose?

Everyone who is living, has lived, or will live has known, will know, God.

Reason, as I said, is something one must have in order to abandon its use for finding God. In many instances, if one uses reason, they can see that a certain law or belief cannot hold (especially in relation to other laws/beliefs for that religion).

But let us assume that it fails to give us such a conclusive end to our search, it does not matter. The end reach is the same, religions differ, but to how it affects the self one one thinks, worships and loves God is the same.

MysticKnight, on 07 March 2012 - 11:46 AM, said:

Interesting, doesn't Al-Kafi say God and religion is found through reason though?

Yes but maybe it is found THROUGH reason, not so much via reason. That means one must surpass and go through the reason to understand its limitations and shortcomings in order to realise that reason is not sufficient for God, it is merely a stepping stone.

[MysticKnight]

Incognito, on 07 March 2012 - 02:14 PM, said:

Yes but maybe it is found THROUGH reason, not so much via reason. That means one must surpass and go through the reason to understand its limitations and shortcomings in order to realise that reason is not sufficient for God, it is merely a stepping stone.

Through and via mean the same thing here don't they? Explain the difference because I can't make it out.  How is a stepping stone if at the end, it's not through reason you believe in God?

[Incognito]

MysticKnight, on 07 March 2012 - 02:17 PM, said:

Through and via mean the same thing here don't they? Explain the difference because I can't make it out.  How is a stepping stone if at the end, it's not through reason you believe in God?

By that use of through I meant as in something you use, and discard. You use it up until it is no longer useful, then you discard it (with regards to God).

In a sense, I think that our abilities are paradoxical. We can use it in order to realise that it cannot be used. However, we use it anyway. Which has no problem practically, but in theory it just cannot be.

[MysticKnight]

Incognito, on 07 March 2012 - 03:01 PM, said:

By that use of through I meant as in something you use, and discard. You use it up until it is no longer useful, then you discard it (with regards to God).

In a sense, I think that our abilities are paradoxical. We can use it in order to realise that it cannot be used. However, we use it anyway. Which has no problem practically, but in theory it just cannot be.

I think the best way to know God is by a spiritual instinct. However I also believe you can reason God through reflection over the nature of morality, virtue, greatness, and justice.

[Lanatin]

Cause and effect bro.

[Quisant]

Incognito, on 07 March 2012 - 02:14 PM, said:

Everyone who is living, has lived, or will live has known, will know, God.

I believe that Eskimo Gods like
AGLOOLIK
(Good spirit that lived under the ice and helped with hunting and fishing.) AGUTA (Gatherer of the dead. Anguta carries the dead down to the underworld, where they must sleep with him for a year.) AIPALOVIK (Evil god of the sea that ould hurt boating by biting them.) AKNA (Mother goddess of childbirth.) Etc..

Are very different from any God you will ever know.

Quote

Reason, as I said, is something one must have in order to abandon its use for finding God. In many instances, if one uses reason, they can see that a certain law or belief cannot hold (especially in relation to other laws/beliefs for that religion).

This seems somewhat dizzy, why would a God give you the gift of intelligence / reason if you are supposed to forego the use of it in order to find God?

Furthermore, if one chooses to be a Muslim, (rather than Christian or other alternative) by faith, rather than reason, why choose those beliefs rather than any others?

The religionist who advocates faith must also advocate rejecting faith.
The reason for this is clear—one must reject all conflicting faiths if one is to embrace a particular faith.

wslm
*

Jebreil, on 07 March 2012 - 08:37 PM, said:

Incognito

Have you seen that debate between Rajabali and the atheists? At some point, the atheist says something remarkable. He says and I paraphrase, 'you don't find atheists reassuring themselves of the truth of the laws of science, like gravity. They don't huddle round in their labs, hold hands and say, "I believe everything that goes up, must come down... down... down...".'

This person thinks "There is a God" is like saying "There is gravity". But is it? Does the concept of gravity have the same mountain-shaking impact as the idea of God? Does gravity mean to the human being as God means?

Our philosophers have also treated the proposition "God exists" in the same manner as the proposition "Motion exists". No wonder that the God of the philosophers has to be syllogistically proven to be loving, whereas the God of the peasant is God because He showers them with love. We don't believe "God is loving" after reading Avicenna, and we don't even feel we need to. Why is that?

