The Debate of God.

[A-ManESL]

One large hole in that thing is that I have. But just not the same GOD you want me to hear. I hear nature; and I hear the god of Ra from egyptian mythology. I've never actually spoken to such a deity, however. But I feel a pull to this god. And I feel a pull to many spiritualistic beliefs. They seem to be screaming at me, but I do not listen. Why? Because of people like you.

You tell me to listen for your god.

On the contrary, you should follow the path which pulls you. I can't speak for other faiths but this is the teaching of my path. When I said, "And, by the by, the proof varies as you change the particular way to another particular way." it implicitly also meant that you can change the way of your spiritual quest for another alternate proof.

It may be that you have a misconception concerning my path.

Regards

 

[Daviso452]

On the contrary, you should follow the path which pulls you. I can't speak for other faiths but this is the teaching of my path. When I said, "And, by the by, the proof varies as you change the particular way to another particular way." it implicitly also meant that you can change the way of your spiritual quest for another alternate proof.

It may be that you have a misconception concerning my path.

Regards

I admire that you are open to following their own faiths. The problem is that it is a pull to a totally different religion. How can two people be pulled to two different religions when only one can be real? I'm not saying you should discriminate against other faiths, but they can't all be right.

And since the common factor that seams to pull people into these religions is that they "connect" with their deity, it is likely that this connection is just a human-made concept, and I know two things that could explain it:

1)Children are born believers in God, academic claims - Telegraph
Basically, children are born with a sense of belief in god, which I think was caused by the fact that in many ancient cultures you had to believe in the local religion to live.

2) Placebo Effect: In a basic sense, if a person believes something should happen, it can. The effect itself is specifically regarding medicine, where people take sugar pills (thinking they are pain meds) and their pain goes away. Same could be said about people believing in god, and expecting to hear his voice, they do.

I do not know what it will take for me to believe in God. There is nothing I know of where you can say 100% that God did it. But if god is as almighty as you and others say, he will know how to convert me. Or just force me to believe.

I doubt such an almighty god would punish me for being logical.

 

[A-ManESL]

The concept of God(or deity) is just a symbol. That symbol is used for a specific purpose in some paths: to turn the face of man on towards the "Real Reality". All spiritual paths seek to accomplish this "turning of face", or "knowledge of God". In Islam the approach is through Allah(the concept of God is used), in Buddhism the same reality is approached through a state to be achieved (nirvana) (the concept of God is not used) and so on. Ultimately it is the knowledge of this Reality that we seek and is relevant, not the approaches in themselves. The different paths are like candles which we light to show us the way. The goal is important, not the types of candles and their designs. You choose the candle you feel like, but bear in mind it is not the candle in itself that is important but following the path shown by it.

The problem is that it is a pull to a totally different religion. How can two people be pulled to two different religions when only one can be real? I'm not saying you should discriminate against other faiths, but they can't all be right.

I think that there is only one religion (or no religion rather). Also that this was the initial vision of all paths. Moreover they appear different to us because our understanding of them begins a little too soon, their Unity lies at the esoteric level, not at the outer or theological level.

You may be interested in the following books:
1. The meaning and end of religion
2. The transcendent unity of religions

Both are by well known scholars of the last century.

Regards

 

[Daviso452]

I suppose that makes sense. I won't try and disagree with you on that

Yet there is one thing you have yet to answer; how do you know that your connection with whatever deity you believe in is real? What gives it a higher status than the psychological effects of your brain?

 

[A-ManESL]

I know what you are referring to. I believe this book (which I have been planning to read for some time now but havent read it yet) discusses it from a particular angle.

In my path I don't primarily consider "emotional connections" but knowledge; and on treading the path this knowledge is obtained.

In Sufism (which I have some knowledge of, although I am not a Sufi disciple) it is usually the duty of a teacher of this path to ensure that the student discrimates between this spiritual knowledge and psychic experiences/emotional connections. Spiritual knowledge is true knowledge, independent of a person's emotional and psychological state.

 

[Daviso452]

So you say it takes spiritual knowledge, which is void of bias. I realize that i must undergo the process to obtain it myself, but would you care to share your journey in obtaining this knowledge? An also what this knowledge is? This is very interesting.

