Rationalizing the existence of God

[Combo]

Overlooking the Linnaean influence which was prevalent at the time (early 20th century), here is an interesting quotation: -

"Things which are understood by men cannot be outside their capacity for understanding, so that it is impossible for the heart of man to comprehend the nature of the Majesty of God. Our imagination can only picture that which it is able to create.

The power of the understanding differs in degree in the various kingdoms of creation. The mineral, vegetable, and animal realms are each incapable of understanding any creation beyond their own. The mineral cannot imagine the growing power of the plant. The tree cannot understand the power of movement in the animal, neither can it comprehend what it would mean to possess sight, hearing or the sense of smell. These all belong to the physical creation.

Man also shares in this creation; but it is not possible for either of the lower kingdoms to understand that which takes place in the mind of man. The animal cannot realize the intelligence of a human being, he only knows that which is perceived by his animal senses, he cannot imagine anything in the abstract. An animal could not learn that the world is round, that the earth revolves round the sun, or the construction of the electric telegraph. These things are only possible to man. Man is the highest work of creation, the nearest to God of all creatures.

All superior kingdoms are incomprehensible to the inferior; how therefore could it be possible that the creature, man, should understand the almighty Creator of all?

That which we imagine, is not the Reality of God; He, the Unknowable, the Unthinkable, is far beyond the highest conception of man. "
-- ‘Abdu’l-Bahá, Paris Talks

So let me ask: is atheism akin to a plant denying the existence of animals on the basis that it lacks the faculties to perceive and to comprehend them?

 

[Sarkus]

So let me ask: is atheism akin to a plant denying the existence of animals on the basis that it lacks the faculties to perceive and to comprehend them?

Unless you can show that the a priori assumption of God's existence is sound then you are merely begging the question of God's existence.

 

[Combo]

Unless you can show that the a priori assumption of God's existence is sound then you are merely begging the question of God's existence.

Nature reveals endless examples of life which are incapable of comprehending other forms of life. Is it not anthropocentric and hubristic for atheism to declare man the exception: i.e. that there is no higher existence that man can not comprehend?

 

[geeser]

Is it not anthropocentric and hubristic for atheism to declare man the exception:

Yes it would if that is what atheists did.

i.e. that there is no higher existence that man can not comprehend?

That is wrong! Atheism is simply the lack of belief in a deity, it doesn't declare man anything. Technically anything that has no belief in a deity is atheist, no matter how stupid that may sound.
There is not one iota of unequivocal evidence that any God exists. a God cannot explain all that exists because God itself cannot be explained. This claim just gratuitously swaps one mystery for another. It is effectively an appeal to magic. Religious faith is generally indistinguishable from gullibility. Trust and faith, as human concepts, are normally based on experience and reason. Religious faith is necessarily based on belief in unproven and unknowable things. A god or anything that exists outside the realm of natural reality is necessarily unknowable, unintelligible and incoherent. Atheists do not invoke any concept of god to explain any phenomenon or solve any philosophical conundrum, and they see no compelling reason too. Atheist do not profess to have the truth, it is simply that it is unreasonable, without further qualifying evidence. An atheist is simply someone who does not posit a god-concept to explain anything or solve any problem. An atheist has no belief in god/gods, he also has no belief in fairies and elves etc. That’s not to say that any of these things couldn't exist, it is just simply unreasonable to have a belief in such things.

 

[(Q)]

Overlooking the Linnaean influence which was prevalent at the time (early 20th century), here is an interesting quotation: -

So let me ask: is atheism akin to a plant denying the existence of animals on the basis that it lacks the faculties to perceive and to comprehend them?

Nature reveals endless examples of life which are incapable of comprehending other forms of life.

Undeniable logic here, folks. A rock cannot comprehend a plant, therefore God exists.

 

[Combo]

Undeniable logic here, folks. A rock cannot comprehend a plant, therefore God exists.

More like:
A plant is incomprehensible to a rock, however the inability of a rock to comprehend the plant does not disprove the existence of the plant.
An animal is incomprehensible to a plant, however the inability of a plant to comprehend the animal does not disprove the existence of the animal.
[...]
God is incomprehensible to man, however the inability of man to comprehend God does not disprove the existence of God.

