Proofs and evidences of the existence of God

dumaurier

07-03-99, 06:20 AM

Boris:

I am going to take you through each paragraph of my opening post in this string. By the way, note that these are not *MY* ideas. They are from another and i quoted the author in the opening post to this thread. We have nothing to lose but all to gain in opening our minds.

"One of the proofs and demonstrations of the existence of God is the fact that man did not create himself."

Man did not create himself! Undeniable! No one has anything to add or subtract from this clear truth.

"...nay, his creator and designer is another than himself."

Just like a painting which has a creator; the painting did not create itself. Just like a loaf of bread; the bread did not create itself; nay, its creator was the baker, and if the loaf could have created itself it would have the potential to create the baker, too!. Just like that keyboard before you which had to have a master craftsman to bring it into visible manifestation for your wise use; the keyboard did not create itself!!!

"It is certain and indisputable that the creator of man is not like man because a powerless creature cannot create another being. The maker, the creator, has to possess all perfections in order that he may create."

How can this be disputed? Where and when has anyone ever seen a human being create another human being? And if one presents the arguement that a woman gets pregnant by man and therefore creates another human, i answer that man is powerless to create because everything required to bring forth another human being through the womb of the mother was apriori created by the Creator (air, sun, the lush vegetation, water, etc.). At best what we humans do is combine existing elements to bring forth "creations," but we did not "create" anything! You could not make glass without the sand that the Creator apriori put at our disposition! Sand is powerless but he who makes the glass is all powerful in relation to that sand. However, He who created the craftsman is far more Powerful!

Biologists who tamper with genes (DNA, etc.) work with what God has already created. They strive to understand what God, the Perfect One, has created; and although there's a glimmer of success, they will never be able to create another man for this is beyond their station.

A good teacher makes good students only when he knows his subject thoroughly and knows how to convey this knowledge to his students. This thorough knowledge is a kind of "perfection" relative to the degree of the student's knowledge and without it the teacher could not produce good students. "The maker, the creator, has to possess all perfections in order that he may create."

"Can the creation be perfect and the creator imperfect? Can a picture be a masterpiece and the painter imperfect in his art? For it is his art and his creation."

A piece of bread contains exactly the same ingredients from which it came--and it came from the loaf! Can the breadcrumb contain more than the loaf? Absurd!!! Can a 5-year old child paint a Van Gogh? No! Why? Because he has not acquired the sufficient capacity to fully grasp the art of painting. The drawings of a child reflect his capacity, his abilities, and his limitations. Thus, a masterpiece is created by a master painter otherwise it cannot be a masterpiece! How can a masterpiece be created by a painter who is imperfect in his art?

"Moreover, the picture cannot be like the painter; otherwise, the painting would have created itself. However perfect the picture may be, in comparison with the painter it is in the utmost degree of imperfection."

The sound reasoning of this paragraph speaks for itself for those who have eyes to see and ears to hear.

"The contingent world is the source of imperfections: God is the origin of perfections. The imperfections of the contingent world are in themselves a proof of the perfections of God."

Because there must be someone who possesses the qualities he injects into his creation otherwise, if the creator didn't have these qualities, he couldn't possibly inject them into his creation--he simply doesn't have them!

"For example, when you look at man, you see that he is weak. This very weakness of the creature is a proof of the power of the Eternal Almighty One, because, if there were no power, weakness could not be imagined."

Self evident.

"Then the weakness of the creature is a proof of the power of God; for if there were no power, there could be no weakness; so from this weakness it becomes evident that there is power in the world."

And you must follow the logic here if you want to understand.

"Again, in the contingent world there is poverty; then necessarily wealth exists, since poverty is apparent in the world. In the contingent world there is ignorance; necessarily knowledge exists, because ignorance is found; for if there were no knowledge, neither would there be ignorance. Ignorance is the nonexistence of knowledge, and if there were no existence, nonexistence could not be realized."

No one in their right minds can argue this point. But it takes a degree of refined detachment from intellectual arrogance to understand these subtle points here.

"It is certain that the whole contingent world is subjected to a law and rule which it can never disobey; even man is forced to submit to death, to sleep and to other conditions--that is to say, man in certain particulars is governed, and necessarily this state of being governed implies the existence of a governor. Because a characteristic of contingent beings is dependency, and this dependency is an essential necessity, therefore, there must be an independent being whose independence is essential."

"In the same way it is understood from the man who is sick that there must be one who is in health; for if there were no health, his sickness could not be proved."

No matter how much a blindman tries to convince us that he sees, he will only be fooling himself! We could never know the meaning of "cold" if there were no "warmth". Thousands of other examples abound.

"Therefore, it becomes evident that there is an Eternal Almighty One, Who is the possessor of all perfections, because unless He possessed all perfections He would be like His creation."

And if He were like His creation, he would cease to be a Creator!

"Throughout the world of existence it is the same; the smallest created thing proves that there is a creator. For instance, this piece of bread proves that it has a maker."

Objections anyone?

"Praise be to God! the least change produced in the form of the smallest thing proves the existence of a creator: then can this great universe, which is endless, be self-created and come into existence from the action of matter and the elements? How self-evidently wrong is such a supposition!"

It is self-evident that some will object to any evidence proving the existence of an Almighty Creator for their sole interest is not to search for truth, but to put forth and defend their own ideas, no matter how confusing these may be.

There were once two scientists. One was a believer and the other was a non-believer. They were discussing the solar system:

Believer Scientists:
But in the end, pray do tell me, this solar system, for example, somebody must have created it, no?

Non-believer Scientist:
Not really. Nature did it all.

Believer Scientist:
Well, if that's what you believe.

Both scientists parted. The believer scientist went home and built a small scale model of the solar system. When finished, he invited his friend to his lab to view the artwork.

Non-Believer Scientist:
"What a masterpiece!" exclaimed he upon seeing the model. "Who created that?"

Believer Scientist:
Nature did!

Non-Believer Scientist:
What do you mean!!? Nature has no intelligence to create such a beautiful piece of art. This a magnificent piece of work and it certainly must have had an artist.

Believer Scientist:
There you go! Nature lacks the intelligence to make a small scale model of the solar system such as this one but it is intelligent enough to create the real solar system. For the small scale model of the solar system you say it had to have a creator, but for the real solar system a creator is unnecessary!

PS: "The presence of an Infinite Superior Power endowed with reason that reveals itself in the smallest detail which our weak and feable minds are capable of perceiving forms my idea of God." Einstein.

------------------
dumaurier

Rob

07-05-99, 08:57 PM

the bible is full of one lie after another did the church not have you killed for believing the earth moved round the sun and also that the stars were pin pricks in the sky that went to heaven,it took god six days and one day of rest to create earth which means he has not had long enough to to finnish our galaxy never mind the universe and if some one created us then who created him unless you are saying he or she created him self na i dont think so ..

dumaurier

07-06-99, 12:23 AM

Hi Rob,

I see what you mean about the Bible and the church. I'm personally convinced that the two don't mix. The church was a later invention after the founding of Christianity (and Judaism, of course). I had the hardest time understanding the concept of a Creator at one time due to the many contradictions found in man-made sects. A little investigation cleared me of the trappings, however.

One thing i do understand, though, is that perhaps at one time the church was necessary because most people just weren't educated (couldn't read or write, for example). I guess one could look at it from either angles; good and bad. But there's no denying that the churchfathers did a lot of harm, too.

As for the Bible being full of one lie after another, i've resolved this for myself. I think the Bible (and all Holy Scriptures from the greater religions) must never ever be taken literally. I mean, no man in his right mind would believe in a dead man coming back to life, or in a Jesus returning in the clouds! That's absurd. And i'm dead certain that if Jesus did return on a cloud most of the professed believers would be the first to reject him! It's silly to believe that Moses lifted his hand and the sea parted in two! A guy has to be really off his knockers to believe that the first man and woman were Adam and Eve, and that God created earth in 7 days, and the rest of it. Wow! One has got to be nuts to believe in all that :) When we interpret all these things literally, at face value, they are unacceptable to reason. When we read that God took revenge, or got angry, or sent pestilence, or turned a person into stone, or whatever, i mean, that's ridiculous!!! All these accounts have a deeper, spiritual meaning, not a literal one. So, Rob, i know where you're coming from and i agree with you.

But i do believe that there is an Almighty Creator Who created the universe. However, no matter how much we try to understand Him, we'll never succeed. There are evidences and proofs (intellectual proofs) of His existence but to shake His hand? Ahhh... sorry Rob, no luck. I suggest you carefully read that opening post here, "Proofs and Evidences of the Existence of God." If anything, it's quite interesting as far as intellectual comprehension of God goes. But as far as believing in a Creator, in God, well, this is entirely up to you.

Finally, i don't believe it right to shove anything down anybody's throat. Every individual on this beautiful planet of ours has to do their own independent research and investigations and come up with their own, personal conclusions with regards God. Nobody can make you believe what you don't want to believe. We arrive at belief slowly, in time, with lots of dedicated searching.

Nice talking to you, Rob.

------------------
dumaurier

[This message has been edited by dumaurier (edited July 05, 1999).]

Boris

07-06-99, 01:29 AM

My goodness, Dumaurier. Do you not *read* anything I write? And what's with all this condescention? Are you imagining that I am so far more stupid, that my words are not worthy of consideration? So far all you've done is push you own statements again and again, consistently neglecting to respond to any of my challenges!

But I don't get shut off, nor waved aside. You want a pissing war -- you're gonna get one. Here's you own stupendously long and redundant post -- taken apart by me, this time!

<hr>

"...nay, his creator and designer is another than himself."

Just like a painting which has a creator; the painting did not create itself. Just like a loaf of bread; the bread did not create itself; nay, its creator was the baker, and if the loaf could have created itself it would have the potential to create the baker, too!. Just like that keyboard before you which had to have a master craftsman to bring it into visible manifestation for your wise use; the keyboard did not create itself!!!

You are missing a crucial point. The universe is not predisposed to spontaneously creating artificial objects like paintings. It is, however, predisposed to creating life, which then through further evolution gives rise to us. The best you can do (and I am very sure of that at this point) is claim that the 'baker' created the universe, after which the universe gave rise to us. To which I counter: it doesn't matter what existed first, creator or the universe -- we hit the same infinities either way. And an unintelligent ever-present universe does sound a lot simpler than an intelligent ever-present creator.

"It is certain and indisputable that the creator of man is not like man because a powerless creature cannot create another being. The maker, the creator, has to possess all perfections in order that he may create."

How can this be disputed? Where and when has anyone ever seen a human being create another
human being? And if one presents the arguement that a woman gets pregnant by man and therefore creates another human, i answer that man is powerless to create because everything required to bring forth another human being through the womb of the mother was apriori created by the Creator (air, sun, the lush vegetation, water, etc.). At best what we humans do is combine existing elements to bring forth "creations," but we did not "create" anything! You could not make glass without the sand that the Creator apriori put at our disposition! Sand is powerless but he who makes the glass is all powerful in relation to that sand. However, He who created the craftsman is far more Powerful!

1) Are you claiming that just because humans haven't managed to create a living organism, they cannot in principle do that and will never be able to do that, ever?! A few centuries ago, the same argument would have shown that the humans will never be able to fly through the air, with the help of machines or not.
2) See my criticism of the previous section. Indeed, you can claim that a creator gave rise to the physical universe. But such a claim is less credible than a claim of perpetual universe with no overarching intelligence -- simply by Occam's razor.

Biologists who tamper with genes (DNA, etc.) work with what God has already created. They strive to understand what God, the Perfect One, has created; and although there's a glimmer of success, they will never be able to create another man for this is beyond their station.

1) There is no basis for a claim that DNA and genes are the creation of a God. Much less an *all-powerful* one, or "the Perfect One".
2) Again, a claim that we will *never* be able to create another man!! Did you just yesterday fall from the moon? (the concussion effects seem rather poignant).

A good teacher makes good students only when he knows his subject thoroughly and knows how to convey this knowledge to his students. This thorough knowledge is a kind of "perfection" relative to the degree of the student's knowledge and without it the teacher could not produce good students. "The
maker, the creator, has to possess all perfections in order that he may create."

1) Evolution created the students. And so far we are not perfect, or even all that good students to begin with. IMHO, evolutionarily we still have a long way to go.
2) Again, the assumption of a maker. Is this getting repetitive, or what?

A piece of bread contains exactly the same ingredients from which it came--and it came from the loaf! Can the breadcrumb contain more than the loaf? Absurd!!! Can a 5-year old child paint a Van Gogh? No! Why? Because he has not acquired the sufficient capacity to fully grasp the art of painting. The drawings of a child reflect his capacity, his abilities, and his limitations. Thus, a masterpiece is created by a master painter otherwise it cannot be a masterpiece! How can a masterpiece be created by a painter who is imperfect in his art?

1) yet another argument based on the assumption of creator. Yawn.
2) Even if you assume a Creator of the universe, how can you be sure that the Creator itself does not exist within its 'higner' universe, and in that case -- who created the higher universe, and isn't the 'perfection' of a Creator such only relative to us (and even that only for the time being...)

"Moreover, the picture cannot be like the painter; otherwise, the painting would have created itself. However perfect the picture may be, in comparison with the painter it is in the utmost degree of imperfection."

The sound reasoning of this paragraph speaks for itself for those who have eyes to see and ears to hear.

But not for those who have minds to think. (Btw. what's with the largesse, preaching language?)

Sound reasoning? Hardly! According to your previous statements, the 'sand' in our universe had to come from somewhere. So, where do you suppose the Creator got it? Pulled it out of his behind? (excuse me for the crude humor)

It's been mathematically proven that a machine of any complexity is capable of precisely replicating itself, given an input of energy and raw materials. Life itself is a shining empirical testament to that. So indeed, the painting *can* be as perfect as the painter; in fact, the painting can be a precise copy!

"The contingent world is the source of imperfections: God is the origin of perfections. The imperfections of the contingent world are in themselves a proof of the perfections of God."

Because there must be someone who possesses the qualities he injects into his creation otherwise, if the creator didn't have these qualities, he couldn't possibly inject them into his creation--he simply doesn't have them!

1) The assumption of a creator. (Oh-hum..)
2) The origins of 'perfections', as you call them, are traced to the physical laws of our universe. Furthermore, it can easily be argued that the presently 'perfect' universe is primitive in comparison to what will be in a few more billion years. That includes the life-forms of Earth, and oh yes, our remote descendants.

"For example, when you look at man, you see that he is weak. This very weakness of the creature is a proof of the power of the Eternal Almighty One, because, if there were no power, weakness could not be imagined."

Self evident.

"Again, in the contingent world there is poverty; then necessarily wealth exists, since poverty is apparent in the world. In the contingent world there is ignorance; necessarily knowledge exists, because ignorance is found; for if there were no knowledge, neither would there be ignorance. Ignorance is the nonexistence of knowledge, and if there were no existence, nonexistence could not be realized."

No one in their right minds can argue this point. But it takes a degree of refined detachment from intellectual arrogance to understand these subtle points here.

This time, could you please go back and read my previous post? It's a bit lengthy to duplicate here.

Intellectual arrogance? How about pseudo-intellectual arrogance? Or religious blindness, perhaps? Or inability/unwillingness/cowardice to actually read or respond to previously posted criticisms? Should we go on with this particular line? (because I am kinda starting to like it.) Refined detachment... :(

"It is certain that the whole contingent world is subjected to a law and rule which it can never disobey; even man is forced to submit to death, to sleep and to other conditions--that is to say, man in certain particulars is governed, and necessarily this
state of being governed implies the existence of a governor. Because a characteristic of contingent beings is dependency, and this dependency is an essential necessity, therefore, there must be an independent being whose independence is essential."

"In the same way it is understood from the man who is sick that there must be one who is in health; for if there were no health, his sickness could not be proved."

No matter how much a blindman tries to convince us that he sees, he will only be fooling himself! We could never know the meaning of "cold" if there were no "warmth". Thousands of other examples abound.

Read the previous paragraphs I wrote in these posts. Additionally, I would like to draw your attention to the fact that I have cited a few counterexamples to your theory in my previous post, in a vain hope that you'd pay attention! (silly me...) But to reproduce just one of them, take color. Complete this sentence: "we couldn't perceive the color red, if we couldn't perceive (?????)"

Let me draw your attention to the fact that while countless examples may *confirm* a theory, only ONE counterexample is sufficient to *disprove* the theory! In case I am not abundantly clear enough, CONSIDER YOUR BANANA THEORY AXED.

"Therefore, it becomes evident that there is an Eternal Almighty One, Who is the possessor of all perfections, because unless He possessed all perfections He would be like His creation."

And if He were like His creation, he would cease to be a Creator!

Circular argument. A Creator created the universe, 'Therefore it becomes evident that there is an Eternal Almighty One'. I am curious, Dumaurier: have you ever had any training in the art of argument-making? (I would imagine you should, since you are so fond of Socrates. But so far, you deeply disappoint me.)

"Throughout the world of existence it is the same; the smallest created thing proves that there is a creator. For instance, this piece of bread proves that it has a maker."

Objections anyone?

And along the same lines, the piece of bread also proves that the maker was a cake. Give me a break! (and pay attention to the previous arguments I have delineated for you).

"Praise be to God! the least change produced in the form of the smallest thing proves the existence of a creator: then can this great universe, which is endless, be self-created and come into existence from the action of matter and the elements? How self-evidently wrong is such a supposition!"

It is self-evident that some will object to any evidence proving the existence of an Almighty Creator for their sole interest is not to search for truth, but to put forth and defend their own ideas, no matter how confusing these may be.

My sole interest is not to search for truth, eh? (no comment...) But tell you what -- the Creator isn't going to help you bake your bread. I'm afraid you are going to have to learn that confusing recipe after all, if you want to stay fed.

But concerning the universe arising form the elements -- wrong! It is the elements that arose from the universe. Modern science does not, and perheps never will, know where the *universe* came from. However, whatever the source, it indeed encoded all the physical laws of our universe -- which makes it sound a lot more to me like a hyper-physical inanimate medium than a supernatural sentient being.

There were once two scientists. One was a believer and the other was a non-believer. They were discussing the solar system:

Believer Scientists:
But in the end, pray do tell me, this solar system, for example, somebody must have created it, no?

Non-believer Scientist:
Not really. Nature did it all.

Believer Scientist:
Well, if that's what you believe.