 

[A-ManESL]

Let me correct a possible misunderstanding. My initial post started with "the holy men and women tell us...blah blah...", so it was really their opinion I was presenting. As far as I am personally concerned I only have a "flimsy kind of knowledge" as I said before which is a feeling of self-evidentness of God. I think it becomes self-evident that there is a God, in direct proportion to the amount of "knowledge" you have.

would you care to share your journey in obtaining this knowledge?

I am not very good at talking about my personal life usually so forgive me if it all sounds disjointed.

Firstly, I had the good fortune of having a large library in my house full of books by saints and their disciples regarding spirituality and God. I remember one of the books being Discourses of Rumi by Arberry which I had read and it had made an impression on me. Many books were in urdu as well which is my mother tongue. The Sufi saints typically spend their lives seeking this knowledge and their books usually contained sentences which indicated that this knowledge was a wonderful thing. But they invariably clammed up when the question of "what this knowledge is" arose saying sometimes directly and sometimes indirectly that this is a kind of knowledge which is understood only a certain amount of spiritual maturity is reached. For example Imam Ghazali says in his inspirational autobiography, talking about prophecies (the same argument applied to knowledge of God too)

When confronted with things intelligible to the intellect, a person who has reached only the age of childish discernment will balk and call them improbable. In the same way, certain people who have remained at the stage of intellect have rejected as improbable what they have heard about prophecies. This attitude is pure ignorance, for not having reached the suprarational stage (which does not exist for them personally) these skeptics conclude that it does not exist for anyone. If someone had been born blind and never heard of colors or shapes, but then suddenly heard of them, he would not at all understand what they were and would not believe in them.

All this created a longing in me on how to know what these people are talking about. Accordingly I read more and more, and ultimately came to the conclusion that in Islam (I was born and raised a Muslim so it came naturally to me that I pursue that path) the teachers talked of two main ideas: one is that of all there is, is "He"(God is the only Reality). The second was that the way of Muhammad(pbuh) dealt with approaching the Reality in the natural state of being a man. The first idea is essentially the doctrine and the second idea the method. Or in other words the second idea is actually this path I am talking about. In Islam the meeting of man and God is planned where God is as such He is and man is as such as he is. Meaning God as Reality envisaged independent of history and any manifestation, and man as envisaged not as a fallen being to be saved. In other words man has to be a perfect normal man, free of bad things like arrogance etc for the meeting to take place. It was the opinion of the teachers that this being in the perfect state of a man is inhibited by the presence of ego inside of a person. Hence the ego part has to be eliminated.

Initially I mistook this for annihilation of the Ego as annihilation of all concepts of the self, and tried to put it in practice in daily life. It took me some time to understand that this was not what was asked, instead it was the "bad part" of oneself which had to be eliminated and the "good part" had to be increased. (I won't go in theory here: ego, soul and spirit comprise a triad and have respective roles blah blah...). Simultaneously the importance of following the obligations of Islamic law (five prayers daily, 30 days of fasting annually and charity) became clearer and clearer, and I integrated it with my daily routine. Then the concept of Unity in diversity in this world came on in me. This means seeing Unity (in Arabic Unity is called Ahad. It is one of the names of God in Islam) behind everything in this world. The stage I am right at now is totally absorbing this within. I freely concede that this is "what works for me" and may not work for anyone else. So, my journey uptil now has focused on two things: Negation of bad ego and Unity. My quest for more knowledge is ongoing.

Also in my experience two things are there which may provide snapshots to the world of this knowledge: One is the experience of affliction and the other is the experience of beauty. (By affliction I mean the kind of permanent effect left on a person after the suffering phase is over. Likewise for beauty.) They both have a role to play in understanding this knowledge of God.

Regards

 

[Daviso452]

I think I'm beginning to understand.

However, regarding the quote from the book, it is not that we have not reached the "suprarational stage," it's that it cannot be explained by science. Many times people criticize skeptics for using science because it is "limited to the physical universe."

But science has done so much for us. Through science we have learned so much. Invented so many technologies. Saved so many lives. Science is a reliable tool that has brought us out of the darkness of ignorance. Science is something we have found reliable, and so we trust it.

But it is true, science is limited to our natural world. Then the question is, how do we know there is another universe, or plane, or whatever you think there is beyond our universe? This process you are describing seems to take a large amount of time and effort.

