Existence:response to masadi and khurram

Masadi/khurram

I think khurram has raised a very good point here. He has rightly understood my #182.That’s exactly what I meant. I agree with khurram that if we accept the thesis of masadi described earlier, all it necessitates is an ultimate observer not a "creator" in the strict sense of the term, if at all it necessitates something. As I have said in #182 that ultimate observer is the "cause’ of the "idea of the existence of object" or it is that supreme observer who (it) makes the "material object’ the reflection of our consciousness ’possible’.

This "causal" relation between the ultimate observer and the idea of the "existence" of the matter in consciousness is not a sort of causal relation the one we have in natural sciences (at least hypothetically). Cause here only implies the supremacy of ultimate being that makes that consciousness of objects or even the consciousness about His own being, possible. The question of creation in the material sense and the necessitating the God (as a first cause) is not relevant here. And I don’t think khurram rephrased that first cause question as Masadi claimed.

If the developments at Quantum level imply (both scientifically and philosophical) what Masadi claims than the whole debate of ‘’first cause’’ (at least the classical debate) is an exercise in futility. These philosophical implications itself explode the idea of material cause (Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle). In that context, I see absolutely no reason to have God as ‘’first cause’’ in the material sense (even though we believe in God). Remember….denying a certain concept of God or an argument for the proof of ‘existence’ of God does not necessarily deny the concept of God or make you an atheist hence the favourite interacter of chowk staff.
Again the language, used in this relation, can be used only in the wobbly sense. Any theological debate or the one which has some sort of theological concern is meaningless unless we are clear on the nature (or the ‘usage’) of that language. The problem with taking religious languager that way is that the truths religious language is dealing with are of transcendental nature and there is no analogy possible there.

Because there is no common ground between the divine reality and the human reality, even if we are dealing with the concept of God as an ‘’abstraction whose validity is yet to be determined. In that case even atheist has to agree on a certain concept of God even if he does not believe in God. That is the point I raised in response to Gill’s interact that even if you don’t believe in the transcendental reality and hereafter you have to agree on certain ‘characteristic of that reality which your own ‘logic’ demand if at all you insist on applying that logic. If In the same way you accept certain ‘logical concept’ of God’ without having believe in God, only because it satisfies your logical requirement in a debate regarding the validity of religious assertion (and rightly so), than why cannot you have concept of ‘’transcendental’ (hypothetically) life on the same logically basis and than apply logic on it to analyse the ‘’internal coherence’’ of religious truths. I don’t think it was an unfair call. Because if you are going to deny something on the basis of its not being ‘formally’ inconsistent than there is no reason (in fact its logically necessary) that you don’t take into account all the concepts of religion and than show their internal inconsistency with respect to that ‘logic’.(if you insist on applying that logic at least let it reach at the point of climax. Leaving logic alone without having logical orgasm is the violation of international intellectual laws.

But Gill sahib quit the debate by saying that all these ideas regarding transcendental reality and ‘eternal’ peace are illusion and ‘’jhooti tassaliaan, along with that pointing out some spelling mistakes in my posts, for which I am grateful to him from the core of my heart(if at all it can be taken more than a blood pumping organ). He completely ignored the context I was taking these transcendental entities into account.

Regards