A religious question
- Thread starter Michael
- Start date
by application - just like to show that an electron actually exists depends on application
now how do you determine that god doesn't exist?
lg,
How do you distinguish your supreme godhead statements from mystical gibberish?
Existence of an electron is demonstrable, your claim of a god by apllication is not. You haven't answered the question.
Why are you asking me something I haven't claimed?
How do you distinguish your supreme godhead statements from mystical gibberish?
cris
why are you denying what you claimed?
The difference is between real objects and mystical gibberish.
Application - the same thing that is required for a layman to distinguish what the scientific writings of a rocket scientist indicates?
neither have you - existence of an electron is demonstratable only to persons who have applied scientific methodologies
why are you denying what you claimed?
The difference is between real objects and mystical gibberish.
Application - the same thing that is required for a layman to distinguish what the scientific writings of a rocket scientist indicates?
Last edited:
Godless
So if a rocket scientist presents his findings to a group of laymen (who obviously can't make heads or tails of it) it is evidence that the rocket scientist has not properly applied science to determine his scientific conclusions -
or to put in other words - if you are too recalitrant to accept the process for understanding something, how do you expect to understand it?
In such situations it would be more progressive to talk about it theoretically than have unqualified persons always clamouring with "But how do you know" - they do the same thing when they have 30 second prime time snippets of some latest scientific discovery that the layman has no means to comprehend (they talk of it s functionality, benefits etc)
How does an astronomer determine that epicycles don't exist?
So if a rocket scientist presents his findings to a group of laymen (who obviously can't make heads or tails of it) it is evidence that the rocket scientist has not properly applied science to determine his scientific conclusions -
or to put in other words - if you are too recalitrant to accept the process for understanding something, how do you expect to understand it?
In such situations it would be more progressive to talk about it theoretically than have unqualified persons always clamouring with "But how do you know" - they do the same thing when they have 30 second prime time snippets of some latest scientific discovery that the layman has no means to comprehend (they talk of it s functionality, benefits etc)
How do you determine that the IPU does not exist? You are an atheist to the IPU!
How does an astronomer determine that epicycles don't exist?
LG,
The largest, most glaring deficiency in your entire line of reasoning is that all of the entities that you say can only be apprehended by "experts" are demonstrable by their unique effects on nature.
You are completely confusing the detailed knowledge of the nature of an entity with knowledge of the existence of the entity.
Laymen know that electricity actually exists by direct experience, not necessecarily the underlying nature of it.
Laymen know that rockets actually exist by direct experience, not necesseraliy the esoterics of rocket technology.
So, while you may claim that we can't understand the underlying nature or esoteric details of the nature of god, surely you can show to a layman that god exists by direct experience?
Once you do this, then your argument of expertise re the nature of god may be valid.
The largest, most glaring deficiency in your entire line of reasoning is that all of the entities that you say can only be apprehended by "experts" are demonstrable by their unique effects on nature.
You are completely confusing the detailed knowledge of the nature of an entity with knowledge of the existence of the entity.
Laymen know that electricity actually exists by direct experience, not necessecarily the underlying nature of it.
Laymen know that rockets actually exist by direct experience, not necesseraliy the esoterics of rocket technology.
So, while you may claim that we can't understand the underlying nature or esoteric details of the nature of god, surely you can show to a layman that god exists by direct experience?
Once you do this, then your argument of expertise re the nature of god may be valid.
superluminal
Just like if an electricity is indicated as evidence of an electron to a layman the argument may not always be successful, similarly indicating the natural order of this cosmic manifestation as evidenceof god may not always be successful
Before i answer this can you clear up whether you are saying a successful theist cannot display any unique or distinctive symptoms or that a successful theist cannot display any unique or distinctive achievements in this world?
correct - therefore since god is the under lying feature of reality (just like an electron is teh underlying feature of electricity) it is understandable why some perceive him and some do not
I have never seen a rocket in my direct experience - I see many representations of rockets in media that I have faith in however (TV, magazines, Newspapers etc) - I imagine my situation is not unique
You can give indications of gods existence, just like you can give indications of the presidents existence (like there is no anarchy and molotov cocktails on the streets, credible persons vouch for his being, representations in credible media like tv and newspapers etc) - perceiving him first hand is a different matter however
Just like if an electricity is indicated as evidence of an electron to a layman the argument may not always be successful, similarly indicating the natural order of this cosmic manifestation as evidenceof god may not always be successful
Please do so.
