Jump to content
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!) ×
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!)
In the Name of God بسم الله
Guest Hussein

Belief in God

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

Guest Hussein

I was wondering if anyone can help me settle my doubts about believing in God. 

As far as I understand, Muslims justify the existence of God based on two concepts. One is an emotional attachment that people tend to develop after worshipping a lot and the second is a philosophical argument Muslims have developed. Regarding the former, it seems illogical to use a psychological state that some religious people develop as a basis for justifying the existence of a God because in principle, such a feeling is only proof of the ability of humans to possess such feelings and not of the existence of an imaginative entity. 

Regarding the second concept, I have read the Islamic philosophical explanation for surmising the existence of God. I think it's a good argument. But I have trouble believing in the existence of God based on this because I don't understand why God would base His existence on a complicated reasoning mechanism when it's such a fundamental issue in religion. First of all, it's not a straight forward idea and I'm sure millions of people throughout history hadn't made the same logical deductions, that's why they worshipped roman, greek and Hindu gods. I'm sure it took a lot of time for Islamic philosophers to put such an idea in writing and develop it to the point it is now. It's not really an easy way of trying to convince people of His existence because its more of an argument than proof. So I was wondering if there is any solid underpinning for choosing to believe in God that I might have missed and whether you can enlighten me of them. I would be really grateful if anyone can address my doubts and help strengthen my faith.  Thank you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Salam

Most people believe in God because their fitra tells them He exists.  We have an innate divine tendency to believe in Him just like we have a tendency to believe in moral truths such as 'mercy is good', 'murder is wrong'.  In the case of fundamental moral truths we don't need any argument to be justified in believing them.  The same goes for fundamental metaphysical truths such as the existence of the external world, and for logical truths such as the law of non-contradiction.  Now with respect to the existence of God, for those who want arguments then there are many good ones.  Proof in the mathematical sense is not necessary for justification otherwise none of science is justified.  So if you have good arguments for the existence of God that is more than sufficient.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Guest Hussein said:

I think it's a good argument. But I have trouble believing in the existence of God based on this because I don't understand why God would base His existence on a complicated reasoning mechanism when it's such a fundamental issue in religion.

there is some point about your nice and smart consideration:

1- God's arguments are not proving God at all, but they are hints and are an effort to balance our mind with  Fitra and intellect

2-some God's arguments are very unrepresentable for anybody with any level of IQ, there no one in the world who could not understand cause and effect, intelligent clue in the universe

most of all God's arguments are based on those premises,

YES, if you ask some fundamental questions and state some logical objection this led to a difficult discussion that a few people can understand. so God is not under  thick curtain for most people and some smart people may need  more evidence,
3- any person  in the world has his own exclusive reason for believing in God and Allah in the hereafter will argue with that  reason

in the last I suggest  you to undermine these verses :

رَّبَّنَا إِنَّنَا سَمِعْنَا مُنَادِيًا يُنَادِي لِلْإِيمَانِ أَنْ آمِنُوا بِرَبِّكُمْ فَآمَنَّا ۚ رَبَّنَا فَاغْفِرْ لَنَا ذُنُوبَنَا وَكَفِّرْ عَنَّا سَيِّئَاتِنَا وَتَوَفَّنَا مَعَ الْأَبْرَارِ

Our Lord, we have indeed heard a summoner calling to faith, declaring, ‘‘Have faith in your Lord!’’ So we believed. Our Lord, forgive us our sins and absolve us of our misdeeds, and make us die with the pious. [3:193]

 سَنُرِيهِمْ آيَاتِنَا فِي الْآفَاقِ وَفِي أَنفُسِهِمْ حَتَّىٰ يَتَبَيَّنَ لَهُمْ أَنَّهُ الْحَقُّ ۗ أَوَلَمْ يَكْفِ بِرَبِّكَ أَنَّهُ عَلَىٰ كُلِّ شَيْءٍ شَهِيدٌ

Soon We shall show them Our signs in the horizons and in their own souls until it becomes clear to them that He is the Real. Is it not sufficient that your Lord is witness to all things? [41:53]

 

I will speak about two verses later but first I want to know your opinion

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Hussein
17 hours ago, .InshAllah. said:

We have an innate divine tendency to believe in Him just like we have a tendency to believe in moral truths such as 'mercy is good', 'murder is wrong'.

