God and the Illogical

Namaste Jesus said:
I think you guys are reading more into my statement than is there. All I'm saying is, logic is a human concept used to determine what is and is not valid. It's based on man's limited understanding of the world around him. Not God's.
Click to expand...
So says your limited man mind... Do you assume that if shown what God knows, a human would not be able to understand it?

This is where the illogical triumphs over God, for if it is used wisely, God is not acknowledged for who He really be. And what is God without a reputation?
 
Last edited:
Noumenon said:
Do you assume that if shown what God knows, a human would not be able to understand it?
Click to expand...
I think we have been shown what God knows, but very few realize or accept it. We can understand God through faith, but not by the same logic we apply to other things.
 
BigJoeNobody said:
Why would an all-powerful creator be bound to physics, and limits if he made them. if the Creator did not have the power over these things, he wouldn't really be a deity then would he?
Click to expand...

Oh I don't know, there a whole lot of deities out there. ;)
 
People tend to view new information, or for that matter, any information in two basic ways: assimilation and accommodation. When people use assimilation, they tend to fit things into what they already know. When accommodation is occurring, people go beyond what they know to form a new idea or framework. Case in point. Some years ago a young family moved next door to me, and the little boy came over to the fence to see my dogs better. My dog "stiltz" is an Anatolian mix and very tall. The little boy looked her over, then looked at me and asked " so what's your horse's name?"
 
Nasruddin said:
Well, I suppose you could say they were all Brahman
Click to expand...
I like that statement.
What is says to me is that everything is from the 'primal spirit/substance' which I prefer to call Truth rather than Lord,God or god.
If that is so,then we are also Brahman and the best way I have found to gain some consciousness is by looking within.
In my own life, I have tried following religion(s). I gained much book-knowledge from studying scriptures and books on self-realization etc, however it didn't give me any experience. For me, the best thing I can say about (some) scripture is that it points to something greater to be aware of.
Kabir puts it nicely in this poem(even though he uses the word 'Lord':)
The Lord is in me, and the Lord is in you,
As life is hidden in every seed.
So rubble your pride, my friend,
And look for Him within you.

When I sit in the heart of His world
A million suns blaze with light,
A burning blue sea spreads across the sky,
Life's turmoil falls quiet,
All the stains of suffering wash away.

Listen to the unstruck bells and drums!
Love is here; plunge into its rapture!
Rains pour down without water;
Rivers are streams of light.

How could I ever express
How blessed I feel
To revel in such vast ecstasy
In my own body?

This is the music
Of soul and soul meeting,
Of the forgetting of all grief.
This is the music
That transcends all coming and going

Kabir

http://www.poemhunter.com/poem/the-lord-is-in-me/
 
Re: post 29
I reckon this is my existential side. I am sure it came from some book I read in the past. Can't say! :)
All truth is expressed in the medium of consciousness. Any truth by which I live stands only if I become identical with it yet a truth that I can prove, stands regardless of me.
 
BigJoeNobody said:
or you could say that there are a lot of people who misunderstand the one?
Click to expand...
Misunderstand is a dominant human attribute regardless of what we believe. Considering the fallible human nature, and the diversity of beliefs it is more likely that regardless of what we believe we are all wrong.
 
shunyadragon said:
Considering the fallible human nature, and the diversity of beliefs it is more likely that regardless of what we believe we are all wrong.
Click to expand...

Because of this statement, at the very least, it seems to me we should always have at least a shred of doubt about our belief structure. But a great many people have no doubt at all. They know their belief structure is the one and only true belief structure. This is something I have never understood.
 
Devils' Advocate said:
Because of this statement, at the very least, it seems to me we should always have at least a shred of doubt about our belief structure. But a great many people have no doubt at all. They know their belief structure is the one and only true belief structure. This is something I have never understood.
Click to expand...
The need for closure, fear of ambiguity, existential angst, social conditioning, the need to belong, these are all aspects of the absurdity of the human condition. And that's just psych 101! It gets sticky from here, and somewhat philosophical, but being human means we have to deal with these things. Those gifted with self-awareness get beyond what Christianity calls the "natural man" but even that self-awareness triggers anxiety and self doubt, which makes many run to a belief system to find comfort. When I look deeply into the psychological and spiritual nature of man, I find both the yin and yang, and because of that I find myself having compassion for them and for me.
 
