discussion on the nature of the creator of the heavens and earth

[russell jones]

russell, I still think you're missing most of what I'm trying to say. On certain topics I think we are in agreement, and to be honest, to some degree I think what you're saying is just nonsense. But the nature of this thread makes communicating ideas of this nature very frustrating. I might try to clarify things when I'm not so drunk but I think perhaps a third party perspective might do more than I can.

 

I think you do need to sober up, considering the relatively high level of the language in your posts, I thought you would understand what I'm trying to say. Try again tomorrow! :)

 

Trust me it's not nonsense, maybe take a minute to try to understand it.

[the.crooked]

pascals wager is looking better for you huh?

 

I don't roll with pascal's wager anyway, the muslim has yaqin (google it)

 

naw, i still maintain the fuck pascals wager stance.

 

 

 

 

I feel like i missed a lot in here today. here are my thoughts after a quick glance.

 

I have to say I sort of agree with some things SuperNintendoCHalmers is saying. Particularly that science will never explain everything. It just won't. Numbers are infinite, and thus create an impassible issue of incompleteness. An interesting analogy is this. In axiomatic set theory, one of the firs axioms is that there is no set which contains all sets. This can sort of be applied to epistemology. There is no theory which will contain all truth. Or at least there is no way to believe in the finite units such a theory would ellicit.

 

 

Ill talk more about this later. Bed time now.

[russell jones]

naw, i still maintain the fuck pascals wager stance.

 

 

 

 

I feel like i missed a lot in here today. here are my thoughts after a quick glance.

 

I have to say I sort of agree with some things SuperNintendoCHalmers is saying. Particularly that science will never explain everything. It just won't. Numbers are infinite, and thus create an impassible issue of incompleteness. An interesting analogy is this. In axiomatic set theory, one of the firs axioms is that there is no set which contains all sets. This can sort of be applied to epistemology. There is no theory which will contain all truth. Or at least there is no way to believe in the finite units such a theory would ellicit.

 

 

Ill talk more about this later. Bed time now.

 

 

Of course science won't explain everything, but perhaps philosophers point this out to justify their existence.

[Module X]

I was wasted last night, I don't even remember posting.

 

I don't perceive anything other than through my consciousness. I exist as a perception of my mind, as does the rest of the world. I am not sure what you mean by transience of individual consciousness.

 

My point is that individual consciousness is no different than, say, an ear of corn. The corn grows in a field, is harvested, cooked, eaten, and turned into energy and waste matter by a human being. A human being is also a natural process, and one of the central ideas of my personal philosophy is that you cannot draw any fundamental distinction between mind and matter in this process. Like an ear of corn, and like any natural system, a human being cannot be separated from earth's ecosystem, which cannot be separated, in a very concrete way, from all other matter in the universe. You can say what you want about the idea that your personal experience of the world is somehow uniquely defined by your individual consciousness, but I think this is just be the ego speaking. I suppose my point is that in some sense, everyone is immortal. Mind is matter, matter is mind, and every 'individual' human being is in fact inexorably connected to every other.

 

I think you didn't understand my point about absolutes. It is the main reason why I changed my mind, deciding that I was an atheist and not simply agnostic. Many people use your definition of God, I am sure crooked could name some philosophers that have reasoned some of the same things that you have. I believe you are correct in stating that science cannot ultimately explain origins, but at the same time, it does not intend to. Science will never answer any question about the nature of reality in a complete, or absolute way. Science can only make endlessly more accurate approximations of the nature of reality, it cannot completely describe reality. Perhaps more importantly, it isn't reality. But that is not to say that I search for absolute answers in other places, as I believe you have. Instead, I simply accept that there is no absolute reality.

 

The word "absolute" seems a little bit slippery here. When I use the word "God" I don't really mean it as an absolute. That's what I meant in saying "I consider the word an expression of the underlying unity and creativity of the material world." I think there is this element of arbitrariness, an underlying malleability and distinctly non-absolute character to reality. But beneath this the seemingly disparate elements of reality are all intricately, beautifully and absolutely unified together. Perhaps my definition of "God" can be equated with "reality," which is both absolute and non-absolute, depending on how you look at it. But I'm still a little unsure of our definition of "absolute" here. Because of these things, science can never explain origins. I think we are pretty much in agreement with regard to science.

