Archive for FREE FAITH, EXPRESSION AND THOUGHT BREAK THE CHAINS OF IGNORANCE AND FEAR
 


       FREE FAITH, EXPRESSION AND THOUGHT Forum Index -> Abrahamic Religions
admin

3 Questions to abandon religion (By Brainout)

Brainout wrote:

What ought to be the three questions which make a person leave a faith, whether Islam or any other? Thinking out loud (reserving the right to change my mind), I come up with these three:

1. The Character of the "God" depicted is unfair, silly, capricious, ungodlike, in its holy books. For "God" would have to be "Infinite" by definition, and it's not Infinity if not Love. Else being "God" would be a torture beyond comprehension, and everyone (including God) would be destroyed, by now. (Of course, that favors a conclusion that there is no God, too.)

In other words, I'd not listen to what people SAY about the holy book, I'd examine it on its own terms. Like All-Brains said, people use religion for power. Religion to me is a satanic thing in any 'flavor' and has aught to do with "God".

2. The creation of the "God" depicted is treated as pets, slaves, automatons or other hapless toy. A real God wouldn't get any enjoyment out of such creation, so a book depicting his creation in that manner can't be written through/by/ "God". Even we can't long bear babyish or stupid people in companionship.

3. The end result of all the evil in the world existing for millennia had better demonstrate a purpose which makes 100% good on it. For after all, "God" would have to put up with it all forever, if "God" is omniscient. So if some holy book doesn't show how all that suffering is made-good-on, then that book doesn't come from "God".

Of course, one could argue that no holy book ever written meets all those three tests. Smile Obviously I think Bible does, but that's only my opinion, and is subject to change at any moment, if I find it wrong.

Seems to me that if one respects the Koran, Bhagavad Gita, or whatever other holy book, these three criteria would be useful? Again, just thinking out loud.
All_Brains

Hello Brainout

I am afraid that all current religions fail to meet all three criterion including Christianity, for God there still has a very unconvincing story of the creation and the purpose of it all.

God still is responsible for all evil, as he created Satan. He can make it all stop if he wanted.

But remember before the light was created by God, darkness existed! Could Satan and God be equal to achieve a balance? Could they be both eternal independent beings?

I believe not, but it's a good theory to look at, as I think it would lead to how humans invented these concepts from day one and they have evolved with them throughout the ages. The ultimate good vs. evil, yin and yang, the competition, the match...the religious sport!
brainout

Mathematically, if relativity exists, then the absolute exists. One should argue therefore that there is a spiritual counterpart. If finity exists, an Absolute Creator of it also exists. Inanimacy does not create animacy, but animacy creates animacy and inanimacy.

No set can contain itself, but can only be contained within a larger set than itself, or a set which is of the same size as itself: this is the first rule of math, and really of genetics as well (the offspring can be no greater than the parents, even if "parents" is many generations back).

So if infinite regression or progression, an infinite STASIS must likewise exist. If -1, then 0. If 0, then +1. It becomes, mathematically speaking, a HUPOSTASIS, "hupo" meaning "under", and "stasis" meaning "standing", so you get the understanding of one thing standing under another thing: union of opposites, with the result that a full spectrum is 'held together' by the larger stasis.

This means that the infinite progression or regression can keep on going, as the stasis IS a stasis, 'holding' it. Kinda like your body is moving inside, all those ribosomes and other activity, yet your outer body looks the same (pretend for the sake of this example that your outer body didn't age).

Logically, this would have to mean that the infinite progression and regression are 'under' the Stasis of ALL AT ONCE. Again, this all-at-onceness would have to be Living, Conscious, else where does our own livingness and consciousness come from?

Notice that science doesn't have to touch "God" issues to evaluate all this, and cannot, since a STASIS of infinity would be wholly undetectable by any physical instruments. The ultimate existence would have to be immaterial and absolute, personal and alive. Science would never be able to detect that. However, again from the oppositeness we can measure materially, its opposite of infinite static Live Immateriality, is 'reflected' so to speak.