 

[wegs]

I agree, that the inability of man to comprehend 'a god' does not disprove his existence. But, I don't believe that is the reason people are atheists. Atheism is a choice to not believe in that which has no evidence of existence, a deity. Atheism in a very general sense, is the rejection of the idea of a diety, or the supernatural. Less generalized, atheism states that there simply are no deities. The examples above, I don't believe are good analogies, because it doesn't come into play as to why someone believes in God, and why someone does not. (I believe in God, but that's my two cents worth)

 

[(Q)]

More like:
A plant is incomprehensible to a rock, however the inability of a rock to comprehend the plant does not disprove the existence of the plant.
An animal is incomprehensible to a plant, however the inability of a plant to comprehend the animal does not disprove the existence of the animal.
[...]

And, none of that has anything to do anything. It is entirely irrelevant.

God is incomprehensible to man, however the inability of man to comprehend God does not disprove the existence of God.

We can say the same thing about leprechauns. Entirely irrelevant. You got nothing here but fallacies, dude.

 

[dumbest man on earth]

More like:
A plant is incomprehensible to a rock, however the inability of a rock to comprehend the plant does not disprove the existence of the plant.
An animal is incomprehensible to a plant, however the inability of a plant to comprehend the animal does not disprove the existence of the animal.
[...]
God is incomprehensible to man, however the inability of man to comprehend God does not disprove the existence of God.

So...you seem to base the question in your OP partially on the belief that "The mineral, vegetable, and animal realms are each incapable of understanding any creation beyond their own."

Combo, so if there is no comprehension - on any level - of animals by plants, why do so many plants rely so heavily on animals and insects for reproduction and propagation?

Also if there is no comprehension - on any level - of plants by animals, why do animals know where to look for and what parts of which plants will provide nourishment and conversely which are toxic?

Combo, have you ever even heard of a "Symbiotic Relationship"? Could a "Symbiotic Relationship" come about with a total lack of "comprehension" on any level? Whether or not Humans could understand or conceive of it is totally irrelevant.

At any rate, were not all Theologies or Religions and "gods" more or less conceived of and began by the philosophical wondering of human beings?
Isn't a Theist just a person who believes in one of those Theologies?

Atheism, from my understanding, is the choice of some human beings not to believe in Theisms, or the manufactured beliefs of just some other human beings.

An Atheist still comprehends the existence of and can also believe in a greater meaning to life.

And BTW , Combo, minerals - maybe, just maybe, their level of comprehension and understanding is so far above ours, and they find us so uninteresting that some of them would, possibly, just prefer that we take them for Granite!

 

[river]

Overlooking the Linnaean influence which was prevalent at the time (early 20th century), here is an interesting quotation: -




So let me ask: is atheism akin to a plant denying the existence of animals on the basis that it lacks the faculties to perceive and to comprehend them?

If one were to rationalize god , one would think that god is rational

I have not found god to be rational

 

[Combo]

Here is another quotation from the same author on this theme: -

"When thou dost carefully consider this matter, thou wilt see that a lower plane can never comprehend a higher. The mineral kingdom, for example, which is lower, is precluded from comprehending the vegetable kingdom; for the mineral, any such understanding would be utterly impossible. In the same way, no matter how far the vegetable kingdom may develop, it will achieve no conception of the animal kingdom, and any such comprehension at its level would be unthinkable, for the animal occupieth a plane higher than that of the vegetable: this tree cannot conceive of hearing and sight. And the animal kingdom, no matter how far it may evolve, can never become aware of the reality of the intellect, which discovereth the inner essence of all things, and comprehendeth those realities which cannot be seen; for the human plane as compared with that of the animal is very high. And although these beings all co-exist in the contingent world, in each case the difference in their stations precludeth their grasp of the whole; for no lower degree can understand a higher, such comprehension being impossible.

The higher plane, however, understandeth the lower. The animal, for instance, comprehendeth the mineral and vegetable, the human understandeth the planes of the animal, vegetable and mineral. But the mineral cannot possibly understand the realms of man. And notwithstanding the fact that all these entities co-exist in the phenomenal world, even so, no lower degree can ever comprehend a higher.

Then how could it be possible for a contingent reality, that is, man, to understand the nature of that pre-existent Essence, the Divine Being? The difference in station between man and the Divine Reality is thousands upon thousands of times greater than the difference between vegetable and animal. And that which a human being would conjure up in his mind is but the fanciful image of his human condition, it doth not encompass God’s reality but rather is encompassed by it. That is, man graspeth his own illusory conceptions, but the Reality of Divinity can never be grasped: It, Itself, encompasseth all created things, and all created things are in Its grasp. That Divinity which man doth imagine for himself existeth only in his mind, not in truth." -- Selections From the Writings of ‘Abdu’l-Bahá

From this perspective, observations of nature lead man to the possibility that he, in turn, may occupy a plane lower than another he is incapable of comprehending. Agnosticism accepts this possibility, whereas atheism rejects it.

