Lifestyle > Train of Thought

believing the unproven (god)

(1/3) > >>

nibs:
in my opinion, people should not dedicate their lives to unprovable things; at the same time i do believe in god.   

7 has asked me to prove that god exists; and thus resolve this seeming conflict.

proving god is actually a simple task, as the trick is in how god is defined.  the physical universe exists.  this is a fact.  as it exists, there is a cause for it's existence.  science, physics has numerous theories to this cause.  god is simply the causeless cause.  the first cause.  god is that which makes existence possible.  i believe in god, as i believe the universe has a cause.  science supports this notion.  who would deny this.

the real question that 7 was trying to ask is "what is the nature of this cause?"  "did the cause go away, or does it still exist?"  these are the questions that most religions try to answer, as most religions actually try to convey knowledge.  try to explain these issues. 

additionally, there is this notion of the spirit, the soul, and the physical body...etc; and how all of these ideas fit together.  there is a huge gap between man and god which these spiritual ideas attempt to partially fill.

everyone can understand and agree that the physical universe has a cause, and that the whole god debate is really a debate about the nature of this cause.

the spirit, the soul; in many ways these are unique to an individual.  people have and report spiritual experiences, there are many known techniques (yoga/meditation disciplines...etc) that are dedicated to teaching one to discover the spiritual nature of oneself.  thus, the existence of the spirit/soul can only be proven to oneself.  at the same time, once this proof is completed one will know their spiritual side, and not simply believe.

in this sense religion is a guide both philosophically and spiritually.  religion tries to convey how to think about things, and some provide techniques that teach how to experience things and thus know.

in contrast, there are things that are unprovable:
whether or not the bible is the word of god
whether or not moses spoke with god or with aliens
whether or not jesus was god incarnate
whether or not muhammad spoke with the angel gabriel or was the last prophet...

where islam differs from christianity or judiasm is that the principles of islam do not depend on the prophet muhammad in anyway.  the qu'ran states ultimately that the proof of god is in existence, all the illustrations within the qu'ran bear out this principle. 

if religion is about an individual and god; then the specifics of who the prophets are and the nature of a last day are not fundamental to those beliefs in any way.  as a result, i believe in god, as i believe that the universe has a cause.  for me, religion is about understanding this cause.  i believe the principles of islam as they are not dependent on unproveable ideas, but merely present a philosophy for discovering the truth.

the texts that i study i use guides to a greater understanding of these truths which we cannot deny.  i study texts outside of islam, (hinduism, buddhism, egyptian mysticism); my criteria is in not believing the unprovable. 

7even:

--- Quote ---the trick is in how god is defined. 
--- End quote ---

From that part on I knew I wasn't going to tear the post above apart. Of course, that changes a lot.

The thoughts brought forward here remind me of pantheism. Having said that, I might add that I agree with Schopenhauer, who said that pantheism is "an euphemism for atheism".

Don Seer:
my personal opinion.

i _never_ believed. even as a kid under 5 years old being 'tricked' at sunday school i saw through the scams of them saying "taste this in the cup" (it was salt water) .. "thats jesus's tears" ... etc etc..  even at that age i knew it was a scam. i thought the other kids were idiots..

from having a feeling of being pushed into christianity against my will from a young age by various factors

this then turned into an abject distaste for all forms of religion as i saw it as a method of control.

then one day years later i spoke to a vicar at his home, i was only there as i was friends with his foster son. and he said something to me then which suprised me, and which has stuck.

i dont know how we got to that point, but he said.. something along the lines of.. its not about believing in god or not. but whether you believe in the principles laid down in the bible

in other words.. don't take it literally.. word for word. but view it as guidelines to living a righteous life.

this coming from the vicar of my local chapel was a revelation.


i stil have a hatred for people who try to use religion to bully, or control people, or who try to belittle non religious people, or opposiing faiths. but i'm at peace with those who can be at peace with everyone else.

i'm not a follower..

the science.

as i said in the other post.. there is a gene that people who believe are more likely to have.

going by the above.. i don't have it.

nibs:
(7 don't need to brag 'bout how muthafuckin' Active he iz) - The thoughts brought forward here remind me of pantheism.

i agree with pantheistic principles.  every level of existence (material, spiritual, soul..etc) is an expression of god in some form.  

(7 don't need to brag 'bout how muthafuckin' Active he iz) - Having said that, I might add that I agree with Schopenhauer, who said that pantheism is "an euphemism for atheism".

here i disagree, because pantheism allows for more than just an explanation of god, but also for the nature of man; and thus the potential of man.  pantheism begins to provide a basis for trying to understand ideas like afterlife, the purpose for existence...etc.   atheism would deny that.

Teddy Roosevelt:

--- Quote from: Overseer on May 30, 2006, 03:26:25 PM ---even as a kid under 5 years old being 'tricked' at sunday school i saw through the scams of them saying "taste this in the cup" (it was salt water) ..

--- End quote ---
Wtf?

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page