Such an argument is based on an emotional perspective. What if some people don't have an innate tendency to believe in Him or believe in multiple Gods, you can't claim everyone does as a fact because it can't be proven and even if it is, it doesn't mean there is a God, just proof of a feeling people have. Morals are not necessarily innate, for example, some people are psychopaths and don't have an understanding of right from wrong. 

17 hours ago, .InshAllah. said:

Proof in the mathematical sense is not necessary for justification otherwise none of science is justified

What do you mean by this? Maths provides certainty, science provides certainty in many areas, yes some areas of science may be subject to change over time as it advances but many scientific observations can be expressed with certainty. You talk about different "truths" but the only truth I've seen that humans can be relatively certain of is science/maths. Nothing you've said has persuaded me otherwise. As I said the Islamic argument for the existence of God is merely an argument, I'm looking for tangible reasons to believe in God and would be grateful if you can help. Thanks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It sounds to me like you are going around looking for an explanation of God you can accept.

Doesn't really work that way. Psalm 46:10 starts out "Be still and know that I am God" 
It's good to explore the knowledge of the ages but God happens in your heart. If you haven't taken the time to open that part of yourself, even if you believe, you're just going through the motions. Don't be thinking you have to be some special thing first. Many live their lives in churches going through the motions. Of course you don't want to waste your time going through the motions for something that might not exist, nor face the ultimate fear... God may not be that interested in you.

The biggest misconception is that God should have human attributes, He should feel the pain of every child and act on it. He should hate every war and stop it. How can He allow such pain? How could a loving God...on and on, y'know. But mostly He should do it on our time and at our say so. God feels, God hates, God loves, but he's not a genie, not a butler, and He can't be told how to feel, act, or otherwise...be.             Start from there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/17/2019 at 10:20 PM, Guest Hussein said:

Such an argument is based on an emotional perspective. What if some people don't have an innate tendency to believe in Him or believe in multiple Gods, you can't claim everyone does as a fact because it can't be proven and even if it is, it doesn't mean there is a God, just proof of a feeling people have. Morals are not necessarily innate, for example, some people are psychopaths and don't have an understanding of right from wrong. 

 

I wasnt arguing that 'people have a tendency to believe in God, therefore He exists'.  I was drawing your attention to the fact that we have a rational faculty capable of  perceiving certain truths, such as moral truths and metaphysical truths.  There are people who have corrupted rational faculties - nothing I said denies that.  If someone truly believes that torturing innocent children for fun is morally good, then they are simply wrong - their moral faculty is corrupt.  The same goes for someone who truly believes that there is no God.  Again, this isnt an argument for God - if you are an atheist then what I just said probably wont convince you.  But for those to whom it really seems that God exists, just as it really seems that justice is good and torturing for fun is bad, then they are justified in believing this - they don’t need any further proof.

Quote

What do you mean by this? Maths provides certainty, science provides certainty in many areas, yes some areas of science may be subject to change over time as it advances but many scientific observations can be expressed with certainty. You talk about different "truths" but the only truth I've seen that humans can be relatively certain of is science/maths. Nothing you've said has persuaded me otherwise. As I said the Islamic argument for the existence of God is merely an argument, I'm looking for tangible reasons to believe in God and would be grateful if you can help. Thanks.

Science presupposes lots of metaphysics.  Two simple examples are:

-the external world is real (I.e. not a hallucination)

-the world is such that induction works (look up 'the problem of induction')

Are you certain of the above?  Hopefully the answer is yes - because you have functioning rational faculties (that hopefully also tell you moral truths and divine truths).  There is no mathematical proof for any of these presuppositions.  Does this mean we should stop believing them?  No!

For me, and for many, its as obvious that God exists as it is that the above is true.  I cannot consistently doubt one, whilst accepting the others - such a move would be unjustifiable and depend on a double standard.  One thing many people are guilty of is double standards when it comes to belief.  They require unreasonable standards to be met for belief in the existence of God to be rational in their eyes, but don’t apply the same standards to anything else.  Hyperskepticism is the norm when considering the claims of religion, but theyre quick to believe any speculative claim if its made by a scientist. 

Edited by .InshAllah.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/16/2019 at 11:52 PM, Guest Hussein said:

I was wondering if anyone can help me settle my doubts about believing in God. 