Both scientists parted. The believer scientist went home and built a small scale model of the solar system. When finished, he invited his friend to his lab to view the artwork.

Non-Believer Scientist:
"What a masterpiece!" exclaimed he upon seeing the model. "Who created that?"

Believer Scientist:
Nature did!

Non-Believer Scientist:
What do you mean!!? Nature has no intelligence to create such a beautiful piece of art. This a magnificent piece of work and it certainly must have had an artist.

Believer Scientist:
There you go! Nature lacks the intelligence to make a small scale model of the solar system such as this one but it is intelligent enough to create the real solar system. For the small scale model of the solar system you say it had to have a creator, but for the real solar system a creator is unnecessary!

A fable! Thank you for that deligtful bit of literature. No, really. But I must note that you managed to conjure up a rather naive Non-Believer Scientist. In my version, he would have replied thus:

Non-Believer Scientist:
Natural laws lead to formation of large-scale solar systems. They, however, do not lead to the formation of beautiful little scaled models. But, they did manage to give rise to live, which eventually evolved and gave rise to our friend the Believer Scientist, whose evolved brain was then able to model what it perceived at a reduced scale. Note that neither the model, nor the concepts required to build it, would have been present in the Believer's brain had not nature given rise to the large-scale solar system that the believer could consequently observe and model. So indeed, the physical laws coupled with the initial state of the universe have resulted in a progression of events that gave rise to astronomical bodies, life on Earth, the human species, and ultimately culminated in this very period. Period.

PS: "The presence of an Infinite Superior Power endowed with reason that reveals itself in the smallest detail which our weak and feable minds are capable of perceiving forms my idea of God." Einstein.

Einstein was a Jew. He quoted the Jewish picture of God. Whoopty-doo.

<hr>

Now, I sincerely hope that you will not once again rub my face into the fact that you were quoting somebody else -- it was rather evident in your original post. The reason I assumed it reflected your viewpoint is because you used the very same banana theory in other posts. And the reply of yours clearly validates my original guess.

I also express sincere hope that you would descend from the heights of admiring your own writings, and start considering the criticisms -- however unpleasant that may be.

------------------
I am; therefore I think.

[This message has been edited by Boris (edited July 05, 1999).]

dumaurier

07-06-99, 05:44 AM

Boris, first off, my guns and canons are all very rusted for it has been quite some time that i realized war is cruel!

I had no clue that we were in this forum to fight any wars. Hmmm, this is very revealing of you, Boris. VERY!!! War, my dear friend, is the cruelest thing in existence for it causes harm, destroys friendships, upsets the order of things, and causes sadness in the hearts of many innocent people. Now, if your approach to our discussion here is one of antagonism, you may as well know right off that i wish nothing to do with it. If you are fighting a war, Boris, you better go and fight it on your own--i want nothing to do with warriors. Of this you may be assured!

When one deals with Truth, one has nothing to fear. There is no fear of anyone. The Creator has provided us with such intellectual faculties for the express purpose of knowing and loving Him. Indeed, there is a lot to know in His universe. So far, i see that from your words is clearly demonstrated that you have very little of substance to say with regards the very deep truths concerning the proofs and evidences of the existence of He Who created you and i. You seem to be argueing for the sake of argueing. I might add, also, that such arguements as you propose seem to me to be naught but outrageous platitudes; pray tell me, how can an intelligent person continue debating with a platitude? Your latest post shows such degree of abasement as to go so far as to stoop to the lowest depths of ignomy and ingratitude in even daring to slander the name of one of the greatest men this century has known-- the discoverer of the General Theory of Relativity (of which knowledge you pride yourself)!!! A good lesson to be learned here is that arrogance is such a strange trait that it will stop at nothing when confronted with evident self-defeat! Methinks you lack the capacity of true understanding, friend!

It is my opinion that your "arguements" are far from being arguements. To me they seem like trickery of the mind whereby reality is twisted in such a way as to make it conform to the speaker's own vain imagination with the sole motive of making himself look good. To argue vainly that a painting is capable of creating itself is so outlandish, so crude, so childish, so far from the truth, that noone in their right mind would even approach such a ridiculous idea if you paid them! (Okay folks! Take down your paintings; a great miracle is going to occur according to the laws of Boris' universe: they're going to recreate themselves right before your very eyes! Oh! Wait! Better still. Go get that loaf of bread. It's going to create a baker!!! In an instant you will also see that computer screen before you clone itself. Ready? Boris is going to throw the switch....Okay Boris, let 'er rip!!!).

Bite into an apple. What do you have? A bite-sized apple. Put it under a microscope. What do you see? Now, put the remaining part of the apple from which the chunk originated. What do you see? Right! The bite-size contains most the ingredients of the larger part---except the stem, and the apple tree and the leaves! The part contains the whole, but the whole contains greater things that are not discovered in the part. Man possesses attributes of the Creator but the Creator possesses greater things not manifest in man. The painter is far superior to his painting. The Baker is immesureably exalted above a loaf of bread. The Creator is far beyond our lousy arguements!

"The advantage of the part is best to be reached by the advantage of the whole. No lasting result can be achieved by any of the component parts if the general interests of the entity itself are neglected...." (S. Effendi)

You could leave a Stradivarius beneath a weeping willow for as long as you like and it will never play of its own. But when the gentle breezes blow along its strings, if you listen carefully you will hear the sound. For every effect there is a cause!

"Say: He is God, the One and Only; God, the Eternal, Absolute; He begetteth not, nor is He begotten; And there is none like unto Him.
(Qur'an: 112 AL-IKHLAS)

"Turn thy face unto Mine and renounce all save Me; for My sovereignty endureth and My dominion perisheth not. If thou seekest another than Me, yea, if thou searchest the universe for evermore, thy quest will be in vain." (The Hidden Words of Baha'u'llah)

"Trouble and ignorance are gone! the Light
Hath come unto me, by Thy favour, Lord!
Now am I fixed! My doubt is fled away!
According to Thy Word, so will I do!"
(Hindu Texts, Bhagavad-Gita)

"So leave them to plunge in vain talk and play about, until they encounter that Day of theirs which they have been promised!-
The Day whereon they will issue from their sepulchres in sudden haste as if they were rushing to a goal-post (fixed for them),-
Their eyes lowered in dejection,- ignominy covering them (all over)! such is the Day which they are promised!"
(Qur'an: 70-AL-MA`ARIJ)

------------------
dumaurier

[This message has been edited by dumaurier (edited July 06, 1999).]

H-kon

07-06-99, 06:38 AM

What is my definition of Gods.. Hmm.. What could that be. It seems to me that NO ONE can, or will be able to define God, but here is my take on it.

First off. The bible is a very good book if you read it as a book, or diary, nothing else.
I am thinking about Ezekiel, where he saw what we are calling UFO's today. He called them Gods, so the Bible God, and MY God are two different things.

I believe that the bible are referring to UFO's, and alien that were looked upon as Gods. My God, you cant touch, see, feel, you just know that He/She/its there... The bible Gods actually communicated with peeople.. Now isnt that strange... If I told people that the same happened to me one day, i would have gotten a free ride, and the first prize that would have been the sweater with the extra long armd . But i guess i cant say that can i, since Religiion is so sacred and just.. Blah..

------------------
Just waiting for my peabrain to boot into English :\

Boris

07-06-99, 11:58 PM

Dumaurier:

What lovely quotes! I want more. Gives us all more quotes. Drown us in quotes. Quotes rule!

But then again, this being a discussion area, I imagine we'd all like to hear your own thoughts every now and then. And, I *could* start quoting from medieval metaphysical holy writs, just to demonstrate that those holy males had no clue. But all one has to do is pick up a philosophical review book going from the anscient Greeks to the modern ages. Then, one can easily see all the flaws in the anscient philosophies that Christianity so readily and tenaciously embraced -- and one can see why the anscient philosophies were discarded in favour of the newer theories.

If you are going to neat-pick my words as an aid to misinterpretation, don't even imagine you could possibly succeed. It's an old tactic, and all it ever achieved was delaying the inevitable resolution. I said "piss war", not war -- there is a rather big distinction here. What I meant was bickering and grandstanding, as opposed to an intellectual debate. And it is you who are perpetuating it -- and it is I who wants nothing to do with it! But, if you are going to bury the arguments of dissenters under your all-encompassing passion for a mythology, I am forced to resist, because I refuse to be silenced in such a manner. Please note that I did indeed try to carry out a reasoned discussion with you -- and all I got back were haughty sneers amidst general dismissal.

I do not argue for the sake of arguing. I am trying to contribute to the emergence of our world from the stone age. Just as you and many like you are here to show the lost sheep their way, I am here as well to show a way -- in my view, the right way! I have vowed to oppose doctrine whenever I meet it, and to do all I can to prevent it from infiltrating the minds of others. My ideal for humanity is that of an enlightened race, rational and individualistically independent, objective and creative, with an imagination and will unrestrained by the tyranny of any kind -- including tribalism, sectarianism, and yes, even religion. And I do what I can to strive toward that ideal.

The "very deep truths" you speak of couldn't be more shallow! And this is precisely what I have shown. But, of course, if you are going to proclaim logical arguments to be platitudes, I can't help you. However, I do hope I can help others who read this.

And yes, I will not stop to dispute even that holy idol Einstein. When I disagree, I disagree -- no matter with whom. I will form my own conclusions, and I encourage everyone to do the same. And, I despise appeals to authority as a fallacious but too-often employed ploy to seemingly strengthen one's position without contributing anything of value to the debate. This, by the way, includes your beloved quotations.

"Trickery of the mind" is indeed an interesting way to perceive my arguments. It almost smacks of the language used when describing the devil, and all his servants. It is an age-old language used to describe any argument whatsoever that conflicts with the Judaic religious dogma. An ingenious device indeed. But, alas, a little outdated.

If to objectively observe natural history and the overabundance of physical evidence in favor of natural evolution is "twisting reality", then I suggest you reexamine your concept of 'twisting'. I claim it is you (and others who share your ideology) who is twisting reality in defiance of actual facts, and demonstrating increasing ignorance or deliberate neglect of the latest empirical breakthroughs. You are viewing the world through a rather interesting filter, that only lets the agreeable facts seep through into your mind, discarding anything that could disturb your divine bliss as not being worthy of your attention.

I never argued that a painting is capable of creating itself. My reference was to the self-replicating capacity of certain types of physical systems -- such as living organisms, for example. In effect I suggested that the universe we perceive is a by-product of some higher reality; but it also could be the case that this higher reality is a by-product of the universe we perceive, and so on to infinity. I know, it's a rather mathematical concept and might be too much for you. Thus I did in faith try to word it in a simple language. Though, I suppose a teacher can ultimately be only as good as the student. So I invite you to swallow all those derogatory adjectives you threw at me, because it consistently seems like you are not even capable of grasping the very statements you call childish!

I do not dispute your statement that our reality is only a part of a larger, perhaps unobservable, whole. But, it is your particular claim of identifying the ultimate reality with a sentient, all-powerful creator, that has been the topic of this discussion all the while. I have stated this to you innumerably, and all I can do now is throw up my hands in perplexed amazement at the thickness of the wall that encases your mind.

------------------
I am; therefore I think.

dumaurier

07-07-99, 01:14 AM

Boris,

I really enjoyed your last post. You are starting to make sense. That's a plus for you. That's very good. Keep it up. Keep it simple. Say what you mean. This is excellent.
We all know that paintings can't create themselves and that the painter is far superior to the painting. The painter is the creator. This is what Abdu'l-Baha is saying. He is comparing this creation to a painting and God was its creator. No harm in that, is there? Then he goes on to use other analogies that are reasonable and acceptable to the mind of man, like the opposites (sickness/health, poverty/wealth). These are simple concepts which are easy to grasp. And they make a lot of sense.

But your attitude from the start is to oppose, to destroy people's ideas, to correct others (this you've said yourself in other posts). Boris, my brother, step back a little and consider such simple concepts from a detached standpoint. Stop trying to change people. Such an attitude can only have but one result---to hurt you in the longrun. It's frustrating trying to prove anybody is wrong or that their ideas don't conform to our own. We all have the right to our ideas. What we can do (and i've pointed this out before) is to take the same attitude the great Socrates took: ask questions as if you were ignorant and slowly get the other to reach that point of understanding where his own concepts become clearer to him. Socrates learned from others, too. I think this is a wise course of action.

Now, i happen to believe that God exists because of what i consider, personally, intelligent and reasonable proofs; such as the proofs that opened the topic of this post. I have never shaken God's hand, never had lunch with Him, never ever ever seen or even heard His footsteps. But i believe in this Creator. There are many things in existence we have never seen but of which we believe. For example, the ether (which plays an important role in the wave theory of light), thought, mind, and so on. You, on the other hand, don't seem to believe in God. That's fine. The bottom line is that i have my views, you have yours. Why oppose? Why get angry? I particularly like these words of Buddha's:

"A wise man should guard his mind for it is very hard to keep track of, extremely subtle, and follows its own desires. A guarded mind brings happiness." (Dhammapada)

I heard a little anecdote some time ago which i really like to share with you and everyone else reading these posts. It goes like this:

One day Jesus was walking along a desert strip with three of His disciples when they came upon a carcass of a dead dog. The first disciple said, "Ugh! What stench!" The second disciple looked at the decaying animal and said, "What ugliness!" The third disciple said, "How unbearably rotten it looks!" Christ slowly approached the dead dog's head and with the tip of his sandal raised the putrefying lips. "What white teeth!" he said.

I have heard it said that the mind at peace is the mind that looks to the qualities and not to the faults of others. Humanity is not perfect and if we are to fix our gaze on the imperfections of others we will always be unhappy. Jesus sought the only quality that the decaying animal had--its teeth! To me, this is the duty of man. It is not ours to brag about our qualities but it is ours to see them in others. Our duty is humility and moderation in all things, in practising courtesy to the best of our abilities. A great Persian sage wrote:

"O Emigrants! The tongue I have designed for the mention of Me [God], defile it not with detraction. If the fire of self overcome you, remember your own faults and not the faults of My creatures, inasmuch as every one of you knoweth his own self better than he knoweth others." (The Hidden Words of Baha'u'llah)

Thus, i leave you with these words, and peace be upon the pure of heart.

------------------
dumaurier

H-kon

07-07-99, 08:54 AM

Can I ask you both Boris, and Dumarier what you are taking as an energizer.. Man.. You write some loooong posts! I should also get one of those turbo-keyboards so that i can keep up with you..

To all. Intersting conversation here. I am a little numb to get in this one, but i'll be back.

------------------
Just waiting for my peabrain to boot into English :\

dumaurier

07-07-99, 02:17 PM

H-Kon,

Thank you for your kind words. Glad to know you are enjoying these explorations within the realms of thought. Truly, the mind is a token of grace bestowed by the Creator; a reflection of His glory. It is my hope that we may continue to use this mightiest of instruments in an appropriate manner.

Concerning your previous post where mention of Ezekiel of the Bible and your beliefs are voiced, i do think that it is easy to be lead astray in subjective interpretations of the verses in this Holy Book when these are looked upon as literal occurrences and events for such scripture was never intended to convey that which is not pregnant of spiritual relevance, otherwise it would have no significant reason for being nor would such scripture be the source of life for millions.
A case in point is the story of Adam & Eve. Many have gleaned this account, some have pondered its import, others still have taken it at face value and simply believed without questioning. But contemporary man, he who dissects frogs to understand anatomical structure and biological relationships, he who explores Mother Nature to such a degree as to discover her realities and enslave her within a vial of glass for the purpose of enlightenment with regards her sanctified laws, has been confounded by the seeming utter lack of logic and reason in this anecdote of Adam & Eve.
I would like to share with you an extract from a book entitled, "Some Answered Questions" by 'Abdu'l-Baha. He provides a totally refreshing interpretation of the story of Adam & Eve from a spiritual perspective. Here are some extracts...

ADAM AND EVE

...In the Bible it is written that God put Adam in the garden of Eden, to cultivate and take care of it, and said to Him: "Eat of every tree of the garden except the tree of good and evil, for if You eat of that, You will die." Then it is said that God caused Adam to sleep, and He took one of His ribs and created woman in order that she might be His companion. After that it is said the serpent induced the woman to eat of the tree, saying: "God has forbidden you to eat of the tree in order that your eyes may not be opened, and that you may not know good from evil." Then Eve ate from the tree and gave unto Adam, Who also ate; their eyes were opened, they found themselves naked, and they hid their bodies with leaves. In consequence of this act they received the reproaches of God. God said to Adam: "Hast Thou eaten of the forbidden tree?" Adam answered: "Eve tempted Me, and I did eat." God then reproved Eve; Eve said: "The serpent tempted me, and I did eat." For this the serpent was cursed, and enmity was put between the serpent and Eve, and between their descendants. And God said: "The man is become like unto Us, knowing good and evil, and perhaps He will eat of the tree of life and live forever." So God guarded the tree of life.

If we take this story in its apparent meaning, according to the interpretation of the masses, it is indeed extraordinary. The intelligence cannot accept it, affirm it, or imagine it; for such arrangements, such details, such speeches and reproaches are far from being those of an intelligent man, how much less of the Divinity--that Divinity Who has organized this infinite universe in the most perfect form, and its innumerable inhabitants with absolute system, strength and perfection.

We must reflect a little: if the literal meaning of this story were attributed to a wise man, certainly all would logically deny that this arrangement, this invention, could have emanated from an intelligent being. Therefore, this story of Adam and Eve who ate from the tree, and their expulsion from Paradise, must be thought of simply as a symbol. It contains divine mysteries and universal meanings, and it is capable of marvelous explanations...

We will explain one of them, and we will say: Adam signifies the heavenly spirit of Adam, and Eve His human soul. For in some passages in the Holy Books where women are mentioned, they represent the soul of man. The tree of good and evil signifies the human world; for the spiritual and divine world is purely good and absolutely luminous, but in the human world light and darkness, good and evil, exist as opposite conditions.

The meaning of the serpent is attachment to the human world. This attachment of the spirit to the human world led the soul and spirit of Adam from the world of freedom to the world of bondage and caused Him to turn from the Kingdom of Unity to the human world. When the soul and spirit of Adam entered the human world, He came out from the paradise of freedom and fell into the world of bondage. From the height of purity and absolute goodness, He entered into the world of good and evil.

