Does logic support God? Maybe.

[Riverwolf]

yep my bad I should have said in general.

Muri27 got it,, fact is most people dont choose there religion they are born into it.

And to that, I agree. ^_^ Thanks both of you for clarifying.

 

[Riverwolf]

IOW, my theistic beliefs are more about perspective on that which does exist for sure, and less about believing in something that may or may not exist.

 

[ellenjanuary]

The end of time is at hand. Toss it. Embrace entropy. From a count emerged complexity, chaos from order, collusion from collision, many from one to many to sun to moon to sky hello goodbye. Why? If every increase of information is an increase in entropy, is it possible that by increasing, entropy is driving information towards the infinite? Is that the question, or the final answer? Whole thread fits in that question. Yet, MT came to me in a dream from Gwyneth Paltrow. Kinda logic is that?

 

[Muri27]

haha awesome post ellen.
But if information is driven to the infinitive,there wont be a question nor an answer innit?

But there won't be an end of anything, rather a new start..
Kinda like 'is the glass half empty or full'

but these things you name are all duelistic manners of seeing and experiencing the world.
I believe that will end soon .

 

[Dan4reason]

Ah, glad I asked. I reject the supernatural, so by your definition, I would not call my experience "spiritual."

Perhaps the elevator speech would be helpful here.

I believe in what someone cleverer than I dubbed "the living Godiverse." That God is a sapient organism whose body is the cosmos. It is not supernatural - indeed, the laws of nature are vital to its well being, akin to its physiology.

Getting back to my theophany, I believe I got a glimpse of reality from the perspective of the rhys, the deeply-buried aspect of consciousness which is undifferentiated from God's.

I am starting to understand what you think. So pretty much you were able to connect with or see the universe, which is a conscious being, using the rhys. Could you describe the rhys for me a bit?

As I see it, you are trying to prove the idea that the universe with its stars, black holes, cold space, asteriods and comets, and planets and moons is actually a conscious being and this idea is quite far out. You said you used the rhys which is some element of consciousness, which there is no scientific evidence for at all, prove it to yourself. I do not see how the rhys proves the consciousness of the universe when it is itself unproven. All I see is a heightened emotional experience. I could be wrong because I do not know your beliefs you have and have never had the experience you have but I am skeptical (as you guessed).

I consider myself Hindu because the scriptures provide what seems blatant to me to be the highest wisdom on this planet. I've yet to come across any philosophy that speaks so true to me, or that exactly reflects my experiences of life.

I DON'T believe in other religions because they do not offer me the same clarity or the same realisations. I DO believe in many scientific theories because it also offers logic and knowledge and understanding. I DO NOT put all my faith in science, however, because of the number of times I have come across studies that are highly biased and flawed. With EVERYTHING, I try to use my intelligence and as much logic as possible.

But all logical thought and analysis is limited by one's current knowledge and understanding. So you may think that GOD is illogical, but that is based on your limited amount of knowledge. You may think that GOD is logical, but that may also be based on your limited amount of knowledge.

Every perspective is subjective.

I know many Hindus who believe in their religion as a philosophy and not the supernatural claims themselves. Do you see Hinduism this way?

Logical thought is flawed but it is the best we have to go on. If we were to just assume that your religion is true because logical thought is flawed then we would be substituting something imperfect (logic) with something ridiculous (assumption). I do believe in any God logical or not so his opinion means nothing to me until his existence is proven.

Your religion may provide the best philosophy of living your life for you but that does not mean there is nothing better out there, it also does not mean Hinduism is the best for everybody, or that the supernatural claims of Hinduism are true. I am looking for evidence of the religious belief of forum members.

I'm a pantheist. My belief in God is threefold (based on Vedic literature):

Brahman
Paramatman
Bhagavan

Brahman is the Supreme Reality; the total aggregate of all existence. I can't say whether or not Brahman is independently conscious, BTW.
Paramatman is the state when a person realizes his or her unity with all things. (para = beyond, atman = self) As a note, in the Scriptures, Paramatman is most often described as "universal consciousness", and is the consciousness of God. Obviously, my beliefs on that matter are slightly different. ^_^
Bhagavan is the figure through whom such an experience may be achieved though emulation and/or listening to this figure's teachings.

