Proofs and evidences of the existence of God

This post is in reply to Boris. (But Boris, i have searched everywhere to find that post of yours where you comment on Muhammad, polygamy, etc. but can't find it. Did you erace it by any chance? I thought i saw it in this subject thread? Anyway, i can't find it, so i'm posting here a little background on Muhammad in answer to that post of yours which i can't seem to find anymore).


SPIRITUAL LAWS & MATERIAL LAWS

There are two sides to one coin--heads and tails. There are two aspects to revealed religion--spiritual and material. The spiritual has to do with the virtues of humanity. This Divine Law cannot be abrogated; it is irremovable, eternal, and is renewed at the manifestation of a new Revelation. This is what we term "spiritual Law" which can never be modified, altered or abrogated.

The second part of the Religion of God has to do with the material world. This comprises fasting, prayer, forms of worship, marriage and divorce, the abolition of slavery, legal processes, transactions, indemnities for murder, violence, theft and injuries. This is called the social aspect, or the material side of the Law of God. It refers to material things and, because all material existence is relative and subject to chance and change, this part of the Law is modified and altered in each prophetic cycle in accordance with the necessities of the times. So, for example, with regards the social Laws, Moses permitted polygamy due to the fact that there were more women than men in the tribes of Israel--this was a rational solution for a very real social problem at the time; but Christ abrogated this Law in His time for there was no more need of this. In Arabia, the Arabs had turned to a particular direction during prayer in accordance to the provisions of the Pentateuch, but Muhammad abrogated such a direction by telling His followers to turn to another direction. For us today this sounds silly, but such an action was a great test of faith for those who for generations had accustomed themselves to turn in one direction. The gravity and consequence for the believer of this law can be likened to a law that suddenly stated that it it is no longer allowable to eat with the right hand but that now one had to eat with the left hand. It certainly would be a great test of faith for most people of today who have lived most of their lives--and for generations!--to believe that eating with the right hand was "normal." The evolution of the Spiritual Laws can be seen in that before Muhammad the law of forgiveness was not known but the law of "tooth for tooth, eye for eye" was practised by all. Christ abrogated this. For example, if X stole a chicken from Y, Y had to repay by returning a chicken to X; if X smote Y in the face, Y had the right to smite X in the face. In brief, there was no spiritual Law of forgiveness. But Christ abrogated such a Law by stating that one should forgive a transgressor and turn the other cheek. This was inciting within the believer the notion of forgiveness, which is a spiritual virtue.

Thus, there are two sides to all revealed Religion: Social/material and spiritual. The social or material Laws may be abrogated, but not the Spiritual Laws for these have to do with virtues and man's progress depends on them.

THE CONDITION OF THE ARABS AT THE TIME OF THE APPEARANCE OF MUHAMMAD

Before one casts judgment on the precepts and laws appearing in the Qur'an, one must first understand the social conditions and the mentality of the Arabs to whom Islam was given.

Muhammad appeared in the desert of Hijáz in the Arabian Peninsula, which was a desolate, sterile wilderness, sandy and uninhabited. Some parts, like Mecca and Medina, are extremely hot; the people are nomads with the manners and customs of the dwellers in the desert, and are entirely destitute and bereft of education and science. Muhammad Himself was illiterate, and the Qur'án was originally written upon the bladebones of sheep, or on palm leaves. These details indicate the condition of the people to whom Muhammad was sent. The first question which Muhammad put to these barbarious people was, "Why do you not accept the Pentateuch and the Gospel, and why do you not believe in Christ and in Moses?" This saying presented difficulties to them, and they argued, "Our forefathers did not believe in the Pentateuch and the Gospel; tell us, why was this?" He answered, "They were misled; you ought to reject those who do not believe in the Pentateuch and the Gospel, even though they are your fathers and your ancestors."

These Arab tribes were in the lowest depths of savagery and barbarism, and in comparison with them the savages of Africa and wild Indians of America were as advanced as a Plato. The savages of America do not bury their children alive as these Arabs did their daughters, glorying in it as being an honorable thing to do. Thus many of the men would threaten their wives, saying, "If a daughter is born to you, I will kill you." Even down to the present time the Arabs dread having daughters. Further, a man was permitted to take a thousand women, and most husbands had more than ten wives in their household. When these tribes made war, the one which was victorious would take the women and children of the vanquished tribe captive and treat them as slaves.

When a man who had ten wives died, the sons of these women rushed at each other's mothers; and if one of the sons threw his mantle over the head of his father's wife and cried out, "This woman is my lawful property," at once the unfortunate woman became his prisoner and slave. He could do whatever he wished with her. He could kill her, imprison her in a well, or beat, curse and torture her until death released her. According to the Arab habits and customs, he was her master. It is evident that malignity, jealousy, hatred and enmity must have existed between the wives and children of a household, and it is, therefore, needless to enlarge upon the subject. Again, consider what was the condition and life of these oppressed women!

Moreover, the means by which these Arab tribes lived consisted in pillage and robbery, so that they were perpetually engaged in fighting and war, killing one another, plundering and devastating each other's property, and capturing women and children, whom they would sell to strangers; to own slaves was an honour to these barbarions! How often it happened that the daughters and sons of a prince, who spent their day in comfort and luxury, found themselves, when night fell, reduced to shame, poverty and captivity. Yesterday they were princes, today they are captives; yesterday they were great ladies, today they are slaves.

