Sapere aude

Yes, because the all powerful God couldn't write a clear concise text, he needs humans (who "read all manner of nonsense into the texts"), to editorialize.
I know! How dare God not dish it up on a plate simple enough for you to understand!

How do you know the difference between mythology and non-fiction?
Mythology is meta-fiction.
 
  • Like
Reactions: RJM
No one needs to 'disprove' god, you can't prove a negative.
OK

Therefore those who insist there is a god need to prove there is one. To insist on something existing without any proof is the epitome of irrationality.
I'm not insisting you believe, I'm just saying I believe in God, and my belief is reasoned and rational.

We are free to believe as we will. But if we misrepresent what another believes, we stand to be corrected.
 
I know! How dare God not dish it up on a plate simple enough for you to understand!


Mythology is meta-fiction.
Not even simple enough for me...not simple enough for people living in the Middle East in the late Bronze Age and all those people thousands of years since. An unintelligible message is poor communication. The message must not be very important.

You failed to answer my question, how do YOU know the difference between mythology and non-fiction?
 
OK


I'm not insisting you believe, I'm just saying I believe in God, and my belief is reasoned and rational.

We are free to believe as we will. But if we misrepresent what another believes, we stand to be corrected.
I find nothing rational or logical about theistic faith. The idea that one can reason God into existence is a failed project.
 
I find nothing rational or logical about theistic faith. The idea that one can reason God into existence is a failed project.
That is just a chosen frame of reference.

God's proof is the Messengers. That God exists, can only be known and reasoned through the Messengers. They are the mouth of God, they are the example God gives us.

So if we partake of a just, logical and reasoned search of their Person, their lives and the Claim that is given in the Book, we can get to Know about God.

Regards Tony
 
That is just a chosen frame of reference.

God's proof is the Messengers. That God exists, can only be known and reasoned through the Messengers. They are the mouth of God, they are the example God gives us.

So if we partake of a just, logical and reasoned search of their Person, their lives and the Claim that is given in the Book, we can get to Know about God.

Regards Tony
I don't find anything special about these so-called 'messengers' either . . . if there was a real god and as almighty as portrayed in scriptures, then every single individual would know without a shadow of doubt of this god's existence. This god can create the Universe but this same god cannot make itself undeniably known to everyone?

1704936471466.jpeg
 
Why didn't "He" come himself?
Who are you talking about here?

It can't be God, surely? God CREATED the universe and all it contains..
..and you think that God should "just pop in" to His creation .. as what? A human being?
A crocodile? An amoeba? What .. exactly??
 
The Left Hand Path is a philosophy not a theistic faith
But is it not a philosophy you have faith in? Why invest in it otherwise?

I find nothing rational or logical about theistic faith.
Is the LHP rational and logical?

The idea that one can reason God into existence is a failed project.
Was it ever such a project? I don't think so.

Again, I'd have to ask how to you envisage the 'God' you regard as a failed project ... I might well agree with you.
 
But is it not a philosophy you have faith in? Why invest in it otherwise?
You do know what 'faith' means, right?
I am using the word: strong belief in God or in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual apprehension rather than proof.
You are using the word: complete trust or confidence in someone or something.
Two different things . . .
Is the LHP rational and logical?
Of course it's logical, it's also rational unlike many 'faiths'
Was it ever such a project? I don't think so.
Certainly a project and a failed one at that
Again, I'd have to ask how to you envisage the 'God' you regard as a failed project ... I might well agree with you.
Not sure what you are asking, but I'd be glad to expand on it . . .
 
Why didn't "He" come himself?
Who are you talking about here?

It can't be God, surely? God CREATED the universe and all it contains..
..and you think that God should "just pop in" to His creation .. as what? A human being?
A crocodile? An amoeba? What .. exactly??
It helps if you address the person you are replying to.

The meme is talking about any god, because none of them have ever materialized to explain they are the Truth, or that they are a god, or anything for that matter.

No one created the Universe
No one created everything in the Universe
Why shouldn't this 'god' pop in and let everyone what the story is? Why create a mystery? Why deny everyone the Truth?
An Omnipotent, Omniscient Being can do all that, after all this god according to you, created the Universe and all that is in it.