 

Maybe I am misinterpreting your statements though. Perhaps where you see "God" or the absolute, I see emptiness. Meaning, reality has no ultimate source. Additionally, reality has no independent existence separated from our perceptions. So physicists have even gone out as far to say that it can be essentially empirically proven that pieces of the macro universe don't exist until we perceive of them.

 

Maybe our disagreement here is just aesthetic. My belief is that reality is its own source, because, obviously, any external creator would have to have been created by something else, and so forth. I took a course on Quantum Mechanics last term and I think it very much reinforces my beliefs.

 

Also, I may find that the "atavistic" (to borrow your word) that can't be explained is magical in the sense of the word that means "giving a feeling of enchantment," but I don't perceive it in the meaning of the word that says "having seemingly supernatural qualities or powers." I believe it is all perfectly natural.

 

Think about this a little more. What do you mean by natural? You're using this term as if it's somehow absolute.

[russell jones]

I think we practically completely agree on everything except for your concept of immortality. I agree with you that our mind is not separate from our bodies, and that it is a natural process, but as I have stated before, from my point of view, or more accurately in the view of my conscious mind, I will discontinue conscious existence when I expire. It doesn't really matter if some animal eats me and I become part of the energy that sustains that animal's life, for me, its all over. I guess you could say that is ego, I just think that's the way it is.

 

I think you are right, our disagreement is mostly semantic.

[Module X]

Word. I think what I mean to say regarding religion is that fundamental differences between different belief systems, specifically between atheism and religion, are mostly semantic as well. I believe that the ideas we have been discussing pretty much underlie every belief system. This is why I said earnest atheism is immature, because I think even an atheist, after enough contemplation, will come to a point where he realizes that his beliefs are not in fact so different from those of any religion.

[russell jones]

They certainly aren't different than any religion, except in one important way, I don't believe in God. Hence I'm an atheist! To many atheists, holding on to the word "God," even using it in a totally different way, is immature. It's the last step before making a stand. Just my opinion, no personal offense intended.

[the.crooked]

Of course science won't explain everything, but perhaps philosophers point this out to justify their existence.

 

Philosophy merely is what points that out. Everything is philosophy. To put a cleavage between an inquiry into anything and an inquiry into inquiry itself is foolish.

[russell jones]

just throwing it out there, no need to take it seriously... but on the other hand, saying "everything is philosophy" is a very self serving and self justifying statement.

[russell jones]

One time a monk asked Zhaozhou, "Does a dog have Buddha-nature or not?"

Zhaozhou answered, "No."

Another time, a monk asked Zhaozhou, "Does a dog have Buddha-nature or not?"

Zhaozhou answered, "Yes."

[Dawood]

I'm not even gonna touch that quote, Russ, aaah, ok, but, er, no, I'm not going to do it.

[Dawood]

description of Paradise by Imam Ibn al-Qayyim (Rahimahullaah):

 

“And if you ask about its ground and its soil, then it is of musk and saffron.

 

And if you ask about its roof, then it is the Throne of the Most Merciful.

 

And if you ask about its rocks, then they are pearls and jewels.

 

And if you ask about its buildings, then they are made of bricks of gold and silver.

 

And if you ask about its trees, then it does not contain a single tree except that its trunk is made of gold and silver.

 

And if you ask about its fruits, then they are softer than butter and sweeter than honey.

 

And if you ask about its leaves, then they are softer than the softest cloth.

 

And if you ask about its rivers, then there are rivers of milk who’s taste does not change, and rivers of wine that is delicious to those who drink it, and rivers of honey that is pure, and rivers of water that is fresh.

 

And if you ask about their food, then it is fruits from whatever they will choose, and the meat of whatever birds they desire.