(....)

Now consider how far this meaning conforms to the reality. For the spirit and the soul of Adam, when they were attached to the human world, passed from the world of freedom into the world of bondage, and His descendants continued in bondage. This attachment of the soul and spirit to the human world, which is sin, was inherited by the descendants of Adam, and is the serpent which is always in the midst of, and at enmity with, the spirits and the descendants of Adam. That enmity continues and endures. For attachment to the world has become the cause of the bondage of spirits, and this bondage is identical with sin, which has been transmitted from Adam to His posterity. It is because of this attachment that men
have been deprived of essential spirituality and exalted position.

When the sanctified breezes of Christ...were spread abroad, the human realities--that is to say, those who turned toward the Word of God and received the profusion of His bounties-- were saved from this attachment and sin, obtained everlasting life, were delivered from the chains of bondage, and attained to the world of liberty. They were freed from the vices of the human world, and were blessed by the virtues of the Kingdom. This is the meaning of the words of Christ, "I gave My blood for the life of the world"--that is to say, I have chosen all these troubles, these sufferings, calamities, and even the greatest martyrdom, to attain this object, the remission of sins (that is, the detachment of spirits from the human world, and their attraction to the divine world) in order that souls may arise who will be the very essence of the guidance of mankind, and the manifestations of the perfections of the Supreme Kingdom.

Observe that if, according to the suppositions of the People of the Book [i.e. the Jews], the meaning were taken in its exoteric sense, it would be absolute injustice and complete predestination. If Adam sinned by going near the forbidden tree, what was the sin of the glorious Abraham, and what was the error of Moses the Interlocutor? What was the crime of Noah the Prophet? What was the transgression of Joseph the Truthful? What was the iniquity of the Prophets of God, and what was the trespass of John the Chaste? Would the justice of God have allowed these enlightened Manifestations, on account of the sin of Adam, to find torment in hell until Christ came and by the sacrifice of Himself saved them from excruciating tortures? Such an idea is beyond every law and rule and cannot be accepted by any intelligent person.

No; it means what has already been said: Adam is the spirit of Adam, and Eve is His soul; the tree is the human world, and the serpent is that attachment to this world which constitutes sin, and which has infected the descendants of Adam. Christ by His holy breezes saved men from this attachment and freed them from this sin. The sin in Adam is relative to His position. Although from this attachment there proceed results, nevertheless, attachment to the earthly world, in relation to attachment to the spiritual world, is considered as a sin. The good deeds of the righteous are the sins of the Near Ones. This is established. So bodily power is not only defective in relation to spiritual power; it is weakness in comparison. In the same way, physical life, in comparison with eternal life in the Kingdom, is considered as death. So Christ called the physical life death, and said: "Let the dead bury their dead." Though those souls possessed physical life, yet in His eyes that life was death.
This is one of the meanings of the biblical story of Adam. Reflect until you discover the others."

Have a wonderful day, H-Kon, and peace be upon the pure of heart.

------------------
dumaurier

Boris

07-07-99, 05:45 PM

Dumaurier:

Being at peace, and focusing on the positives are very good things. However, I do not think these fit under the rubric you yourself defined.

I thought we were going to discuss the "proofs and evidences of the existence of God" here. Namely, you were going to present them, and I was going to shoot them down (as has happened, by the way). So, unless you want to try and resurrect your so-called 'proofs', I don't see a point in any further debate in this thread. Certainly, all this feel-good brotherhood rhetoric is nothing but a huge digression as far as the topic of this thread is concerned.

------------------
I am; therefore I think.

dumaurier

07-08-99, 05:57 AM

Boris, i understand your concern. May i suggest you move onto greener fields, then?

------------------
dumaurier

dumaurier

07-10-99, 04:19 AM

NATURE IS GOVERNED BY ONE
UNIVERSAL LAW

Nature is that condition, that reality, which in appearance consists in life and death, or, in other words, in the composition and decomposition of all things.

This Nature is subjected to an absolute organization, to determined laws, to a complete order and a finished design, from which it will never depart--to such a degree, indeed, that if you look carefully and with keen sight, from the smallest invisible atom up to such large bodies of the world of existence as the globe of the sun or the other great stars and luminous spheres, whether you regard their arrangement, their composition, their form or their movement, you will find that all are in the highest degree of organization and are under one law from which they will never depart.

But when you look at Nature itself, you see that it has no intelligence, no will. For instance, the nature of fire is to burn; it burns without will or intelligence. The nature of water is fluidity; it flows without will or intelligence. The nature of the sun is radiance; it shines without will or intelligence. The nature of vapor is to ascend; it ascends without will or intelligence. Thus it is clear that the natural movements of all things are compelled; there are no voluntary movements except those of animals and, above all, those of man. Man is able to resist and to oppose Nature because he discovers the constitution of things, and through this he commands the forces of Nature; all the inventions he has made are due to his discovery of the constitution of things. For example, he invented the telegraph, which is the means of communication between the East and the West. It is evident, then, that man rules over Nature.

Now, when you behold in existence such organizations, arrangements and laws, can you say that all these are the effect of Nature, though Nature has neither intelligence nor perception? If not, it becomes evident that this Nature, which has neither perception nor intelligence, is in the grasp of Almighty God, Who is the Ruler of the world of Nature; whatever He wishes, He causes Nature to manifest.

One of the things which has appeared in the world of existence, and which is one of the requirements of Nature, is human life. Considered from this point of view man is the branch; nature is the root. Then can the will and the intelligence, and the perfections which exist in the branch, be absent in the root?

It is said that Nature in its own essence is in the grasp of the power of God, Who is the Eternal Almighty One: He holds Nature within accurate regulations and laws, and rules over it.

'Abdu'l-Bahá, Some Answered Questions

------------------
dumaurier

Boris

07-12-99, 05:23 PM

Or, one could apply the anthropic principle and conclude that the only reason we are here is because the particular laws of our universe dictate it. There may be (may have been, and could appear) other universes with different physical laws, which do not harbour life. If so, we are here as a consequence of a random recombination of physical constants and behaviors...

<hr>

Natural laws are no indication of a creator; indeed they are a counterindication. A sentient mind ought not be so machinistic and precise; if the universe was under God's control, then it should not be so rigidly predictable.

------------------
I am; therefore I think.

dumaurier

07-14-99, 04:09 AM

Boris writes,

"Or, one could apply the anthropic principle and conclude that the only reason we are here is because the particular laws of our universe dictate it."

Yes, i agree with this, Boris. However, the principle of causality implies that those "particular laws of the universe" had to have a cause; that cause was the Creator! Behind such a cause was a Divine Intelligence.

Note that in the "weak anthropic principle" it is stated that conditions that are observed in the universe must allow the observer to exist. Consequently, if such conditions are not observed, the observer cannot exist. In relation to man, this is an absurd principle!!! Think hard about this.

In the "strong anthropic principle," the universe must have properties that make inevitable the existence of intelligent life. Which goes without saying that if the universe did not have these properties intelligent life could not be inevitable! Again, another absurd principle in relation to the existence of man. Think hard about this one, too.

How could a non-existing man observe anything?

Boris also writes,
"There may be (may have been, and could appear) other universes with different physical laws, which do not harbour life. If so, we are here as a consequence of a random recombination of physical constants and behaviors..."

The *worlds* of God are infinite because this is one of His *essential* attributes. This attribute of God allows, of necessity, the existence of other worlds but not of other physical universes for this would violate the principle of God's Unicity. His creation is one and since God is unfathomable, His universe is likewise, unfathomable. But if we speak of "universes" in the sense of a physical universe and a spiritual (or immaterial) universe, then the plural of "universe" is justified.

The affirmation of the existence of other physical universes is really wild speculation based on pure imagination. It is really untenable in any respect.

Boris also writes,
"...we are here as a consequence of a random recombination of physical constants and behaviors..."

Formation is of three kinds: accidental, necessary and voluntary. The coming together of the various constituent elements of beings cannot be accidental, because for every effect there must be a cause. It cannot be compulsory, for then the formation must be an inherent property of the constituent parts and the inherent property of a thing can in no way be dissociated from it, such as light that is the revealer of things, heat that causes the expansion of elements and the solar rays which are the essential property of the sun. Thus under such circumstances the decomposition of any formation is impossible, for the inherent properties of a thing cannot be separated from it. The third formation remains and that is the voluntary one; that is, an unseen force described as the Ancient Power, causes these elements to come together, every formation giving rise to a distinct being.

Boris also writes,
"Natural laws are no indication of a creator; indeed they are a counterindication. A sentient mind ought not be so machinistic and precise; if the universe was under God's control, then it should not be so rigidly predictable.

Cause & Effect. Without their creator there could be no laws whatsoever! Knowledgeable men would not speak of the Lord, our Creator, as being a "sentient mind." He is far too great to even approach sentience!

As to the point of God's control and predictability, God is perfect, we are not! Man discovers laws and is assured by their predictability that they exist and will perform according to a precise pattern. And this is so because the Creator wished to instill harmony and unity within His creation. Surely if you see light at the end of a dark tunnel you are assured that your feet lead you to safety, no?

The mere fact that a law exists proves the intelligence of its Creator.

------------------
dumaurier

Boris

07-15-99, 02:23 AM

Dumaurier:

Note that in the "weak anthropic principle" it is stated that conditions that are observed in the universe must allow the observer to exist. Consequently, if such conditions are not observed, the observer cannot exist. In relation to man, this is an absurd principle!!!

How is this principle absurd?! It's quite simple, really -- in universes where the laws aren't conducive to life, there is no life -- and therefore no observer to ponder it. Ours may be only one of an infinity of possible universes, among which only a tiny subset is capable of supporting life. If that is so, then we are inhabitants of a universe among that tiny subset, and the preponderance of other universes may have no life at all.

In the "strong anthropic principle," the universe must have properties that make inevitable the existence of intelligent life. Which goes without saying that if the universe did not have these properties intelligent life could not be inevitable! Again, another absurd principle in relation to the existence of man. Think hard about this one, too.

How could a non-existing man observe anything?

Yes, let's think hard about this one. We exist, and so we observe. It's rather obvious that if we did not exist, we wouldn't observe. And yes indeed, it is conceivable that universes exist, have existed or will exist that do not inevitably result in life. In such universes, the laws of physics do not result in life regardless of initial conditions; rather for some initial conditions life evolves, and for other it doesn't -- just as a nonlinear dynamical system can reach a stable attractor when started in one state, and go into chaotic behavior or limit cycles when started in another state.

The *worlds* of God are infinite because this is one of His *essential* attributes. This attribute of God allows, of necessity, the existence of other worlds but not of other physical universes for this would violate the principle of God's Unicity. His creation is one and since God is unfathomable, His universe is likewise, unfathomable. But if we speak of "universes" in the sense of a physical universe and a spiritual (or immaterial) universe, then the plural of "universe" is justified.

The affirmation of the existence of other physical universes is really wild speculation based on pure imagination. It is really untenable in any respect.

Ahhem, excuse me, but... essential attributes? What in our world, might I ask, makes these attributes so essential for God?!

But, what gives you this enlightened confidence that ours is the only physical universe? Ever considered existence of dimensions other than our familiar 4? Where's this 'by necessity' coming from???

"His creation is one"???? Gee, you tell it like it is, brother. How could I ever be so blind to such a fundamental fact? I do believe the blind dogma is beginning to rear its disfigured head again in this discussion...

"Speculation based on pure imagination"??? Ok, o wise one, what do you suppose your own speculation concerning creation, one eternal and all-powerful God-source, and the attributes, nature, history or the acts thereof, is based on? Certainly not upon any 'proofs and evidences'; any objective kindergartener could tell you that! The point is, it's all pure speculation at this point -- your hallowed Truths about the universe have no more veracity to them than the wildest science-fiction scenarios.

The coming together of the various constituent elements of beings cannot be accidental, because for every effect there must be a cause. It cannot be compulsory, for then the formation must be an inherent property of the constituent parts and the inherent property of a thing can in no way be dissociated from it...

You know, in the good old times the alchemists claimed that all matter consists of four fundamental elements: air, water, fire, and earth -- all contained within every bit of matter. For example, a matchstick contains fire in it, because you can strike it and watch it burn itself. Where did the fire come from? Why, it must've been there, contained inside the matchstick all this time!

Do you see the nonsensical fallacy of such claims?

Thus under such circumstances the decomposition of any formation is impossible, for the inherent properties of a thing cannot be separated from it.

Un contraire. The sunlight inherent in the sun, as you claim, comes from energy-losing reactions among clusters of quantum objects, all of which will eventually disintegrate into nothingness and turn into light.

Einstein has shown the equivalence of matter and energy. Quantum mechanics tells us that all matter is unstable to various degrees, and will eventually convert back to energy. Therefore, every quality you presently exhibit will eventually be annihilated from the face of the universe, as every particle you are made of will eventually be turned into light. Thus, intelligence, perceptions, knowledge, matter and even life -- all will eventually be lost in the sense that they will forever cease to exist as entities represented, or representable, in the structure of the universe. Your claims therefore are equivalent to stating that in photons of light is inherent every complex law and quality of the observable universe, since light is what all these qualities are eventually reduced to. This is the claim that is nonsensical, for it is utterly untrue.

The 'qualities' you observe right now represent only a snapshot of the time-evolution of the energy in our universe, or more accurately of our universe itself. These qualities were not already present at the beginning; they were generated, or computed, from the initial conditions using the laws of physics -- much the same way that a brain self-organizes in response to the combined action of genes and the environment -- the complexity of a fully developed brain is absolutely not present in the original genes that ultimately are expressed within it. Fire is not present inside matches. Sentience is not inherent within matter. The physical universe is not a direct consequence of a creator's conceit. Physical phenomena, and all of their associated complexities, are a result of computation, not of transcription.

Lastly, let me point out to you that in your conception of idea preceding form you are following the thoughts of Plato the Greek -- not the word of God. The Platonian interpretation has been adopted by the Christian church and incorporated into the scriptures -- but it came from that 'depraved' Greece, as you refer to it, not from Heaven. You are clinging to millennia-old philosophy, stemming from the ages in which the very concepts of computation or entropy did not exist. While Plato must be forgiven for his simplistic worldview, you ought to be concerned about the philosophy you espouse in light of the somewhat more recent discoveries.

------------------
I am; therefore I think.

dumaurier

07-15-99, 09:42 AM

Boris, you understood nothing of my post.

"When a man is set to destroying, he is blinded to all knowledge."

"The blind see naught but their own darkness."

I am not a "Christian" and i wish you would put this through your thick skull!

The truths i have stated have nothing to do with Plato's philosophy.

Period.

------------------
dumaurier

Boris

07-16-99, 05:00 AM

You may not be a Christian, Dumaurier, but you certainly espouse an incredibly Christian view of God and the universe. I never made a claim about your particular religion; however it certainly smacks of Judaism like the sweets smack of sugar -- therefore in debating you, I use Christianity as the butt of my arguments, simply because you have managed to give me no more concrete target, and Christianity seems to fit rather well in any case.

As to whose skull is thicker, it remains to be seen. I do believe I understand your arguments quite well; however I have my doubts when it comes to *your* understanding of *my* arguments.

------------------
I am; therefore I think.

bedlanam

07-17-99, 10:14 PM

Maybe, as long as neither side is killing anybody (even out of ignorance) -that's all that counts. science is not complete, religion is not complete, both wallow in their own ego. the declaration of understanding is a matter of self worth. to what use does this 'validation' serve? ., -
practical application , or antagonization of the 'uninformed'. wisdom rarely professes itself, knowledge troubles the truth when incomplete. enlightenment and understanding both rise out of relationship and discipline recognized thru relationship. relationship always preceeds. application of interpretation defines the constraints. as i have said before, we are individuals by association. each woman or man are the capacity of buddha, christ, mohammed. development of intelect is reflection of expectation and anticipated resistence. the individual discovers. thought is the contributer to new, everchanging creation whether it is god or science - intelligence is awareness and reason or survival/evolution thru 'awareness'.

dumaurier

07-18-99, 12:58 AM

Boris writes,
"You may not be a Christian, Dumaurier, but you certainly espouse an incredibly Christian view of God and the universe."

Thank you Boris. This i take as a compliment. I happen to believe in Jesus Christ as a Messenger of God sent down by an All-Mighty Forgiving One Whom we cannot thank enough for the forebearance and tolerance He shows all those who were created by His will and yet disbelieve and revile Him. He is the Ever-Forgiving! To me Christ is a blessed Being Who represents one of the links in a progressive chain of Divine Revelations. The influence of the power of His Word extends far and wide, and no one who is devoid of prejudice can deny this fact. What men have done with the Teachings and Name of this blessed, this glorious and saintly Being, cannot be said to be His fault. It is an honour and privilige that God has favoured me with this capacity and gift of being able to love Christ. And i do! One does not have to be "Christian" to love Christ; one does not have to be a Muslim to love Muhammad; One does not have to be a "Buddhist" to love Buddha; and so on. The gulf that separates the Teachings of these Divine Luminaries and their avowed followers is very large indeed. But this shouldn't act as a veil preventing us to see the absolute beauty and greatness of such Holy Manifestations.

Boris writes,
"I never made a claim about your particular religion; however it certainly smacks of Judaism like the sweets smack of sugar..."

I have responded to this in another post where i prove you have claimed this. No need for me to be redundant. However, i must say that in that other post you do excuse yourself for affixing such stereotypic labels on me. I graciously thank you for this. It is appreciated knowing that you do have a heart and do base your conduct on courtesy. Thank you, Boris.

Boris writes,
"As to whose skull is thicker, it remains to be seen."

And here it is my turn to apologize. I didn't mean to insult you in this way. It is easy to get carried away sometimes, as you know, dear Boris. Therefore, i hope you will accept my apologies for having insulted you in any way by the use of this expression.

Boris writes,
"I do believe I understand your arguments quite well; however I have my doubts when it comes to *your* understanding of *my* arguments."