God should 'pop' in as something that everyone would notice, something undeniable as the truth . . . I mean come on, this is GOD the ALMIGHTY He can do ALL things!

It's all just a bunch of man-made philosophy.
 
God should 'pop' in as something that everyone would notice, something undeniable as the truth . .
Well, many people have faith in G-d..
..some people either cannot "see it", or don't want to "see it"..

..perhaps you are tuning to the wrong frequency .. try twisting the knob. ;)
 
Well, many people have faith in G-d..
..some people either cannot "see it", or don't want to "see it"..

..perhaps you are tuning to the wrong frequency .. try twisting the knob. ;)

"Faith is belief in the absence of evidence" Carl Sagan

 
You do know what 'faith' means, right?
I think so, but please, do we need be so combative?

I am using the word: strong belief in God or in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual apprehension rather than proof.
You are using the word: complete trust or confidence in someone or something.
Two different things . . .
Then yes, I am using the word in terms of its primary definition, faith in principle is 'a complete trust or confidence in someone/something.'

You are using a particular example of such – it can mean a strong belief in God, the doctrines of a religion.
It can equally mean a strong belief in, say, Buddhism, and non-theistic doctrines.
And it can equally mean a strong belief in a philosophy, and its doctrines.

(Aside: Your words "based on spiritual apprehension rather than proof" could well be another discussion entirely. Do we apprehend, and seek proof? Surely we don't seek proof for what we do not apprehend? And is it not that what we do apprehend, without the need for proof as such – day follows night, gravity works downwards, etc. – leads us to inquire into deeper, less obvious reasons and meanings, for which we do require proof ... which came first inquiry?)

If I combine both our approaches, I suppose I'm asking do you not have a belief in the LHP, its principles, doctrines and methods of determination?

Of course it's logical, it's also rational unlike many 'faiths'
Well people have faith in all manner of things: Gods, philosophy, science, humanity, politics and yes, not all of them are necessarily reasonable, rational or logical – people are weird and wonderful creatures!

It seems to me that neither the RHP nor the LHP can 'prove' itself to the satisfaction of a skeptic. It's ultimate claims rest on faith, not proof, although it can be argued.

Certainly a project and a failed one at that
Well that's a matter of opinion, it hardly weighs upon the central question.

Not sure what you are asking, but I'd be glad to expand on it . . .
You've used the term 'God' although you reject theism. If I may quote from your post 88:

From the perspective of the Western Left Hand Path, I posit that external deities are nonexistent; the only 'god' one can truly comprehend is the God Within.
Surely if comprehending a 'God' then the LHP is a theism?

That said; The Greater Self, or GodSelf ... Our Greater Self ... exists separate from objective reality, it remains as it was after our physical demise. This is our Singularity, our GodSelf.

Human beings emerge ... guided by an Intelligent Designer, be it the ... GodSelf, rather than an external deity.
In philosophical terms, this seems equivalent to autotheism, egotheism or autolatry – the deification of the self?

Is this not akin to the relation of atman to Brahman in Hinduism?

It is close to the Jain idea of the Tirthankara – a (self-)saviour by the extinction of all prior karma and transcending samsara – the endless cycles of birth and death?

wiki: "According to Jains, tirthankaras ... have conquered the saṃsāra, the cycle of death and rebirth, on their own... After understanding the true nature of the self or soul, the Tīrthaṅkara attains kevala jnana (omniscience)."
 
Quite .. if we do not have the ability to make decisions of our own free-will,
then why should anybody be held responsible for their actions?
The topic of free will and responsibility vs. prédestination has been discussed in large among Muslim scholars.
In fact, what comes out when I rethought it myself is that consciousness may be the result of all influences we had, which are possibly physically determined, but they also include our spiritual development, and all we hear, and the expectations of those who are around us...
which can never be understood on the level of an underlying state of the world.
Even if everything is really physically determined, responsibility and awareness on the level of our understanding does play an important role, and this is where our rational and our irrational thoughts intervene.
This is also the reason why I don't believe in pure rationalism, as @Naturalist does.
 
It's implied in quantum mechanics. It's the building block of quantum mechanics. Do you not agree?
The physicists are not unanimously in that quantum mechanics prove non-determinism. It may also be a problem of observability.
 
Back
Top