When I look back, I see myself as an atheist arguing with religious people regarding the existence of God. Most of the time I left supporters of God speechless.
I know it is impossible to convince you that God exist until and unless you experience Him yourself.

Nobody can help you except yourself.

On 3/16/2019 at 11:52 PM, Guest Hussein said:

don't understand why God would base His existence on a complicated reasoning mechanism when it's such a fundamental issue in religion

Well, it is the other way around, it's not God whose existence is on a complicated reasoning it is yours.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Itsme
On 3/16/2019 at 11:51 PM, .InshAllah. said:

Salam

Most people believe in God because their fitra tells them He exists.  We have an innate divine tendency to believe in Him just like we have a tendency to believe in moral truths such as 'mercy is good', 'murder is wrong'.  In the case of fundamental moral truths we don't need any argument to be justified in believing them.  The same goes for fundamental metaphysical truths such as the existence of the external world, and for logical truths such as the law of non-contradiction.  Now with respect to the existence of God, for those who want arguments then there are many good ones.  Proof in the mathematical sense is not necessary for justification otherwise none of science is justified.  So if you have good arguments for the existence of God that is more than sufficient.  

Walaykum Salaam.

Let us take Leibniz as one example, who put forward the argument from contingency. Now, is it the case that the majority of humanity didn't understand this argument until an aristocratic man came and proposed an argument which has many technical words in it, before which we had no good reason to believe? I would argue absolutely not. The core essence of what he argues is known to all of us.

I'd like to use some very simple but profound verses from the noble Qur'an.

 

“Or were they created by nothing, or were they the creators [of themselves]?” [Noble Qur'an]


Why does anything exist at all? Did this all come from "nothing"? Did physical reality just exist eternally and why can't it? When we look at our own fragility, a rock, the perishable nature of physical reality, we recognise it didn't actually have to exist, and the various shapes and forms it takes are prone to change, alteration and decay. It doesn't have to exist - it relies on the external to mould it and shape it. Now, something has always had to exist, or nothing would exist. When I look at the physical world, be it in the form of trees, mountains, or any sort of physical reality, it is quite clear to me they began to exist, they rely on the external, and they will cease to exist in the form they are in. If something has always had to exist, it cannot not exist, and so it surely must transcend this physical existence. It therefore must be unlike it, and so immaterial, transcendent, does not change intrinsically or is influenced to change intrinsically, and exists by necessity of its own nature. That is God. 

I didn't need Leibniz to realise that. Here is a Hadith well before Leibniz:

The Imam said, "There is nothing in the universe, but that is subject to annihilation, alteration, change, decay, transition from one color to another, from one shape to another and from one quality to another. They increase, decrease and change from decrease to increase, except He, Who is the Lord of the worlds. He alone is eternal and in one state. He is the first, before every thing and the last eternally. His attributes and names do not change as they do in the case of others. A man at one time is dust, at other time flesh and blood, then turns into decaying bones and finally becomes dust. A piece of date  at one time is raw, at another time ripe, mature and then it dries up. With every change, the names and attributes also change. Allah, the Majestic, the Glorious is different from all such things."  [al-Kafi]


“Indeed, in the creation of the heavens and Earth, and the alternation of the night and the day, and the [great] ships which sail through the sea with that which benefits people, and what Allah has sent down from the heavens of rain, giving life thereby to the Earth after its lifelessness and dispersing therein every [kind of] moving creature, and [His] directing of the winds and the clouds controlled between the heaven and the Earth are signs for a people who use reason.” [Noble Qur'an]

Look at the profound order in the universe. How is it that rain can drop, the seed can sprout, the winds can blow, the planets rotate, fire burn, and we even exist in such stability yet complexity? There is clear order to this universe, which is patently obvious. No Atheist would ever claim that at one point there existed nothing, and then there existed a universe with such order and fine tuning. Why would a universe with such precise order be the only possible universe to exist? Does nothingness somehow have an intrinsic bias to produce a universe with order and capacity to sustain life? That raises more questions than it answers.

Einstein once remarked in a 1936 article in the Journal of the Franklin Institute: “The eternal mystery of the world is its comprehensibility … The fact that it is comprehensible is a miracle.”

