Religion In A Clubby Hole

Re: # 290

But Quranic Allah does try to prove himself. See dialogue of Abraham with Allah in Quran.

Ha, the old Douglas Adams theory -``I refuse to prove that I exist`` says God, ``for proof denies faith and without faith I am nothing.``

I don`t think anyone has here has said that the absence of evidence is proof of God`s existence, just that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence (or, more accurately, proof of absence).

Till then, various Gods, Goblins and other fairy tales can claim to provide All the answers, brainwash the willing, create religiously blinded `faithful, be the cause of mob violence, and hold mainstream politics as hostage.

#288, when overwhelming evidence gathers in support of a theory with numbers like probabilities that make alternative explanations non-existant, we cannot just dismiss those ``theories`` as mere theories- they become established theories and hence factual. The ``magical`` doesn`t appear ``magical`` if you study its mind based upon its creation- similar to what Stephen Hawkings mentions about the ``mind of God``- also, the question about who ``created`` the ``creator`` in its premise is illogical, it equates the created with the creator- it assumes that just because the created (created because it has attributes like change, origin, death etc) necessitates a creator, the creator (much different in its attributes from the created) also necessitates a creator. This would not be the case if the ``creator`` has different attributes than the ``created``- which puts to rest all attempts to place divinity on human beings etc.

After exhausting all the other alternatives, the only hypothesis that is logically deduced from empirical evidence provided by nature, is that an intelligent being created the heavens and the earth. This being cannot be ``human`` or like anything in the natural world, so to speak. The attributes of the universe that ``necessitate`` design (discussed above) as well as the attributes in us that ``necessitate`` design (discussed below) cannot be the attributes of a creator otherwise ``it`` would need a creator as well.

Thus, if the creator is ``different`` than creation, in the attributes that ``it`` possesses, the question ``Who created God?`` becomes logically meaningless. Intelligent design would apply only to things that were non-existent and then came into being and contain specific attributes that necessitate design. Thus God has to be eternal, unchanging and unlike creation.

I would recommend reading the article, God: The New Scientific Evidence at http://god.rationalreality.com

There are theories but we just don`t know how we `got here`, as in the `first cause`. To say therefore that it must have been sparked off by a magical being simply because it`s too difficult to imagine anything else is a non-sequiter. Maybe by 200005 we`ll know the answer.

I can understand the attraction of simply believing that a magical being waved a wand and started it all off, but who created the magical being? There would still be unanswered questions about this magical being even if most of the rest of the questions of origins would be taken care of.

Till then, various Gods, Goblins and other fairy tales can claim to provide All the answers, brainwash the willing, create religiously blinded `faithful, be the cause of mob violence, and hold mainstream politics as hostage.

#286, SR`s question was different, for the sake of argument he accepted the existance of a God but then wanted to know the necessity for that God to communicate giving rise to revelations etc. Regarding your question, as I mentioned earlier, the method of science that guides us to the truth in other endevours can also be applied to get to the truth in religious inquiry. There are some articles elaborating this at http://www.rationalreality.com, check the one titled, ``Koran & Critical Rationalism`` and another one titled ``Koran & Self- Reference``, greatly appreciate your interest in these issues-

masadi ji

If I understand him right, SR isn`t sure of the certainty and strength of the link between Whatever had to Preexist before the universe was born billions and billions of years ago and Vishnu-Jehova-God-al-Lah (let`s call the creature Vijegoal).

Why, for instance, had this Vijegoal had to indulge in all those specific and different behaviors of which Vishnu, Jehova, God, and al-Lah have been accused. With no-more-than half the power at his or her disposal, even a reasonably intelligent human could have conjured up more efficient and effective methods of achieving their various purported goals.

We can`t and shouldn`t hastily conclude that the Great Vijegoal itself, and not some other - even less wholesome - force, was responsible for Vishnu`s incarnations, Jehova`s whatever the fellow did, God`s undocumented siring of a child, and al-Lah strange and silly behaviors, including his holding his tongue forever after sending a message to an arab man?

Again, we can`t and shouldn`t rule out the possibility that gifted charlatans might be taking advantage of human beings constant fear and total ignorance about this supposedly all-powerful Vijegoal creature.