I thought the analogy was quite clear
(like there is no anarchy and molotov cocktails on the streets,
ie there is a universal order on a macro and micro level
credible persons vouch for his being,
huge backlog of literature and commentaries on god and the means to understand him by erudite scholars, saints etc
representations in credible media like tv and newspapers etc)
numerous scriptures available - you can practically choose and piece of geography on the planet and determine some cultural links to god from the area
And we can easily ascribe this to fundamental natural law.
"And where did those laws come from?"
They are an eternal feature of matter in a cyclic cosmos with no beginning and no end.
So far, no indication that cannot be adequately explained by natural law. Whay do you leap to a god based on nothing but a series of unknowns? This is not how a reasonable person behaves.
All anecdotal and useless as evidence as you know.
Supe
)
And then you try to assert that you are more reasonable than me
:bugeye:
therefore I mentioned they were indications, since the endeavour for direct experience required for the perception of evidence is not available for a person to recalcitrant to apply the required processes (the old electron argument, remember)
easily? I doubt it - at leat in terms of direct emprical evidence - I think I hhav ebrought up the issue of the limitations of the reductionist model numerous times before without having to repeat it here (but I am always happy to oblige if you feel you need it again
)I guess that safely puts a wet towel on any curiousity we might have about why natural laws act the way they do, eh?
I am surprised that you can say this ....
and then tag this on in the same sentence - what are you basing your conclusions on but a series of unknowns - you don't know how abiogenisis manifested, you don't know what the essential building blocks of life are (or at the least you don't know how to a construct life out of such inanimate matter), you can't penetrate beyond the appearance of the numerous axioms relied upon for scientific observation and cannot give any clear evidence why they act in such unified ways (chance = "I don't know") etc etc
And then you try to assert that you are more reasonable than me
:bugeye:
therefore I mentioned they were indications, since the endeavour for direct experience required for the perception of evidence is not available for a person to recalcitrant to apply the required processes (the old electron argument, remember)
To me, I find that rather convenient that of all of the humans on the planet, the one that just happens to end up with almost triple the number of wives, just so happens to be the person God was telling how many wives men can have? A little too coincidental for me.
I have seen too many incidences of Xian groups in the USA where a charismatic leader ends up with a harrum of women that God just happens to want him to have. Usually one or two are the age of his grandchildren (or are his grandchildren). Yuck - bloody sick.
Sam, I don’t want to be to negative here, some Quranic writings just cut across my personal line of morality and polygamy is one of them – especially in regards to Muhammad’s youngest wife. To be honest I actually shutter in revulsion and it’s very very few things that can bring about such a feeling in me. I hope you can forgive my transgression in saying so - but that’s just too much to me.
Anyway, I think we can agree simultaneous multiple partners is not a good thing and leave it at that?
On a lighter side of things, my Iranian buddy has convinced me to go to a retreat that his friend has organized in the mountains. Its 2.5 days of meditation – as I have never in my life meditated - 3 days of no talking is really going to be difficult - - but, I thought what-the-hay, I’ll just jump in feet first. Reza has been meditating for many years and does so 30 minutes each morning and has only reached a state referred to as zen 2 times. That’s a worry because really that’s the main reason I want to do meditation…. Oh well, I’ll write if it was of any consequence.
Have a nice weekend,
Michael
I'm curious: does Islam also permit polyandry (a woman with multiple husbands)?
You assume he was the only one to do so.
Having several wives was a common practice in the society at the time.
Rich men had as many wives as they could afford to keep.
This is a Western concept. In traditional Asian societies (as well as Arab and African), marriage is conducted (arranged, in fact) for political or economic reasons, not for love or sex. Currently, societal mores find such unions to be unacceptable, but even today, in areas of the world where Western education and concepts are still alien, it is merely a way of life. If I am not mistaken, women in Europe too were married at an early age in those times and multiple partners were considered acceptable for men? Morality is not an absolute; divorce is considered perfectly acceptable today in Western societies, but it was not for a very long time. It has been present in Muslim society for over 1400 years.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/1617759.stm
Yes, we agree that having several partners is alright so long as they are not simultaneous (and/or legally conracted?).
Good luck with your retreat.
SamCDKey:
You are correct. The European peoples have a long history of polygamous relationships. The idea of having multiple-wives was not considered abhorrent until Christianity declared it such, although it was not a practice commonly done in Rome throughout most of its history. Oddly enough, though, Christianity reveres as prophets many men that had multiple wives.
You are correct. The European peoples have a long history of polygamous relationships. The idea of having multiple-wives was not considered abhorrent until Christianity declared it such, although it was not a practice commonly done in Rome throughout most of its history. Oddly enough, though, Christianity reveres as prophets many men that had multiple wives.