Muhammad received the Divine Revelation among these tribes, and after enduring thirteen years of persecution from them, He fled. But this people did not cease to oppress; they united to exterminate Him and all His followers. It was under such circumstances that Muhammad was forced to take up arms. This is the truth. Look at it with justice. If Christ Himself had been placed in such circumstances among such tyrannical and barbarous tribes, and if for thirteen years He with His disciples had endured all these trials with patience, culminating in flight from His native land--if in spite of this these lawless tribes continued to pursue Him, to slaughter the men, to pillage their property, and to capture their women and children--what would have been Christ's conduct with regard to them? If this oppression had fallen only upon Himself, He would have forgiven them, and such an act of forgiveness would have been most praiseworthy; but if He had seen that these cruel and bloodthirsty murderers wished to kill, to pillage and to injure all these oppressed ones, and to take captive the women and children, it is certain that He would have protected them and would have resisted the tyrants. What objection, then, can be taken to Muhammad's action? Is it this, that He did not, with His followers, and their women and children, submit to these savage tribes? To free these tribes from their bloodthirstiness was the greatest kindness, and to coerce and restrain them was a true mercy. They were like a man holding in his hand a cup of poison, which, when about to drink, a friend breaks and thus saves him. If Christ had been placed in similar circumstances, it is certain that with a conquering power He would have delivered the men, women and children from the claws of these bloodthirsty wolves.

In such a country, and amidst such barbarous tribes, an illiterate Man produced a book in which, in a perfect and eloquent style, He explained the divine attributes and perfections, the prophethood of the Messengers of God, the divine laws, and some scientific facts.

Thus, you know that before the observations of modern times--that is to say, during the first centuries and down to the fifteenth century of the Christian era--all the mathematicians of the world agreed that the earth was the center of the universe, and that the sun moved. The famous astronomer who was the protagonist of the new theory discovered the movement of the earth and the immobility of the sun. Until his time all the astronomers and philosophers of the world followed the Ptolemaic system, and whoever said anything against it was considered ignorant. Though Pythagoras, and Plato during the latter part of his life, adopted the theory that the annual movement of the sun around the zodiac does not proceed from the sun, but rather from the movement of the earth around the sun, this theory had been entirely forgotten, and the Ptolemaic system was accepted by all mathematicians. But there are some verses revealed in the Qur'án contrary to the theory of the Ptolemaic system. One of them is "The sun moves in a fixed place," which shows the fixity of the sun, and its movement around an axis. Again, in another verse, "And each star moves in its own heaven." Thus is explained the movement of the sun, of the moon, of the earth, and of other bodies. When the Qur'án appeared, all the mathematicians ridiculed these statements and attributed the theory to ignorance. Even the doctors of Islám, when they saw that these verses were contrary to the accepted Ptolemaic system, were obliged to explain them away.

It was not until after the fifteenth century of the Christian era, nearly nine hundred years after Muhammad, that Galileo made new observations and important discoveries by the aid of the telescope, which he had invented. The rotation of the earth, the fixity of the sun, and also its movement around an axis, were discovered. It became evident that the verses of the Qur'án agreed with existing facts, and that the Ptolemaic system was imaginary.

In short, many Oriental peoples have been reared for thirteen centuries under the shadow of the religion of Muhammad. During the Middle Ages, while Europe was in the lowest depths of barbarism, the Arab peoples were superior to the other nations of the earth in learning, in the arts, mathematics, civilization, government and other sciences. The Enlightener and Educator of these Arab tribes, and the Founder of the civilization and perfections of humanity among these different races, was an illiterate Man, Muhammad. Was this illustrious Man a thorough Educator or not? A just judgment is necessary.

The military expeditions of Muhammad, on the contrary, were always defensive actions: a proof of this is that during thirteen years, in Mecca, He and His followers endured the most violent persecutions. At this period they were the target for the arrows of hatred: some of His companions were killed and their property confiscated; others fled to foreign lands. Muhammad Himself, after the most extreme persecutions by the Qurayshites, who finally resolved to kill Him, fled to Medina in the middle of the night. Yet even then His enemies did not cease their persecutions, but pursued Him to Medina, and His disciples even to Abyssinia. (Source: `Abdu'l-Bahá, Some Answered Questions).

Now, having gained a little more insight into the condition of life and society of Arabia at the time of Muhammad's coming, let us go on to examine Boris' comments wherein he presents quotes from the Qu'ran and derides and slanders the Prophet.


But first i have to find Boris' post :) You sure you didn't delete it, Boris? Just asking and just hoping you'd tell me where it is.

------------------
dumaurier
 
Let's think about your foundations for claiming 'proofs and evidences'.

First, we know that the world exists in some way -- because we ourselves exist. No contest there. From that, somehow we conclude that the world had a creator. To this day, I fail to see any connective logic. You essentially argue that in order for anything to exist, it must have been preconceived and subsequently materialized by some deliberate agent. Why it is so, I fail to understand. The three major issues that have been raised but never addressed to my satisfaction, are: 1) Why does any thing or any process in existence need to be pre-conceived in order to exist? 2) Why does the universe have to have a well-defined origin? 3) If God created the universe, then what created God?