My brain feels quite dense to day, I do not understand the point you are making...

ws.
*

[Incognito]

MysticKnight, on 07 March 2012 - 03:05 PM, said:

I think the best way to know God is by a spiritual instinct. However I also believe you can reason God through reflection over the nature of morality, virtue, greatness, and justice.

What do you mean by spiritual instinct?

This depends on what you see knowledge as. What are the foundations? Are there any foundations? Should there be any foundation? What should the foundations be?

The answer to that does not exist, or at least anything plausible. Whatever you say in reply, I can ask 'Well, why?'

Jebreil, on 07 March 2012 - 08:37 PM, said:

Incognito

Have you seen that debate between Rajabali and the atheists? At some point, the atheist says something remarkable. He says and I paraphrase, 'you don't find atheists reassuring themselves of the truth of the laws of science, like gravity. They don't huddle round in their labs, hold hands and say, "I believe everything that goes up, must come down... down... down...".'

This person thinks "There is a God" is like saying "There is gravity". But is it? Does the concept of gravity have the same mountain-shaking impact as the idea of God? Does gravity mean to the human being as God means?

Our philosophers have also treated the proposition "God exists" in the same manner as the proposition "Motion exists". No wonder that the God of the philosophers has to be syllogistically proven to be loving, whereas the God of the peasant is God because He showers them with love. We don't believe "God is loving" after reading Avicenna, and we don't even feel we need to. Why is that?

Interesting points here, but I do not follow as to what you are trying to say.

Quote

I believe that Eskimo Gods like
AGLOOLIK
(Good spirit that lived under the ice and helped with hunting and fishing.) AGUTA (Gatherer of the dead. Anguta carries the dead down to the underworld, where they must sleep with him for a year.) AIPALOVIK (Evil god of the sea that ould hurt boating by biting them.) AKNA (Mother goddess of childbirth.) Etc..

Are very different from any God you will ever know.

Those are not God, they are stories. There are no Greek gods, no Egyptian gods, nor Hindu gods etc.

It is contradictory within the self to worship and fully devote yourself to more than one thing. To worship gods, false idols etc. is to not have reached past reason. You have not reasoned enough and have not understood enough. It is limited, but it limits us to a point in which we can all come to agree upon something.

We can believe all sorts of things, if we want, and we do. But to what extent does reason play a part in that? In what I am trying to convince you, reason is, in a sense, the most important thing in trying to understand God. The physchologists, scientists, even philosophers have created a stop off point for reason. Although few mention it, acknowledge it, but they do not use it in order to live a life. They set up their foundation, and live on that. If we are to reason about reason, we see that essentially it breaks down on itself.

IF you have ever read Wittgenstein, I think it would be slightly easier to understand my point. Although I am not starting this discussion on his point, nor finishing it there.

Quote

This seems somewhat dizzy, why would a God give you the gift of intelligence / reason if you are supposed to forego the use of it in order to find God?

Furthermore, if one chooses to be a Muslim, (rather than Christian or other alternative) by faith, rather than reason, why choose those beliefs rather than any others?

In a sense, you are still using reason. I am reasoning now, that is why I said it was paradoxical. Reasoning plays its role, a big role.

Quote

The religionist who advocates faith must also advocate rejecting faith.
The reason for this is clear—one must reject all conflicting faiths if one is to embrace a particular faith.

Faith leads you into the direction you are to be in. If all else is done, then you will be in whatever position you are entitled, or should be in, I am rejecting Christianity, not because I think that it is false, but that it is false for me. I cannot be a Christian, I know this. I cannot be because I know it is not me, my faith is somewhere else and I should be what I believe, not what I would prefer to believe.

I am sure all this sounds crazy and probably does not make sense, it is just my written thoughts, I dont expect it to make sense, yet at least. Comments on it are appreciated since it is helping me able to express it slightly better

[Quisant]

Incognito, on 08 March 2012 - 11:03 AM, said:

Those are not God, they are stories. There are no Greek gods, no Egyptian gods, nor Hindu gods etc.

It is contradictory within the self to worship and fully devote yourself to more than one thing. To worship gods, false idols etc. is to not have reached past reason. You have not reasoned enough and have not understood enough. It is limited, but it limits us to a point in which we can all come to agree upon something.

We can believe all sorts of things, if we want, and we do. But to what extent does reason play a part in that? In what I am trying to convince you, reason is, in a sense, the most important thing in trying to understand God. The physchologists, scientists, even philosophers have created a stop off point for reason. Although few mention it, acknowledge it, but they do not use it in order to live a life. They set up their foundation, and live on that. If we are to reason about reason, we see that essentially it breaks down on itself.