All three of these ultimately fall under this verse from the Rig Veda:
"The wise refer to what is One with many names." So Brahman is perceived to be many, that state that I describe as Paramatman has a myriad of explanations and descriptions, and Bhagavan has multiple forms; some of them are historical figures, some are fictional characters, close friends, parents, etc.

This is how I've organized my beliefs at the moment, anyway. I'm still working on it. ^_^

Ok.... Do you have any evidence that these "people" exist? That is the whole point of this thread.

 

[Midnight Pete]

Does logic support God? Maybe.

No, it absolutely does not. Logic can support a limited human notion of what God is, but never God Himself. Biblically speaking, the closest we're ever going to come to perceiving God Himself with our rational minds is a talking whirlwind or a burning bush or something equally enigmatic. There are inherent limitations to what we can know and understand.

 

[Storm]

I am starting to understand what you think. So pretty much you were able to connect with or see the universe, which is a conscious being, using the rhys. Could you describe the rhys for me a bit?

Rhys is one of the primal elements of reality, the others being matter and life force. In its most basic form, it's just passive awareness. Over time, it evolves, coalescing into more complex forms, like sapient life.

I don't call it a "soul," because it is neither supernatural nor the seat of the mortal personality, which is how I understand that word. Our personalities are events, the interaction of the rhys with matter.

As I see it, you are trying to prove the idea that the universe with its stars, black holes, cold space, asteriods and comets, and planets and moons is actually a conscious being and this idea is quite far out. You said you used the rhys which is some element of consciousness, which there is no scientific evidence for at all, prove it to yourself. I do not see how the rhys proves the consciousness of the universe when it is itself unproven. All I see is a heightened emotional experience. I could be wrong because I do not know your beliefs you have and have never had the experience you have but I am skeptical (as you guessed).

Ah, not quite. I'm not trying to prove anything, that's above my paygrade. But you asked why I believe as I do, and I answered. I never expected you to agree with me.

 

[Riverwolf]

Ok.... Do you have any evidence that these "people" exist? That is the whole point of this thread.

You mean the living forms of Bhagavan?

Well, one living example of such a person is Amma. And she very much exists; I, myself, was hugged by her a few weeks ago. And the fact that she's sacrificed pretty much any chance of having a personal life in favor of some of the greatest of humanitarian activities I've ever heard of is enough for me to understand why many people worship her has God. (I'm not personally one of them ATM.)

IOW, to me, she's not Bhagavan. To others, she is. It's all about perspective in this matter.

 

[horiturk]

i use reason and logic to determine my belief in a supreme being,but i cannot prove it. i think the universe is a great proof but at the same time it isn't. i believe there is a God,but i do not know for sure and cannot prove it....so my belief is an honest belief. i have never seen God speak to anyone or give a revelation,i have seen no miracles atrributable to God,i do not think God interferes.

 

[Midnight Pete]

i use reason and logic to determine my belief in a supreme being,but i cannot prove it. i think the universe is a great proof but at the same time it isn't. i believe there is a God,but i do not know for sure and cannot prove it....so my belief is an honest belief. i have never seen God speak to anyone or give a revelation,i have seen no miracles atrributable to God,i do not think God interferes.

So you're a Deist.

 

[Madhuri]

I know many Hindus who believe in their religion as a philosophy and not the supernatural claims themselves. Do you see Hinduism this way?

Logical thought is flawed but it is the best we have to go on. If we were to just assume that your religion is true because logical thought is flawed then we would be substituting something imperfect (logic) with something ridiculous (assumption). I do believe in any God logical or not so his opinion means nothing to me until his existence is proven.

Your religion may provide the best philosophy of living your life for you but that does not mean there is nothing better out there, it also does not mean Hinduism is the best for everybody, or that the supernatural claims of Hinduism are true. I am looking for evidence of the religious belief of forum members.

