Sapere aude

Aupmanyav said:
Brahman of Advaita Hinduism can answer all these without being a God.
Click to expand...
With my answers I actually intend to invite you to contribute to explain your view of what we theists see linked to God. I know that you are an atheist and that you don't like the Abrahamic religions in particular, so you need not repeat it.
Rather, it would be interesting to me, for example, how you would formulate these answers with regard to Brahman.
 
Thomas said:
I don't understand you here? How do you read Isaiah 45:7?

D'you see God as overseeing every single decision we make?
Click to expand...
I personally see our choices are already part of and inclusive of the plan. God has foreknowledge of our choices and life is structured to always give us a chance. Foreknowledge is the not the cause of our choices.

How else can prophecy be given? I do not see how can it be any other way?

Jesus offered I am the first and the last, thus the Spirit of Christ contains all our choices and spans all time. The last is know by God, the first is known by God. Jesus knew his fate, Jesus knew his Disciples choices.

Regards Tony
 
talib-al-kalim said:
You often use the word matrix, which I don't understand in this context. Can you please explain it to me?
Click to expand...
Maybe it's because he doesn't understand the meaning of 'Matrix'?

Matrix: something within or from which something else originates, develops, or takes form.
Thomas said:
Because it seems like A depends on B, and B depends on A?

But I could be wrong.

More to the point:

Can you prove that?


Again, offered but unproven.


No, that's not certain by any stretch. The 'self examining the self' is notoriously fallible and you've offered no evidence suggesting a Greater Self.
Click to expand...
Why don't you try the meditation practice I suggested . . . then tell me I'm wrong.
Are you comprehending this GS? Because it sounds like you are not.
I've explained what it is and how we experience it several times.
Why are we the most sentient beings on earth?
Why did we evolve from apes to sentient beings?
What exactly guides an Artist to Create something that drives another to tears of ecstasy?
Explain why we are having this discussion, and not a turtle and a dove.

Oh, I expect it could be God?
Well, there is ZERO evidence for this God and a profundity of evidence for our GS/Psyche/Soul working through us.
 
talib-al-kalim said:
Can you give a link to where you suggested a meditation practice?
Click to expand...
I haven't posted the meditation practice anywhere just yet, it's in my grimoire Kitab Eawa' fi Laylat Alsahra' (The Book of Howling in the Desert Night), along with far more advanced operations for experiencing one's Greater Self
 
Thomas said:
In Thomas's arguments, Thomas ends with the comment: "and this we call God" in the same way a Hindu might use the argument and say "and this we call Brahman".
Again, for emphasis, Aquinas is not arguing for the God of the Bible, but God in philosophical terms.
Click to expand...
There are a lot of differences even in a philosophical God and Brahman:
1. Brahman does not require worship.
2. Brahman in indifferent to what is happening in the world. Brahman does not come out to help or condemn any one.
3. Brahman does not judge the actions of people after death.
4. Brahman does not send anyone to heaven or hell since there is none.
5. Brahman does not set any rules for humans.
 
talib-al-kalim said:
With my answers I actually intend to invite you to contribute to explain your view of what we theists see linked to God. I know that you are an atheist and that you don't like the Abrahamic religions in particular, so you need not repeat it.
Rather, it would be interesting to me, for example, how you would formulate these answers with regard to Brahman.
Click to expand...
Since I m an atheist, even Hindu beliefs in deities also are not acceptable to be, not just those of the Abrahamic religions.
You questions will be most welcome. I have started a new thread 'Stripped-down Advaita' while in conversion with Thomas. Meet us there.

See the post above. That is how Brahman differs from God and Aquinas' philosophical God.
 
'Amir Alzzalam said:
Why don't you try the meditation practice I suggested . . . then tell me I'm wrong.
Click to expand...
You mentioned a practice but I don't know what that technique is. Do I have to buy your book?

'Amir Alzzalam said:
Are you comprehending this GS? Because it sounds like you are not.
Click to expand...
If you think that, then perhaps you could furnish me with a precise definition?