Notice you didn't need even one holy book to figure all that out. Very Happy

So: if "God" and if "Satan", could they be wholly independent beings? I'd argue the math says yes, because each 'dot' within a whole is itself independent. But the pre-existing thing would be Truth, the whole SET, which of course would include bad truth (a subset).

Again, mathematically, Truth cannot hang together as a whole set, if incomplete or self-contradicting. And if the ultimate set must be Living and Conscious (again, because animacy must beget inanimacy, it can't be the other way around), then "Truth" would have to be an attribute of "God".

I wonder if this is the right thread for this line of analysis. Does it belong in "logic", instead? In a way it belongs here, to first establish that there OUGHT to be some 'book' out there which "God" caused to be written so we could use our brains given us by this "God", rather than rely on salt stains on Chicago freeway underpasses* or dreams or visions which all can be hallucinated, to decide whether and what "God" might be. Heh.

*Youtube links to the 'appearance' of the Virgen: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s0gRSibNi6U and http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zhtQkAC03Ro (part I of three). Also (but it has foul language, listen at your own risk): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qur_A8rDZns . Notice that NO ONE questions WHY 'God' would do a stupid thing like concoct an appearance underneath an exit ramp to demonstrate divinity or Virginity, lol.

Oh, Jesus was kind enough to show up after the Lebanon war: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=amLxF9IuePY&feature=related
Here's a better one, Jesus appears in a tortilla and doggone near every other food (the fish Jesus is my favorite)! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=neAIyuE1BAA&feature=related
All_Brains

I need to leave this topic for few days and think about it in front of my peaceful lake in a breezy afternoon!

This is heavy and needs clear head and thoughts!
HomoErectus

Why not start with the most basic question - "Why should there be a 'god' at all?"
[aaaah, it can't all be just 'accidentally' the way it is, the whole universe, an accident?]

And... Why always ONE "God" only ?
brainout

Hi, Homo Erectus!

Yes, good question. That's why I wondered if my math analogy didn't belong in the "God" heading of threads. Should I cut it out and post it there, or do you want to make up the topic there, yourself? Welcome here!
HomoErectus

Hi brainout

good to see you here too!

AS for the thread, just do as you please, or better, whatever you think is more appropriate...

I think its okay where it is, for starting off.

Although I have my doubts about the math analogy, as its based on our human logic.

So, IF there is a "god" [or more than one], he doubtlessly CAN be beyond all our limits to imagine what "god" is and by what rules or logic he/she/it goes.
brainout

Homo Erectus, I'd love to hear your doubts and answers, and I'm sure All-Brains and others would, too. My personal feeling is that the God question is a really serious one and it's not easy to answer. That's why I don't believe in prosyletizing, though obviously my passion can't be hidden.

God Issues are too complex! Require thinking out! So, are you willing to do that here? Thanks for whatever you post!
HomoErectus

brainout wrote:
Homo Erectus, I'd love to hear your doubts and answers, and I'm sure All-Brains and others would, too. My personal feeling is that the God question is a really serious one and it's not easy to answer. That's why I don't believe in prosyletizing, though obviously my passion can't be hidden.

God Issues are too complex! Require thinking out! So, are you willing to do that here? Thanks for whatever you post!



Dear brainout

You will hear a lot of doubts and questions from me, as for "answers" - I do not really have any.

IF there is "God[s]" - he/she/it must be beyond our comprehension, in all our logical approach.

Now, I'm not trying to weasel out, as we all can go on speculating till the cows come home.

I'm rather stating my general position on "religions", whatever it may be.

Meaning, we don't have to attribute something to be "godly", when we unfortunately havent found out about the specific problem YET.
It may be a matter of time, next century, they will be looking back at us as if we had been in the dark ages still.



Shortly ago, I have seen the IMAX movie of "Hubble's Universe", a film showing various footage from the Hubble-Telescope, sailing through the Universe!

I was completely fascinated in the film-theater, also by the size of the screen, especially with this overszie content, and in the following I have also downloaded this documentary, and looked at it again, here on my pc.

Its incredible to the max.
Nameless and countless solar systems, fire and explosions, scattered stars in millions, birth and destruction in all colors, sizes, dimensions in undescribable quantity and quality...