Now, it seems that you assume apriori the answers to all of these questions (and many more!!), and in such a way as to make the existence of God inevitable. Then, based on your assumptions, you start finding 'evidence' in support of your arguments -- 'evidence' which basically reiterates those very same assumptions in a different way!

Let me expand a bit here. Time exists within our physical universe, quite conceivably due to finite speed of propagation of energy potentials. What possible justification is there behind the assumption that outside the confines of our 4-dimensional spacetime, our concept of time even makes sense? But if you can't demonstrate the existence of time within the 'ultimate' reference frame, then you can't even talk about beginning, or end, of any kind. Then there is even a question of whether an 'ultimate' reference frame exists (as in that of God). The universe's spatial extension, its timeline, or both may have no beginning and no end -- just like a circle, a figure eight, or any kind whatsoever of a closed loop. Or it could simply be that time, or space, or both stretch back to infinity, and just as there is no number equal infinity, there is no beginning 'tick mark' to the universe. Our conceptions of the world are those of a prisoner locked in a cell with no windows. If you know Plato's allegory of the Cave, then you will see how all of us might easily be staring at shadows and illusions of true reality. To take our present concepts and apply them to the entire universe (so much of it unknown), and to discuss its ultimate sources if any using our notions of beginning vs. end, power vs. weakness requires faith indeed.

Seasons change only on Earth; there is no such thing as spring in the interstellar space. Similarly, the principle of causality you rely so much upon, might be a limited effect confined only to a small subspace of the universe, or only to a few phenomena within it. In fact, it could easily turn out that the majority of the universe is not causal (and thus imperceptible to us up to now!) But these are minor issues compared to the entire universe itself! What could conceivably even give you (or anyone!) the gall to presume a logical derivation of the universe's origins, in light of all the uncertainties and all the unanswered questions that ordinarily should not be ignored?

In truth, your 'proofs and evidences' are a mere reiteration of the Cartesian circle, with a few more colors and emotional appeal thrown in. He reasoned something like this: I think, therefore I am, these things are true, therefore since I exist, truth exists, therefore the ultimate source of truth exists, therefore God exists! The argument might seem solid on the surface, but in truth it is one of the most famous philosophical blunders in history. It's good all the way to the point where Descartes makes a claim about the ultimate source of anything. This is where he <u>assumes</u> that the ultimate source exists, and from there he concludes that there is a God. This is like saying that "I believe in God, therefore there is a God." Descartes has been ridiculed in the philosophical circles for centuries for this little piece of art (especially since a great mathematician should've known better!); in fact his only coup de grace is that he possibly did this to evade the scrutiny of the Inquisition. By cozying up to the Church through this masterpiece of thought, he made sure what happened to Galileo wouldn't happen to him. And while Descartes' motivations might have been explainable, yours by contrast seem just plain irrational.

------------------
I am; therefore I think.
 
Boris,

Just wanted to "hop" on and say that your response to my last post sucked. LOL! You asked for it. I guess you'd rather hee-haw around with all of this verbose theoretical crap, huh? Ok, so I gave you my "proof", that you've been BEGGING for, and you choose to basically ignore it. That's what I thought you would do.

------------------
God loves you and so do I!
 
"There lived a wise man if, we can call him a man - named Jesus. A wonder worker and a teacher of those who search after truth, he attracted crowds of both Jews and 'Gentiles. He was the 'Christ. Nevertheless, Pilate, at the urging of our leaders, sentenced him to death on the 'cross. His disciples remained faithful, however, and after three days he appeared to them alive. This and many other marvelous things had been foretold about him by the prophets. The Christian sect, named after him, still flourishes to this day."


Flavius Josephus (1st Century AD.)

No man in history ever claimed what Jesus did.
Mohammed acknowledged himself to be a sinner.
Buddah rejected any form of personal veneration.
No man in history ever dared to identify Himself with God in the way that Jesus did.

and Jesus said, "Who do you say I am?"
 
Thank you Boris for the thread name. I'll be posting the above there.

I think you might agree with me if i say King Minos' order to Daedalus with regards that architectural pleasantry may be evoking proliferation of "Minotaurs".

------------------
dumaurier
 
Bruce:

I'm of the impression that the points you raise may be better discussed in an independent thread. Here we are talking about "Proofs & Evidences of the Existence of God." Your post seems to be better suited to a thread on comparative religion. Why don't you start the thread? Just be warned that once one gets on the bandwagon of comparative adjectives, the road is quite rough and full of peril.

So, do you have any proof and/or evidence supporting or debunking our current topic?




------------------
dumaurier
 
dumaurier:

No I don't think that I want to start a topic on comparative religion because of
so many deferent beliefs. I'll leave that to you, but I would like to say a few
things on the existence of God, and what I say here dos not reflect on you.
This is a hard subject because how can I prove that there is a God? To me
its like saying how can I prove that there isn't a God. I like to say prove to me
that there isn't a God. I don't think you can put God in a test tube, but as far as
evidence, I believe nature is a good teacher and also archaeology and how about the
Bible? of course some my laugh at that. I think God is the absolute. It took someone
intelligent to make the universe, to me that is just common sense.


Bruce
 
Bruce:

You wrote:
No I don't think that I want to start a topic on comparative religion because of so many different beliefs. I'll leave that to you...