 

And if you ask about their drink, then it is Tasneem, ginger, and Kaafoor.

 

And if you ask about their drinking cups, then they are crystal-clear and made of gold and silver.

 

And if you ask about its shade, then a fast rider would ride in the shade of one of its trees for a hundred years and not escape it.

 

And if you ask about its vastness, then the lowest of its people would have within his kingdom and walls and palaces and gardens the distance that would be traveled in a thousand years.

 

And if you ask about its tents and encampments, then one tent is like a concealed pearl that is sixty miles long.

 

And if you ask about its towers, then they are rooms above rooms in buildings that have rivers running underneath them.

 

And if you ask about how far it reaches into the sky, then look at the shining star that is visible, as well as those that are far in the heavens that the eyesight cannot possibly reach.

 

And if you ask about the clothing of its inhabitants, then they are of silk and gold.

 

And if you ask about its beds, then its blankets are of the finest silk laid out in the highest of its levels.

 

And if you ask about the faces of its inhabitants and their beauty, then they are like the image of the Moon.

 

And if you ask about their age, then they are young ones of 33 years in the image of Adam, the father of humanity.

 

And if you ask about what they will be hearing, then it is the singing of their wives from among the Hoor al-’Ayn, and better than that are the voices of the Angels and the Prophets, and better than that is the Speech of the Lord of the Worlds.

 

And if you ask about their servants, then they are young boys of everlasting youth who resemble scattered pearls.

 

And if you ask about their brides and wives, then they are young and full-breasted and have had the liquid of youth flow through their limbs; the Sun runs along the beauty of her face if she shows it, light shines from between her teeth if she smiles; if you meet her love, then say whatever you want regarding the joining of two lights; he sees his face in the roundness of her cheek as if he is looking into a polished mirror, and he sees the brightness from behind her muscles and bones; if she were to be unleashed upon the World, she would fill what is between the Heavens and the Earth with a beautiful wind, and the mouths of the creation would glorify, praise, and exclaim greatness, and everything between the East and the West would be adorned for her, and every eye would be shut from everything but her, and the light of the Sun would be outshone just as the light of the Sun outshines the light of the stars, and everyone on the face of the Earth would believe in the Ever-Living, the One who Sustains and Protects all the exists.

 

And the covering on her head is better than the World and all that is in it, and she does not increase with age except in beauty; free from an umbilical cord, childbirth and menses, and pure of mucous, saliva, urine and other filthy things; her youth never fades, her clothing is never worn out, no garment can be created that matches her beauty, and no one who is with her can ever become bored; her attention is restricted to her husband, so she desires none but him, just as his attention is restricted to her so she is the sole object of his desire, and he is with her in utmost safety and security, as none has touched her before of either humans or Jinn.

 

And if you ask about the Day of Increase (in reward) and the visit of the all-Mighty, all-Wise, and the sight of His Face - free from any resemblance or likeness to anything - as you see the Sun in the middle of the day and the full Moon on a cloudless night, then listen on the day that the caller will call: ‘O People of Paradise! Your Lord - Blessed and Exalted - requests you to visit Him, so come to visit Him!’ So they will say: ‘We hear and obey!’

 

Until, when they finally reach the wide valley where they will all meet - and none of them will turn down the request of the caller - the Lord - Blessed and Exalted - will order His Chair to be brought there. Then, pulpits of light will emerge, as well as pulpits of pearls, gemstone, gold, and silver. The lowest of them in rank will sit on sheets of musk, and will not see what those who are on the chairs above them are given. When they are comfortable where they are sitting and are secure in their places, and the caller calls: ‘O People of Paradise! You have an appointment with Allaah in which He wishes to reward you!’ So they will say: ‘And what is that reward? Has He not already made our faces bright, made our scales heavy, entered us into Paradise, and pushed us away from the Fire?’