Impressing to the point of blank FEAR!

I confess, it left me speechless, and a bit... helpless!

I felt like an ANT [dunno how Ants feel... hehe... but maybe something like me at this point]

I was shattered, and was glad when I safely gotten back to my place, I happily turned on the TV, watching the other "Ants" acting like real people, feeling "safe at home" !


WE know, that some time in the future, our SUN is going to become larger and larger, until it finally will blow up, killing everything which is near enough, meaning all of our planets, including Mars or Moon, which we have chosen to maybe become our next "Earth".

Or maybe our "Earth" will be first to INFLATE and blow up like a Gas-Baloon?


Where is "God" in that ?

WE don't understand, we have to confess that our brain is not capable of comprehending this.... logic!
Or maybe there is just no "logic" around in this...


Back in the 60'ies/70'ies, there was a famous comic, by Robert crumb - "Head-Comix".
He had a character, named "Mr.Natural" and he was something like "God"
People kept coming to Mr.Natural, to ask him questions.
"What does it all mean, Mr.Natural?"
And he said: "It don't mean sheet !"
Ahh, found one....



We're lost in speculations, thats all I wanna say.

Unfortunately some of those speculations have mutated into deadly doctrines!

THIS is where we ought to crample up our mental sleeves, and get down to work!

Other than that, I could not think of a reason WHY I should be against somebody "believing" in - for instance - Buddhism.....
Mutley

Ya gotta love the scientific term "Homo Erectus". What? As opposed to Homo Flaciddus? Viagra has been proven effective regardless of sexual orientation.
HomoErectus

You got it... its opposed to the "Homo Limpus" ! Laughing

Who got eradicated in Brisbane Australia.
Maybe All_Brains has some on him?

Anyway, it proved to better being "erectus", spotting them gators a bit earlier, thus enabling the Homo to rrrruuunnnnnnnn....

Mutley

Hey, you'd like this story
http://users.bigpond.net.au/manisall/world.html
HomoErectus

Good one!
Btw, thanks for drawing my attention to deMello, already on FFI!
Mutley

Quote:
Upright is better than bent-over !


Yes, as they say, it is better to give than to receive  Laughing
HomoErectus

Mutley wrote:
Quote:
Upright is better than bent-over !


Yes, as they say, it is better to give than to receive  Laughing


Its always a "give and take" Laughing
And I've also "recieved" in an upright position !
Mutley

HomoErectus wrote:
Mutley wrote:
Quote:
Upright is better than bent-over !


Yes, as they say, it is better to give than to receive  Laughing


Its always a "give and take" Laughing
And I've also "recieved" in an upright position !


Laughing   Laughing   Laughing

Yes, there are some that would swallow that story. Laughing  Butt knot me  Laughing   Laughing
HomoErectus

Mutley wrote:


Laughing   Laughing   Laughing

Yes, there are some that would swallow that story. Laughing  Butt knot me  Laughing   Laughing



Well, it all cums free of charges.
People swallow a lot, if its GRATIS !

Thats why ! Laughing
roshan

Re: 3 Questions to abandon religion (By Brainout)

admin wrote:
Brainout wrote:

What ought to be the three questions which make a person leave a faith, whether Islam or any other? Thinking out loud (reserving the right to change my mind), I come up with these three:

1. The Character of the "God" depicted is unfair, silly, capricious, ungodlike, in its holy books. For "God" would have to be "Infinite" by definition, and it's not Infinity if not Love. Else being "God" would be a torture beyond comprehension, and everyone (including God) would be destroyed, by now. (Of course, that favors a conclusion that there is no God, too.)

In other words, I'd not listen to what people SAY about the holy book, I'd examine it on its own terms. Like All-Brains said, people use religion for power. Religion to me is a satanic thing in any 'flavor' and has aught to do with "God".

2. The creation of the "God" depicted is treated as pets, slaves, automatons or other hapless toy. A real God wouldn't get any enjoyment out of such creation, so a book depicting his creation in that manner can't be written through/by/ "God". Even we can't long bear babyish or stupid people in companionship.