This is where my real criticism comes in; how do we know that the effort is worth it? What you have said is that in order to know that it is worth it, you must first go through the experience. But how do we know that you, and all these other people, have indeed entered, or have started entering, this "suprarational" stage? How do we know that what you have experienced is real and true, without evidence of it? The only reason that seems to be apparent is that you must have faith that it will. Faith that by going through this process you will enter this stage. And faith is counter-intuitive for us, and something we despise. Faith has lead too many people to disaster.

That is the reason why I and many skeptics have refused to do such things. However, I realize that as a human, and due to my biological programming, I may have made an assumption without realizing it, as I have done in the past. Please correct me on any mistakes I made in my reasoning; I would greatly appreciate it.

 

[nnmartin]

And faith is counter-intuitive for us, and something we despise. Faith has lead too many people to disaster.

You mean Faith is counter-intuitive for you, and you despise it.

Perhaps it has also led you to a disaster.

That is the reason why I and many skeptics have refused to do such things. However, I realize that as a human, and due to my biological programming, I may have made an assumption without realizing it, as I have done in the past. Please correct me on any mistakes I made in my reasoning; I would greatly appreciate it.

You have made an asumption that you are perfectly entitled to attempt to deconvert a relgious person to an atheist because to you that is the most logical and commonsense state of mind. Then you see that you have the right to be offended when that person does not become an atheist.

How do you know that God doesn't exist?

Any person is trapped in the logic and reasoning of man - does not mean there isn't a bigger picture or non-scientific Force of the Universe.

You have no right to be offended because you cannot deconvert someone.

 

[Daviso452]

You mean Faith is counter-intuitive for you, and you despise it.

Perhaps it has also led you to a disaster.


You have made an asumption that you are perfectly entitled to attempt to deconvert a relgious person to an atheist because to you that is the most logical and commonsense state of mind. Then you see that you have the right to be offended when that person does not become an atheist.

How do you know that God doesn't exist?

Any person is trapped in the logic and reasoning of man - does not mean there isn't a bigger picture or non-scientific Force of the Universe.

You have no right to be offended because you cannot deconvert someone.

Just because you have faith in something does not mean it is true. There are plenty of people of different religions who have faith that what they believe is right and what everyone else believes is false. But they can't all be right, can they? However, there are some who believe that all beliefs come to the same end. But not all. And thus, faith is not a reliable tool.

Logic is, however a reliable tool. Logic and reasoning, when applied correctly, only fail when an unexpected variable is involved.

Faith by definition is unreasonable. If it was reasonable, it would not be faith. Why would you believe something if the belief made no sense at all? For instance, do you believe in the flying Spaghetti monster? I doubt it. But why? It requires just as much faith as the Christian God. What makes God more believable than the flying Spaghetti monster?

Before we get too far, let me just say that it doesn't matter how many morals there are, or how old the story is. Neither of these effect how true something is. What matters is the content.

Any person is trapped in the logic and reasoning of man - does not mean there isn't a bigger picture or non-scientific Force of the Universe

You're right, it doesn't. But you must prove that there is such thing a thing.

Bottom line, Martin, is that you may be able to convince yourself something is true with faith, but your faith does not count as evidence for everyone else. You must realize that something without evidence CANNOT, and SHOULD not, be counted as real for others. If you can convince me why then go ahead.

 

[apophenia]

...faith is not a reliable tool.

Logic is, however a reliable tool. Logic and reasoning, when applied correctly, only fail when an unexpected variable is involved.

Tool for what purpose ? Science is not a tool for dealing with human relationships, love, fear of death, grieving over loss ... etc

Show me the science of how to be happy, fearless and loving. How does science suggest you deal with the death of your brother ?

But you must prove that there is such thing a thing.

Bottom line, Martin, is that you may be able to convince yourself something is true with faith, but your faith does not count as evidence for everyone else.

No, I don't agree that Martin or anyone else needs to prove that their feelings are genuine.

Science is about proofs. Science is a tool with many uses, and proof of its propositions is crucial to its usefulness.

But science is not a tool for managing the heart and human relationships.

That is not to say that religion is the only way to do that - that is not my position either.

But you are demanding that religion be judged from the viewpoint of scientific truth, and so ignoring how it actually functions for those who practice it.