 

And when they are like that, all of a sudden a light shines that encompasses all of Paradise. So, they raise their heads, and, behold: the Compeller - Exalted is He, and Holy are His Names - has come to them from above them and majestified them and said: ‘O People of Paradise! Peace be upon you!’ So, this greeting will not be responded to with anything better than: ‘O Allaah! You are Peace, and from You is Peace! Blessed are You, O possessor of Majesty and Honor!’ So the Lord - Blessed and Exalted - will laugh to them and say: ‘O People of Paradise! Where are those who used to obey Me without having ever seen Me? This is the Day of Increase!’

 

So, they will all give the same response: ‘We are pleased, so be pleased with us!’ So, He will say: ‘O People of Paradise! If I were not pleased with you, I would not have made you inhabitants of My Paradise! So, ask of Me!’ So, they will all give the same response: ‘Show us your Face so that we may look at it!’ So, the Lord - Mighty and Majestic - will remove his covering and will majestify them and will cover them with His Light, which, if Allaah - the Exalted - had not Willed not to burn them, would have burned them.

 

And there will not remain a single person in this gathering except that his Lord - the Exalted - will speak to him and say: ‘Do you remember the day that you did this and that?’ and He will remind him of some of his bad deeds in the Worldy life, so he will say: ‘O Lord! Will you not forgive me?’ So, He will say: ‘Of course! You have not reached this position of yours (in Paradise) except by my forgiveness.’

 

So, how sweet is this speech to the ears, and how cooled are the righteous eyes by the glance at His Noble Face in the Afterlife…

 

{Some faces that Day will be shining and radiant, looking at their Lord…} (al-Qiyaamah:22-3)

 

[Haadi al-Arwaah ilaa Bilaad il-Afraah by Ibn al-Qayyim, pg. 193]

[russell jones]

Very appealing for sure.

[Module X]

They certainly aren't different than any religion, except in one important way, I don't believe in God. Hence I'm an atheist! To many atheists, holding on to the word "God," even using it in a totally different way, is immature. It's the last step before making a stand. Just my opinion, no personal offense intended.

 

My point was that "making a stand" is immature. The way I see it, if you agree with what I've been saying, you DO believe in God. Forget about all the disparate dogma, forget the conventional idea of some old dude with a white beard sitting in the clouds. Going back to the roots of religion, I don't think that was quite what was intended in the first place. If you look at a profoundly religious person of any faith, I think my definition of God is essentially what they're seeing. I've been calling it God simply out of respect for my culture, simply because I was raised Jewish in a mostly Christian society, and that word has been prevalent.

[Dawood]

forget the conventional idea of some old dude with a white beard sitting in the clouds. .

 

where did this idea come from? My best guess is the famous Michealangelo paintings.

There's something I'd like to discuss about God. What is God? what isn't God and why?

 

Peoples religious practices vary and even between the prophets like Jesus, Moses, Noah, Muhammad (peace be upon them) there is slight variations, but one thing that always remained is the beleif in God the unity of beleif. For example, If one were to say that God is a man that person would have to bring evidence and when I say I "evidence" I mean 2 things, Textual proof and intellectual proof, so Anyone can make up a book and say it is from "God the almighty dude from chicago or something" But, there have to be intellectual proofs connected to that, meaning, that this being has to be "godly" and deserving to be worshipped. And also, in order to be "God" certain things would not befit God, like dying, Why would the Almighty Creator of everything in the universe die?

[russell jones]

My point was that "making a stand" is immature. The way I see it, if you agree with what I've been saying, you DO believe in God. Forget about all the disparate dogma, forget the conventional idea of some old dude with a white beard sitting in the clouds. Going back to the roots of religion, I don't think that was quite what was intended in the first place. If you look at a profoundly religious person of any faith, I think my definition of God is essentially what they're seeing. I've been calling it God simply out of respect for my culture, simply because I was raised Jewish in a mostly Christian society, and that word has been prevalent.

 

 

The only stand I'm making is that the concept of God, no matter what it is, is not necessary to me. By calling anything God, you are making a stand by saying that there is essentially some sort of primordial force behind everything, or within everything or however you want to define it. God is not an essential concept for me. Like I said, I used to call myself agnostic, which means that one does not take a stand on God, I "matured" past that to atheism, for reasons that I explained earlier.