#284, you point isn`t clear logically speaking, and by this I mean no offense to you- It does not make much sense that the creator provided for the ``lower`` needs, like food, environment etc, for his creation- which is an emprical fact by the way- and forgot to or didnt care to provide for the ``higher`` need of one of his created species- a mind that asks questions and needs answers- that my friend is the position of revelation viz a viz the creator.

Re: # 283 masadi {``...If ...we receive ... message from space, scientists ...would conclude ... intelligent life in space ... confirmed. Yet, ... intelligent messages .. in our DNA, ...scientists don`t even look at... an intelligent creator.

...The ... world owes its being to something other than itself. The laws of nature did not create the universe ... The laws ... did not exist [before creation]. The laws ... require a preexisting order and preexisting entities governed by that order...``}

Let us begin with your premise. An intelligent, neigh, an omniscient and omnipotent creater (God, Vishnu, al-Lah, Jehova, whatever) exists. Okay, no problems so far. No one can prove or disprove his/her/its existence. Its a matter of personal inclination. But, lets, for the moment grant that such a superbeing is an undisputed reality.

How do you extrapolate from that any of what you claim about the divine origin of present (or past) religions? God`s existence is one thing, but his alleged communication with us humans is quite another. One does not have to follow the other.

Santa Claus may well exist. But that still does not mean that He is the one who brings the presents at Christmas. That could easily be blamed on mummy and daddy. Hope you see the point.

...SR

When science in the hands of its modern day ``prophets`` becomes an ideological machine, it loses its essence, similar to relgion, that encorages rational thinking- I refer particularly to the Quran- becomes an ideological machine in the hands of the mullahs. Both are equally harmful but science far exceeds in potential harm when used ideologically- nuclear weapons are the particular case in point.

If today we were to receive even one intelligent message from space, scientists as a whole after confirmation would conclude that yes, intelligent life in space has been confirmed. Yet, when millions of intelligent messages are found in our DNA, the same scientists don`t even look at it in consideration of an intelligent creator. Dogmatic (ideological) scientists today have perverted standards

The fact is that the world owes its being to something other than itself. The laws of nature did not create the universe since they cease to exist at the earliest point in creation. The laws of mechanics did not originate the laws of mechanics because when the universe was a singularity, they did not exist. The laws of evolution (whatever they are) don`t come about through the laws of evolution because in order to work they require a preexisting order and preexisting entities governed by that order.

Those who are interested can pursue the entire article on God & Science at http://god.rationalreality.com

Re: # 281

Hi Sridhar ( from India, I presume) ,

Should we ban the Koran and Bible?

re:#269 by parthaab
Though this forum is coming to an end and i am a late entrant (my apologies!), i just want to have my little say.
Religion is much understood in the world and is looked upon with cynicism in the west.
Let me narrate a popular joke to illustrate my point.
One American spiritual aspirant heard about this popular Guru somewhere in the hills of Himalayas and went there to learn if the Guru has any wisdom to impart. On reaching the hill top after a great effort, he asked the Guru: ``So, what is the truth?``. The Guru replied innocently ``The truth, my son, is the rainbow that u see in the sky``. American laughed and said ``surely it is not that simple. We know why a rainbow happens``. Crestfallen, the Guru replies ``You mean it is not the rainbow!``.
That pretty much sums up the cynicism in the outside world about religion. Much of the west has seen only wars, strife, murder, meyheim due to religion.
Religion, like Yogananda said, is just like a map to reach God. If u do not read that map well, u will not reach your destination.
The real thing is spirituality: search for God shorn of all pretenstions, all images. The way Paul Brunton did and wrote a book detailing his search (The search for secret India by Dr Paul Brunton). The way many many other sincere seekers have searched for centuries.
You seem to be either a cynic or an atheist masquerading as an intellectual. Now, i am also a man of science and live in the west but i have implicit faith in God and feel Him every moment of my life. My life will be a total waste without His presence.
There is no contradiction between science and spirituality as the Great masters saw it. People did not know the cause of death in thousands by that deaded scourge plague even 2 centuries ago until the causative microbe was discovered and seen under a microscope. Seeing is believing. Once Leeunhoeck discovered the microscope, all the microbes in the air and everywhere were waiting to be discovered. The technique was developed before belief in science gained ground.
Great masters have, similarly, left a plethora of techniques. They only entreat u to come and try it out. As somebody said: No great master has ever said ``OH my God, this is all a big scam``. You can look up Yogasutra by Patanjali on the website. It is now translated into english. Here is a way of reaching God, a step wise process, well detailed many centuries ago. Nobody said it is easy but the technique is there.