You have three options to explain this: necessity, chance or design. We have already dismissed necessity, so what about chance? Well, to claim our universe came as a result of chance means that you propose a system whereby  many others are spontaneously produced. That system itself would have to have a very precise order to even churn any universes out, and so this only pushes back the question. Furthermore, if one claims that system has always existed and is a replacement for 'God', then you must believe it has been churning universes out from past-eternal, and so it has churned out an infinite number of universes. We know that an actual infinite of discreet physical parts can't exist  - our universe would be adding to an infinite. The only plausible explanation of the profound order of the universe is design.

 

“"But He fashioned him in due proportion, and breathed into him something of His (created) spirit. And He gave you (the faculties of) hearing and sight and feeling (and understanding): little thanks do ye give!” [Noble Qur'an]
 

The ability see, hear, think and feel are just so profound if we reflect on them. In fact, so baffling our ability to even be conscious that it has been dubbed "the hard problem of consciousness". No matter how well you describe the physical movements of electrical impulses from neurones into our brain and regions of higher order processing, they will always remain unconscious physical process. We can study all there is to know about the physical brain, but we will never be able to explain what it feels like me to understand how red is for you. Even if you looked into every physical mapping of how my body relates to pain , you would never be able to see the raw agony I feel when I touch a candle flame. Consciousness can clearly not be reduced to the physical, it is a clear sign of something beyond, and should not exist in a universe without God. 

"When I turn my gaze skyward I see the flattened dome of the sky and the sun's brilliant disc and a hundred other visible things underneath it. What are the steps which bring this about? A pencil of light from the sun enters the eye and is focussed there on the retina. It gives rise to a change, which in turn travels to the nerve layer at the top of the brain. The whole chain of these events, from the sun to the top of mv brain, is physical. Each step is an electrical reaction. But now there succeeds a change wholly unlike any that led up to it, and wholly inexplicable bv us. A visual scene presents itself to the mind: I see the dome of the sky and the sun in it, and a hundred other visual things beside. In fact, I perceive a picture of the world around me."


charles-sherrington.jpg

Sir Charles Scott Sherrington, OM, GBE, PRS was an English neurophysiologist, histologist, bacteriologist, and a pathologist, Nobel laureate and president of the Royal Society in the early 1920s

Richard Dawkins interestingly regards this, of any other area in any field, the one he most wants the answer to.

"But you can say something about the question you really would wish to know the answer to...and for me it would be : "'What's consciousness' because that is totally baffling." - Richard Dawkins

Interviewer to Dawkins: "What is the one question you most want to see answered?"

Dawkins:"How does subjective consciousness work...what is going on, when I have my own private feelings and you have your own private feelings, when I see something red. What is it that makes red, that makes the redness, that makes the smell of onions that gives the subjective sensation that I know I have and suspect you have but I can never know what is going on inside of your head"
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Hussein
On 4/5/2019 at 9:13 PM, Raheel Yunus said:

I know it is impossible to convince you that God exist until and unless you experience Him yourself.

So you are saying that the only way to determine the existence of God is through a religious experience? Does Islam not teach that man must make use of his logical faculties? Why is there no reasonable way to determine His existence? I'm so confused. Why is it that the only rationale for believing in God is either a shaky philosophical argument that can be argued against or the need for a religious experience that offers no definitive conclusions to either the person experiencing it or someone else who did not. Did God put us in this Earth to test whether we can believe in unfounded ideas?

To .Inshallah., thank you for trying to help but you keep going on about "metaphysics" which, no offense, makes you sound a bit pretentious and offers no real value when the literal definition of "metaphysics" is "abstract theory with no basis in reality".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Hussein
On 4/6/2019 at 6:09 PM, Guest Itsme said:

 You have three options to explain this: necessity, chance or design. We have already dismissed necessity, so what about chance? Well, to claim our universe came as a result of chance means that you propose a system whereby  many others are spontaneously produced. That system itself would have to have a very precise order to even churn any universes out, and so this only pushes back the question. Furthermore, if one claims that system has always existed and is a replacement for 'God', then you must believe it has been churning universes out from past-eternal, and so it has churned out an infinite number of universes. We know that an actual infinite of discreet physical parts can't exist  - our universe would be adding to an infinite. The only plausible explanation of the profound order of the universe is design.

 

Yes, thank you so much for your answer. This 'teleological' argument actually has some solid underpinnings, unlike the other arguments, as many scientists have determined it impossible for the universe or life to exist without fine-tuning. I completely forgot about this and haven't looked into it in detail yet. Thanks a lot for mentioning it, I'll try and read the counterpoints and see if there are any good ones, in which case I'll get back to all of you.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/16/2019 at 2:22 PM, Guest Hussein said:

I was wondering if anyone can help me settle my doubts about believing in God. 