IF you have ever read Wittgenstein, I think it would be slightly easier to understand my point. Although I am not starting this discussion on his point, nor finishing it there.

In a sense, you are still using reason. I am reasoning now, that is why I said it was paradoxical. Reasoning plays its role, a big role.

Faith leads you into the direction you are to be in. If all else is done, then you will be in whatever position you are entitled, or should be in, I am rejecting Christianity, not because I think that it is false, but that it is false for me. I cannot be a Christian, I know this. I cannot be because I know it is not me, my faith is somewhere else and I should be what I believe, not what I would prefer to believe.

I am sure all this sounds crazy and probably does not make sense, it is just my written thoughts, I dont expect it to make sense, yet at least. Comments on it are appreciated since it is helping me able to express it slightly better

I am not quite sure where you are going...

The Greek, Egyptian etc. gods were true and existent gods to those who worshiped them.
Anybody can believe anything, without any necessary proof. It is "a belief".

You are right, they have become stories now.
But in 2000 years time the God of Abraham may also become a  story. How would you know?

Already there are many people that question His existence. To many people God is not necessary, not even an explanation.

Blind Faith does not necessarily lead to truth.

Religion does confirm deep and essential human needs; it would be superficial not to admit it.
Having said that it would be stupid to repudiate our reasonable learning thus far, we cannot seriously go back from scientific rationalism.

ws.
*

Jebreil, on 08 March 2012 - 11:15 AM, said:

It seems that most educated people think that we believe in God because we were taught to believe in God by our parents. And they stop at that. But if we look carefully, we see that we don't believe in God just because our parents taught us to believe in it. We are very happy to let go of many beliefs our parents taught us by mistake. But, belief in God is not one which is so easily put aside. We speak of a "crisis of faith". When our scientists found Newtonian physics to be mistaken in some areas, they didn't experience a personal crisis. Replacing a scientific proposition with another, more accurate, scientific proposition doesn't lead to a personal crisis. They probably were exhilirated or suspicious or uncertain or dismissive. But they didn't erode in doubt.

What is the difference between God and other propositions about the existence of things? How is it that one creates a crisis and the other does not?

Perhaps if you take away God from belief you also take away the dream? hope? of eternal life.
ws.
*

Edited by Quisant, 08 March 2012 - 12:02 PM.

[MysticKnight]

Quisant, on 08 March 2012 - 11:59 AM, said:

Perhaps if you take away God from belief you also take away the dream? hope? of eternal life.

Not only that, perception of people, own identity, it's all linked to religion, and there is a lot of emotional investmented in perception of identity and perception of others.

[MysticKnight]

Incognito, on 08 March 2012 - 11:03 AM, said:

This depends on what you see knowledge as. What are the foundations? Are there any foundations? Should there be any foundation? What should the foundations be?

I am not to sure about my view of epistomology.

[MysticKnight]

Jebreil, on 08 March 2012 - 12:59 PM, said:

Perhaps, but I think there is something much more instinctive than that. These which you mentioned seem to be more the expression of something which lies beneath.

It's a question worth pursuing.

You're probably thinking something to do with "only with the remembrance of God are the hearts put at rest/peace" .

[Incognito]

Quote

I am not quite sure where you are going...

The Greek, Egyptian etc. gods were true and existent gods to those who worshiped them.
Anybody can believe anything, without any necessary proof. It is "a belief".

You are right, they have become stories now.
But in 2000 years time the God of Abraham may also become a story. How would you know?

Already there are many people that question His existence. To many people God is not necessary, not even an explanation.

Blind Faith does not necessarily lead to truth.

Religion does confirm deep and essential human needs; it would be superficial not to admit it.
Having said that it would be stupid to repudiate our reasonable learning thus far, we cannot seriously go back from scientific rationalism.

Those things were not put into question, they were simply accepted without much thought of why it was accepted. As Jebreil said, those are things in which I follow because my parents did. God and religion is not about that. I dont believe you are a Christian, or a Muslim, or a Jew because you were born as one. You must awaken to it, and this does not begin in anywhere but doubt and reason. Our doubt arises from our reasoning (although it is not always the reason it arises, but always the reason we choose to give).

I agree, blind faith is not correct. One can blindly believe in unicorns, it does not mean it is true.