 

It is a beautiful thing to respect your culture, and try to look for earlier ideas in spirituality and put the God moniker on them, but I dont' see what I believe as having any relationship with anyone's past or present definition of God or gods. No disrespect whatsoever Chalmers, but you should read my earlier posts on this topic so that you can plainly see that I knew exactly what you were talking about in the first place, I just don't buy it. Like I said, no disrespect meant, you seem like a sharp kid. Happy days for everyone!

 

 

My beliefs can be best summed up in this phrase, "beliefs are not for me." Well at least I don't hold on to them to tightly if I have them.

[Module X]

I can agree with that phrase. I suggest you check out The Perennial Philosophy by Aldous Huxley. I read it last year while I was also enrolled in a course on Chinese philosophy, and those two things really brought some nascent ideas into focus for me. I think The Perennial Philosophy expresses mostly the same ideas that I've been trying to, but of course Huxley explains things better than I can and provides mountains of examples.

[lord_casek]

i've stayed out of this thread up until now, i think. seems heated.

i'ma stick around.

[russell jones]

I can agree with that phrase. I suggest you check out The Perennial Philosophy by Aldous Huxley. I read it last year while I was also enrolled in a course on Chinese philosophy, and those two things really brought some nascent ideas into focus for me. I think The Perennial Philosophy expresses mostly the same ideas that I've been trying to, but of course Huxley explains things better than I can and provides mountains of examples.

 

I've a little bit from Huxley. I'll check it out, thanks.

[ThE TaStE Of InK]

It is justifiable to base one's beliefs about the external world on a firm, inner conviction, regardless of the external evidence, or lack of it, for the truth or falsity of these convictions.

In saying that God has the freedom and power to do that which is logically impossible (like creating square circles), you are saying that any discussion of God and ultimate reality cannot be constrained by basic principles of rationality. This would seem to make rational discourse about God impossible. If rational discourse about God is impossible, there is nothing rational we can say about God and nothing rational we can say to support our belief or disbelief in God. To reject rational constraints on religious discourse in this fashion requires accepting that religious convictions, including your religious convictions, are beyond any debate or rational discussion.

[russell jones]

I think that may be true ink. Earlier in this thread, I tried to get some of the believers in God to accept that, but I don't think it worked. It seems people like to think that there beliefs are rational, that God must exist.

[the.crooked]

just throwing it out there, no need to take it seriously... but on the other hand, saying "everything is philosophy" is a very self serving and self justifying statement.

 

I meant it in a very basic unelitist way. That the word philosophy itself has lost context, and should really just be interpreted as Inquiry. That was all I meant.

 

I wasn't tryin to be hostile in the last post if it seemed that way.

[ThE TaStE Of InK]

Earlier some people agreed that it is rational to believe that the Loch Ness monster(example of other mystical thing) does not exist if there is an absence of strong evidence or argument that it does. No strong evidence or argument was required to show that the monster does not exist - absence of evidence or argument was enough. But later people claim that the atheist needs to be able to provide strong arguments or evidence if their belief in the non-existence of God is to be rational rather than a matter of faith.

 

The contradiction is that on the first ocassion (Loch Ness monster) people agreed that the absence of evidence or argument is enough to rationally justify belief in the non-existence of the Loch Ness monster, but on this occasion (God), you do not.

[ThE TaStE Of InK]

this isnt a direct stab at Dawood...i love the in intellect he brought to this thread and subject but earlier i recalled seeing this thing about god being able to do anything he wished....

now if he created us and we created math he would have a way to manipulate our system....

 

i say that God does not have the freedom and power to do impossible things such as create 1+1=76, but in an earlier answer you said that any being which it is right to call God must be free and have the power to do anything. So, on your view, God is free and does have the power to do what is impossible. This requires that you accept - in common with most theologians, but contrary to your earlier answer - that God's freedom and power are not unbounded. He does not have the freedom and power to do literally anything...like change math

[Dawood]

God is capable of ANYTHING that would not contradict his being an all powerful God. For example , if someone were to say is God able to create a rock so big that even he can't lift it, or,

- make a square that has 3 sides or a triangle that has 4 sides?