What all of you fail to address is the fact that in most religious views, the path to a positive afterlife, whatever it might be in different religions, is very specific. To say that because there are so many, one should grab and choose, is not following any. It is only really plausible that 1 view is correct, and those that are similar are varying degrees of correct. It is up to the individual to learn which is correct, and once he/she has determined the most correct, or the completely correct path in their opinion, to follow said religion's creeds and practices to the best of his/her ability. Let's do a little game. If Sunni Islam is correct, and one were to follow it exactly, he is on the correct path. in this case a Jew is also on a straight path of Monotheism, most of the prophetic teachings, etc. Christians are correct in their assessment of Jesus's (PBUH) Messiah-ship. Both of these would contain flaws as they are not following the exact path, but if they have followed their path completely, it is likely to end in the same outcome. This doesn't mean they are correct, or that their view is without flaws, nor does it mean that Islam isn't the absolute truth, but rather that there are acceptable differences. Statistically speaking there is 1 truth. And that means that with all the variances of views out there, it is difficult to statistically hit that 1 out of the thousands+ of views. But that doesn't mean the Largest views aren't the correct one. Equally it also doesn't mean the guy who believes worms are the form of the ultimate God in pieces all over the world isn't statistically possible.
 
BigJoeNobody said:
It is only really plausible that 1 view is correct[...]Statistically speaking there is 1 truth.
Click to expand...
You are stating your opinions as if they are scientifically proven facts. Which I know you sort of think they are but you can't really prove it so I don't know what you're doing here.
 
A Cup Of Tea said:
You are stating your opinions as if they are scientifically proven facts. Which I know you sort of think they are but you can't really prove it so I don't know what you're doing here.
Click to expand...
I know we have been round and round about this, but there is no science to that statement. It is purely statistical. No matter how many views one analyzes, if one were to analyze all of the possibilities, there is a 1 in [not infinity, but very very large number] chance that a particular view is 100% correct. I could say that for any number of scenarios. Cutting a board exactly 4 ft long.... claimed impossible, but statistically speaking there is a 1 : infinite chance of it happening.
 
Have to agree with Tea on this one, Joe. Your statement that any view is 100% correct is based upon nothing but your opinion. Unless you can show some statistical model that supports your belief, it is difficult for me to accept it as any reasonable form of reality. Just saying 'statistically something is correct' is a null statement. You gotta back it up with something.

Not to quibble (okay I am quibbling) statistical methodology is part of the scientific process, so it is science.
 
I had to take several courses on statistical analyses in college, and if someone claims that something is statistically significant I would have to see the work. Each discipline uses different statistical analyses to represent the data collected, and this is recorded in a research report. These research reports are available online and by subscription to different journals, however much can be found on Google Scholar.
 
Devils' Advocate said:
Have to agree with Tea on this one, Joe. Your statement that any view is 100% correct is based upon nothing but your opinion. Unless you can show some statistical model that supports your belief, it is difficult for me to accept it as any reasonable form of reality. Just saying 'statistically something is correct' is a null statement. You gotta back it up with something.

Not to quibble (okay I am quibbling) statistical methodology is part of the scientific process, so it is science.
Click to expand...
i'm not sure how much more clear it can be. statistically speaking there is a chance any particular view is correct, independent or collective.it is just as likely Islam is 100% correct as it is that your view of deism is 100% correct (from a statistical model). If one were to post every view possible, nearly infinite, it would contain every view both believed by anyone or not, it would contain at some point the actual true 100% correct view. This can be illustrated further by throwing a million balls into a basket and one contains a mark of winner. If 1 were blindly chosen, there is a 1 in 1 million chance. Now keep adding balls, that doesn't eliminate the fact that that 1 is there. I'm making no call as to which view is the winner in this statement, just that there is 1.

and technically speaking statistical methodology is an analytical tool. used in Science, but is not in and of itself science.
 
I agree, Joe, if you can show that the faiths of the world are determined by balls thrown in a basket you are statistically 100% correct. But since most of us are unaware of the mysteries behind the veil, it is still your opinion until proven otherwise.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top