I accept that some of the 'supernatural' elements are possible, but it is the philosophy itself that speaks true to me.

I am not sure that I see the logic in your own wording. For instance, I am not assuming that my religion is right simply because logical thought is flawed, as you wrote.

I agree with the last paragraph, where you say that there might be something better out there. True, I'm not close minded. And I also agree that Hinduism isn't for everybody- in fact, Hinduism also says that it is not for everybody. There are as many perspectives of reality as there are sentient creatures- another important point when thinking about who is right and wrong.

You want 'evidence' of some sort to explain why I believe what I do. My answer is that I believe what I do right now because of all my life experiences (limited) and due to my limited knowledge. I believe in Love, and Unity. I believe that our perception of this world is illusory, I believe that to free oneself from attachment is to be truly content. I believe all these things and more because I have experienced them. I've never come across any philosophy or order or theory that so completely fits into the way that I directly experience reality.

Is that reason enough for you? It is for me.

 

[ellenjanuary]

No, it absolutely does not. Logic can support a limited human notion of what God is, but never God Himself. Biblically speaking, the closest we're ever going to come to perceiving God Himself with our rational minds is a talking whirlwind or a burning bush or something equally enigmatic. There are inherent limitations to what we can know and understand.

I shall witness.
Here's a trinity: Self-understanding-god. Meaning here I am, and over there is god. So, I get my god connector out, and link up. But by using the connector (usually some type of religion or religious experience) all the former definitions are redefined. Depending upon the self and type of connector, this may happen just once, all the way to selves like I, where every connection brings new awareness. That's why my religion looks like a password. As soon as I spell out the terms, they lose the definition.

Logic can support God in the sense that "capital G" is a religion, and those who subscribe to the tenets of that religion can express god logically. I say, god is, get accuse of operating grammar without an object; logic is already lost.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Belief in god(s) is a logical result of the vagaries of the human psyche.

 

[ellenjanuary]

Belief in god(s) is a logical result of the vagaries of the human psyche.

It is also an evolutionary advantage. Contrary to popular belief, "atheism" is not the default.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

It is also an evolutionary advantage. Contrary to popular belief, "atheism" is not the default.

Only for us smart people.

 

[ellenjanuary]

Only for us smart people.

True enough. "God is" expands into "god is not." Does not offend my religion.

 

[Riverwolf]

It is also an evolutionary advantage. Contrary to popular belief, "atheism" is not the default.

Uh, speaking as a theist... yes it is. At least for the newborn infant, who is incapable of any sort of understanding, including theistic notions.

Sure, you could argue that the soul knows about God, but even if that's the case, it would immediately forget as soon as it enters the developing body, whenever that is.

 

[ellenjanuary]

Uh, speaking as a theist... yes it is. At least for the newborn infant, who is incapable of any sort of understanding, including theistic notions.

Sure, you could argue that the soul knows about God, but even if that's the case, it would immediately forget as soon as it enters the developing body, whenever that is.

Speaking as a man of science who has done the research... it's open for debate.

A newborn infant does things like focus on eyes and faces, tends to see "mother as god," tends to be god to the mother... but mostly I remember being like the lone theist (on the Myspace R&P forums) holding off all the atheists for a day with the assumption that theism is the default; until, like the hand of god, an atheist posted a "Newsweek" article validating my hypothesis and ending the debate.

That was a good day; but when I tried to find that article years later... I don't know where it went. Godidit.

 

[Madhuri]

That was a good day; but when I tried to find that article years later... I don't know where it went. Godidit.

Hate it when that happens!

 

[Riverwolf]

Speaking as a man of science who has done the research... it's open for debate.

A newborn infant does things like focus on eyes and faces, tends to see "mother as god," tends to be god to the mother...

Not really. Sure, that may happen once the baby recognizes the mother as the provider, but from what I've heard, babies don't have the ability to comprehend anything, yet.

Though, the annoying part of the argument is the implication that because atheism is the default, it must be the correct stance. Well, the default is also amoral, apathetic, and very selfish (as is necessary for survival at that time.)