'Amir Alzzalam said:
I've explained what it is and how we experience it several times.
Click to expand...
Clearly you think I haven't got it ... can you try again?

'Amir Alzzalam said:
Why are we the most sentient beings on earth?
Click to expand...
There are a number of variations of the Teleological Argument, I'm assuming the WLHP has its own, which necessarily pre-supposes a other-than-human origin, surely?

We have ours, both Biblically (Genesis) and Metaphysically, such as Aristotle – Aquinas's Fifth Way:
"Now whatever lacks intelligence cannot move towards an end, unless it be directed by some being endowed with knowledge and intelligence; as the arrow is shot to its mark by the archer. Therefore some intelligent being exists by whom all natural things are directed to their end; and this being we call God." (ST I, q2, a3).

From a secular perspective the answer lies along the evolutionary trail. There are a number of competing or allied theories

As the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy says:
Perception and appreciation of the incredible intricacy and the beauty of things in nature—whether biological or cosmic—has certainly inclined many toward thoughts of purpose and design in nature, and has constituted important moments of affirmation for those who already accept design positions. Regardless of what one thinks of the arguments at this point, so long as nature has the power to move us (as even Kant admitted that the ‘starry heavens above’ did), design convictions and arguments are unlikely to disappear quietly.
The argument that the emergence of the human being as an intelligent creature cannot be sufficiently explained by science and therefore must have a supernatural origin lacks evidence and credibility and therefore is regarded as pseudoscience.

'Amir Alzzalam said:
Well, there is ZERO evidence for this God and a profundity of evidence for our GS/Psyche/Soul working through us.
Click to expand...
What you take to be 'evidence' (effects) I find substantially insufficient with regard to its causes, whereas I find other 'evidence' (effects) profound and compelling to a superior degree.

No doubt you will tell me I've deceived myself, to which the logical reply is, perhaps it is you who is deceived?

Here we revert to reason and logic, and so far your reason and logic in support of your own philosophy, and as evidence of your dismissal of others, falls short of the mark.

Which again, is all I'm asking ... do as you would be done by.

+++

The one question I have now is in regard to your own question: "Why are we the most sentient beings on earth?"
Are you suggesting an external cause, other than the emergence of intelligence through natural processes over time?

+++
 
Tony Bristow-Stagg said:
I personally see our choices are already part of and inclusive of the plan. God has foreknowledge of our choices and life is structured to always give us a chance. Foreknowledge is the not the cause of our choices.
Click to expand...
Theologically, I have problems with this – a suggestion of predestination to a near Calvinist degree.

My faith is a more of an apophatic inclination, yours more cataphatic.

Each to his own.
 
Thomas said:
Theologically, I have problems with this – a suggestion of predestination to a near Calvinist degree.

My faith is a more of an apophatic inclination, yours more cataphatic.

Each to his own.
Click to expand...
I think you might have misunderstood him .. he did say "Foreknowledge is the not the cause of our choices"
:)
 
Aupmanyav said:
No problem in discussing religion in an acedemic environment rather than in churches and mosques. It will create more atheists.
Click to expand...
Often, because of the poor standards of 'academia' – the New Atheist arguments are really quite awful, even atheists write them off as a 'media phenomena' and they are encouraged merely as low-brow tv entertainment.

Whereas there are dialogues between science and religion at the highest academic level, but these require thought, and are nowhere nearly sensational enough to attract media attention.

I'm not saying such academic discussion would create more believers, but it would answer most of the ill-founded assumptions and flawed arguments that people tend to trot out without any thought or reflection – my hope would be greater religious tolerance and understanding.
 
Aupmanyav said:
There are a lot of differences even in a philosophical God and Brahman:
1. Brahman does not require worship.
2. Brahman in indifferent to what is happening in the world. Brahman does not come out to help or condemn any one.
3. Brahman does not judge the actions of people after death.
4. Brahman does not send anyone to heaven or hell since there is none.
5. Brahman does not set any rules for humans.
Click to expand...
OK, but remember Thomas isn't arguing the God of the Bible, he's arguing God as a philosophical proposition.