As far as I understand, Muslims justify the existence of God based on two concepts. One is an emotional attachment that people tend to develop after worshipping a lot and the second is a philosophical argument Muslims have developed. Regarding the former, it seems illogical to use a psychological state that some religious people develop as a basis for justifying the existence of a God because in principle, such a feeling is only proof of the ability of humans to possess such feelings and not of the existence of an imaginative entity. 

Regarding the second concept, I have read the Islamic philosophical explanation for surmising the existence of God. I think it's a good argument. But I have trouble believing in the existence of God based on this because I don't understand why God would base His existence on a complicated reasoning mechanism when it's such a fundamental issue in religion. First of all, it's not a straight forward idea and I'm sure millions of people throughout history hadn't made the same logical deductions, that's why they worshipped roman, greek and Hindu gods. I'm sure it took a lot of time for Islamic philosophers to put such an idea in writing and develop it to the point it is now. It's not really an easy way of trying to convince people of His existence because its more of an argument than proof. So I was wondering if there is any solid underpinning for choosing to believe in God that I might have missed and whether you can enlighten me of them. I would be really grateful if anyone can address my doubts and help strengthen my faith.  Thank you.

Salam,

In Traditional societies (and by “Traditional” I mean societies wherein the aura of the sacred and of revelation predominates and infuses all aspects of human life, as opposed to modern societies which are built precisely on the very negation of tradition) man has a more or less balanced “psyche”.  It was not the norm to be surrounded by concrete buildings, pavements, electric or neon lights and to imbibe and drown oneself in secular-man-made ideologies at work and at schools.  As Professor Seyyed Hossein Nasr loved to make his point by saying:  “Show me a single Atheist (anti-religious, or even a skeptic) who is a villager or who is surrounded by or who lives in nature, and I guarantee you that you won’t find any such person.. ask yourself why!”.  

Rational/ Philosophical arguments were not “needed” by most people in the past except for highly intelligent people (most of whom belonged to an aristocratic class) of an intellectual bent because minds of such individuals overpower their hearts, and so just as there is food for the heart, there is also food for the mind.  

Now, is it justified to believe in God via your emotions (as you have worded it).  No. 

But the fitrah (as Brother Inshallah made reference to) is not mere emotion....although your healthy and balanced emotions are perhaps the most closest expression of your fitrah/ your healthy heart.  So is faith in God via your fitrah jusitified? Yes!  There is no other way!  In fact, it is not considered “faith” or “Iman” if it is purely through rational, mental, or philosophical knowledge!  And one whose mental/ conceptual knowing of God predominates over his heart-knowing, then for him there is deficiency in faith (such a person would be considered unhealthy or at best incomplete or spiritually immature).

This is why the Prophet (S) asked us all to have the faith of the old woman.  Because he was not pointing to her philosophically and rationally challenged argument for God’s existence, but rather he (S) was pointing and praising her “strong iman” of which her argument of “the spinning wheel” was a mere expression.   

 

 

Edited by eThErEaL

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/5/2019 at 3:01 PM, .InshAllah. said:

-the external world is real (I.e. not a hallucination)

-the world is such that induction works (look up 'the problem of induction')

Salam,

Sorry brother, beg to differ here:

Both of these are not true.  An “external world” whatever that even means (perhaps you mean. A world that inherently cannot be experienced - because it is external to what?) is impossible - inconceivable.   

There is no real leap of faith as far as induction is concerned because induction is by definition not considered to give any certitude whatsoever.  Is there induction? Yes.  Do we induce?  Yes!  But can we be certain about what we induce? No.  

Edited by eThErEaL

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/10/2019 at 3:39 AM, Guest Hussein said:

So you are saying that the only way to determine the existence of God is through a religious experience? Does Islam not teach that man must make use of his logical faculties? Why is there no reasonable way to determine His existence? I'm so confused. Why is it that the only rationale for believing in God is either a shaky philosophical argument that can be argued against or the need for a religious experience that offers no definitive conclusions to either the person experiencing it or someone else who did not. Did God put us in this Earth to test whether we can believe in unfounded ideas?