Boris, your arguements against the perspectives that i present are often contradictory to your own ideas. You contradict yourself often. Now, it can become highly frustrating talking to you at times because you do not try to understand what is said in the arguement i have presented for your examination. You seem to jump to conclusions without stopping to ponder, without truly examining the depth of what is presented before your eyes (as in my post concerning the three kinds of formations where you really didn't try to understand what was said but simply lashed out with one personal opinion after another with nothing better to propose.)
In brief, i am under the impression that you are simply trying to defend your points of view and not truly willing to closely examine the perspective i present for your scrutiny. This is due to the fact, i believe, that your one aim is to prove everybody else wrong and you right. This is NOT the way one attains truth; it is not the way scientists behave before a hypothesis that must be proven. Intelligent people don't just brush aside another's arguements. They will examine them first, and then present their perspective. This is "arguement" that may be deemed intelligent. It is why i am now lead to a different approch in our discussions, mainly, that you substantiate what you say with carefully researched materials. This is the challenge i have given you in another post and, of course, i reiterate it here.

May the show continue :)

------------------
dumaurier

dumaurier

07-18-99, 01:13 AM

Bedlanam,

You have a profound understanding. To say that "science is not complete, religion is not complete," is a truth no one can deny. We have talked about the reconciliation of science and religion elsewhere in these posts. I encourage you to read what has been said thus far on the subject.

I would like to understand your words, "knowledge troubles the truth when incomplete." Another poster has already touched on this subject, i believe. However, i'm not certain i understand what you mean. What is "incomplete," knowledge or truth?

These other words you write would require a little more elaboration: "enlightenment and understanding both rise out of relationship and discipline recognized thru relationship."

You also say,
"...we are individuals by association."

Indeed! Humans are social creatures.

A bientot

------------------
dumaurier

H-kon

07-18-99, 05:41 AM

Dumarier & Boris

I have to say that this thread started out quite well, but now in the later posts it seems to me that you are all out in a "war" against eachother. You both try to do this the "right" way, but when i read it, i can only find statements, and "mind share".

I know you are all trying, but its not just this thread.. I have noticed that when ever one of you post something, the other is right there to "debunk".

This discussion is really way out of my league in many ways, but at the same time i fail to get something out of it.. Oh. Well. maybe its just me.
------------

Waiting for my brain to boot into English...

dumaurier

07-18-99, 11:49 AM

H-Kon,

I know what you are saying. I must emphasize here that there is nothing wrong with your understanding; it's not you! The fundamental problem here is that we are dealing with an individual who refuses to accept anything that might contradict his views and who indulges in opposing others just to elevate his own ego. By way of example, you'll remember that little analogy Abdu'l-Baha gives about the fact that ignorance is due to the absence of knowledge, darkness to the absence of light, sickness to the absense of health, poverty to the absence of wealth, and so on. Well, this is a fact that nobody in their right mind would deny because it's as clear as day that when knowledge, light, health, wealth come into the equation, ignorance, darkness, sickness, poverty, are all dispelled. So for example, you and i know very well that when we are sick it is because there is an absence of health and the fact that there is health proves that there is sickness; we cannot prove the existence of sickness if there were no health! Moreover, we know that if we walk into a dark room we must turn on the light, but we cannot turn on the darkness! And when we go out of that room we turn off the light and not turn on the darkness! This proves that darkness is powerless and completely dependent on light. Consequently, we say that darkness-equals-evil and goodness-equals-light. By extrapolation, evil is powerless and once replaced with good it vanishes. Well, to most people this is an obvious fact. But Boris, you see, loves to play with words and must always win an arguement to boost his own ego. So, it goes without question that he will oppose and this leads to much confusion. I think this is why you feel somewhat lost when trying to make heads or tails of the ideas posted here. Believe me, your capacity of understanding is not the problem--Boris' ego is!!

The post that opened the subject of this thread argued that God exists and logical arguements were introduced proving that He does. I believe you should refer to that post and forget the rest. There is absolutely nothing wrong with your understanding and you should cease to put yourself down. On the contrary, H-Kon: you are a kind hearted, noble individual and this you have proven over and over again in several of your posts and in your personal emails to me.

May God assist you to find assurance under His protecting wing and to rejoice your heart with His Word that is the source of all knowledge.

Salutations

------------------
dumaurier

dumaurier

07-18-99, 12:05 PM

GOD COMPREHENDS ALL: HE CANNOT BE
COMPREHENDED

Talk given by Abdu'l-Baha in Paris, Friday, October 20th, 1911

`Abdu'l-Bahá said: Numerous meetings are held in Paris every day for different purposes, to discuss politics, commerce, education, art, science and many other subjects.

All these meetings are good: but this assembly has met together to turn their faces towards God, to learn how best to work for the good of humanity, to seek how prejudices may be abolished, and the seed of love and universal brotherhood sown in the heart of man.

God approves of the motive of our gathering together and gives us His blessing.

In the Old Testament we read that God said, `Let us make man in Our own image'. In the Gospel, Christ said, `I am in the Father, and the Father in Me'. In the Qur'án, God says, `Man is my Mystery and I am his'. Bahá'u'lláh writes that God says, `Thy heart is My home; purify it for My descent. Thy spirit is My place of revelation; cleanse it for My manifestation'.

All these sacred words show us that man is made in God's image: yet the Essence of God is incomprehensible to the human mind, for the finite understanding cannot be applied to this infinite Mystery. God contains all: He cannot be contained. That which contains is superior to that which is contained. The whole is greater than its parts.

Things which are understood by men cannot be outside their capacity for understanding, so that it is impossible for the heart of man to comprehend the nature of the Majesty of God. Our imagination can only picture that which it is able to create.

The power of the understanding differs in degree in the various kingdoms of creation. The mineral, vegetable, and animal realms are each incapable of understanding any creation beyond their own. The mineral cannot imagine the growing power of the plant. The tree cannot understand the power of movement in the animal, neither can it comprehend what it would mean to possess sight, hearing or the sense of smell. These all belong to the physical creation.

Man also shares in this creation; but it is not possible for either of the lower kingdoms to understand that which takes place in the mind of man. The animal cannot realize the intelligence of a human being, he only knows that which is perceived by his animal senses, he cannot imagine anything in the abstract. An animal could not learn that the world is round, that the earth revolves round the sun, or the construction of the electric telegraph. These things are only possible to man. Man is the highest work of creation, the nearest to God of all creatures.

All superior kingdoms are incomprehensible to the inferior; how therefore could it be possible that the creature, man, should understand the almighty Creator of all?

That which we imagine, is not the Reality of God; He, the Unknowable, the Unthinkable, is far beyond the highest conception of man.

All creatures that exist are dependent upon the Divine Bounty. Divine Mercy gives life itself. As the light of the sun shines on the whole world, so the Mercy of the infinite God is shed on all creatures. As the sun ripens the fruits of the earth, and gives life and warmth to all living beings, so shines the Sun of Truth on all souls, filling them with the fire of Divine love and understanding.

The superiority of man over the rest of the created world is seen again in this, that man has a soul in which dwells the divine spirit; the souls of the lower creatures are inferior in their essence.

There is no doubt then, that of all created beings man is the nearest to the nature of God, and therefore receives a greater gift of the Divine Bounty.

The mineral kingdom possesses the power of existing. The plant has the power of existing and growing. The animal, in addition to existence and growth, has the capacity of moving about, and the use of the faculties of the senses. In the human kingdom we find all the attributes of the lower worlds, with much more added thereto. Man is the sum of every previous creation, for he contains them all.

To man is given the special gift of the intellect by which he is able to receive a larger share of the light Divine. The Perfect Man is as a polished mirror reflecting the Sun of Truth, manifesting the attributes of God.

The Lord Christ said, `He that hath seen Me hath seen the Father'--God manifested in man.

The sun does not leave his place in the heavens and descend into the mirror, for the actions of ascent and descent, coming and going, do not belong to the Infinite, they are the methods of finite beings. In the Manifestation of God, the perfectly polished mirror, appear the qualities of the Divine in a form that man is capable of comprehending.

This is so simple that all can understand it, and that which we are able to understand we must perforce accept.

Our Father will not hold us responsible for the rejection of dogmas which we are unable either to believe or comprehend, for He is ever infinitely just to His children.

This example is, however, so logical that it can easily be grasped by all minds willing to give it their consideration.

May each one of you become a shining lamp, of which the flame is the Love of God. May your hearts burn with the radiance of unity. May your eyes be illumined with the effulgence of the Sun of Truth!

The city of Paris is very beautiful, a more civilized and well-appointed town in all material development it would be impossible to find in the present world. But the spiritual light has not shone upon her for a long time: her spiritual progress is far behind that of her material civilization. A supreme power is needed to awaken her to the reality of spiritual truth, to breathe the breath of life into her dormant soul. You must all unite in this work of arousing her, in reanimating her people by the help of that Superior Force.

When an illness is slight a small remedy will suffice to heal it, but when the slight illness becomes a terrible disease, then a very strong remedy must be used by the Divine Healer. There are some trees that blossom and bear fruit in a cool climate, others there are which need the hottest rays of the sun to bring them to perfect maturity. Paris is one of those trees for whose spiritual unfoldment a great flaming Sun of the Divine Power of God is needed.

I ask you all, each one of you, to follow well the light of truth, in the Holy Teachings, and God will strengthen you by His Holy Spirit so that you will be enabled to overcome the difficulties, and to destroy the prejudices which cause separation and hatred amongst the people. Let your hearts be filled with the great love of God, let it be felt by all; for every man is a servant of God, and all are entitled to a share of the Divine Bounty.

Especially to those whose thoughts are material and retrograde show the utmost love and patience, thereby winning them into the unity of fellowship by the radiance of your kindness.

If you are faithful to your great work, following the Holy Sun of Truth without swerving, then will the blessed day of universal brotherhood dawn on this beautiful city.

`Abdu'l-Bahá

------------------
dumaurier

dumaurier

07-18-99, 12:18 PM

The benefit in belief in an all-loving God is that it purifies our lives. Here are some gems supporting this truth...

"Be generous in prosperity,
and thankful in adversity.

Be worthy of the trust of thy neighbor,
and look upon him with a bright and friendly face.

Be a treasure to the poor,
an admonisher to the rich,
an answerer to the cry of the needy,
a preserver of the sanctity of thy pledge.

Be fair in thy judgment,
and guarded in thy speech.

Be unjust to no man,
and show all meekness to all men.

Be as a lamp unto them that walk in darkness,
a joy to the sorrowful,
a sea for the thirsty,
a haven for the distressed,
an upholder and defender of the victim of oppression.

Let integrity and uprightness distinguish all thine acts.

Be a home for the stranger,
a balm to the suffering,
a tower of strength for the fugitive.

Be eyes to the blind,
and a guiding light unto the feet of the erring.

Be an ornament to the countenance of truth,
a crown to the brow of fidelity,
a pillar of the temple of righteousness,
a breath of life to the body of mankind,
an ensign of the hosts of justice,
a luminary above the horizon of virtue,
a dew to the soil of the human heart,
an ark on the ocean of knowledge,
a sun in the heaven of bounty,
a gem on the diadem of wisdom,
a shining light in the firmament of thy generation,
a fruit upon the tree of humility.

We pray God to protect thee from the heat of jealousy and the cold of hatred.

He verily is nigh, ready to answer."

-- Bahá'u'lláh

------------------
dumaurier

Boris

07-19-99, 12:37 AM

I wager it does take ego to go against the mainstream. If so, then I confess to the charge.

When the argument is concerning an existence vs. nonexistence of something (such as God), only one side can be correct. Therefore, in defending my position I indeed oppose everything Lori (earlier), Dumaurier (now), and quite a few others say or will say. Even if I am the one who is wrong, nobody can possibly prove that -- just as I cannot possibly prove my position and disprove yours. This truly is the assumption that I have been trying to defend all this time.

I cannot stand it when people go and blindly believe in something, and then try to support that irrational belief with pseudo-arguments that can't stand under even the lightest of scrutiny.

You ought to be honest. If you blindly believe in the existence of God, then you must be brave enough to admit so. I, for example, am willing to state that I blindly disbelieve in the existence of God. Although I can give plenty of intuition and reductionist justification for my belief, I realize quite clearly that I do not have, nor will ever possess, a conclusive and final proof one way or another.

It is the claims like Dumaurier's ("proofs and evidences") that I fight whenever I come accross. My stance is: if you can't be 100% rational, try to at least be reasonable and think clearly.

Dumaurier:

You claimed to have found multiple contradictions in my arguments. I challenge you to expose them. I have certainly done the same for your arguments -- and I doubt anybody who have actually had heart enough to wade through our posts would not see what I mean.

<hr>

I dispute the irrational belief in God fundamentally based on an irrational belief of my own -- I readily admit so.

However, casting away God, one also casts away intellectual submission, and the tyranny of the 'pastors'. I sincerely believe that discarding religion is ultimately a liberating experience -- and liberty ought to be far more precious than the pseudo-comfort brought through intellectually tyrannical doctrine. Intellectual submission to any religion is a slippery slope, down which civilizations have slid deep into the darkest depths of depravity and insanity -- from the Inquisition, to the Crusades and Jihads, to racism and divinely institutionalized slavery, to the American Witch Hunts. It is my firm belief that whenever and wherever the seeds of intellectual submission to authority are planted, an infestuous growth will eventually sprout when conditions are ripe.

Not only that, but religion as an institution tends to be a conservative force that does everything possible to smother scientific progress. This can be witnessed in the vehement opposition and utter irrationality that religious individuals mount against any scientific theory that counters their deeply encrusted beliefs. In fact, the very notion of blind faith as something acceptable has driven even scientists to make ridiculous statements concerning such things as origins of life.

As concerns Dumaurier's quotes in support of the religions' virtue, I once again ask you to consider (as I have in another forum) whether the power or usefullness of these teachings would be any lesser if all references to God were removed. I claim that it is indeed possible to instill morality and humanity through intellectual discourse, and appellation to emotion similar to that of the Baha'i texts. It is easily demonstrated that antisocial behavior leads to unhappiness -- this alone ought to be a powerful enough motivator, with no need for appellation to authority of the church, holy figures, or God.

It is my hope that humanity can and eventually will indeed achieve social harmony without religion -- and that this harmony, coupled with the liberation from all the irrationality that religion invites, will be a better state than any harmony involving religious underpinnings (if that is even feasible). I dream of bringing such a result about as expeditiously as possible. While God lights your way, John Lennon's famous song illuminates mine...

Finally, let me state that I believe the mystery and infinite complexity of the universe ought to be enough motivation to live and strive to achieve new heights, and explore new horizons -- and that God or any God-story are no more powerful as motivators or inspirators than the scientific outlook. This is in retort to many who claim that without God and religion, life would be bland and devoid of humanity.

------------------
I am; therefore I think.

[This message has been edited by Boris (edited July 18, 1999).]

dumaurier

07-19-99, 08:05 AM

Boris,

I truly appreciate your sincerity.

Presently i am busy working on that presentation i said i would post here with reference to proof that the concept of the nation originated in Islam, of which you have tried to contradict without putting forth any proof supporting your arguement. My research is coming along quite nicely and i will soon be posting my finds here for all to see and judge for themselves wherein lies the truth.

As to answering your other items in the above post, this will be done in time. As i have said to you, proofs and substantiating evidence must come forth from you from now on otherwise i will not enter into any type of discussion with you. I have imposed such a challenge onto myself, as well. Thus, for me to answer that post of yours, above, i will have to dig into some serious research in order that you might see the truth of what i claim. This will require time.

Salutations

PS: Life is not a joke. We are all humans in need of enlightenment and care. Nobody could ever continue loving another whose sole objective is to destroy people's cherished hopes and beliefs. Such an attitude is tyrannical and it is not befitting a human being's character in this day and age of illumination where wonderful and great discoveries on every plane are revealed. If a man makes a great discovery, this is for the benefit of all of humanity, not just for himself. Thus, all research should be done selflessly. We are one great big family on this planet, regardless of the different beliefs--we cannot all be generals or soldiers; a little of both is required. The object of all life is unity, not the contrary. It is only nobility of character which could promote such unity and attain such heights as to make us loveable unto others and allow others to love us. Such nobility of character the Baha'i Faith promotes and encourages, as no doubt you have found out.

------------------
dumaurier

2+2

07-19-99, 11:58 PM

p>dumaurier,you say,"For example, when you look at man, you see that he is
weak." 

Weak!?  What sweeter situation exists anywhere in
the universe, than being a person.  And now, even "commoners" like me get a
chance to see the big picture.  Feel the power as your brain grasps the new concept,
as old beliefs vaporize when you shed them like last years wardrobe.

This very weakness of the creature is a proof of the power of the Eternal Almighty One,
because, if there were no power, weakness could not be imagined. 

If there were no "words" then weakness or power
could not be imagined.  Plus I can imagine weakness, and I don't believe in God.

In the contingent world there is ignorance; necessarily knowledge exists, because
ignorance is found; for if there were no knowledge, neither would there be ignorance.
Ignorance is the nonexistence of knowledge, and if there were no existence,
nonexistence could not be realized. 

Those are my italics...but see existence in the way that
you are speaking of again requires words.  One can't think about concepts with out
them.  So nonexistence in the sense that you are using it depends on somebody
thinking about nonexistence.  Follow me?  JMHO's


</body>
</html>

dumaurier

07-20-99, 10:00 AM

2X2, your post is appreciated.

Abdu'l-Baha says:
"For example, when you look at man, you see that he is weak."

2x2 comments:
"Weak!? What sweeter situation exists anywhere in the universe, than being a person. And now, even "commoners" like me get a chance to see the big picture. Feel the power as your brain grasps the new concept, as old beliefs vaporize when you shed them like last years wardrobe."

dumaurier responds:
Well, i think by "weak" is meant that we are weak in relationship to the Creator. I agree with you that no greater creation exists in the universe than the human being. In relationship to the material universe man is, indeed, complex, grande, sophisticated, and beautiful. But you will admit that despite this beauty and power conferred upon us by our Creator, despite our wonderful capacities to build great ships that sail the deepest seas or fly in remote and unknown corners of the darkest heavens, despite our superb discoveries in biological and other sciences, you will agree that when that tiniest of germ invisible to the human eye enters our biological system and makes us sick, we are weak. You will agree that we are totally dependent on the elements such as water to quench our thirst, air for our lungs, and so on. You will agree, too, that if the sun were to cease shining the human creature would perish. We are, therefore, essentially dependent creatures physically. We are weak in this respect.