3. The end result of all the evil in the world existing for millennia had better demonstrate a purpose which makes 100% good on it. For after all, "God" would have to put up with it all forever, if "God" is omniscient. So if some holy book doesn't show how all that suffering is made-good-on, then that book doesn't come from "God".

Of course, one could argue that no holy book ever written meets all those three tests. Smile Obviously I think Bible does, but that's only my opinion, and is subject to change at any moment, if I find it wrong.

Seems to me that if one respects the Koran, Bhagavad Gita, or whatever other holy book, these three criteria would be useful? Again, just thinking out loud.


I suggest not lumping the Gita which is an eastern text with books such as the Koran and Bible as the spirituality and philosophy contained within it is radically different from that of Abrahamic religions.

All_Brains wrote:
Hello Brainout

I am afraid that all current religions fail to meet all three criterion including Christianity, for God there still has a very unconvincing story of the creation and the purpose of it all.

God still is responsible for all evil, as he created Satan. He can make it all stop if he wanted.

But remember before the light was created by God, darkness existed! Could Satan and God be equal to achieve a balance? Could they be both eternal independent beings?

I believe not, but it's a good theory to look at, as I think it would lead to how humans invented these concepts from day one and they have evolved with them throughout the ages. The ultimate good vs. evil, yin and yang, the competition, the match...the religious sport!


There is no concept of "creation" and "satan" in eastern religions. It is best if you specify "Abrahamic religions" or "western religions" when discussing such concepts.
roshan

brainout wrote:
Mathematically, if relativity exists, then the absolute exists.  One should argue therefore that there is a spiritual counterpart.  If finity exists, an Absolute Creator of it also exists.


Here is where you are wrong. Anything that creates has potential energy and is therefore mutable. If it is mutable, it is no longer absolute but also relative.

To understand the absolute reality, you must throw this concept of a "creator" also known as "god" into the garbage. Advaita therefore states that the absolute reality is akarta (a non agent).

Quote:
No set can contain itself, but can only be contained within a larger set than itself, or a set which is of the same size as itself: this is the first rule of math, and really of genetics as well (the offspring can be no greater than the parents, even if "parents" is many generations back).

So if infinite regression or progression, an infinite STASIS must likewise exist. If -1, then 0. If 0, then +1. It becomes, mathematically speaking, a HUPOSTASIS, "hupo" meaning "under", and "stasis" meaning "standing", so you get the understanding of one thing standing under another thing: union of opposites, with the result that a full spectrum is 'held together' by the larger stasis.


This is a very pantheistic understanding of the universe. But note that anything that contains opposites is once again relative, not absolute. To truly progress from relativity to absolutism, you must discard the idea of relativity existing within the absolute, and theorize that relativity is actually superimposed on the absolute, which is basically transitioning from pantheism to monism.

Quote:
This means that the infinite progression or regression can keep on going, as the stasis IS a stasis, 'holding' it. Kinda like your body is moving inside, all those ribosomes and other activity, yet your outer body looks the same (pretend for the sake of this example that your outer body didn't age).

Logically, this would have to mean that the infinite progression and regression are 'under' the Stasis of ALL AT ONCE. Again, this all-at-onceness would have to be Living, Conscious, else where does our own livingness and consciousness come from?


Consciousness is mutable. Ones thoughts and feelings are constantly changing and are relative to what happens around us. Again, the absolute must be above all such things. Only pure awareness remains constant and is not relative to what occurs around us.

Quote:
Notice that science doesn't have to touch "God" issues to evaluate all this, and cannot, since a STASIS of infinity would be wholly undetectable by any physical instruments. The ultimate existence would have to be immaterial and absolute, personal and alive. Science would never be able to detect that. However, again from the oppositeness we can measure materially, its opposite of infinite static Live Immateriality, is 'reflected' so to speak.


Science may not be able to detect the absolute reality, but we can, as the absolute reality is awareness, which we possess. This attempt to detect the absolute is the central premise of Hinduism and Mahayana Buddhism.