Sufi saying - you can't grow wheat with the recipe for making jam.

 

[A-ManESL]

That science is fundamentally different from religion is is one of the things on which my views have changed over the years. It is my firm opinion that this is a misunderstanding. I now hold the opinion that scientific method is one of the ways as well of acquiring God's knowledge (or rather true knowledge since I consider the same identical).

My view is that the modern approach towards science is flawed on two counts and it are these fundamental flaws that cause many such misconceptions.

1. Most modern scientists are much more interested in personal gains (publishing research papers, acquiring fame amongst colleagues etc) then in actually pursuing the Truth. The really dont care about studying nature. This leads to the situation that their results are just partial and are measured by instant utilatarian value rather their instrinsic content of understanding the Truth. The excessive specialization in the scientific world causes scientists to forget the big picture in their work many times, since the big picture is not of immediate value. Also what is worse most of their results are accepted on face value by their colleagues, primarily because then the colleagues get acceptance for their work for them.

2. The second point is summed up in these lines from Hossein Nasr's The Garden of Truth

Every cosmic phenomenon is both a fact and a symbol of a noumenon. In a profound sense modern science, being concerned with phenomena only as facts and not as symbols of noumena, is like religious literalism in the interpretation of scripture. Sufism has always rejected both kinds of literalism and has provided over the centuries both esoteric interpretations of the Quran and the most profound "philosophy of nature" based on esoteric commentary upon the cosmic book.

In other words the modern approach usually only takes only a superficial approach in understanding nature, the approach that gives returns only in an immediate sense but is not sufficient to understand the whole Truth.

You may be interested in this article by the Christian mystic Simone Weil. In her book, The need for roots Weil points out the approach of scientists in the past was different:

(for the Greeks), the divine character of anything only made them more exacting in regard to precision not less so,…It was because they perceived a divine relation in geometry…that they invented the method of rigorous demonstration….To restore science as a whole, for mathematics as well as for psychology and sociology, the sense of its origin and veritable destiny as a bridge leading toward God—not by diminishing, but by increasing precision in demonstration, verification and supposition—that would indeed be a task worth accomplishing.

Regards

 

[Daviso452]

Tool for what purpose ? Science is not a tool for dealing with human relationships, love, fear of death, grieving over loss ... etc

Show me the science of how to be happy, fearless and loving. How does science suggest you deal with the death of your brother ?

Reward center for happy,
Evolutionary need to avoid dangerous things as fear,
Loving, not sure.
Dealing with a death, psychology.

 

[Daviso452]

1. Most modern scientists are much more interested in personal gains (publishing research papers, acquiring fame amongst colleagues etc) then in actually pursuing the Truth. The really dont care about studying nature. This leads to the situation that their results are just partial and are measured by instant utilatarian value rather their instrinsic content of understanding the Truth. The excessive specialization in the scientific world causes scientists to forget the big picture in their work many times, since the big picture is not of immediate value. Also what is worse most of their results are accepted on face value by their colleagues, primarily because then the colleagues get acceptance for their work for them.

Sounds a little paranoid, but I understand what you are saying, and I agree to an extent. Though I disagree that they do not care in studying nature. True, many specimens are taken into labs, but many times these are re-creations of nature itself. The problem with just going out in the woods is that there may be unexpected variables messing up with your data. However, many scientists still do go out into the actual wild and observe. Many more than you think.

What do you mean by, "the big picture?" What parts exactly are being left out? What "truth" are you talking about?

And what does this have to do with the understanding of God? Just because science is flawed does not mean God exists. I agree that it may be possible that God exists in the gap of our knowledge, that something many atheists agree to. But just because there is a possibility does not make it likely.

If you do think the two are intertwined, then how do you suppose we go about proving there is god?

 

[A-ManESL]

I never said that science is flawed, rather that the modern scientific approach towards Truth is flawed as opposed to what should be. My position is essentially supporting science in the proper way as a genuine understanding or path towards the Everlasting Reality. And if you read the article I linked, it was how science was sometimes formerly pursued. The article may or may not clarify your other questions, which I can also attempt to answer within my understanding of mathematics (I am a mathematics teacher).

(PS: And by nature I didnt mean what you understood, but rather the observable world or universe. In other words I was saying that many scientists aren't really interested in "science for understanding the world's sake" but more in getting recognition, and personal profit.)