I think, if I replayed his Five Ways, and replaced 'God' with 'Brahman', the difference would disappear?

Do not a large number of Hindus see Brahman as the Supreme God, or Supreme Being?

From my own perspective, my God and your Brahman might be closer than one might first assume – although I'm sure there are distinctions.
 
Thomas said:
From my own perspective, my God and your Brahman might be closer than one might first assume – although I'm sure there are distinctions.
Click to expand...
LOL, I've just checked a couple of Advaita resources, and at first glance I might say that my above statement holds, in theory, but as close as we are, the path from me to you is bloody steep, and it's gonna be a bit of a climb!
 
muhammad_isa said:
I think you might have misunderstood him .. he did say "Foreknowledge is the not the cause of our choices"
Click to expand...
Yes, I did clock that ... His response was to my asking about Isaiah 45:7, which I see now is not a sufficient answer.

Prior to this, I had said:
'We need to be careful here, because if we attribute everything to God, then equally we absolve ourselves ... your argument could be used to infer all error is God's fault.'

To which @Tony Bristow-Stagg replied:
"Is it care needed, or is it just an understanding of what the purpose of the matrix is?
Isaiah 45:7 "I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things."

So I should have asked:
1: Do you think God actually created evil?
2: If so, why?

But we're getting into deep waters here ...
 
Thomas said:
Theologically, I have problems with this – a suggestion of predestination to a near Calvinist degree.

My faith is a more of an apophatic inclination, yours more cataphatic.

Each to his own.
Click to expand...
The Baha'i writings also have a lot of explanations about predestination and fate, what may be changed and what cannot be changed. All of it subject to the Will of God.

I am learning not to go there though. An old dog can eventually learn new tricks, hopefully.

You to yours,
Me to mine.
As to the divine,
outside of time,
time binds the minds!

Regards Tony
 
Thomas said:
Yes, I did clock that ... His response was to my asking about Isaiah 45:7, which I see now is not a sufficient answer.

Prior to this, I had said:
'We need to be careful here, because if we attribute everything to God, then equally we absolve ourselves ... your argument could be used to infer all error is God's fault.'

To which @Tony Bristow-Stagg replied:
"Is it care needed, or is it just an understanding of what the purpose of the matrix is?
Isaiah 45:7 "I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things."

So I should have asked:
1: Do you think God actually created evil?
2: If so, why?

But we're getting into deep waters here ...
Click to expand...
Deep water, we should dive into the oceans of God's Word, who cares how deep it is, it has pearls of great prices in its depths!

So you could have asked 1: Do you think God actually created evil?

No, there is no independant force of evil, it is all a relative state of our rational mind.

I see Isaiah 45:7 "I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things." In the following light.

Creation is founded on all virtues, so why is it also subject to the opposites of those virtues? I personally see it is to allow for free will choices. It is the reality of this matrix.

There is a prayer called the "Fire Tablet" given by Baha'u'llah and it goes through 3 stages. It starts with Baha'u'llah asking where is God assistance, the God answers Baha'u'llah, and then Baha'u'llah responds with submission to that response.

This is some of what God offered Baha'u'llah.

".. Were it not for the cold, how would the heat of Thy words prevail, O Expounder of the worlds? Were it not for calamity, how would the sun of Thy patience shine, O Light of the worlds? Lament not because of the wicked. Thou wert created to bear and endure, O Patience of the worlds...."

Fire Tablet

Baha'i Prayers (English): Fire Tablet. In the Name of God, the Most Ancient, the Most Great. Indeed the hearts of the sincere are consumed in the fire of separation: Where is the gleaming of the light of Thy Countenance, O Beloved of the worlds?
www.bahaiprayers.org

There is no darkness, only the lack of Light. There is no hate, just the lack of Love, there is no evil, only the lack of good. etc, etc.

Man has been created on the edge of darkness and the beginning of the light, the potential of the light is the image we are created in.

This is the meaning of life, this is what faith is all about.

Regards Tony
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top