Dumaurier replies:
The topic of a free discussion on comparative religion would become so utterly prolific of prejudice that i shun even to think it.


You wrote:
but I would like to say a few things on the existence of God, and what I say here does not reflect on you. This is a hard subject because how can I prove that there is a God? To me it's like saying how can I prove that there isn't a God? I like to say, prove to me
that there isn't a God. I don't think you can put God in a test tube, but as far as
evidence, I believe nature is a good teacher and also archaeology and how about the
Bible? of course some my laugh at that. I think God is the absolute. It took someone
intelligent to make the universe, to me that is just common sense.

Dumaurier replies:
I see what you are saying, Bruce. To you it makes common sense (as it does to me and to millions of people on our lovely little planet) because we have faith. Without faith we require material proof because our judgements will be made according to the physical senses. Indeed it did take someone intelligent to create another intelligent creature. I fully agree with you. Did you read my opening post in this thread?




[This message has been edited by dumaurier (edited July 26, 1999).]
 
Why do you assume intelligent creatures (or anything) were created? Why does it take an intelligent source to give rise to intelligence?

You are quite right, Dumaurier. Your arguments are based entirely on faith. And I wager none of them are based on any kind of logic, at the root.

In fact, I surmise no material proof of God could ever surface. That is so because of the fundamental limitedness of our existence. If something unexplainable shows up, it will not be a proof of God, but merely of the shortfalls in our understanding. I could be wrong, of course...

------------------
I am; therefore I think.
 
Boris writes:
First, we know that the world exists in some way -- because we ourselves exist. No contest there.

Dumaurier responds:
Exactly. And if we didn't exist the world would continue to exist because the world and everything therein is independent of you or i.

Boris writes: (the letters in half-parenthesis are dumaurier's)
a) From that, somehow we conclude that the world had a creator. To this day, I fail to see any connective logic.
b) You essentially argue that in order for anything to exist, it must have been preconceived and subsequently materialized by some deliberate agent.
c) Why it is so, I fail to understand.
d) The three major issues that have been raised but never addressed to my satisfaction, are: 1) Why does any thing or any process in existence need to be pre-conceived in order to exist?
e) 2) Why does the universe have to have a well-defined origin?
f) 3) If God created the universe, then what created God?

Dumaurier responds:
Fair enough. As to
a) "From that, somehow we conclude that the world had a creator. To this day, I fail to see any connective logic."
I must once again refer you to the principle of cause and effect. Moreover, we have discussed the painter and the painting; the qualities in the painting are those inherent in the painter. If there is intelligent life on this planet it is indicative of an intelligent Creator, or a Creator Who has this quality a priori--for if the Creator had no intelligence, He wouldn't be able to give it to His creation. Moreover, we have discussed the qualities of the part as existing in the whole. And we have talked long on that piece of bread. This is "logic". But it may not conform to your "logic" because it contradicts your beliefs. But it is objectively logical and undisputed.

b) You essentially argue that in order for anything to exist, it must have been preconceived and subsequently materialized by some deliberate agent.

Again, cause and effect. In addition, as i have beforehand illustrated, a chair does not appear out of thin air. The carpenter must first conceive of that chair's design, structure, consistency, form, arrangement, and its purpose. Such conception is an immaterial process. Then the carpenter begins the actual work of concretizing. Thus, the immaterial state is expressed in a material realization.

c) Why it is so, I fail to understand.

I believe your failure to understand is due to your attachment to expectation of something which cannot be; you seek material answers for essentially spiritual phenomena. One can use reasonable arguements to prove the existence of God (as the introductory text to this thread amply demonstrates) but these are arguements pure and simple. It also takes faith to see the wisdom in such simple arguements; arguements of which cannot be refuted no matter how hard one tries.

d) The three major issues that have been raised but never addressed to my satisfaction, are: 1) Why does any thing or any process in existence need to be pre-conceived in order to exist?

These words you wrote above, were they not preconceived before they found material expression? Why did they have to be preconceived in order to exist? What is a motive? It must first exist in the mind before its process unfolds and is realized in action. Everything has a motive, a reason for being. God has a reason for being. His motive is to create (obviously). Without such a motive He could not possibly be a Creator. Everything that an able man creates is preconceived otherwise it could not find expression in the other world.


e) 2) Why does the universe have to have a well-defined origin?

Causality.

f) 3) If God created the universe, then what created God?

One of His titles is the "Uncreated." He is also known as the "Self-Subsisting." For us to be able to determine what or who created God would be akin to being God Himself, and this is beyond our station. We are humans, no more and no less. An animal is an animal and could not understand humans even if he tried. It is beyond its station to even ask any questions with regards humans.

Boris writes:
Now, it seems that you assume apriori the answers to all of these questions (and many more!!), and in such a way as to make the existence of God inevitable. Then, based on your assumptions, you start finding 'evidence' in support of your arguments -- 'evidence' which basically reiterates those very same assumptions in a different way!

Dumaurier responds:
The existence of a Creator IS INEVITABLE for there could not be a creation without a Creator. This is reasonable, this is logical. There can be no smoke without fire, remember? Now, if one seeks for evidence in trying to prove all this it is strictly for people like you who refuse to believe in what is obvious; who refuses to believe the existence of He Who created your very soul! But how could this wonderous universe have been created on its own, without a Creator? Impossible!!! There is evidence all around you of constant creation: Vapour must rise to create clouds that create the rain which inevitably must come down and create the rivers which create the great seas. And the cycle of creating is repeated unceasingly. Suns and planets turn and create magnetic pull which create other effects. What more can possibly a man do but to resign himself in awe at the greatness of the very Creator of all this beauty in our vast universe?

