God and the paradox of rational mind

[Greek Stud]

Wait, I thought the 4th demension was time?

HAHA Whoops! I shoulda checked that one before I blabbed! Well my point is of an area outside of time and space

 

[GenMarshall]

HAHA Whoops! I shoulda checked that one before I blabbed! Well my point is of an area outside of time and space

That is true. Perhaps this would be the 5th dimension (or some sort of divine dimension that a physicist has not used)

 

[Greek Stud]

I'm writing in two threads and I'm mixing ideas from both. Here is what I wrote about the rational of religious thought.

Christian thought regards God as not being in some place, or at a particular time, but as having some kind of universal existence that was independent of place and time. The individual Christians that exist in our everyday world, and the particular courageous actions that believers perform, are always fleeting, but they partake of the timeless essence of true existence; and this is an indestructible ideal.

Plato's theory of Ideas or Forms explains the whole of reality in this world as being a decaying copy of something whose ideal form has a permanent and indestructible existence outside of space and time. Plato and Pythagoras both believed the whole cosmos seems to exemplify order, harmony, proportion- the whole of physics can be expressed in terms of mathematical equations. This theory is very revealing that, under this messy and chaotic world, there is an order that has all the ideality and perfection of mathematics. This order is not perceptible to the eye, but it is accessible to the mind, and intelligible to the intellect. Most import of all it is there, it exists, it is what constitutes underlying reality.

Plato liked to put it, everything in this world is always becoming something else, but nothing ever just permanently is. Everything comes into existence and passes away, everything is imperfect, everything decays. This world in space and time is the only world that our human sensory apparatus can apprehend. But then there is another realm which is not in space or time, and not accessible to our senses, and in which there is permanence and perfect order. This other world is the timeless and unchanging reality of which our everyday world offers us only brief and unsatisfactory glimpses. But it is what one might call real reality, because it alone is stable, un shakeable - it alone just is, and is not always in the process of sliding into something else. The soul is timeless and spaceless, they are our permanent forms and constitute ultimate reality.

Scratch out Fourth Dimension, I talked about it without knowing what it meant. OPA!

 

[Bill3000]

Plato's theory of Ideas or Forms explains the whole of reality in this world as being a decaying copy of something whose ideal form has a permanent and indestructible existence outside of space and time. Plato and Pythagoras both believed the whole cosmos seems to exemplify order, harmony, proportion- the whole of physics can be expressed in terms of mathematical equations. This theory is very revealing that, under this messy and chaotic world, there is an order that has all the ideality and perfection of mathematics. This order is not perceptible to the eye, but it is accessible to the mind, and intelligible to the intellect. Most import of all it is there, it exists, it is what constitutes underlying reality.

A mathematical equation doesn't mean that it is a matter of perfect order. Chaos theory is based on this, for example - quite chaotic things coming from often misleadingly simple differential equations. More explicitly, there is a mathematical equation for the decaying of the universe - the second law of thermodynamics.

The whole universe can be expressed in terms of mathematical equations. Extremely complex and messy ones most of the time, a good number of them unsolvable by our current methods, but mathematical equations nonetheless.

But then there is another realm which is not in space or time, and not accessible to our senses, and in which there is permanence and perfect order. This other world is the timeless and unchanging reality of which our everyday world offers us only brief and unsatisfactory glimpses. But it is what one might call real reality, because it alone is stable, un shakeable - it alone just is, and is not always in the process of sliding into something else. The soul is timeless and spaceless, they are our permanent forms and constitute ultimate reality.

I know you are posting in two threads - but what exactly are you basing this on?

 

[Smidlee]

Your theory collapses here. The rational mind is meant to draw us closer to God. You talk as if belief in God is, for everyone, a superficial, blind belief, when in actuality there is enough evidence to warrant a rational belief in him. Of course, God doesn't appear in glorious light to everyone to prove he exists, but that's to build in us the virtues of perseverance and faith in preparation for the afterlife.

Religion is not pure faith. Religion is the culmination of faith and reason, working together to find the answers to man's questions about purpose and origin.

Well written.
He already drawed the concusion that anyone who has faith in God is irrational. Those who doesn't put their faith in God will put in someone/something else.

(This is a "heads I win, tails you lose" kind of debate)

 

[Bill3000]

You talk as if belief in God is, for everyone, a superficial, blind belief, when in actuality there is enough evidence to warrant a rational belief in him.

While I certinatly don't think that all of religion is faith, (and I agree with your sentiment that Religion is faith and reason combined) what exactly is this rational belief behind a belief in god? Such a belief would not be faith, and from what I've seen, every argument proposed had a heavy amount of criticism, generally being weak arguments.

 

[JohnRM]

So it's ok for religious people to use the "god is all powerful, all knowing, all everything" argument and I'm not allowed to say anything against it? I speak my mind. I do not disagree with people for the sake of an argument. I should not be forced to believe what you believe. I am allowed to post my point of view. In life you have to learn to understand that other people have different points of view and opinions to your own. If you are christian then you believe god created everything. That means he is responsible for everything. My posts are there to make a point and so was that one.

For starters, I am not a Christian. The problem is not that you have a differing opinion, it is that you seem to purposely misunderstand what I am saying in order to be oppositional. God is all powerful. He has so much power, in fact, that he can give us free will to be whomever we wish. Therefor, he does not choose what attributes we have, only that we can choose them ourselves. So, if you want to say that God is indirectly responsible for any logic and rationale that we may have, fine, but to misunderstand and state otherwise is refusing to acknowledge what I am saying.

 

[JohnRM]

So what you are saying, is that the commandment that tells you not to worship false gods is wrong? If someone interprets Buddhism to be the correct one, they are exempt from that commandment?