The truth is: God is the only reality!
There have been many, many spiritual masters who have seen and conversed with God. Ramakrishna Paramhamsa saw God in various forms (as Rama, Krishna, Jesus) and also as a pure light. Landscape of India is dotted with such people. He does exist but may see no reason in revealing Himself to most of us who are spiritual dwarfs still swimming in the sea of ignorance.
He has, however, revealed himself to some well meaning intellectuals if only for a fleeting second but even that has changed their lives. Ramana Maharishi had a death like experience when he was just 17 years old, had direct contact with the Spirit that never ever left him. He gave up everything to meditate near the holy hills of Arunachala for the rest of life and became the foremost proponent of Advaita, a school of spiritual thought that has many adherents even in the west (His foremost followers were 3 westerners: Arthrur Osborne, Major Chadwick, Paul Brunton).
St. Aqinos, the clergyman of 12th century Rome had a fleeting vision of creation while giving a sermon from the pulpit. He was writing a great religious treatise (deemed a masterpiece even before it was finished) that was expected to be finished soon and eagerly awaited by the public but soon after that vision he threw his life`s work in the dustbin saying ``compared to what has been revealed to me today, what i am doing seems like a straw``.
Jesus of Nazareth lived and talked with God everyday. It is a difficult task as he strode above the people of his times so much that even his own close followers sometimes doubted him (doubting Thomas) and even betrayed him (Judas, one of his closest associates).
I hope that people will turn more to spirituality than to be focussed on religious images, customs, beliefs etc that are meant mostly for the beginners who do not know how to organize their lives. The tragedy is: most people still belong to this group and few have grown beyond symbols, religious fanaticism (my religion is better than yours) etc.
Sridhar

Only one out of four Americans believes life on earth today has evolved through natural selection. Just under half of all Americans believe the natural world was created in its present form by God in six days as described in Genesis. They believe, incredibly, that the earth is only a few thousand years old.

Like megachurches, you will be amazed at the scale and subject matter of the religious books on display at an American bookstore. Particularly fascinating is the Religious Fiction section. Believe me, we`re not talking C.S. Lewis here. Check out the biggest shelf presence of the lot, the Left Behind series of novels by ``prophecy scholar`` Tim LaHaye with Jerry B Jenkins — 60 million volumes sold so far — and you will get an inkling of the intensity of the apocalyptic ``holy living in an unholy age`` crusade against science in modern America.

In 1999, George Bush gave the idea his blessing in an interview, saying that he favoured the teaching of ``different schools of thought`` and adding: ``I mean, after all, religion has been around a lot longer than Darwinism ... I believe God did create the world. And I think we`re finding out more and more and more as to how it actually happened.``

Since 9/11 you often hear the argument that the liberal western world must study and learn more about Islam in order to better comprehend the fundamentalist Muslim mind. Maybe so. But you do not often hear people advocating similar inquisitiveness about the fundamentalist Christian mind. Perhaps that too ought to change.

Re: # 269

When you have listed so many Hindu Gods & Godesses, it would be prudent to find out their meanings also.

I would only say that they are not God. They are Devis & Devtas and not Bhagwan/ Ishwar/Parmatma.

Re: # 277

Brfore I can preempt more charlatan science getting propounded on the site by the Islamists read this :

Sahih Bukhari Volume 4, Book 54, Number 421
Narrated Abu Dhar:
The Prophet asked me at sunset, ``Do you know where the sun goes (at the time of sunset)?`` I replied, ``Allah and His Apostle know better.`` He said, ``It goes (i.e. travels) till it prostrates Itself underneath the Throne and takes the permission to rise again, and it is permitted and then (a time will come when) it will be about to prostrate itself but its prostration will not be accepted, and it will ask permission to go on its course but it will not be permitted, but it will be ordered to return whence it has come and so it will rise in the west. And that is the interpretation of the Statement of Allah: ``And the sun Runs its fixed course for a term (decreed). That is The Decree of (Allah) The Exalted in Might, The All-Knowing.``

I am sure every body can understand that it is not a scientific theory but a view of the world utilizing common everyday metaphors ......................but the literalist idiots would like to see a scientific theory in it...............