Boris writes:
Let me expand a bit here. Time exists within our physical universe, quite conceivably due to finite speed of propagation of energy potentials. What possible justification is there behind the assumption that outside the confines of our 4-dimensional spacetime, our concept of time even makes sense? But if you can't demonstrate the existence of time within the 'ultimate' reference frame, then you can't even talk about beginning, or end, of any kind.

Dumaurier responds:
But you are speaking of a man made creation here which does not, cannot apply to the Creator Himself. He is not bound by the physical laws of this universe. He is the Independent! We cannot judge God according by our standards but, rather, we must judge Him according to His standards. And this is why we see hell fire all about us in the form of sects, wars, pillaging, murder, poverty, injustice-- because man uses HIS standards to judge a book which cannot be judged by human standards. God must be judged by HIS standards! He provides the foundation of our judgement, not we. He provides the ultimate reference frame for everything. He is the Creator of all reference frames while remaining independent of them!

Boris writes:
Then there is even a question of whether an 'ultimate' reference frame exists (as in that of God). The universe's spatial extension, its timeline, or both may have no beginning and no end -- just like a circle, a figure eight, or any kind whatsoever of a closed loop. Or it could simply be that time, or space, or both stretch back to infinity, and just as there is no number equal infinity, there is no beginning 'tick mark' to the universe. Our conceptions of the world are those of a prisoner locked in a cell with no windows. If you know Plato's allegory of the Cave, then you will see how all of us might easily be staring at shadows and illusions of true reality. To take our present concepts and apply them to the entire universe (so much of it unknown), and to discuss its ultimate sources if any using our notions of beginning vs. end, power vs. weakness requires faith indeed.

Dumaurier responds:
Exactly! Ultimately, it does require faith and all men sooner or later are led to confess this absolute helplessness to understand this awesome creation and forced to admit that the Almighty is truly greater than all of existence put together. But our very knowledge of God comes from the Prophets themselves who all unequiviocally claim that their Revelations are of God. What possible personal interest could Christ have had in the knowledge that if He pursued His teaching efforts He'd be murdered? What folly got into Muhammad to have suffered years of persecution just to announce that God had called Him to be His Manifestation? What insanity got into Baha'u'llah's mind to proclaim the Oneness of God when he knew full well that His whole life would have to be spent in prison and in sorrow? Yet, these were not madmen for they worked great good for humanity. Witness the millions that bow their knees to them today.

Boris writes:
Seasons change only on Earth; there is no such thing as spring in the interstellar space. Similarly, the principle of causality you rely so much upon, might be a limited effect confined only to a small subspace of the universe, or only to a few phenomena within it. In fact, it could easily turn out that the majority of the universe is not causal (and thus imperceptible to us up to now!) But these are minor issues compared to the entire universe itself! What could conceivably even give you (or anyone!) the gall to presume a logical derivation of the universe's origins, in light of all the uncertainties and all the unanswered questions that ordinarily should not be ignored?

Dumaurier responds:
What gives me the "gull" to presume all these things are God Himself Who has spoken through His Prophets. There is no greater God than God!

Boris writes:
In truth, your 'proofs and evidences' are a mere reiteration of the Cartesian circle, with a few more colors and emotional appeal thrown in. He reasoned something like this: I think, therefore I am, these things are true, therefore since I exist, truth exists, therefore the ultimate source of truth exists, therefore God exists! The argument might seem solid on the surface, but in truth it is one of the most famous philosophical blunders in history. It's good all the way to the point where Descartes makes a claim about the ultimate source of anything. This is where he assumes that the ultimate source exists, and from there he concludes that there is a God. This is like saying that "I believe in God, therefore there is a God." Descartes has been ridiculed in the philosophical circles for centuries for this little piece of art (especially since a great mathematician should've known better!); in fact his only coup de grace is that he possibly did this to evade the scrutiny of the Inquisition. By cozying up to the Church through this masterpiece of thought, he made sure what happened to Galileo wouldn't happen to him. And while Descartes' motivations might have been explainable, yours by contrast seem just plain irrational.

Dumaurier responds:
I will not venture to argue here the faults or merits of the mechanistic basis for the philosophical theory of dualism as expounded by Rene Descartes. Suffice it to say that any mechanistic view, i believe, is false for it disregards the existence of the soul and/or anything spiritual but formulates conclusions based solely on observational data from which abstract mathematical formulas are hatched like a candy from a bubblegum machine.

There can only be one conclusion to all this, Boris: you either have faith, or you don't.

I believe in science and i believe in religion.
You believe in science only.
I believe in God and i believe in rockets.
You believe in rockets only.
I believe i have a body and i believe i have a spiritual soul.
You believe you have a body.
I believe that when i die my body will rot and return whence it came, and my soul will return to God.
You believe that when you die your body will rot and return whence it came.

I have hope.

You don't.


Salutations
 
First you say:

e) 2) Why does the universe have to have a well-defined origin?

Causality.