To say that God's existence is not necessary is to say you know God does not exist. But you cannot know what is impossible for you to know. It is impossible to know God does not exist, because you dont know. You are in the same position as the believer when it comes to reason and rational, you both know the same things, but the believer knows God because he has faith. If you do not have faith, you simply dont know God.

Scientific rationalism is only contingently true, if that (we are still in doubt). I see no reason why I should accept one flawed system over another. I will therefore do what is sensible, and reject both. Or at least, hold no truth value to either.

Quote

What is the difference between God and other propositions about the existence of things? How is it that one creates a crisis and the other does not?

Good question.

God is related to man and man is related to God. How they say God is in you, in a sense, it makes us feel as though He is a part us. And indeed He is. If the concept of a being who knows you better than you know yourself gets dimnished, then surely man feels as though he has lost a part of what he is?

God gives us what nothing else can. Science gives us nothing but speculative hypothesis about things that could/could not be contingently true. To put hope in it would be absurd. And that no ones being is defined through something liek gravity

[Quisant]

Incognito, on 08 March 2012 - 04:47 PM, said:

I agree, blind faith is not correct. One can blindly believe in unicorns, it does not mean it is true.

Incognito, on 08 March 2012 - 04:47 PM, said:

but the believer knows God because he has faith. If you do not have faith, you simply don't know God.

Your two statements, in my view, contradict each other.

The Bible says :
(Hebrews 11:1) Faith is the substance of things hoped for....in other words faith is wishful thinking.
The Quran says:
(17:36) You shall not accept any information, unless you verify it for yourself. I have given you the hearing, the eyesight, and the brain, and you are responsible for using them.  

In the end the choice of method is yours.

As far as I am concerned, since there is no evidence; God needs to be the conclusion of your logic.
If the conclusion is the premise, it's a circular argument, i.e. intellectually flawed on the most basic level.

Incognito, on 08 March 2012 - 04:47 PM, said:

To say that God's existence is not necessary is to say you know God does not exist.

No, it simply means that our existence may have come about without a Divine Fiat.

wslm.
*

[Incognito]

Quote

Your two statements, in my view, contradict each other.

The Bible says :
(Hebrews 11:1) Faith is the substance of things hoped for....in other words faith is wishful thinking.
The Quran says:
(17:36) You shall not accept any information, unless you verify it for yourself. I have given you the hearing, the eyesight, and the brain, and you are responsible for using them.

In the end the choice of method is yours.

As far as I am concerned, since there is no evidence; God needs to be the conclusion of your logic.
If the conclusion is the premise, it's a circular argument, i.e. intellectually flawed on the most basic level.

There is blind faith, then there is faith.

Blind faith is believing in unicorns, Santa, the toothfairy etc. Things you hear about from your parents or on TV etc. Why are these things blind faith? Because they have not been intellectually challenged, for if they were, it would appear to be false. We have to use our reason up until we realise it cannot carry us further. Can our reasoning carry us far enough for us to believe these things are false? Surely they can, and if they cant, either you have a problem or you have a damn good argument.

Faith in God need not be blind (although it is, in many many cases). It is not blind because one challenges the concept and sees that it holds a much greater and more important stance than any other belief. As Jebreil said, there is something between man and God which makes God such a strange thing in our hearts and minds. God cannot be proven, nor disproven. But it is not the same as any other scientific or philosophical query given. Indeed we can reject the notion of an invisible unicorn circling earth due to the lack of evidence, but the same cannot apply to God because God surpasses all reason. I do not think it is irrational to believe that we cannot rationally prove something which cannot be rationally proven. I say that the arguments about the existence of God should be ignored. They are useful in so far as comign to the conclusion that they are inconclusive.

'Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent' - Wittgenstein

The search for God, although begins in the intellect, will ultimately become a search for the self. Find yourself, then you will find God.

[Quisant]

Incognito, on 09 March 2012 - 08:12 AM, said:

the same cannot apply to God because God surpasses all reason.

The claim that God ‘surpasses all reason'  is usually invoked as a defence for the so-called "paradoxes of Faith"
It is just another way of saying " I don't know what I am talking about" or "Statements made about God are not true."
They both mean exactly the same thing.

'It surpasses all reasons': - God could be Benevolent, Malevolent or Indifferent.

Believers, in fact, RELY on God acting in a logical way: God is good; he will certainly set everything right. If I behave myself he'll send me to heaven.

Quote

'Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent' - Wittgenstein

So... why are you not silent?

It looks like we have to agree to disagree...again!

All the best.
*