Quote:
Again, mathematically, Truth cannot hang together as a whole set, if incomplete or self-contradicting. And if the ultimate set must be Living and Conscious (again, because animacy must beget inanimacy, it can't be the other way around), then "Truth" would have to be an attribute of "God".


Wrong again - look at nature - animacy always comes from inanimacy. Example: a tree growing out of a seed, entirely out of physical processes. It is from simplicity that complexity evolves, not the other way around.
All_Brains

Re: 3 Questions to abandon religion (By Brainout)

roshan wrote:


There is no concept of "creation" and "satan" in eastern religions. It is best if you specify "Abrahamic religions" or "western religions" when discussing such concepts.


I have altered the title of this forum to reflect that. Thanks for the feedback!
Baal

brainout wrote:
Mathematically, if relativity exists, then the absolute exists.  One should argue therefore that there is a spiritual counterpart.  If finity exists, an Absolute Creator of it also exists.  Inanimacy does not create animacy, but animacy creates animacy and inanimacy.

Sorry have to interrupt, animacy can exist from inanimacy. Else the first animacy would have never existed. All it takes is for one Animacy to exist from inanimacy.

brainout wrote:

No set can contain itself, but can only be contained within a larger set than itself, or a set which is of the same size as itself:  this is the first rule of math, and really of genetics as well (the offspring can be no greater than the parents, even if "parents" is many generations back).

That is a little simplistic. You did not account for mutations & viruses & adaptation.

brainout wrote:

So if infinite regression or progression, an infinite STASIS must likewise exist.  If -1, then 0.  If 0, then +1.  It becomes, mathematically speaking, a HUPOSTASIS, "hupo" meaning "under", and "stasis" meaning "standing", so you get the understanding of one thing standing under another thing:  union of opposites, with the result that a full spectrum is 'held together' by the larger stasis.

Sorry but that sounds like religious talk to me. Introduce some latin term and then expand on it so the reader feels belittled and respectful of the writer's superior knowledge. Which is often just a quote from a dictionary Smile

brainout wrote:

This means that the infinite progression or regression can keep on going, as the stasis IS a stasis, 'holding' it.  Kinda like your body is moving inside, all those ribosomes and other activity, yet your outer body looks the same (pretend for the sake of this example that your outer body didn't age).

A complicated way to explain momentum?

brainout wrote:

Logically, this would have to mean that the infinite progression and regression are 'under' the Stasis of ALL AT ONCE.  Again, this all-at-onceness would have to be Living, Conscious, else where does our own livingness and consciousness come from?

Sorry I can not follow with this.

brainout wrote:

Notice that science doesn't have to touch "God" issues to evaluate all this, and cannot, since a STASIS of infinity would be wholly undetectable by any physical instruments.  The ultimate existence would have to be immaterial and absolute, personal and alive.  Science would never be able to detect that.  However, again from the oppositeness we can measure materially, its opposite of infinite static Live Immateriality, is 'reflected' so to speak.

Sounds like a strawman to me. You created the concept of Stasis using some malformed If-Then Statements. And now you are accusing Science of not being able to detect that Stasis.

brainout wrote:

Notice you didn't need even one holy book to figure all that out.  Very Happy

So:  if "God" and if "Satan", could they be wholly independent beings?  I'd argue the math says yes, because each 'dot' within a whole is itself independent.  But the pre-existing thing would be Truth, the whole SET, which of course would include bad truth (a subset).

Sorry can't follow. Plz reiterate?

brainout wrote:

Again, mathematically, Truth cannot hang together as a whole set, if incomplete or self-contradicting.  And if the ultimate set must be Living and Conscious (again, because animacy must beget inanimacy, it can't be the other way around), then "Truth" would have to be an attribute of "God".

That is the first flaw I picked on in the first paragraph. Inanimacy does and did create animacy.

brainout wrote:

I wonder if this is the right thread for this line of analysis.  Does it belong in "logic", instead?  In a way it belongs here, to first establish that there OUGHT to be some 'book' out there which "God" caused to be written so we could use our brains given us by this "God", rather than rely on salt stains on Chicago freeway underpasses* or dreams or visions which all can be hallucinated, to decide whether and what "God" might be.  Heh.