First of all let me congratulate all of you who have taken part in this debate. It has been a very fruitful discussion. The heartening point to note was that the sub-continentlites have started to think objectively. This had been a mistake on the part of our ancestors who could not see the world through the prism of religion and god and did not look at the world objectively, the way westerners started doing in 14th/15th century. The another thing which came out was the attitude of Pakistanis. Pakistan is labelled as soon-to-be-talibanised country. On the contrary, Pakistanis have turned out to be more open-minded than Indians as far as religion and God are concerned. Indians stick to their fixed positions either this way or that way.Pakistanis have a more balanced approach here.

Kindly bear with me to give my last words on the subject, as I am recahing a saturation stage.

In todays modern world, God has two meanings or rather two faces. One God is that which is described in the religous scriptures. This God teaches us morals and ethics. Let us call Him as Religous God. In 21st Century, you can do away with religous God because you can say that by now Humans have evolved enough to decide what is good or bad for them. Further, there are modern nation states which stand on the sound foundations of rule of law. So there morals, ethics, principles and ideals were required at one point of time in human history but they are not required now since we have become much more sensible now and can decide our fate.

Well, if your definition of God is limited to above, as is being brought out by Parthaab again and again, then we can definitely do away with God and in turn religion. No problem, I agree in toto.

But there is a problem here. There is another description of God prevailing in the modern world which is not proposed by any Mullah, Padri, Pundit, Granthi, Red-Indian, Bushman, Eskimo or an aborgeny. It comes from the very corridors of science. It comes from the greatest of human minds which are called scientists. When these scientists explore the outer space or the micro-biological world, they are stuck up again and again with question-- what is going on?? Is somebody there which is making the things happen?? This entity is also doubted in the form of God, the creator. Let us call Him as scientific God.

Most of the scientists claim that if at all the mystery of this scientific God can be resolved then it can be resolved at one point only. That is, at the time of creation. Because at that time things were most simple. After that , the world has turned to very complex and is turning out to be more complex as the researches are going on.And the most logical question comes at the point of creation is that whether the creation came out of its own or something ``pre-existed`` the creation?? So far the property of universe shows that there cannot be any effect without a cause. The creation is the effect so logically there must be a cause also.

So far the most accepted theory of creation is the Big-bang Theory which we all know. The theory further states that the Universe is expanding. But the Universe will not keep on expanding eternally--it will stop somewhere and then started shrinking resulting in the so-called ``Singularity`` and thereafter another Big-bang will take place.

The Universe consists of three things--matter, energy and space. When the Universe starts shrinking --what will happen to space. Will it shrink or only the matter will shrink. If you say and can prove conclusively that it is only the matter will shrink and not the space then we can conclude that there is no place of scientific God in this scheme of things. Because, in that case, space will pre-exists the creation and space then is eternal, without any end or begining and is absolute. In such a scenario, where would God exist--either within the space or in the singularity. In both cases, space will be the higher plane than God. In such a scenario, even if God exists, then it will exists beyond the space and will have no meaning once the creation starts.

Unfortunately(or fortunately??), scientists are of the view that the space also gets shrinked into the singularity. That is at the time of Big-bang, even space did not exist. So we come to the same old position--what existed before the creation??

In my last words, whichever way you look at the things, you reach a dead end and there you find God standing..... and .........smiling.

I have given up and accepted Him as the final truth. God is Great....Allah-o-Akbar...Ishwar Allah Tere Naam.

Thank you and God Bless You all. Thanks once again.

Re: # 268

But why should religion answer this question?? Is Drug-making a part of any religion?? Its a pure science and it is to be answered by further observation and experimentation. I dont think religion has any role to play in it. But if science completely fails to answer this question, then religous angle will definitely come-in. It would not be proper to answer it now, I feel.