And Buddhism has reincarnation beliefs, and the Christian one does not. So... Which one is right? The reincarnation afterlife, or the Heaven and Hell afterlife?

And would you say the same for any extremist religions? That they practice it some way, and they get into Heaven/not reincarnated badly?

Or to answer on interpretations, what makes you so certain that Christianity is the right one? What about the interpretations of the Ancient Greeks? Or the God of Gaps arguments?

The point is that the dogmas of the various religions are flawed. It does NOT mean that God does not exist or that he does not "appear" to his people in various forms which suit them best. We already know that the New Testament has a lot of issues. We know how when a story is told, by the time it gets to the tenth person, it isn't remotely the same story. People add things and modify dogma based on their own wants and needs. That has nothing to do with God's existence. God is above all of that, above all dogma. If God wants you to be reincarnated or to believe in that, he will let you know. If he wants you to believe in Heaven and Hell, I am sure that he will speak. One of the ways that I believe God does this is through your conscience. I don't know that the two are not one in the same.

 

[warpus]

Well written.
He already drawed the concusion that anyone who has faith in God is irrational. Those who doesn't put their faith in God will put in someone/something else.

Not the same kind of faith!

Faith in God is a different type of faith you have when you say "I have faith that Civ5 is gonna rule but have tons of bugs when it ships". One is based on emprical data and the other one isn't. You might not like the sound of it but the other one is 'blind faith'

 

[Bluemofia]

The point is that the dogmas of the various religions are flawed. It does NOT mean that God does not exist or that he does not "appear" to his people in various forms which suit them best. We already know that the New Testament has a lot of issues. We know how when a story is told, by the time it gets to the tenth person, it isn't remotely the same story. People add things and modify dogma based on their own wants and needs. That has nothing to do with God's existence. God is above all of that, above all dogma. If God wants you to be reincarnated or to believe in that, he will let you know. If he wants you to believe in Heaven and Hell, I am sure that he will speak. One of the ways that I believe God does this is through your conscience. I don't know that the two are not one in the same.

So are you a Deist? That you believe God exists, but God is whatever you picture him/her/it to be? That I'm fine with.

 

[warpus]

So are you a Deist? That you believe God exists, but God is whatever you picture him/her/it to be? That I'm fine with.

I'm not! People who say they can describe God don't know what they're talking about.

 

[JohnRM]

So are you a Deist? That you believe God exists, but God is whatever you picture him/her/it to be? That I'm fine with.

I am Deist on the verge of becoming Jewish, because that is the dogma that I most believe in, although with some exceptions. There are few of them and I am still researching, so I cannot be sure that I will convert.

 

[Smidlee]

Not the same kind of faith!

Faith in God is a different type of faith you have when you say "I have faith that Civ5 is gonna rule but have tons of bugs when it ships". One is based on emprical data and the other one isn't. You might not like the sound of it but the other one is 'blind faith'

Funny. I haven't seen any evidence of Civ5 yet?
To a blind man driving a car is mad. What's seems to be "blind faith" to you isn't neccessary "blind" to someone else.

 

[Bluemofia]

I'm not! People who say they can describe God don't know what they're talking about.

Sorry, the quote was applied to John HSOG.

 

[Bill3000]

To a blind man driving a car is mad. What's seems to be "blind faith" to you isn't neccessary "blind" to someone else.

No. We've been through this already. See my previous posts. Blind faith is belief without logic or rationalization of any type. This includes deductive reasoning and inductive reasoning: Inductive reasoning comprised of both empirical and nonempirical evidence. You don't have "faith" in empirical truths - an empirical truth is one in which, in theory, can be backed up with empirical evidence. If there wasn't, citation would be useless and all academic circles would go nowhere.

Logic and rational thinking is not relative. I said this earlier, so you should read my previous post about this. Faith in a religious dogma is ultimately built on this type of belief. However, that doesn't necessarily mean that a belief system using faith as its core premises is irrational.

I don't see how a blind man driving a car is relevant to the stipulated definition of faith used when describing religion outside of the word "blind."

 

[warpus]

Funny. I haven't seen any evidence of Civ5 yet?

It is obviously coming out at some point, if not under that exact name.

To a blind man driving a car is mad. What's seems to be "blind faith" to you isn't neccessary "blind" to someone else.

And this sense that you're describing has never been verified in any scientific study. Interesting.

Your comparison doesn't make sense either.

A better comparison would be:

Imagine a world in which everyone is blind, except a small group of people who claim that they can see. There are stories of people having driven cars, a long time ago.

 

[Smidlee]

And this sense that you're describing has never been verified in any scientific study. Interesting.

Your comparison doesn't make sense either.

Ever spend time with a blind man? There is no way to prove to him that "red" exist (even by science) nor describe exactly what "red" is even though he read all the colors and the science behind it. I know I've tried. To a blind man a pretty sunset doesn't exist. Of course give him seeing eyes would solve the problem. "Once I was lost but now I'm found, once blind but now I see."

Jesus said that the blind man is made to see while those who can see are made blind. Spiirtually, what Jesus says, that the world is in darkness.

 

[Truronian]

Ever spend time with a blind man? There is no way to prove to him that "red" exist (even by science) nor describe exactly what "red" is even though he read all the colors and the science behind it. I know I've tried. To a blind man a pretty sunset doesn't exist.

Jesus said that the blind man is made to see while those who see are made blind. Spiirtually ,this is exactly what Jesus says, that the world is in darkness.

'Red' doesn't exist. You an show me a red... it is a property that a body can take on.

 

[Smidlee]

'Red' doesn't exist. You an show me a red... it is a property that a body can take on.

There are those who says the same thing about Love.

 

[Truronian]

There are those who says the same thing about Love.

Can you show me a love?