There OUGHT to be a book, does not mean there is a book.
If there is a god, then MAYBE there is a book.
If there is NO god, then there is NO book.

As it stands, I did not see or read any book that appeared divinely inspired to me. No books that were written before the last 30yrs anyways.
brainout

Ok, Baal, that's how it seems to you.  I get quite the opposite reaction from others.  I appreciate your comments.  I'll try to elaborate some, here.

It's not simplistic, but a set of principles at the very first level.  Inanimacy has no life.  Life cannot come from no-life.  Life can only come from life.  After that, life can die.  But there must BE life first.  That's a first-level principle.

No set can contain itself is also not simplistic, but the first law of math.  Applied genetically, it means that IN ORDER FOR there to be mutations (permutations, in math), there first must be a data set (i.e., genetic attributes) PRECEDING which exist and are CAPABLE of mutation (permutation).  For example, in actuarial science you have morbidity and mortality permutations of death statistics, which first rely on there EXISTING a number of bodies, and it always starts from the largest set (initial population).

So too, in genetics, there must be genes capable of mutation, and that's adaptation, not evolution (the term "evolution" is abused today).  So nothing comes out of but what precedes, and it's not really an advance, but rather a coming forward of PRECEDING characteristics, i.e., the development of melanin.

I'm sorry that you think that the math definition of infinite progression and regression is religious talk.  It's actually math, and you should be able to find that in any math class in junior high school, where I learned it.  Infinite progression or regression is part of the explanation for momentum, but that's not what I was using it for.  I was using it to show that FINITY FUNCTION means there will be a constant adding or subtracting from what PRECEDED.  Because again, no set can contain itself.

STASIS is not a God concept, but a math concept.  I was using it analogously to show that if math requires stasis to HOLD everything (and it does, else there can be no progression or regression, and no gravity etc. either) -- then the logical thing is that there is a Person or Persons of infinite LIVE CHARACTER in STASIS, which is why we humans can progress or regress, since we too are live characters (obviously inferior and dependent).

You seem to think I'm trying to prove or sell God.  I'm not.  I really don't give a flip if anyone else believes in God.  That's their problem.  I do care about due diligence, and math is a perfect way to demonstrate it, hence my comment about how you don't even need the Bible to know God exists.  (I just made a video about it too, downloadable from Google, Part 1 of "God101:  Trinity".)

Now it's also a math principle that positive has negative offset.  Hence to say God and Satan can independently exist -- especially, if God CHOOSES FREEDOM to be, exist -- hence to say Satan can independently exist, is easy to figure out.  I independently exist.  Independent, because my independence is assured by the STASIS which is really God WILLING that, every second.  For freedom is a CHOSEN thing.  Even we can choose for or against freedom, how much more, God?

I'm not arguing this is palatable.  I'm arguing that math proves it true.  That you didn't need a Bible to know all this, and it's easy to figure out, even when a child.

Hence there ought to be a book.  Because if God creates freedom, then He wants to make freely available, information about Himself. Just because you don't find a book to your satisfaction, doesn't negate that there IS such a book.  Just means, you are not satisfied.

Which dissatisfaction, I empathize with.  It's not satisfying, unless you love freedom, to know that all this badness must be allowed to exist, even as the goodness.  To know that God CAN but WILL NOT alter freedom of the bad.

But dissatisfaction is not grounds for a claim that God does not exist.  You can say instead, "I don't like that idea of God", ok.  That's your free will.  But you cannot logically say that because YOU dislike a thing, it doesn't or shouldn't exist.

I hope I answered the points raised.  "You" was not meant personally, but was the generic "you" common in English these days.  Sorry for the delay.  I will be gone again for awhile, business intrudes.

       FREE FAITH, EXPRESSION AND THOUGHT Forum Index -> Abrahamic Religions
Page 1 of 1
Create your own free forum | Buy a domain to use with your forum
Home|Home|Home|Home|HomeHome|Home|Home|Home|Home