Then, too, consider that if God were to cease sending us His Holy Books through the intermediary of His Holy Manifestations (such as Abraham, Moses, Zoroaster, Krishna, Buddha, Christ, Muhammad, Baha'u'llah), man would be spiritually weak for of and by himself man has not the power to reveal such heavenly gems as to cause his spiritual upliftment and, therefore, his spiritual progress. In relationship to the material universe man is all weakness; then how much more weak is he in relationship to God, the Creator of the material world and of the spiritual worlds! He is, indeed, the All-Powerful!

Abdu'l-Baha wrote:
This very weakness of the creature is a proof of the power of the Eternal Almighty One, because, if there were no power, weakness could not be imagined.

2x2 comments:
"If there were no "words" then weakness or power could not be imagined. Plus I can imagine weakness, and I don't believe in God."

dumaurier responds:
I believe you are taking the subject out of context, 2x2. If a child is incapable of lifting a picnic table and you, standing beside him, lifted it up for him, it would be a demonstrable and concrete example of the reality of weakness and strength. Words are not necessary to see the reality of an adult's strength verses the reality of a child's strength. Both are strengths, but one is more powerful than the other; one is weaker than the other. God has power and man has power. But when both are compared, man's power is weakness in comparison to God's power. After all, He created the universe and we are but His creation! The created cannot be more powerful than the creator otherwise it would have created itself without the need of a creator.

Abdu'l-Baha wrote:
In the contingent world there is ignorance; necessarily knowledge exists, because ignorance is found; for if there were no knowledge, neither would there be ignorance. Ignorance is the nonexistence of knowledge, and if there were no existence, nonexistence could not be realized.

2x2 comments:
Those are my italics...but see existence in the way that you are speaking of again requires words. One can't think about concepts without them. So nonexistence in the sense that you are using it depends on somebody thinking about nonexistence. Follow me? JMHO's

dumaurier responds:
I follow you. However, existence is in nowise dependent on you or i nor on words. It is wholly independent of you and i and words. If man did not exist there would still be an existence. The proof of this is in the fact that when you have finally put away your human physical body, and you lie 6-feet under, the world continues to exist despite your absence--or your words! And if there were no existence we wouldn't have to die for there would be no need for death, or no words. You yourself will testify to this truth for you see cemetaries where people are buried. For these dead souls existence is nomore, but for you existence is real for you continue benefitting of God's boutiful gifts provided for you in this life. No words are necessary for the dead. Thus we exist, and because of this actuality, reality, presence, tangibility, materiality, life, being, continuance, in brief, because of our existence we know there is an existence and words are not necessary to prove this existence. But there is an existence, therefore it is realized. And if there were no truth, truth could not be realized. Truth is not dependent on words; but words are dependent on truth.

------------------
dumaurier

Boris

07-21-99, 01:06 AM

Dumaurier:

Would you not agree, according to your thinking, that God's existence can be conceived of only because we can also conceive of God's inexistence? If so, which came first -- the chicken or the egg (sorry, the existence or nonexistence)?

You also made a rather laughable and naive claim that "no greater creation exists in the universe than the human being. In relationship to the material universe man is, indeed, complex, grande, sophisticated, and beautiful." Come on, do you really believe that a human being is grander than the entire Milky Way put together, minus the human civilization? Do you seriously believe that in all 12-15 billion years of its existence, the universe could do no better than it did in the solar system over the last mere 4.5 billion years?

------------------
I am; therefore I think.

Lori

07-21-99, 07:04 PM

Hi Boris,

You misunderstand the whole point, dude. I'm not BLINDLY believing in anything. EVER! That's what you don't get. It's not necessarily a lack of proof, but a lack of sharable or visible proof that I could present to you. IT'S NOT PHYSICAL, FOR CRYING OUT LOUD! Would you just stop it already? There IS proof, definate proof, but it is on the INSIDE, in my heart. There is nothing that I can pull out of my heart, and put under a microscope for you, OK???!!! Why don't you get that? You think that just because I can't do that, that I have no proof. I DO HAVE PROOF, I just can't SHOW it to you. If you were to take a leap of faith, then you would surely have your own proof.

------------------
God loves you and so do I!

generalhurrss

07-21-99, 07:47 PM

Dumaurier,
I do not wish to insult here, but I have a question for you. What religion are you or do you profess to follow?

Boris

07-21-99, 11:33 PM

Lori! Back from the dead! :D

A while back, I mentioned somewhere that had you not grown up amongst humans and learned about your God, you would have no idea of God, genesis, or commandments -- none whatsoever! So the 'proof' in your 'heart' is merely an internalized dogma coming from the pastors of olde. Your proof rests entirely in their trustworthiness (laughable) and in the ultimate source of their message -- which is obviously earthly (read Plato's post on the first page of Evolution vs. Creation thread).

The 'proof' you allude to, I assume, rests with the emotional comfort your religion gives you. That is no proof at all; it merely is a reflection of the fact that you found a way to induce comfort within yourself through religion (not the best, or the most reliable, of ways mind you).

As for physical nature, you cannot dispute that every single thing you know and are is physical. This includes your knowledge, your thoughts, and your emotions. There's no God behind your 'proofs' -- merely psychology.

For example, paranoid psychotics find proof everywhere of conspiracies against them. Their intuition gives them a total and irrational faith in this 'theory'. Your intuition of God is fundamentally no different (arguably healthier, but of no higher fidelity.)

------------------
I am; therefore I think.

dumaurier

07-21-99, 11:48 PM

generalhurss asks,

"Dumaurier,
I do not wish to insult here, but I have a question for you. What religion are you or do you profess to follow?"

General, (may i take an "at ease" stand? thank you, you're a good General :-). I don't take your question as an insult. You ask a direct question and it merits a direct answer: my religion is called "Baha'i".

------------------
dumaurier

dumaurier

07-22-99, 12:09 AM

Boris, please stop being a silly goose. Your first question is not logical and you know it! And you are just playing with words again (chicken/egg). But if i were to answer you--and not in the same vein as your question-- i would say that in all truth God has always existed and, thus, the chicken has always existed in the heart of God, a Creator Who willed every atom into existence from shear nothingness.

As to your statement wherein the words "laughauble and naive" are injected, my answer is that man is the greatest representative of God in this universe for nothing that we know of in this universe can reflect this love for the Creator as a human can. But such a thought, i believe, is a little too difficult for you to grasp at this point of your personal development.

The human being is indeed greater than the entire Milky Way put together, for he has awareness of his Creator, whereas all the milky ways that you can perceive have not this most wonderful of powers. I seriously believe that in all 12-15 billion years of its existence, the universe has done a marvellous job in the past 4.5 billion years in seeing the marvellous, the laudable, resplendent and magnificent appearance of a human being--a human being who, with all the purity of his heart, and with the profoundest piety, bends his knee at the recognition that God is truly the essence of Love, Compassion, and He is the All-Wise! He is the Unfathomable, the Creator, and if you were to thank Him a thousand times with every breath you take this would not be sufficient!

All praise be to God Who out of nothing created such humans as oppose His very magnificence and evident power.

May He, in His unfailing wisdom, forgive the wayward and bring sight to the blind.

Salutations

------------------
dumaurier

dumaurier

07-22-99, 12:23 AM

Lori, dear, you mention "faith." This is a highly meritorious achievement only for the pure of heart. That wonderful Being, the Beloved Christ, said that faith is not given unto everyone, as you well know. Recall to mind Judas Iscariot! People like Judas can only be pitied for they walk life with an unsure foot in their own trepidations. And then see the consequences of Judas' treachery! Herein lies a lesson and a great wisdom for all who walk in faith!!!

May God bring you joy and happiness.

------------------
dumaurier

dumaurier

07-22-99, 12:40 AM

In addressing Lori, Boris remarks that...

"As for physical nature, you cannot dispute that every single thing you know and are is physical. This includes your knowledge, your thoughts, and your emotions. There's no God behind your 'proofs' -- merely psychology."

I must say--Boris must be on drugs! Now he's saying here that thought is a physical thing; he's saying that knowledge is physical, too. My! My! See to what conclusions madmen arrive at when totally devoid of the love of God. I am very curious to know how "thought" feels and tastes like. Boris, please tell us. And while you're at it, please also tell us what is the sound of knowledge; what does it sound like? Oh, and while you're at it, tell us also how knowledge looks and smells like. We are waiting for this greatest of revelations.

I guess you could also tell us, since you believe that there is nothing else but the physical world, tell us to what world one travels to in a dream. Elizabeth-Kubler Ross has found that people who are about to die see their diseased relatives come to help them make the transition from this world to the next. Call them "spirits" or "ghosts" or whatever. They certainly aren't physical because Elizabeth couldn't see, smell, touch, hear or feel them. But somebody was there, according to her! Maybe Boris has a "scientific" explanation for this? (But please get off the drugs before you answer us, okay?) :)

------------------
dumaurier

Boris

07-22-99, 01:21 AM

Drugs, huh? Madman, huh? Boy, aren't we doing that Galileo dance all over again?

Your first question is not logical and you know it! And you are just playing with words again (chicken/egg).

Thank you! That is my entire point -- such arguments are not logical. That by the way includes your arguments as well.

As for your laudation of mankind, I'm sorry you have such a limited vision of the possibilities for advancement.

I must say--Boris must be on drugs! Now he's saying here that thought is a physical thing; he's saying that knowledge is physical, too. My! My! See to what conclusions madmen arrive at when totally devoid of the love of God. I am very curious to know how "thought" feels and tastes like. Boris, please tell us. And while you're at it, please also tell us what is the sound of knowledge; what does it sound like? Oh, and while you're at it, tell us also how knowledge looks and smells like. We are waiting for this greatest of revelations.

How naive must you get before you hit the rock bottom, Dumaurier? I mean, maybe you could tell us what an alpha particle tastes like? Or maybe, you could describe the sound of computation inside your computer? Or, what about the color of a black hole? But surely, you could at least tell us about the smell of air?!! Are you going to claim that the computation inside your computer's CPU is not a physical process? But if it is, pray tell me which one of your five senses are you planning to use for ascertaining that fact?

For your information (and I know it's a great and awesome revelation to you) our senses are extremely limited, and cannot measure all conceivable physical phenomena. That is why we resort to augmentation of our sensory endowments with various artificial instruments. I know, it's an incredibly difficult concept, but I really do have faith you can make it through this one. Here's another deep revelation for your perusal (and by the way, I claim it came to me straight from God): not everything can be perceived. Some things must simply be understood in terms of their definition or description. You cannot perceive 'computation'. You can only describe it as a certain type of process, unfolding in time, and involving certain other measurable phenomena. It is precisely computation that lies behind your feelings, thoughts, beliefs, and knowledge. Well now, don't you feel enlightened?

I guess you could also tell us, since you believe that there is nothing else but the physical world, tell us to what world one travels to in a dream. Elizabeth-Kubler Ross has found that people who are about to die see their diseased relatives come to help them make the transition from this world to the next. Call them "spirits" or "ghosts" or whatever. They certainly aren't physical because Elizabeth couldn't see, smell, touch, hear or feel them. But somebody was there, according to her! Maybe Boris has a "scientific" explanation for this? (But please get off the drugs before you answer us, okay?)

Nobody travels anywhere in dreams. Dreams are hallucinatory experiences produced by a brain in an altered state of consciousness.

But I would ask Elizabeth-Kubler Ross this question: if she "couldn't see, smell, touch, hear or feel them", how on earth was she aware of their presence? Through what modality was that presence perceived by her? How would she describe the 'presence'?

------------------
I am; therefore I think.

[This message has been edited by Boris (edited July 21, 1999).]

dumaurier

07-22-99, 01:56 AM

Boris, a mule should be so stubborn!

You wrote to Lori saying,

"As for physical nature, you cannot dispute that every single thing you know and are is physical. This includes your knowledge, your thoughts, and your emotions. There's no God behind your 'proofs' -- merely psychology."

You said that EVERY SINGLE THING YOU KNOW AND ARE IS PHYSICAL.

You said, "Every single thing you know is physical...[i]THIS INCLUDES YOUR KNOWLEDGE, YOUR THOUGHTS.[i/]

You said, "Every single thing you are is physical...[i]THIS INCLUDES YOUR KNOWLEDGE, YOUR THOUGHTS.[i/]

Besides your sentence structure that makes no sense, now, in your latest post you are saying the complete opposite.

Boris, may i suggest you drink less coffee? The caffeine doesn't agree with you!

[This message has been edited by dumaurier (edited July 21, 1999).]

Boris

07-22-99, 03:02 AM

Dumaurier:

What is your problem with the word 'physical'? In case you think I simply mean the opposite of 'spiritual', you are wrong! By 'physical' I mean that which either is a physical object, a physical process, a series of physical processes, or the result of physical processes. In other words, something which can be entirely described and modeled using physics. Now, what part of that is self-contradictory again?

As for the things we are, I expected the reader to use their imagination. How about this sampling: an animal, a human, a person, a being, a child, a parent, a God-worshipper -- should I go on? I know I made the sentence structure unnecessarily complex, but it is not meaningless, I assure you.

------------------
I am; therefore I think.

[This message has been edited by Boris (edited July 21, 1999).]

dumaurier

07-22-99, 04:17 AM

But you do see my point, nevertheless.

Boris, in cyberspace it is extremely easy to be misunderstood. Write what you mean; mean what you say.

Need i add more?

------------------
dumaurier

2+2

07-22-99, 04:41 AM

Boris,
http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?14@66.VoElawNse9Q^729120@.ee6b663

Explaining Consciousness is my fav there...

If that link doesnt work it the new york times, then forums, then hosted forums...I think you would find some of your true contemporaries there.

tall-p

2+2

07-23-99, 06:16 AM

html probs

[This message has been edited by 2+2 (edited July 23, 1999).]

Boris

07-23-99, 07:17 AM

2+2:

I wish you to stopped pushing this silly position that knowledge = words. Animals possess no capability of speech; nevertheless they possess vast amounts of knowledge. For example, a dog knows who its owner is. A tiger knows how to chase down its prey, and what prey to avoid. A bird knows where its nest is, and it knows where to forage for food. A trained horse knows it will get a snack for doing a trick (and it has learned how to do that trick, too). Hopefully, you see my point.

Knowledge does not include just the explicit facts that can be put into words; it also encompasses such implicit things as skills, events, locales, qualities and memories of objects. For example, if I asked you to describe a chair, you would tell me all about its major components and its function. The knowledge you used for that was not entirely verbal; you first had to know what a support looks and feels like, how objects behave when put on it, what the rough geometry of a chair is, etc. For example, to attach meaning to the word 'straight', you must first understand the quality of 'straightness' (unless you are a mathematician, that is -- but even mathematicians start out learning about their world with no help from mathematics.) Behind the word 'solid', you have the experience-based concepts of flexibility, spatial extension, continuity, interpenetration. Behind every word, there is a set of mental concepts which is non-verbal, and oftentimes irreducible; it is these intrinsic mental concepts that give words meaning in the first place). The word 'leg' is just a combination of letters without the attached meaning. Hopefully, you can see now that meaning must arise first, and only then can language follow.

There exists knowledge that one cannot even put into words. For example, if I asked you to describe how exactly you accomplish the task of regaining balance when you are about to fall (so that I could take your directions and make a computer program out of them to enable a robot to walk), you would not be able to tell me. Nevertheless, it is knowledge, and must be learned. By the way you'll notice that children learn to crawl, for example, way before they are able to say even their first word, much less describe how crawling is accomplished, or what it's useful for. In fact, most of the things children learn are not taught to them verbally; they simply obtain the bulk of their knowledge from direct experience, and often only later on do they end up associating words with things they already know.

In fact, the modern complexity of life in itself is a form of knowledge. You can think of the bioorganisms and biosystems as 'learning' about their world, becoming more and more capable of surviving and navigating within it as time passes, and thereby encoding information about the world within their structures and behaviors.

Ultimately, at its core, knowledge is simply information. It may be expressible verbally, but oftentimes it is not, and sometimes it even does not involve a conscious mind. The 'knowledge' carried by the Earth's biosphere is an encoding of information about this very biosphere, its environment, and its history. However, it is not knowledge inside a mind; it's simply information accumulated by biological processes. Similarly, when we talk about the collective knowledge of the modern civilization, we mean the information accumulated by humans around the world so far -- not knowledge possessed by any individual in particular, nor even knowledge that resides within a brain (for example, it may presently reside within a book, on a schematic, or within a computer database). When we talk about 'passing on knowledge', we imply transmission of information. This is where language really becomes useful -- one of its two primary goals is to serve as a medium of communication. (though it certainly is not the only possible medium; one could also communicate by drawing pictures, for example -- though it would be much less efficient.) The second major effect of language is that verbal representation of large sets of complex concepts certainly helps to increase complexity of thought itself. In this light, you can think of language as a method of compressing the overwhelming non-verbal information down to manageable size (sort of like forming an index, or a compilation of summaries, over a vast database), so that concepts can be manipulated faster, easier, and in greater quantities at a time.

<hr>

Hopefully, I have managed to show you that knowledge by far does not consist of just words (in fact, most of even human knowledge is non-verbal, and for every word there are a host of non-verbal mental concepts to provide it with meaning). And hopefully, you can now better understand the relationship between words, knowledge, and intelligence.

------------------
I am; therefore I think.

[This message has been edited by Boris (edited July 23, 1999).]