 

[river]

Here is another quotation from the same author on this theme: -



From this perspective, observations of nature lead man to the possibility that he, in turn, may occupy a plane lower than another he is incapable of comprehending. Agnosticism accepts this possibility, whereas atheism rejects it.

The only way that Humanity can get to a higher plane , is the thinking that Humanity will reach it

Lets face it , any advanced being has reached this advanced development , they all have

 

[wegs]

From this perspective, observations of nature lead man to the possibility that he, in turn, may occupy a plane lower than another he is incapable of comprehending. Agnosticism accepts this possibility, whereas atheism rejects it.

Not sure I've ever heard this stated quite like this, very interesting!

 

[river]

Not sure I've ever heard this stated quite like this, very interesting!

In what way ?

 

[wegs]

In what way ?

That an agnostic dares to stay open to the possibility of some"thing" being higher than him/her, while an atheist doesn't.
I've never judged anyone's views in this regard, but it's just interesting "how" that was stated. Is it bothersome or disconcerting for someone who disbelieves in a deity, to fathom a "being" higher than he? That statement above seems to subtly infer that.

 

[river]

That an agnostic dares to stay open to the possibility of some"thing" being higher than him/her, while an atheist doesn't.
I've never judged anyone's views in this regard, but it's just interesting "how" that was stated. Is it bothersome or disconcerting for someone who disbelieves in a deity, to fathom a "being" higher than he? That statement above seems to subtly infer that.

Oh I know there is a being(s) with greater knowledge than Humanity has privy too , at least generally

Investigations into the spectrum of many aspects of experiences leaves no doubt

A deity to show respect to , a deity that has Humanity interests foremost , I have found , Gnosticism

But even that thinking , that metaphysics , is not good enough for me

What I want and strive for is a solid based philosophy , that puts Humanity First , anything less is unacceptable , for infinity

 

[Robittybob1]

Oh I know there is a being(s) with greater knowledge than Humanity has privy too , at least generally

Investigations into the spectrum of many aspects of experiences leaves no doubt

A deity to show respect to , a deity that has Humanity interests foremost , I have found , Gnosticism

But even that thinking , that metaphysics , is not good enough for me

What I want and strive for is a solid based philosophy , that puts Humanity First , anything less is unacceptable , for infinity

What unacceptable to you? That's pretty arrogant isn't it to think you are so important in the scheme of things. Why do feel the way you do?

 

[wegs]

Oh I know there is a being(s) with greater knowledge than Humanity has privy too , at least generally

Investigations into the spectrum of many aspects of experiences leaves no doubt

A deity to show respect to , a deity that has Humanity interests foremost , I have found , Gnosticism

But even that thinking , that metaphysics , is not good enough for me

What I want and strive for is a solid based philosophy , that puts Humanity First , anything less is unacceptable , for infinity

So, if you were to lean towards a particular spiritual persuasion if you will...it would be Gnosticism?
I learn something new everyday on here.

You say "that's not good enough for me." What do you mean?
You don't think that spirituality places humanity first? I do.

(Not talking religion, but just believing in a "higher power.")

 

[Robittybob1]

So, if you were to lean towards a particular spiritual persuasion if you will...it would be Gnosticism?
I learn something new everyday on here.

You say "that's not good enough for me." What do you mean?
You don't think that spirituality places humanity first? I do.

(Not talking religion, but just believing in a "higher power.")

Jesus being the link between humanity and God, so I suppose humanity is important, but is it first?
So if I had to answer what else would come first? There seems to be this epic battle in the theologies between good and Evil. So maybe Righteousness and Good is more important than Humanity. I'm not saying I know but I'm interested to know why River made it essential.

 

[wegs]

Jesus being the link between humanity and God, so I suppose humanity is important, but is it first?
So if I had to answer what else would come first? There seems to be this epic battle in the theologies between good and Evil. So maybe Righteousness and Good is more important than Humanity. I'm not saying I know but I'm interested to know why River made it essential.

Oh, definitely it's about humanity! We have evolved into humans, right? That was no mistake.
So, going with that, I believe that God seeks the very best for his creation, for humanity.
But, we too must seek the very best. I've often felt God's best, is better than "my" best.
It might not be a popular idea here, but it is how I see things.