...

The existence of a Creator IS INEVITABLE for there could not be a creation without a Creator. This is reasonable, this is logical. There can be no smoke without fire, remember? ...

... etc. etc. etc.

Then you say this:

He is not bound by the physical laws of this universe. He is the Independent! We cannot judge God according by our standards but, rather, we must judge Him according to His standards.

I am amazed you see no contradiction here. "There can be no smoke withot fire", but there can be a God without origin? You claim causality as a 'proof' of creation. But then you claim that causality does not apply at the 'ultimate' reference frame! How about that? This has been my main point of contention with your 'logic' all this time!

You make a statement about the universe at large, and then you make an exception to that rule just for the sake of God!
There is no logic here. None at all.

If there can be a God without origin, there certainly can be a universe without origin -- and without God. If God can obtain a conceit of reality out of nothingness, then the physical laws can arise out of nothingness and create that reality all on their own. That's logic. Your 'proofs and evidences' are much ado about nothing, merely groundless fluff masquerading as reasoned argument. But you see, it is fundamentally more reasonable to assume that physical laws came out of nothing, or did not have a well-defined origin -- than to assume that the Sentient, the All-Powerful, the Independent, the Uncreated, the Undecipherable came similarly out of nothing, or did not have a well-defined origin.

<hr>

You write:

Again, cause and effect. In addition, as i have beforehand illustrated, a chair does not appear out of thin air. The carpenter must first conceive of that chair's design, structure, consistency, form, arrangement,
and its purpose. Such conception is an immaterial process. Then the carpenter begins the actual work of concretizing. Thus, the immaterial state is expressed in a material realization.

'conception' is not a spiritual process. It is a computational process occurring within a physical brain. As its 'data' it uses knowledge of the world obtained through perceptual learning. If the Baha'i faith
explicitly insists that knowledge and thought are supernatural, then it will not survive much longer, as by the end of the next century it will be clear as day that thought, knowledge, imagination and so on are products of purely material processes.

Then you mention:

But how could this
wonderous universe have been created on its own, without a Creator? Impossible!!! There is evidence all around you of constant creation: Vapour must rise to create clouds that create the rain which inevitably must come down and create the rivers which create the great seas. And the cycle of creating is repeated unceasingly. Suns and planets turn and create magnetic pull which create other effects. What more can possibly a man do but to resign himself in awe at the greatness of the very Creator of all this beauty in our vast universe?

At this point, I had to take a few seconds to really, seriously, laugh. Thank you for that excellent moment! In light of the quote next to this one, what would you say conceives of a particular cloud's shape? How does the rain 'conceive' of creating rivers? What gives the Suns and planets an idea to "turn and create magnetic pull"? How does one even need a creator to conceive of these things? Very obviously, these are all physical processes, and require no sentience to be originated or set in motion. What makes it inevitable, quite clearly, is physics -- not the will of a furniture maker. Same goes for the origin of our intelligence, and indeed for the very words that you are reading now.

<hr>

But you are speaking of a man made creation here which does not, cannot apply to the Creator Himself.

Really?? And what kind of creation are you speaking about when you talk about bakers and painters????
My point precisely. You are using the primitive, barely at all evolved, human concepts to speak about such things as origins of the universe. And given that, you are claiming that your insight came from God, too! How sickeningly ridiculous.

<hr>

You said:

What is a motive? It must first exist in the mind before its process unfolds and is realized in action.

Why so? A motive is a behavioral response to environmental input. It's origin is within the sensory input and the on-going stream of consciousness. It does not magically appear out of nothing, nor does it precede its origins. It is a physical phenomenon; a physical behavior stemming from a physical system.

<hr>

Now this is a real gem:

Everything has a motive, a reason for being. God has a reason for being.

I suppose this is what you've been calling 'logic' all this time? Your entire belief system is based on statements like these. They have <u>no</u> logical foundation. They are in fact axyoms. And while, given a set of non self-contradictory axyoms (as yours are) one can build a logical argument, it will not be any more reflective of reality than another logical argument based on a different set of non self-contradictory axyoms. Your 'proofs and evidences' are nothing but assumptions! They prove absolutely nothing, and are evidence for nothing, other than themselves! That, my friend, is logic.

<hr>

You said:

Everything that an able man creates is preconceived otherwise it could not find expression in the other world.

Nothing is preconceived! You concept of a chair derives from the concept of sitting down. You did not conceive of it; you learned it from experience! You cannot conceive of an irreducible concept if you did not experience it first. As for complex creations of thought that derive from simple percept-based concepts, they once again are driven by sensory experience, and are a product of physical computation. It is the world that first finds expression within our minds, and only then can we reflect ourselves back upon it. Thought and knowledge indeed have a material foundation and are borne from it. They are material processes and have nothing to do with 'soul' or God.

<hr>

The existence of a Creator IS INEVITABLE for there could not be a creation without a Creator.

Perfectly circular reasoning. Enough said.

<hr>

Ultimately, it does require faith and all men sooner or later are led to confess this absolute helplessness to understand this awesome creation and forced to admit that the Almighty is truly greater than all of existence put together.

The only reasonable thing you have said in this debate. You arguments, 'proofs', and 'evidences' are ultimately nothing but reflections of your faith, and are ultimately entirely built out of it.