Lori

07-23-99, 02:10 PM

Hi Boris,

Yea, I got a new job. What a drag, I can't spend my whole day debating religion with you all anymore. Intuition is not physical; it is an "inherent" sense of knowing. It is "spirit talk" so to speak. I honestly believe that if you took a cave man, like literally a man who was born and raised in a cave, and had no human contact or influence for all of his life, he would still have an inherent sense of right and wrong. Not to say that he wouldn't ever DO anything that was wrong, but if he did, it would cause him pain or confusion or guilt. Now, where do you suppose that these feelings would come from? Another example of what I'm talking about comes from when I was agnostic. I didn't know if there was a God or not, and I really didn't care. Actually, I was probably more convinced that there was not. Anyway, I'm not sure if you were around when I posted this story on the old message board, so here it goes again. I had an abortion. And I had about 1000 really, really good reasons to have one. That is according to my own and others "relative" right vs wrong. Anything goes, as long as you can rationalize it, right? Well I could rationalize the hell out of it, and it wasn't hard. Here, let me give you some of them, and tell me how "relatively rational" this sounds. I was engaged, and cheating on my finance because I thought that he was cheating on me. It was a one-nighter, and I had no feelings for him, and he had no feelings for me. I wasn't quite sure who's child it was going to be, as my finance and I had "made up" and had sex within 1 week of my affair. I had a suspicion that the pregnancy was the result of the affair, though. Seeing as how the guy was a 19 year-old college freshman, who was cocky as hell, and on top of the world. So, there I was, just graduated from college, with no job yet, in the middle of the recession of 1991, living with my fiance and about to ruin the relationship for good, and break his heart, and ready to ruin the life of some poor little college freshman that's just trying to have the best time of his life. Going through the pregnancy alone, with everyone hating me, and not knowing til the birth, and insuing paternity testing who the father really is. And facing the rest of my life as a single mother. Sounds bad, huh? I thought so, so bad that I opted for the abortion. I felt very good and confident about the decision, and everyone that I asked for an opinion urged me to do so. So why, Boris, why in the hell did I end up feeling so much guilt and pain over what I had done? I didn't believe in God, so who cares, right? No big deal, right? I mean, we don't have souls, so what keeps YOU from killing someone? The reprocussion of possibly going to jail? If there's no God, then why not? That's how I got religion, Boris. It was undeniable, and ON THE INSIDE, in my heart. When you are born again, it changes your whole life, and there's nothing you can do about it.

------------------
God loves you and so do I!

Boris

07-23-99, 03:37 PM

Ultimately, you choose your own position on God's existence and the reality of Creation. As I've been arguing, it's a blind choice either way. (Though I must mention that God and Creation are only one of an infinity of explanations for how our universe came to be. And being so linear, paradoxical and humanly primitive, I doubt that the God+Creation explanation will stand the test of time.)

However, believing in God's existence is one thing; buying into an entire dogma is something else entirely.

Concerning comfort and well-being... You may view it as a gift from God, but I have an alternative theory. We all (save pathologically disturbed individuals) possess the ability to emphatise with each other. We are able to live vicariously through book and movie characters, and we are able to feel happy or sad for someone else. Such abilities and tendencies seem like natural derivatives of tribal evolutionary origins. When you are rewarded with a sense of well-being in return for following the Golden Rule, it simply means that you are a healthy individual who exhibits the normal, I'd even say instinctual, human behavior.

------------------
I am; therefore I think.

2+2

07-23-99, 06:02 PM

2X2, your post is appreciated. 

Abdu'l-Baha says:

"For example, when you look at man, you see that he is weak." 

2x2 comments:

"Weak!? What sweeter situation exists anywhere in the universe, than being a person.
And now, even "commoners" like me get a chance to see the big picture. Feel the
power as your brain grasps the new concept, as old beliefs vaporize when you shed them
like last years wardrobe." 

dumaurier responds:

Well, i think by "weak" is meant that we are weak in relationship to the
Creator. I agree with you that no greater creation exists in the universe than the human
being. In relationship to the material universe man is, indeed, complex, grande,
sophisticated, and beautiful.

So far so good. But then......

But you will admit that despite this beauty and power conferred
upon us by our Creator,(I admit Nothing,especially any notion of 'Creators,or gods
of any sort!despite our wonderful capacities to build great ships that sail the
deepest seas or fly in remote and unknown corners of the darkest heavens, despite our
superb discoveries in biological and other sciences, you will agree(I DO NOT)that
when that tiniest of germ invisible to the human eye enters our biological system and
makes us sick, we are weak.(this is absurd! Our bodys immune system fights off
millions of unwanted cells daily, hourly...some get through, and this proves there is a
God??You will agree (NEVER!!) that we are totally dependent on
the elements such as water (water is not an element for crying out loud)to
quench our thirst, air for our lungs, and so on And so on....do you realize friend
that you have said abolutely nothing here above. You made no point. Can you see it?.
You will agree,(No I do not agree with this point either.... too, that if
the sun were to cease shining the human creature would perish. We are, therefore,
essentially dependent creatures physically. We are weak in this respect.(look how
far you run to try and prove that you know what "weak" means....anyway, let me
try to make a point here: ...never mind, let me just say that you say that we are weak
because we need the sun and I say we are strong because we have the sun. You can't make
the sun go away, or the air change its composition, or the seas turn to liquid hydrogen.

Then, too, consider that if God were to cease sending us His Holy
Books through the intermediary of His Holy Manifestations (such as Abraham, Moses,
Zoroaster, Krishna, Buddha, Christ, Muhammad, Baha'u'llah), man would be spiritually weak
for of and by himself man has not the power to reveal such heavenly gems as to cause his
spiritual upliftment and, therefore, his spiritual progress. In relationship to the
material universe man is all weakness; then how much more weak is he in relationship to
God, the Creator of the material world and of the spiritual worlds! He is, indeed, the
All-Powerful! 

None of your above prophets wrote those books BTW, and
only the guys and gals in these cults ever read them. It was those persuasive beggers
going around telling you your fortune, and how to deal with your enemies and illnesses,
who even had third hand knowledge of what was in those books for centuries.

Abdu'l-Baha wrote:This very weakness of the creature is a proof
of the power of the Eternal Almighty One, because, if there were no power, weakness could
not be imagined. 

If there were no words, birds would not sing.

2x2 comments:"If there were no "words" then
weakness or power could not be imagined. Plus I can imagine weakness, and I don't believe
in God." 

dumaurier responds:I believe you are taking the subject out of
context, 2x2. If a child is incapable of lifting a picnic table and you, standing beside
him, lifted it up for him, it would be a demonstrable and concrete example of the reality
of weakness and strength. Words are not necessary to see the reality of an adult's
strength verses the reality of a child's strength. Both are strengths, but one is more
powerful than the other; one is weaker than the other. God has power and man has power.
But when both are compared, man's power is weakness in comparison to God's power. After
all, He created the universe and we are but His creation! The created cannot be more
powerful than the creator otherwise it would have created itself without the need of a
creator. 

If there were no words, the sun would not shine.

Abdu'l-Baha wrote:In the contingent world there is ignorance;
necessarily knowledge exists, because ignorance is found; for if there were no knowledge,
neither would there be ignorance. Ignorance is the nonexistence of knowledge, and if there
were no existence, nonexistence could not be realized. 

Your guru is full of silly arguments IMHO. Ignorance is a
bad vocabulary. Knowledge is structured information (all in words), that is easily
retrievable by the individual who possesses it....

BTW, can you see how ridiculous, and meaningless this
statement is by Abdu'l-Baha, "...if there were no existence, nonexistennce could not
be realized." It does not matter what argument that preceeds that, whatever it is, is
meaningless.

2x2 comments:Those are my italics...but see existence in the way
that you are speaking of again requires words. One can't think about concepts without
them. So nonexistence in the sense that you are using it depends on somebody thinking
about nonexistence. Follow me? JMHO's 

dumaurier responds:I follow you. However,existence is in nowise
dependent on you or i nor on words.It is wholly independent of you and i and words. If man
did not exist there would still be an existence.The proof of this is in the fact that when
you have finally put away your human physical body, and you lie 6-feet under, the world
continues to exist despite your absence--or your words!(REALLY? Well I think that
when you die, your universe disappears. Just like when you slowly became aware and
conscious as language developed in your head. But before you were born what was going
on...stories that have all been passed on to you through language. If you had not been a
human being swimming in an ever expanding sea of stories, but you had been born a cat say
with no stories of past catploits, then there would be no "universe."All this
information, this knowledge is locked in words, and are passed on through the generations.
The languafe is growing. New words, new metaphors, new high speed languages. No words, no
existence. If it has no name, it ain't.

And if there were no existence we wouldn't have to die for there
would be no need for death, or no words. 

Now you really sound like Abdu'l-Baha.I
see you snorting at posters often...please say what you mean!

You yourself will testify to this truth(NO!)for
you see cemetaries where people are buried. For these dead souls existence is nomore, but
for you existence is real for you continue benefitting of God's boutiful gifts provided
for you in this life. No words are necessary for the dead. Thus we exist, and because of
this actuality, reality, presence, tangibility, materiality, life, being, continuance, in
brief, because of our existence we know there is an existence and words are not necessary
to prove this existence. But there is an existence, therefore it is realized. And if there
were no truth, truth could not be realized.Truth is not dependent on words; but words are
dependent on truth.

"No words are necessary for the dead. Thus we exist..."Huh?

Then you say, "...because of our existence
we know there is an existence and words are not necessary to prove this existence. But
there is an existence, therefore it is realized."

dumaurier, this is hilarious. And in a way it proves that
you do need words not just to "prove existence," but for there to BE existence.



 

IP: 

------------------
The landscape opened like a children's book...
It has the look of careful joy.John N Morris

2+2

07-23-99, 07:02 PM

2+2: 

I wish you to stopped pushing this silly position that knowledge = words. Well,
actually, that isn't what I am saying. Probably I did not speak clearly. My point is that
consciousness as we most commonly mean it (being aware of ourselves as a separate being,
and aware of a stream of thought in our head) is dependent on language. 

<hr>

Hopefully, I have managed to show you that knowledge by far does not consist of just
words (in fact, most of even human knowledge is non-verbal, and for every word there are a
host of non-verbal mental concepts to provide it with meaning). And hopefully, you can now
better understand the relationship between words, knowledge, and intelligence.

Yes thanks. I agree with you about knowledge and intelligence. Of course if
there were no words, if we humans were not capable of remembering names that had been
given to things, and passing these memes along, there would be no "knowledge."
We would be just like we were before we had language I guess. As the language grew, so did
the consciousness of those who used it. The knowledge base...knowledge is locked up in
these words. Of course there are many skills that appear pure motor skills, like a baby
learning too walk, and balance is the start of "being conscious." But if we
taught Helen Keller to ride a skateboard, we'd first have to reach her with words.
Training a dog is teaching it words, gestures are body words, and mean words to us who are
trying to communicate. Do you really think that if words were not running through your
head, that you would still have all this knowledge?

 
</body>
</html>

------------------
The landscape opened like a children's book...
It has the look of careful joy.John N Morris

dumaurier

07-24-99, 01:16 AM

2X2

I think all you need is a real cold shower.

After your shower, come back and reason. You'll be welcomed.

------------------
dumaurier

bedlanam

07-24-99, 03:35 AM

2x2,

for the most part you are referring to epistomology. have you read 'the archeology of knowledge' by michel foucault? you will find it under sociology. while your points are not entirely incorrect, they are also not entirely correct. in fact, you are 'mixing' several distinct principals. perhaps something has come to light thru recent events or circumstances. break it down.
figure out what is interfering(or blending)
and understand their interaction as a sort of creation. you can will this to your expectations or you can see it for what it truly is.

IB4GZUS

07-24-99, 04:29 PM

It seems as if we are going in circles here.

2+2

07-25-99, 04:46 AM

dumaurier

It's funny...I only have cold water!! Perhaps that has some how boggeled my mind. So why don't you go on and answer my points above.

I'll try and think better, and you take your ad hominum arguments to some other place where they enjoy them.

------------------
The landscape opened like a children's book...
It has the look of careful joy.John N Morris

2+2

07-25-99, 04:55 AM

bedlanam

Thanks. I haven't read that, and I will try and check it out. I live in a country that has useless libraries, but I will track it down.

Isn't language a meme? If you can posses it, then you are conscious? And the better you are at it, the MORE conscious?

dumaurier

07-25-99, 05:08 AM

In responce to 2x2:

dumaurier
It's funny...no it's not!I only have cold water!! no you don't Perhaps that has some how boggeled my mind.i don't agree with you So why don't you go on and answer my points above.points? What does that mean? I don't agree with you!

I'll try and think better,think? what does that mean? and you take your ad hominum he's speaking Chinese againarguments to some other place where they enjoy them.like on Exoscience where i started this post in which 2x2 takes the liberty of involving himself, just like everybody else is welcomed to get involved in it...but one never knows; maybe 2x2 is the owner of Exoscience. I don't know, just asking.

------------------
The landscape opened like a children's book... i don't agree with you!
It has the look of careful joy what?

------------------
dumaurier

dumaurier

07-25-99, 05:21 AM

2x2, don't get offended. I was just being silly with that previous post (and the next one). It's just the way you objected to my post which sounded rather crude around the edges in places. I will, indeed, answer your every point.

Keep posting 2x2. Your ideas are as valid as anybody's. And don't allow anybody to tell you otherwise!

Hope you're having fun (because i am!)

A bientot

[This message has been edited by dumaurier (edited July 25, 1999).]

dumaurier

07-25-99, 06:18 AM

2X2, here is my feedback on your post that you wanted me to respond to:

But you will admit that despite this beauty and power conferred upon us by our Creator,
(I admit Nothing, especially any notion of Creators, or gods of any sort!)

...Well, what do you want me to answer to this, 2x2?

despite our wonderful capacities to build great ships that sail the deepest seas or fly in remote and unknown corners of the darkest heavens, despite our superb discoveries in biological and other sciences, you will agree (I DO NOT)

...okay, so you don't agree.

that when that tiniest of germ invisible to the human eye enters our biological system and makes us sick, we are weak. (this is absurd! Our bodys immune system fights off millions of unwanted cells daily, hourly...some get through, and this proves there is a God??)

...you miss the point, 2x2. For sure we have an extraordinary immune system. Can't argue with that now, can we. We do indeed get sick, however, n'est-ce pas? And we all die, too.

You will agree (NEVER!!) that we are totally dependent on the elements

...Okay! Okay! So DON'T agree. That's okay by me.

such as water (water is not an element for crying out loud)

...Have you every heard the expression, "There was an element of sarcasm in her voice"? Well, should we make a little effort at understanding our lovely English language or should we attack it by saying, "this is not an element for crying out loud!" ??? Of course, we know that an element is any of the 105 known substances (of which 93 occur naturally) that consist of atoms with the same number of protons in their nuclei. Then again, in ancient and medieval cosmology an element was thought of being earth, air, fire, water; these were thought to constitute the universe. No, really, 2x2, i wasn't using the word in the same sense you understood it.

to quench our thirst, air for our lungs, and so on (And so on....do you realize friend that you have said abolutely nothing here above. You made no point. Can you see it?)

....Actually, i think i said quite a lot and made quite a nice point. Why can't YOU see it? Baffling.

You will agree, (No I do not agree with this point either....

...Okay, 2x2. You have the right to disagree.

too, that if the sun were to cease shining the human creature would perish. We are, therefore, essentially dependent creatures physically. We are weak in this respect.
(look how far you run to try and prove that you know what "weak" means....anyway, let me try to make a point here: ...never mind, let me just say that you say that we are weak because we need the sun and I say we are strong because we have the sun. You can't make the sun go away, or the air change its composition, or the seas turn to liquid hydrogen.

...Agreed. But without the sun you would perish. Therefore, in a sense we are wholly dependent on it for life. Gosh! How physically weak is man!

Then, too, consider that if God were to cease sending us His Holy Books...Christ, Muhammad....

None of your above prophets wrote those books BTW,

...You'll have to convince the 750 million Christians, the 550 million Muslims, the...etc. about what you claim here, 2x2. Of course, if you know something these people don't, we'd like to hear about it.

and only the guys and gals in these cults ever read them.

...Hmmmm. This is quite an authoritative statement. Hmmm.

It was those persuasive beggers going around telling you your fortune, and how to deal with your enemies and illnesses, who even had third hand knowledge of what was in those books for centuries.

...Another authoritative statement. Hmmm.

Abdu'l-Baha wrote: This very weakness of the creature is a proof of the power of the Eternal Almighty One, because, if there were no power, weakness could not be imagined.

If there were no words, birds would not sing.

...But do birds have lyrics to their songs? Hmmm...Do you think this is where the Beatles got all their love songs from? "Love love me do. You know I love you." Hmmm.

If there were no words, the sun would not shine.

...Well, i have to be honest with you: i have never really listened carefully to what the sunshine was saying. Well, i might as well tell you the truth. You see, i feared being ridiculed by my peers if they ever saw me tending my ears toward the rays of light. They'd probably think such a posture strange and weird. Actually, so would i :)

Abdu'l-Baha wrote:In the contingent world there is ignorance; necessarily knowledge exists, because ignorance is found; for if there were no knowledge, neither would there be ignorance. Ignorance is the nonexistence of knowledge, and if there were no existence, nonexistence could not be realized.

Your guru is full of silly arguments IMHO. Ignorance is a bad vocabulary. Knowledge is structured information (all in words), that is easily retrievable by the individual who possesses it....

...Again, you missed the point. It flew right by you. Maybe you were busy listening to the birds singing sweet lyrics? Who knows :)

BTW, can you see how ridiculous, and meaningless this statement is by Abdu'l-Baha, "...if there were no existence, nonexistennce could not be realized."
It does not matter what argument that preceeds that, whatever it is, is meaningless.

...Have you been listening to that sunshine again? Hmmm.

And if there were no existence we wouldn't have to die for there would be no need for death, or no words.

Now you really sound like Abdu'l-Baha. I see you snorting at posters often...please say what you mean!

...Sorry, i'm too busy trying to catch the words in that ray of light by my kitchen window. Shhh...I think it's saying something now...shhhh...

dumaurier, this is hilarious. And in a way it proves that you do need words not just to "prove existence," but for there to BE existence.

...Well, i don't know, 2x2. I really don't know.

There! I've answered all your points. Are you satisfied, 2x2? (Well, sorry if i didn't answer every little tiny bit....blame it on that damn sunshine. Gee, maybe tomorrow i'll hear it talking to me? Hmmm...)

Be good.

[This message has been edited by dumaurier (edited July 25, 1999).]

dumaurier

07-25-99, 07:18 AM

This post is in reply to Boris. (But Boris, i have searched everywhere to find that post of yours where you comment on Muhammad, polygamy, etc. but can't find it. Did you erace it by any chance? I thought i saw it in this subject thread? Anyway, i can't find it, so i'm posting here a little background on Muhammad in answer to that post of yours which i can't seem to find anymore).

SPIRITUAL LAWS & MATERIAL LAWS

There are two sides to one coin--heads and tails. There are two aspects to revealed religion--spiritual and material. The spiritual has to do with the virtues of humanity. This Divine Law cannot be abrogated; it is irremovable, eternal, and is renewed at the manifestation of a new Revelation. This is what we term "spiritual Law" which can never be modified, altered or abrogated.