 

- create a rock that is so heavy that He (Subhanahu Wa Ta’ala) cannot lift it??

 

- create a being more powerful than it???

 

the questions can go on and on and on and on.

 

 

theres some things to consider about God before approaching this question... first off he says in the quran أَنَّ اللَّهَ عَلَى كُلِّ شَيْءٍ قَدِيرٌ

 

“…indeed Allah is able to do all things…” (Surah At Talaaq (65) V. 12)

 

and the way this verse is understood by an agreement of the scholars of Islam is that God is able to do all things that befit his majesty.

 

Now, a question like this was asked to a famous scholar about god making a square circle or a triangle that has 4 sides and basically this question is the same as what you are asking about math and the scholar (May Allah have mercy on him) said "these are not even things that you are asking about, a triangle with four sides or a square with three sides is not a thing nor are the others that are mentioned above."

 

also Allah says in the quran

He has created everything, and has measured it exactly according to its due measurements. (Al-Furqan 25:2)

 

What I understand from that is that Allah created the heavens and the earth in a proportianate manner and that he is the one who created physics,

 

It is He Who made the sun a shining thing and the moon as a light and measured out its (their) stages, that you might know the number of years and the reckoning. Allâh did not create this but in truth. He explains the Ayât (proofs, evidences, verses, lessons, signs, revelations, etc.) in detail for people who have knowledge. (Yunus 10:5)

 

I hope this is clear

[r3ader]

i say that God does not have the freedom and power to do impossible things such as create 1+1=76, but in an earlier answer you said that any being which it is right to call God must be free and have the power to do anything. So, on your view, God is free and does have the power to do what is impossible. This requires that you accept - in common with most theologians, but contrary to your earlier answer - that God's freedom and power are not unbounded. He does not have the freedom and power to do literally anything...like change math

 

Why would someone want to disrupt what is in balance - to simply show you that He exists? What would be the point in such an endeavor? There's a major difference in what is impossible to man and what is, on the contrary, unrealistic because it would disrupt the proper balance and coexistence of this dimension. For example, i have no problem with the concept of a loch ness monster: there were surely dinosaurs walking the earth at one time, why is it so impossible that any lived? So I get back to my point : what would be the purpose in "changing math" if you created the ability for math to perfectly work? What would be the point in interfering with matter if you had allowed it to harmoniously interact? And yes, I use the same line of thought to explain how I feel about G-d stopping humans from doing stupid things, like killing each other or destroying the earth - if he gave us the cognitive ability to know better, to do better if we pleased, but we choose not to take advantage of that ability, why on earth should he interfere? Just because?

[Dawood]

on point radar, we are ultimately responsible for our own actions because we were created with a conscience, an ability to reason and were given knowledge of right and wrong, it kills me when people blame the evil that their own hands put forth on God.

[russell jones]

I meant it in a very basic unelitist way. That the word philosophy itself has lost context, and should really just be interpreted as Inquiry. That was all I meant.

 

I wasn't tryin to be hostile in the last post if it seemed that way.

 

 

me neither, I hope I didn't come off that way. I get you now. I thought you were referring to the discipline of philosophy.

[the district]

i love jesus,, i also love astrology,,,i also love buddhism,,,i believe i will live forever in eternal bliss.

am i going to hell? in ur opinion dawood?

[r3ader]

Why does it matter? Dawood's not G-d, the ideology he chooses does not determine your fate. That's one thing i thinks weird when people start judging and rating other religions/belief systems based on something they dislike about certain aspects of the other person's ideology.

 

For example, Judaism doesn't believe in Hell... this was a huge change in my life freeing me from the fear of "eternal hellfire and damnation". Does that mean there's not Hell? Shoot I dunno. But it means I'm not going to loose sleep about it during the here-and-now because to me, it doesn't exist.