What possible personal interest could
Christ have had in the knowledge that if He pursued His teaching efforts He'd be murdered? What folly got into Muhammad to have suffered years of persecution just to announce that God had called Him to be His Manifestation? What insanity got into Baha'u'llah's mind to proclaim the Oneness of God when he knew full well that His whole life would have to be spent in prison and in sorrow?

Why does Jack Kevorkian do what he does, regardless of persecution or even (of late) imprisonment? Why did the abolitionists struggle with rich and powerful slave owners? Why does Cuba consistently insist on defying the might of the United States, in spite of harsh punishment? Why do the gays and lesbians hold parades and public meetings despite the contrition that is visited upon them? Why do the members of Greenpeace risk everything to save just a single whale, or just a single tree? Why do Hezbollah members strap explosives to their bodies and offer the ultimate sacrifice among crowds of the enemy?

It's quite straightforward, Dumaurier. And it does not involve God. Sometimes, people are driven toward extremism. And when they are, they always tend to do what they perceive is right and righteous. Blindingly simple when you consider the larger picture,
isn't it?

<hr>

I believe in science and i believe in religion.
You believe in science only.
I believe in God and i believe in rockets.
You believe in rockets only.
I believe i have a body and i believe i have a spiritual soul.
You believe you have a body.
I believe that when i die my body will rot and return whence it came, and my soul will return to God.
You believe that when you die your body will rot and return whence it came.

You believe you have proof or evidence for your limpid claims.
You and I both know you have none.

By the way, I don't 'believe' in science. I believe my senses. And thus I believe that the experimental results upon which science is built are valid. And I believe current theories are fairly good models over their respective domains, again based on experimental test result. Ultimately, I believe in my senses and in my memory. You believe in that, and also in a fabrication.

<hr>

I have hope.

You don't.

Pitiful is he who finds refuge in false hopes. I have guts to recognize that. You don't.

<hr>

You believe in submission and superstition. I believe in independence and objectivity.
You envision for humanity a future ridden by religion. I see an unencumbered, enlightened civilization determining its own identity and future.

Felicitations.

------------------
I am; therefore I think.
 
I have faith. You have none.
I believe. You don't.

Sufficient unto me is the All-Powerful who sooner or later bringeth into submission all such as who don't believe in Him.

"In vain would they but put out the flame of God's love."

Yea! Pitiful is their lot in the end.


Boris, God has no need of man, but man is in need of Him. May God spare you the tests you will experience in your life due to your hardness of heart.



------------------
dumaurier
 
Naturally. I'm shaking in my boots.

At least if there really is a God, when I die and go meet him, I'll be able to testify that I indeed used the greatest gift a human possesses to as full an extent as I could.

As for the heart -- mine is not cold, nor hard. In fact, I am a rather emotional person. I just can't stand all the little lambs running around the globe. Baaaaaaa....
 
dumaurier:

Yes I read your opening post and I see what you are saying.
I agree with you on this.

You also wrote:

The existence of a Creator IS INEVITABLE for there could not be a creation without a Creator. This is reasonable, this is logical. There can be no smoke without fire, remember? Now, if one seeks for evidence in trying to prove all this it is strictly for people like you who refuse to believe in what is obvious; who refuses to believe the existence of He Who created your very soul! But how could this wonderous universe have been created on its own, without a Creator? Impossible!!! There is evidence all around you of constant creation: Vapour must rise to create clouds that create the rain which inevitably must come down and create the rivers which create the great seas. And the cycle of creating is repeated unceasingly. Suns and planets turn and create magnetic pull which create other effects. What more can possibly a man do but to resign himself in awe at the greatness of the very Creator of all this beauty in our vast universe?

Bruce:
Agree 100%
 
Blessed is the man that walketh not in the counsel of the ungodly, nor standeth in the way of sinners, nor sitteth in the seat of the scornful. But his delight is in the law of the LORD; and in his law doth he meditate day and night. And he shall be like a tree planted by the rivers of water, that bringeth forth his fruit in his season; his leaf also shall not wither; and whatsoever he doeth shall prosper.

The ungodly are not so: but are like the chaff which the wind driveth away. Therefore the ungodly shall not stand in the judgment, nor sinners in the congregation of the righteous. For the LORD knoweth the way of the righteous: but the way of the ungodly shall perish. (Old Testament, Psalms: 1:1 to 1:6)

My brethren, count it all joy when ye fall into divers temptations; Knowing this, that the trying of your faith worketh patience. But let patience have her perfect work, that ye may be perfect and entire, wanting nothing. If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him. But let him ask in faith, nothing wavering. For he that wavereth is like a wave of the sea driven with the wind and tossed. For let not that man think that he shall receive anything of the Lord. A double minded man is unstable in all his ways. (New Testament, James: 1:2 to 1:8)

Then spake Jesus to the multitude, and to his disciples, Saying: The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses' seat: All therefore whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe and do; but do not ye after their works: for they say, and do not. For they bind heavy burdens and grievous to be borne, and lay them on men's shoulders; but they themselves will not move them with one of their fingers. But all their works they do for to be seen of men: they make broad their phylacteries, and enlarge the borders of their garments, and love the uppermost rooms at feasts, and the chief seats in the synagogues, and greetings in the markets, and to be called of men, Rabbi! Rabbi! But be not ye called Rabbi: for one is your Master, even Christ; and all ye are brethren. And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven. Neither be ye called masters: for one is your Master, even Christ. But he that is greatest among you shall be your servant.