The second part of the Religion of God has to do with the material world. This comprises fasting, prayer, forms of worship, marriage and divorce, the abolition of slavery, legal processes, transactions, indemnities for murder, violence, theft and injuries. This is called the social aspect, or the material side of the Law of God. It refers to material things and, because all material existence is relative and subject to chance and change, this part of the Law is modified and altered in each prophetic cycle in accordance with the necessities of the times. So, for example, with regards the social Laws, Moses permitted polygamy due to the fact that there were more women than men in the tribes of Israel--this was a rational solution for a very real social problem at the time; but Christ abrogated this Law in His time for there was no more need of this. In Arabia, the Arabs had turned to a particular direction during prayer in accordance to the provisions of the Pentateuch, but Muhammad abrogated such a direction by telling His followers to turn to another direction. For us today this sounds silly, but such an action was a great test of faith for those who for generations had accustomed themselves to turn in one direction. The gravity and consequence for the believer of this law can be likened to a law that suddenly stated that it it is no longer allowable to eat with the right hand but that now one had to eat with the left hand. It certainly would be a great test of faith for most people of today who have lived most of their lives--and for generations!--to believe that eating with the right hand was "normal." The evolution of the Spiritual Laws can be seen in that before Muhammad the law of forgiveness was not known but the law of "tooth for tooth, eye for eye" was practised by all. Christ abrogated this. For example, if X stole a chicken from Y, Y had to repay by returning a chicken to X; if X smote Y in the face, Y had the right to smite X in the face. In brief, there was no spiritual Law of forgiveness. But Christ abrogated such a Law by stating that one should forgive a transgressor and turn the other cheek. This was inciting within the believer the notion of forgiveness, which is a spiritual virtue.

Thus, there are two sides to all revealed Religion: Social/material and spiritual. The social or material Laws may be abrogated, but not the Spiritual Laws for these have to do with virtues and man's progress depends on them.

THE CONDITION OF THE ARABS AT THE TIME OF THE APPEARANCE OF MUHAMMAD

Before one casts judgment on the precepts and laws appearing in the Qur'an, one must first understand the social conditions and the mentality of the Arabs to whom Islam was given.

Muhammad appeared in the desert of Hijáz in the Arabian Peninsula, which was a desolate, sterile wilderness, sandy and uninhabited. Some parts, like Mecca and Medina, are extremely hot; the people are nomads with the manners and customs of the dwellers in the desert, and are entirely destitute and bereft of education and science. Muhammad Himself was illiterate, and the Qur'án was originally written upon the bladebones of sheep, or on palm leaves. These details indicate the condition of the people to whom Muhammad was sent. The first question which Muhammad put to these barbarious people was, "Why do you not accept the Pentateuch and the Gospel, and why do you not believe in Christ and in Moses?" This saying presented difficulties to them, and they argued, "Our forefathers did not believe in the Pentateuch and the Gospel; tell us, why was this?" He answered, "They were misled; you ought to reject those who do not believe in the Pentateuch and the Gospel, even though they are your fathers and your ancestors."

These Arab tribes were in the lowest depths of savagery and barbarism, and in comparison with them the savages of Africa and wild Indians of America were as advanced as a Plato. The savages of America do not bury their children alive as these Arabs did their daughters, glorying in it as being an honorable thing to do. Thus many of the men would threaten their wives, saying, "If a daughter is born to you, I will kill you." Even down to the present time the Arabs dread having daughters. Further, a man was permitted to take a thousand women, and most husbands had more than ten wives in their household. When these tribes made war, the one which was victorious would take the women and children of the vanquished tribe captive and treat them as slaves.

When a man who had ten wives died, the sons of these women rushed at each other's mothers; and if one of the sons threw his mantle over the head of his father's wife and cried out, "This woman is my lawful property," at once the unfortunate woman became his prisoner and slave. He could do whatever he wished with her. He could kill her, imprison her in a well, or beat, curse and torture her until death released her. According to the Arab habits and customs, he was her master. It is evident that malignity, jealousy, hatred and enmity must have existed between the wives and children of a household, and it is, therefore, needless to enlarge upon the subject. Again, consider what was the condition and life of these oppressed women!

Moreover, the means by which these Arab tribes lived consisted in pillage and robbery, so that they were perpetually engaged in fighting and war, killing one another, plundering and devastating each other's property, and capturing women and children, whom they would sell to strangers; to own slaves was an honour to these barbarions! How often it happened that the daughters and sons of a prince, who spent their day in comfort and luxury, found themselves, when night fell, reduced to shame, poverty and captivity. Yesterday they were princes, today they are captives; yesterday they were great ladies, today they are slaves.

Muhammad received the Divine Revelation among these tribes, and after enduring thirteen years of persecution from them, He fled. But this people did not cease to oppress; they united to exterminate Him and all His followers. It was under such circumstances that Muhammad was forced to take up arms. This is the truth. Look at it with justice. If Christ Himself had been placed in such circumstances among such tyrannical and barbarous tribes, and if for thirteen years He with His disciples had endured all these trials with patience, culminating in flight from His native land--if in spite of this these lawless tribes continued to pursue Him, to slaughter the men, to pillage their property, and to capture their women and children--what would have been Christ's conduct with regard to them? If this oppression had fallen only upon Himself, He would have forgiven them, and such an act of forgiveness would have been most praiseworthy; but if He had seen that these cruel and bloodthirsty murderers wished to kill, to pillage and to injure all these oppressed ones, and to take captive the women and children, it is certain that He would have protected them and would have resisted the tyrants. What objection, then, can be taken to Muhammad's action? Is it this, that He did not, with His followers, and their women and children, submit to these savage tribes? To free these tribes from their bloodthirstiness was the greatest kindness, and to coerce and restrain them was a true mercy. They were like a man holding in his hand a cup of poison, which, when about to drink, a friend breaks and thus saves him. If Christ had been placed in similar circumstances, it is certain that with a conquering power He would have delivered the men, women and children from the claws of these bloodthirsty wolves.

In such a country, and amidst such barbarous tribes, an illiterate Man produced a book in which, in a perfect and eloquent style, He explained the divine attributes and perfections, the prophethood of the Messengers of God, the divine laws, and some scientific facts.

Thus, you know that before the observations of modern times--that is to say, during the first centuries and down to the fifteenth century of the Christian era--all the mathematicians of the world agreed that the earth was the center of the universe, and that the sun moved. The famous astronomer who was the protagonist of the new theory discovered the movement of the earth and the immobility of the sun. Until his time all the astronomers and philosophers of the world followed the Ptolemaic system, and whoever said anything against it was considered ignorant. Though Pythagoras, and Plato during the latter part of his life, adopted the theory that the annual movement of the sun around the zodiac does not proceed from the sun, but rather from the movement of the earth around the sun, this theory had been entirely forgotten, and the Ptolemaic system was accepted by all mathematicians. But there are some verses revealed in the Qur'án contrary to the theory of the Ptolemaic system. One of them is "The sun moves in a fixed place," which shows the fixity of the sun, and its movement around an axis. Again, in another verse, "And each star moves in its own heaven." Thus is explained the movement of the sun, of the moon, of the earth, and of other bodies. When the Qur'án appeared, all the mathematicians ridiculed these statements and attributed the theory to ignorance. Even the doctors of Islám, when they saw that these verses were contrary to the accepted Ptolemaic system, were obliged to explain them away.

It was not until after the fifteenth century of the Christian era, nearly nine hundred years after Muhammad, that Galileo made new observations and important discoveries by the aid of the telescope, which he had invented. The rotation of the earth, the fixity of the sun, and also its movement around an axis, were discovered. It became evident that the verses of the Qur'án agreed with existing facts, and that the Ptolemaic system was imaginary.

In short, many Oriental peoples have been reared for thirteen centuries under the shadow of the religion of Muhammad. During the Middle Ages, while Europe was in the lowest depths of barbarism, the Arab peoples were superior to the other nations of the earth in learning, in the arts, mathematics, civilization, government and other sciences. The Enlightener and Educator of these Arab tribes, and the Founder of the civilization and perfections of humanity among these different races, was an illiterate Man, Muhammad. Was this illustrious Man a thorough Educator or not? A just judgment is necessary.

The military expeditions of Muhammad, on the contrary, were always defensive actions: a proof of this is that during thirteen years, in Mecca, He and His followers endured the most violent persecutions. At this period they were the target for the arrows of hatred: some of His companions were killed and their property confiscated; others fled to foreign lands. Muhammad Himself, after the most extreme persecutions by the Qurayshites, who finally resolved to kill Him, fled to Medina in the middle of the night. Yet even then His enemies did not cease their persecutions, but pursued Him to Medina, and His disciples even to Abyssinia. (Source: `Abdu'l-Bahá, Some Answered Questions).

Now, having gained a little more insight into the condition of life and society of Arabia at the time of Muhammad's coming, let us go on to examine Boris' comments wherein he presents quotes from the Qu'ran and derides and slanders the Prophet.

But first i have to find Boris' post :) You sure you didn't delete it, Boris? Just asking and just hoping you'd tell me where it is.

------------------
dumaurier

Boris

07-25-99, 07:36 AM

Dumaurier:

It's in the "Is God Benevolent?" thread.

Boris

07-25-99, 12:04 PM

Let's think about your foundations for claiming 'proofs and evidences'.

First, we know that the world exists in some way -- because we ourselves exist. No contest there. From that, somehow we conclude that the world had a creator. To this day, I fail to see any connective logic. You essentially argue that in order for anything to exist, it must have been preconceived and subsequently materialized by some deliberate agent. Why it is so, I fail to understand. The three major issues that have been raised but never addressed to my satisfaction, are: 1) Why does any thing or any process in existence need to be pre-conceived in order to exist? 2) Why does the universe have to have a well-defined origin? 3) If God created the universe, then what created God?

Now, it seems that you assume apriori the answers to all of these questions (and many more!!), and in such a way as to make the existence of God inevitable. Then, based on your assumptions, you start finding 'evidence' in support of your arguments -- 'evidence' which basically reiterates those very same assumptions in a different way!

Let me expand a bit here. Time exists within our physical universe, quite conceivably due to finite speed of propagation of energy potentials. What possible justification is there behind the assumption that outside the confines of our 4-dimensional spacetime, our concept of time even makes sense? But if you can't demonstrate the existence of time within the 'ultimate' reference frame, then you can't even talk about beginning, or end, of any kind. Then there is even a question of whether an 'ultimate' reference frame exists (as in that of God). The universe's spatial extension, its timeline, or both may have no beginning and no end -- just like a circle, a figure eight, or any kind whatsoever of a closed loop. Or it could simply be that time, or space, or both stretch back to infinity, and just as there is no number equal infinity, there is no beginning 'tick mark' to the universe. Our conceptions of the world are those of a prisoner locked in a cell with no windows. If you know Plato's allegory of the Cave, then you will see how all of us might easily be staring at shadows and illusions of true reality. To take our present concepts and apply them to the entire universe (so much of it unknown), and to discuss its ultimate sources if any using our notions of beginning vs. end, power vs. weakness requires faith indeed.

Seasons change only on Earth; there is no such thing as spring in the interstellar space. Similarly, the principle of causality you rely so much upon, might be a limited effect confined only to a small subspace of the universe, or only to a few phenomena within it. In fact, it could easily turn out that the majority of the universe is not causal (and thus imperceptible to us up to now!) But these are minor issues compared to the entire universe itself! What could conceivably even give you (or anyone!) the gall to presume a logical derivation of the universe's origins, in light of all the uncertainties and all the unanswered questions that ordinarily should not be ignored?

In truth, your 'proofs and evidences' are a mere reiteration of the Cartesian circle, with a few more colors and emotional appeal thrown in. He reasoned something like this: I think, therefore I am, these things are true, therefore since I exist, truth exists, therefore the ultimate source of truth exists, therefore God exists! The argument might seem solid on the surface, but in truth it is one of the most famous philosophical blunders in history. It's good all the way to the point where Descartes makes a claim about the ultimate source of anything. This is where he assumes that the ultimate source exists, and from there he concludes that there is a God. This is like saying that "I believe in God, therefore there is a God." Descartes has been ridiculed in the philosophical circles for centuries for this little piece of art (especially since a great mathematician should've known better!); in fact his only coup de grace is that he possibly did this to evade the scrutiny of the Inquisition. By cozying up to the Church through this masterpiece of thought, he made sure what happened to Galileo wouldn't happen to him. And while Descartes' motivations might have been explainable, yours by contrast seem just plain irrational.

------------------
I am; therefore I think.

Lori

07-25-99, 12:09 PM

Boris,

Just wanted to "hop" on and say that your response to my last post sucked. LOL! You asked for it. I guess you'd rather hee-haw around with all of this verbose theoretical crap, huh? Ok, so I gave you my "proof", that you've been BEGGING for, and you choose to basically ignore it. That's what I thought you would do.

------------------
God loves you and so do I!

Bruce

07-25-99, 03:25 PM

"There lived a wise man if, we can call him a man - named Jesus. A wonder worker and a teacher of those who search after truth, he attracted crowds of both Jews and 'Gentiles. He was the 'Christ. Nevertheless, Pilate, at the urging of our leaders, sentenced him to death on the 'cross. His disciples remained faithful, however, and after three days he appeared to them alive. This and many other marvelous things had been foretold about him by the prophets. The Christian sect, named after him, still flourishes to this day."

Flavius Josephus (1st Century AD.)

No man in history ever claimed what Jesus did.
Mohammed acknowledged himself to be a sinner.
Buddah rejected any form of personal veneration.
No man in history ever dared to identify Himself with God in the way that Jesus did.

and Jesus said, "Who do you say I am?"

dumaurier

07-25-99, 03:30 PM

Thank you Boris for the thread name. I'll be posting the above there.

I think you might agree with me if i say King Minos' order to Daedalus with regards that architectural pleasantry may be evoking proliferation of "Minotaurs".

------------------
dumaurier

dumaurier

07-25-99, 03:40 PM

Bruce:

I'm of the impression that the points you raise may be better discussed in an independent thread. Here we are talking about "Proofs & Evidences of the Existence of God." Your post seems to be better suited to a thread on comparative religion. Why don't you start the thread? Just be warned that once one gets on the bandwagon of comparative adjectives, the road is quite rough and full of peril.

So, do you have any proof and/or evidence supporting or debunking our current topic?

------------------
dumaurier

Bruce

07-26-99, 03:48 AM

dumaurier:

No I don't think that I want to start a topic on comparative religion because of
so many deferent beliefs. I'll leave that to you, but I would like to say a few
things on the existence of God, and what I say here dos not reflect on you.
This is a hard subject because how can I prove that there is a God? To me
its like saying how can I prove that there isn't a God. I like to say prove to me
that there isn't a God. I don't think you can put God in a test tube, but as far as
evidence, I believe nature is a good teacher and also archaeology and how about the
Bible? of course some my laugh at that. I think God is the absolute. It took someone
intelligent to make the universe, to me that is just common sense.

Bruce

dumaurier

07-26-99, 04:33 AM

Bruce:

You wrote:
No I don't think that I want to start a topic on comparative religion because of so many different beliefs. I'll leave that to you...

Dumaurier replies:
The topic of a free discussion on comparative religion would become so utterly prolific of prejudice that i shun even to think it.

You wrote:
but I would like to say a few things on the existence of God, and what I say here does not reflect on you. This is a hard subject because how can I prove that there is a God? To me it's like saying how can I prove that there isn't a God? I like to say, prove to me
that there isn't a God. I don't think you can put God in a test tube, but as far as
evidence, I believe nature is a good teacher and also archaeology and how about the
Bible? of course some my laugh at that. I think God is the absolute. It took someone
intelligent to make the universe, to me that is just common sense.

Dumaurier replies:
I see what you are saying, Bruce. To you it makes common sense (as it does to me and to millions of people on our lovely little planet) because we have faith. Without faith we require material proof because our judgements will be made according to the physical senses. Indeed it did take someone intelligent to create another intelligent creature. I fully agree with you. Did you read my opening post in this thread?

[This message has been edited by dumaurier (edited July 26, 1999).]

Boris

07-26-99, 05:26 AM

Why do you assume intelligent creatures (or anything) were created? Why does it take an intelligent source to give rise to intelligence?

You are quite right, Dumaurier. Your arguments are based entirely on faith. And I wager none of them are based on any kind of logic, at the root.

In fact, I surmise no material proof of God could ever surface. That is so because of the fundamental limitedness of our existence. If something unexplainable shows up, it will not be a proof of God, but merely of the shortfalls in our understanding. I could be wrong, of course...

------------------
I am; therefore I think.

dumaurier

07-26-99, 06:20 AM

Boris writes:
First, we know that the world exists in some way -- because we ourselves exist. No contest there.

Dumaurier responds:
Exactly. And if we didn't exist the world would continue to exist because the world and everything therein is independent of you or i.

Boris writes: (the letters in half-parenthesis are dumaurier's)
a) From that, somehow we conclude that the world had a creator. To this day, I fail to see any connective logic.
b) You essentially argue that in order for anything to exist, it must have been preconceived and subsequently materialized by some deliberate agent.
c) Why it is so, I fail to understand.
d) The three major issues that have been raised but never addressed to my satisfaction, are: 1) Why does any thing or any process in existence need to be pre-conceived in order to exist?
e) 2) Why does the universe have to have a well-defined origin?
f) 3) If God created the universe, then what created God?

Dumaurier responds:
Fair enough. As to
a) "From that, somehow we conclude that the world had a creator. To this day, I fail to see any connective logic."
I must once again refer you to the principle of cause and effect. Moreover, we have discussed the painter and the painting; the qualities in the painting are those inherent in the painter. If there is intelligent life on this planet it is indicative of an intelligent Creator, or a Creator Who has this quality a priori--for if the Creator had no intelligence, He wouldn't be able to give it to His creation. Moreover, we have discussed the qualities of the part as existing in the whole. And we have talked long on that piece of bread. This is "logic". But it may not conform to your "logic" because it contradicts your beliefs. But it is objectively logical and undisputed.

b) You essentially argue that in order for anything to exist, it must have been preconceived and subsequently materialized by some deliberate agent.

Again, cause and effect. In addition, as i have beforehand illustrated, a chair does not appear out of thin air. The carpenter must first conceive of that chair's design, structure, consistency, form, arrangement, and its purpose. Such conception is an immaterial process. Then the carpenter begins the actual work of concretizing. Thus, the immaterial state is expressed in a material realization.

c) Why it is so, I fail to understand.