 

[apophenia]

I now hold the opinion that scientific method is one of the ways as well of acquiring God's knowledge (or rather true knowledge since I consider the same identical).

I disagree. There is no good reason to attempt to unify science and religion. Religion, science and politics are best kept separated as institutions.
The notion that 'everything is god therefore science is knowledge of god' is a mystical notion. A mystical notion may be valued by you but I don't see that it is of value in scientific research. Also there is evidence in history that attempts to unify religion and science have merely impeded science and humiliated religion.
Also, you are talking about a mystical philosophy which very few religious people would spend time thinking about . Religion for most people is about emotional support for dealing with the challenges, hopes and heartbreaks between birth and death.

 

[apophenia]

Reward center for happy,
Evolutionary need to avoid dangerous things as fear,
Loving, not sure.
Dealing with a death, psychology.

in other words, you agree that science is not really about supporting the human heart, answering our insecurities, providing inspiration in the face of inevitable suffering and death ....

That is not what science addresses.

 

[Daviso452]

in other words, you agree that science is not really about supporting the human heart, answering our insecurities, providing inspiration in the face of inevitable suffering and death ....

That is not what science addresses.

With science you can figure out how to do all of this. The human brain can be incredibly predictable. You just need to know what to look for.

But I don't know what you mean by "support the human heart."

What insecurities are you referring to exactly?

Science can provide inspiration. But different people find different things inspiring. Some find the concept of eternal happiness inspiring. Others find the concept of this being our only chance at happiness inspiring. In the face of inevitable suffering and death, it depends.

Science is a tool for understanding nature. Who will react a certain way. What an object is made of. When things will happen. Where things will happen. Why certain events occur. How things work.

I believe science can address anything. It has shown to explain more and more, with no conceivable limits.

 

[religion99]

I am simply going to use this thread as a means to discuss the existence of God with anyone. I am constantly discussing this with people, and feel I should have a main thread to post on.

If anyone wishes to argue that god (or whatever deity you believe in) is true, I have questions ready. Thank you.

It is logically impossible to disprove existance of an all-knowing God.
Because , to logically disprove it, you yourself have to be all-knowing.

It is logically impossible to prove existance of an all-powerful God.
Because , if there is one, the "problem of sufferrings" will not arise.

Hence , it follows that that:
There is possibility of God/Gods who are all-knowing, but has no power whatsoever to change the course of the future, and it is logically impossible to disprove that
statement.

 

[Daviso452]

I never said that science is flawed, rather that the modern scientific approach towards Truth is flawed as opposed to what should be. My position is essentially supporting science in the proper way as a genuine understanding or path towards the Everlasting Reality. And if you read the article I linked, it was how science was sometimes formerly pursued. The article may or may not clarify your other questions, which I can also attempt to answer within my understanding of mathematics (I am a mathematics teacher).

(PS: And by nature I didnt mean what you understood, but rather the observable world or universe. In other words I was saying that many scientists aren't really interested in "science for understanding the world's sake" but more in getting recognition, and personal profit.)

Sorry, I hadn't read the article prior, and I'm currently only page 2. dang, long article.

But I feel this discussion is becoming too difficult to have through posts on a forum where we must await the other's response. If we were in a face-to-face discussion, I feel we could both get our points across more clearer to the other, but this is a forum, and so that cannot happen. So I feel it must come to an end.

However this was still an incredibly interesting discussion. Not entirely convinced (go figure ) but you have opened me to a concept I have not heard before, and I will continue reading on it. The article about Simone is interesting so far.

However, concerning scientists, I still disagree that they are in it for the personal gain. Think of it this way; if the content they released was not accurate, then they would get negative feedback and thus would not get the supposed fame you say they are clamoring for.

I do not disagree that many are in it for the money though; but realize that if they had nothing of real value, there would be nothing to make money on. Think of physics, for example; a good portion of it, such as molecular and theoretical physics, have no practical purposes; yet there are still many of them.

Are you sure you are not mistaking the scientists themselves for the people who employ them? I feel that would make much more sense.

Also consider that there are many more scientists that no one has ever heard of that still discover new things.

But now I feel like I'm being close-minded. Please tell your reasoning.