And whosoever shall exalt himself shall be abased; and he that shall humble himself shall be exalted.

But woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye shut up the kingdom of heaven against men: for ye neither go in yourselves, neither suffer ye them that are entering to go in. And he that shall swear by heaven, sweareth by the throne of God, and by him that sitteth thereon.

Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye pay tithe of mint and anise and cummin, and have omitted the weightier matters of the law, judgment, mercy, and faith: these ought ye to have done, and not to leave the other undone. Ye blind guides, which strain at a gnat, and swallow a camel. Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye make clean the outside of the cup and of the platter, but within they are full of extortion and excess. Thou blind Pharisee, cleanse first that which is within the cup and platter, that the outside of them may be clean also.

Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye are like unto whited sepulchres, which indeed appear beautiful outward, but are within full of dead men's bones, and of all uncleanness. Even so ye also outwardly appear righteous unto men, but within ye are full of hypocrisy and iniquity.

Wherefore, behold, I send unto you prophets, and wise men, and scribes: and some of them ye shall kill and crucify; and some of them shall ye scourge in your synagogues, and persecute them from city to city: That upon you may come all the righteous blood shed upon the earth, from the blood of righteous Abel unto the blood of Zacharias son of Barachias, whom ye slew between the temple and the altar. Verily I say unto you, All these things shall come upon this generation. (Matthew 23:1 to 23:36)

------------------
dumaurier
 
Devotion to God involves implicit obedience to His revealed Commands even when the reason for these Commands is not understood. The sailor implicitly obeys his captain's orders, even when he does not know the reason for them, but his acceptance of authority is not blind. He knows full well that the captain has served a thorough probation, and given ample proofs of competence as a navigator. Were it not so, he would be foolish indeed to serve under him....Having received such proofs [of the Captain's competence], however, to refuse obedience would be even greater folly, for only by intelligent and open-eyed obedience to the wise master can we reap the benefits of his wisdom, and acquire this wisdom for ourselves. Be the captain never so wise, if none of the crew obey him how shall the ship reach its port or the sailors learn the art of navigation? Christ clearly pointed out that obedience is the path of knowledge. He said: -- "My doctrine is not mine, but his that sent me. If any man will do his will, he shall know of the doctrine, whether it be of God, or whether I speak of myself." (John 7:16-17). So Bahá'u'lláh says: "Faith in God, and the knowledge of Him, cannot be fully attained except ... by practicing all that He hath commanded and all that is revealed in the Book from the Pen of Glory." (Tablet of Tajallíyát).

Implicit obedience is not a popular virtue in these democratic days, and indeed entire submission to the will of any mere man would be disastrous. But the Unity of Humanity can be attained only by complete harmony of each and all with the Divine will. Unless that Will be clearly revealed, and men abandon all other leaders and obey the Divine Messenger, then conflict and strife will go on, and men will continue to oppose each other, to devote a large part of their energy to frustrating the efforts of their brother men, instead of working harmoniously together for the Glory of God and the common good. (Esslemont, Baha'u'llah and the New Era, p. 77-78).

------------------
dumaurier
 
O contending peoples and kindreds of the earth! Set your faces towards unity, and let the radiance of its light shine upon you. Gather ye together, and for the sake of God resolve to root out whatever is the source of contention amongst you. Then will the effulgence of the world's great Luminary envelop the whole earth, and its inhabitants become the citizens of one city, and the occupants of one and the same throne...There can be no doubt whatever that the peoples of the world, of whatever race or religion, derive their inspiration from one heavenly Source, and are the subjects of one God. The difference between the ordinances under which they abide should be attributed to the varying requirements and exigencies of the age in which they were revealed. All of them, except a few which are the outcome of human perversity, were ordained of God, and are a reflection of His Will and Purpose. Arise and, armed with the power of faith, shatter to pieces the gods of your vain imaginings, the sowers of dissension amongst you. Cleave unto that which draweth you together and uniteth you. This, verily, is the most exalted Word which the Mother Book hath sent down and revealed unto you. To this beareth witness the Tongue of Grandeur from His habitation of glory. (Gleanings from the Writings of Baha'u'llah, pp. 217-218)

------------------
dumaurier
 
We should take care not to make the intellect our god; it has, of course, powerful muscles, but no personality.
(Albert Einstein)

------------------
dumaurier
 
dumaurier,

i do not believe that obedience is quite the proper word. this is similar to the message 2+2 is trying to get across. as in a display of the potential of given circumstances. in a play, the author defines the strength of each character and when the play is performed those acting in the play contribute nuances that can alter these traits. within a few rehearsals, the actors (may) have tranformed their characters into something new. a dynamic exchange is the result. what makes this creation of dynamic? is it the given knowledge of the plays movement, or the inflection of an individual akin to their world ? when the proper choice is made, the actor has a shapeable sense of empathy, which opens up possibility with an endearing sense of innocence. perhaps one can discover new perspectives on old habits. and thru this, we can realize the distincion of our choices. to some it may appear as obedience, but i believe it is best not to use the word in this context, as it is a 'hallucination' of man's meddling affairs.
 
Back
Top