I am not saying through a religious experience. Every moment of your life is an experience from your birth till death. Islam says use your logical faculties to realize Allah with these experiences when you eat, drink, walk, work, when you see beautiful things around you, when you see yourself, a camel or mosquito or a fly. Can you create even a fly and if a fly took something from you can you bring it back.

I know it is Impossible to convince you that God exist until and unless you experience Him yourself.
Nobody can help you my friend except yourself.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/10/2019 at 10:04 PM, eThErEaL said:

There is no real leap of faith as far as induction is concerned because induction is by definition not considered to give any certitude whatsoever.  Is there induction? Yes.  Do we induce?  Yes!  But can we be certain about what we induce? No.  

The issue isnt lack of certainty but lack of justification.  Or more accurately its lack of justification if you think an argument is always needed to justify belief.  There is no non-circular argument for induction.  Arguments that appeal to its past success presuppose it

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/16/2019 at 11:22 PM, Guest Hussein said:

As far as I understand, Muslims justify the existence of God based on two concepts

Every Muslim has his own arguments regarding with the existence of God. Generally you can start with studying the concept of "Necessary Being" (Wajib ul Wajood). For me, I understand that "Knowledge and Power are prerequisites for the origin of systems like Universe & Life, a Supreme Being therefore exist". 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As salaamun aleikum, 

If things just popped into being out of nothing, wouldnt we see that occuring durring our own lifetimes? Like, wouldnt we have examples of things "just appearing out of nowhere" that would lend creedence to the possibility or liklihood that thats what happened with the universe?

Seems to be the only thing that some people are claiming came "from nothing" is only this amazingly complex,intricate and finely tuned universe...

I know showing a video like this will do nothing to prove God or that the universe has a Creator, but its still an amazing video and worth a watch for 7 mins if simply for the sake of appreciating our own amazing bodies.

W/s

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/17/2019 at 11:38 PM, Shia farm girl said:

If things just popped into being out of nothing, wouldn't we see that occurring during our own lifetimes?

If I am not mistaken about astrophysics, I think that elementary particles pop into existence out of nowhere and back into nowhere all the time in empty space. Of cause that doesn't mean that Allah(سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) isn't creating them. In my limited understanding it actually appears to me as one of the very good arguments for Gods existence.
Though for me I do not care so much about the physical evidence. The evidence that makes me certain of Gods existence is purely emotional.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/9/2019 at 6:44 PM, Guest Hussein said:

Yes, thank you so much for your answer. This 'teleological' argument actually has some solid underpinnings, unlike the other arguments, as many scientists have determined it impossible for the universe or life to exist without fine-tuning. I completely forgot about this and haven't looked into it in detail yet. Thanks a lot for mentioning it, I'll try and read the counterpoints and see if there are any good ones, in which case I'll get back to all of you.  

Metaphysics isn't Mumbo Jumbo mathematics fall under the category mathematical concepts define our reality so well and yet they are only mental models for keeping track of things numbers don't exist in physical reality and the things we've chosen have been to represent distinct concepts.

Most people that are atheist or non religious are usually materialist the belief that things are merely physical and don't exhibit a value beyond their physical worth but this is somewhat absurd as moral systems require a metaphysical justification because physically humans are no better than rocks or vegetables from a mere physical perspective and the innate ability of autonomy and freewill also have to be done away with as from a physical standpoint such things cannot be demonstrated or proven.\

However, even within physical spaces things indicate properties beyond merely physical means they can be quantified through the use of numbers although physically measured we have established as merely abstract construct.

Furthermore, from the point of view of Occam's Razor the idea of a conscious entity separated from some physical notion of existence makes sense, not under the justification of Gods such as Zeus or others who have physical features and are bond by time or space but quantum physicists although not totally proven posit the idea that even electrons may exhibit consciousness.

The idea of a higher power fits so well that without it morals, inner worth meaning etc retain their value without it all is lost and we have to accept absurdist and nihilist theories that from an existential point of view are inconsistent with themselves if nothing has a purpose or meaning then even theoretical or plausible meaning should impossible to assign.

Also we don't need to resort to the God of the Gaps fallacy which makes every single thing attributed to God, why is the chair here? God did it, but simply so establish the existence of some aspect of time and space that is greater than the sum effect, the effect being consciousness, mathematics, all of existence etc.

Edited by Enlightened Follower

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...