I believe your failure to understand is due to your attachment to expectation of something which cannot be; you seek material answers for essentially spiritual phenomena. One can use reasonable arguements to prove the existence of God (as the introductory text to this thread amply demonstrates) but these are arguements pure and simple. It also takes faith to see the wisdom in such simple arguements; arguements of which cannot be refuted no matter how hard one tries.

d) The three major issues that have been raised but never addressed to my satisfaction, are: 1) Why does any thing or any process in existence need to be pre-conceived in order to exist?

These words you wrote above, were they not preconceived before they found material expression? Why did they have to be preconceived in order to exist? What is a motive? It must first exist in the mind before its process unfolds and is realized in action. Everything has a motive, a reason for being. God has a reason for being. His motive is to create (obviously). Without such a motive He could not possibly be a Creator. Everything that an able man creates is preconceived otherwise it could not find expression in the other world.

e) 2) Why does the universe have to have a well-defined origin?

Causality.

f) 3) If God created the universe, then what created God?

One of His titles is the "Uncreated." He is also known as the "Self-Subsisting." For us to be able to determine what or who created God would be akin to being God Himself, and this is beyond our station. We are humans, no more and no less. An animal is an animal and could not understand humans even if he tried. It is beyond its station to even ask any questions with regards humans.

Boris writes:
Now, it seems that you assume apriori the answers to all of these questions (and many more!!), and in such a way as to make the existence of God inevitable. Then, based on your assumptions, you start finding 'evidence' in support of your arguments -- 'evidence' which basically reiterates those very same assumptions in a different way!

Dumaurier responds:
The existence of a Creator IS INEVITABLE for there could not be a creation without a Creator. This is reasonable, this is logical. There can be no smoke without fire, remember? Now, if one seeks for evidence in trying to prove all this it is strictly for people like you who refuse to believe in what is obvious; who refuses to believe the existence of He Who created your very soul! But how could this wonderous universe have been created on its own, without a Creator? Impossible!!! There is evidence all around you of constant creation: Vapour must rise to create clouds that create the rain which inevitably must come down and create the rivers which create the great seas. And the cycle of creating is repeated unceasingly. Suns and planets turn and create magnetic pull which create other effects. What more can possibly a man do but to resign himself in awe at the greatness of the very Creator of all this beauty in our vast universe?

Boris writes:
Let me expand a bit here. Time exists within our physical universe, quite conceivably due to finite speed of propagation of energy potentials. What possible justification is there behind the assumption that outside the confines of our 4-dimensional spacetime, our concept of time even makes sense? But if you can't demonstrate the existence of time within the 'ultimate' reference frame, then you can't even talk about beginning, or end, of any kind.

Dumaurier responds:
But you are speaking of a man made creation here which does not, cannot apply to the Creator Himself. He is not bound by the physical laws of this universe. He is the Independent! We cannot judge God according by our standards but, rather, we must judge Him according to His standards. And this is why we see hell fire all about us in the form of sects, wars, pillaging, murder, poverty, injustice-- because man uses HIS standards to judge a book which cannot be judged by human standards. God must be judged by HIS standards! He provides the foundation of our judgement, not we. He provides the ultimate reference frame for everything. He is the Creator of all reference frames while remaining independent of them!

Boris writes:
Then there is even a question of whether an 'ultimate' reference frame exists (as in that of God). The universe's spatial extension, its timeline, or both may have no beginning and no end -- just like a circle, a figure eight, or any kind whatsoever of a closed loop. Or it could simply be that time, or space, or both stretch back to infinity, and just as there is no number equal infinity, there is no beginning 'tick mark' to the universe. Our conceptions of the world are those of a prisoner locked in a cell with no windows. If you know Plato's allegory of the Cave, then you will see how all of us might easily be staring at shadows and illusions of true reality. To take our present concepts and apply them to the entire universe (so much of it unknown), and to discuss its ultimate sources if any using our notions of beginning vs. end, power vs. weakness requires faith indeed.

Dumaurier responds:
Exactly! Ultimately, it does require faith and all men sooner or later are led to confess this absolute helplessness to understand this awesome creation and forced to admit that the Almighty is truly greater than all of existence put together. But our very knowledge of God comes from the Prophets themselves who all unequiviocally claim that their Revelations are of God. What possible personal interest could Christ have had in the knowledge that if He pursued His teaching efforts He'd be murdered? What folly got into Muhammad to have suffered years of persecution just to announce that God had called Him to be His Manifestation? What insanity got into Baha'u'llah's mind to proclaim the Oneness of God when he knew full well that His whole life would have to be spent in prison and in sorrow? Yet, these were not madmen for they worked great good for humanity. Witness the millions that bow their knees to them today.

Boris writes:
Seasons change only on Earth; there is no such thing as spring in the interstellar space. Similarly, the principle of causality you rely so much upon, might be a limited effect confined only to a small subspace of the universe, or only to a few phenomena within it. In fact, it could easily turn out that the majority of the universe is not causal (and thus imperceptible to us up to now!) But these are minor issues compared to the entire universe itself! What could conceivably even give you (or anyone!) the gall to presume a logical derivation of the universe's origins, in light of all the uncertainties and all the unanswered questions that ordinarily should not be ignored?

Dumaurier responds:
What gives me the "gull" to presume all these things are God Himself Who has spoken through His Prophets. There is no greater God than God!

Boris writes:
In truth, your 'proofs and evidences' are a mere reiteration of the Cartesian circle, with a few more colors and emotional appeal thrown in. He reasoned something like this: I think, therefore I am, these things are true, therefore since I exist, truth exists, therefore the ultimate source of truth exists, therefore God exists! The argument might seem solid on the surface, but in truth it is one of the most famous philosophical blunders in history. It's good all the way to the point where Descartes makes a claim about the ultimate source of anything. This is where he assumes that the ultimate source exists, and from there he concludes that there is a God. This is like saying that "I believe in God, therefore there is a God." Descartes has been ridiculed in the philosophical circles for centuries for this little piece of art (especially since a great mathematician should've known better!); in fact his only coup de grace is that he possibly did this to evade the scrutiny of the Inquisition. By cozying up to the Church through this masterpiece of thought, he made sure what happened to Galileo wouldn't happen to him. And while Descartes' motivations might have been explainable, yours by contrast seem just plain irrational.

Dumaurier responds:
I will not venture to argue here the faults or merits of the mechanistic basis for the philosophical theory of dualism as expounded by Rene Descartes. Suffice it to say that any mechanistic view, i believe, is false for it disregards the existence of the soul and/or anything spiritual but formulates conclusions based solely on observational data from which abstract mathematical formulas are hatched like a candy from a bubblegum machine.

There can only be one conclusion to all this, Boris: you either have faith, or you don't.

I believe in science and i believe in religion.
You believe in science only.
I believe in God and i believe in rockets.
You believe in rockets only.
I believe i have a body and i believe i have a spiritual soul.
You believe you have a body.
I believe that when i die my body will rot and return whence it came, and my soul will return to God.
You believe that when you die your body will rot and return whence it came.

I have hope.

You don't.

Salutations

Boris

07-26-99, 10:16 AM

First you say:

e) 2) Why does the universe have to have a well-defined origin?

Causality.

...

The existence of a Creator IS INEVITABLE for there could not be a creation without a Creator. This is reasonable, this is logical. There can be no smoke without fire, remember? ...

... etc. etc. etc.

Then you say this:

He is not bound by the physical laws of this universe. He is the Independent! We cannot judge God according by our standards but, rather, we must judge Him according to His standards.

I am amazed you see no contradiction here. "There can be no smoke withot fire", but there can be a God without origin? You claim causality as a 'proof' of creation. But then you claim that causality does not apply at the 'ultimate' reference frame! How about that? This has been my main point of contention with your 'logic' all this time!

You make a statement about the universe at large, and then you make an exception to that rule just for the sake of God!
There is no logic here. None at all.

If there can be a God without origin, there certainly can be a universe without origin -- and without God. If God can obtain a conceit of reality out of nothingness, then the physical laws can arise out of nothingness and create that reality all on their own. That's logic. Your 'proofs and evidences' are much ado about nothing, merely groundless fluff masquerading as reasoned argument. But you see, it is fundamentally more reasonable to assume that physical laws came out of nothing, or did not have a well-defined origin -- than to assume that the Sentient, the All-Powerful, the Independent, the Uncreated, the Undecipherable came similarly out of nothing, or did not have a well-defined origin.

<hr>

You write:

Again, cause and effect. In addition, as i have beforehand illustrated, a chair does not appear out of thin air. The carpenter must first conceive of that chair's design, structure, consistency, form, arrangement,
and its purpose. Such conception is an immaterial process. Then the carpenter begins the actual work of concretizing. Thus, the immaterial state is expressed in a material realization.

'conception' is not a spiritual process. It is a computational process occurring within a physical brain. As its 'data' it uses knowledge of the world obtained through perceptual learning. If the Baha'i faith
explicitly insists that knowledge and thought are supernatural, then it will not survive much longer, as by the end of the next century it will be clear as day that thought, knowledge, imagination and so on are products of purely material processes.

Then you mention:

But how could this
wonderous universe have been created on its own, without a Creator? Impossible!!! There is evidence all around you of constant creation: Vapour must rise to create clouds that create the rain which inevitably must come down and create the rivers which create the great seas. And the cycle of creating is repeated unceasingly. Suns and planets turn and create magnetic pull which create other effects. What more can possibly a man do but to resign himself in awe at the greatness of the very Creator of all this beauty in our vast universe?

At this point, I had to take a few seconds to really, seriously, laugh. Thank you for that excellent moment! In light of the quote next to this one, what would you say conceives of a particular cloud's shape? How does the rain 'conceive' of creating rivers? What gives the Suns and planets an idea to "turn and create magnetic pull"? How does one even need a creator to conceive of these things? Very obviously, these are all physical processes, and require no sentience to be originated or set in motion. What makes it inevitable, quite clearly, is physics -- not the will of a furniture maker. Same goes for the origin of our intelligence, and indeed for the very words that you are reading now.

<hr>

But you are speaking of a man made creation here which does not, cannot apply to the Creator Himself.

Really?? And what kind of creation are you speaking about when you talk about bakers and painters????
My point precisely. You are using the primitive, barely at all evolved, human concepts to speak about such things as origins of the universe. And given that, you are claiming that your insight came from God, too! How sickeningly ridiculous.

<hr>

You said:

What is a motive? It must first exist in the mind before its process unfolds and is realized in action.

Why so? A motive is a behavioral response to environmental input. It's origin is within the sensory input and the on-going stream of consciousness. It does not magically appear out of nothing, nor does it precede its origins. It is a physical phenomenon; a physical behavior stemming from a physical system.

<hr>

Now this is a real gem:

Everything has a motive, a reason for being. God has a reason for being.

I suppose this is what you've been calling 'logic' all this time? Your entire belief system is based on statements like these. They have no logical foundation. They are in fact axyoms. And while, given a set of non self-contradictory axyoms (as yours are) one can build a logical argument, it will not be any more reflective of reality than another logical argument based on a different set of non self-contradictory axyoms. Your 'proofs and evidences' are nothing but assumptions! They prove absolutely nothing, and are evidence for nothing, other than themselves! That, my friend, is logic.

<hr>

You said:

Everything that an able man creates is preconceived otherwise it could not find expression in the other world.

Nothing is preconceived! You concept of a chair derives from the concept of sitting down. You did not conceive of it; you learned it from experience! You cannot conceive of an irreducible concept if you did not experience it first. As for complex creations of thought that derive from simple percept-based concepts, they once again are driven by sensory experience, and are a product of physical computation. It is the world that first finds expression within our minds, and only then can we reflect ourselves back upon it. Thought and knowledge indeed have a material foundation and are borne from it. They are material processes and have nothing to do with 'soul' or God.

<hr>

The existence of a Creator IS INEVITABLE for there could not be a creation without a Creator.

Perfectly circular reasoning. Enough said.

<hr>

Ultimately, it does require faith and all men sooner or later are led to confess this absolute helplessness to understand this awesome creation and forced to admit that the Almighty is truly greater than all of existence put together.

The only reasonable thing you have said in this debate. You arguments, 'proofs', and 'evidences' are ultimately nothing but reflections of your faith, and are ultimately entirely built out of it.

What possible personal interest could
Christ have had in the knowledge that if He pursued His teaching efforts He'd be murdered? What folly got into Muhammad to have suffered years of persecution just to announce that God had called Him to be His Manifestation? What insanity got into Baha'u'llah's mind to proclaim the Oneness of God when he knew full well that His whole life would have to be spent in prison and in sorrow?

Why does Jack Kevorkian do what he does, regardless of persecution or even (of late) imprisonment? Why did the abolitionists struggle with rich and powerful slave owners? Why does Cuba consistently insist on defying the might of the United States, in spite of harsh punishment? Why do the gays and lesbians hold parades and public meetings despite the contrition that is visited upon them? Why do the members of Greenpeace risk everything to save just a single whale, or just a single tree? Why do Hezbollah members strap explosives to their bodies and offer the ultimate sacrifice among crowds of the enemy?

It's quite straightforward, Dumaurier. And it does not involve God. Sometimes, people are driven toward extremism. And when they are, they always tend to do what they perceive is right and righteous. Blindingly simple when you consider the larger picture,
isn't it?

<hr>

I believe in science and i believe in religion.
You believe in science only.
I believe in God and i believe in rockets.
You believe in rockets only.
I believe i have a body and i believe i have a spiritual soul.
You believe you have a body.
I believe that when i die my body will rot and return whence it came, and my soul will return to God.
You believe that when you die your body will rot and return whence it came.

You believe you have proof or evidence for your limpid claims.
You and I both know you have none.

By the way, I don't 'believe' in science. I believe my senses. And thus I believe that the experimental results upon which science is built are valid. And I believe current theories are fairly good models over their respective domains, again based on experimental test result. Ultimately, I believe in my senses and in my memory. You believe in that, and also in a fabrication.

<hr>

I have hope.

You don't.

Pitiful is he who finds refuge in false hopes. I have guts to recognize that. You don't.

<hr>

You believe in submission and superstition. I believe in independence and objectivity.
You envision for humanity a future ridden by religion. I see an unencumbered, enlightened civilization determining its own identity and future.

Felicitations.

------------------
I am; therefore I think.

dumaurier

07-26-99, 02:30 PM

I have faith. You have none.
I believe. You don't.

Sufficient unto me is the All-Powerful who sooner or later bringeth into submission all such as who don't believe in Him.

"In vain would they but put out the flame of God's love."

Yea! Pitiful is their lot in the end.

Boris, God has no need of man, but man is in need of Him. May God spare you the tests you will experience in your life due to your hardness of heart.

------------------
dumaurier

Boris

07-26-99, 04:13 PM

Naturally. I'm shaking in my boots.

At least if there really is a God, when I die and go meet him, I'll be able to testify that I indeed used the greatest gift a human possesses to as full an extent as I could.

As for the heart -- mine is not cold, nor hard. In fact, I am a rather emotional person. I just can't stand all the little lambs running around the globe. Baaaaaaa....

Bruce

07-26-99, 10:50 PM

dumaurier:

Yes I read your opening post and I see what you are saying.
I agree with you on this.

You also wrote:

The existence of a Creator IS INEVITABLE for there could not be a creation without a Creator. This is reasonable, this is logical. There can be no smoke without fire, remember? Now, if one seeks for evidence in trying to prove all this it is strictly for people like you who refuse to believe in what is obvious; who refuses to believe the existence of He Who created your very soul! But how could this wonderous universe have been created on its own, without a Creator? Impossible!!! There is evidence all around you of constant creation: Vapour must rise to create clouds that create the rain which inevitably must come down and create the rivers which create the great seas. And the cycle of creating is repeated unceasingly. Suns and planets turn and create magnetic pull which create other effects. What more can possibly a man do but to resign himself in awe at the greatness of the very Creator of all this beauty in our vast universe?

Bruce:
Agree 100%

dumaurier

07-27-99, 01:05 AM

Blessed is the man that walketh not in the counsel of the ungodly, nor standeth in the way of sinners, nor sitteth in the seat of the scornful. But his delight is in the law of the LORD; and in his law doth he meditate day and night. And he shall be like a tree planted by the rivers of water, that bringeth forth his fruit in his season; his leaf also shall not wither; and whatsoever he doeth shall prosper.

The ungodly are not so: but are like the chaff which the wind driveth away. Therefore the ungodly shall not stand in the judgment, nor sinners in the congregation of the righteous. For the LORD knoweth the way of the righteous: but the way of the ungodly shall perish. (Old Testament, Psalms: 1:1 to 1:6)

My brethren, count it all joy when ye fall into divers temptations; Knowing this, that the trying of your faith worketh patience. But let patience have her perfect work, that ye may be perfect and entire, wanting nothing. If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him. But let him ask in faith, nothing wavering. For he that wavereth is like a wave of the sea driven with the wind and tossed. For let not that man think that he shall receive anything of the Lord. A double minded man is unstable in all his ways. (New Testament, James: 1:2 to 1:8)

Then spake Jesus to the multitude, and to his disciples, Saying: The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses' seat: All therefore whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe and do; but do not ye after their works: for they say, and do not. For they bind heavy burdens and grievous to be borne, and lay them on men's shoulders; but they themselves will not move them with one of their fingers. But all their works they do for to be seen of men: they make broad their phylacteries, and enlarge the borders of their garments, and love the uppermost rooms at feasts, and the chief seats in the synagogues, and greetings in the markets, and to be called of men, Rabbi! Rabbi! But be not ye called Rabbi: for one is your Master, even Christ; and all ye are brethren. And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven. Neither be ye called masters: for one is your Master, even Christ. But he that is greatest among you shall be your servant.

And whosoever shall exalt himself shall be abased; and he that shall humble himself shall be exalted.

But woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye shut up the kingdom of heaven against men: for ye neither go in yourselves, neither suffer ye them that are entering to go in. And he that shall swear by heaven, sweareth by the throne of God, and by him that sitteth thereon.

Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye pay tithe of mint and anise and cummin, and have omitted the weightier matters of the law, judgment, mercy, and faith: these ought ye to have done, and not to leave the other undone. Ye blind guides, which strain at a gnat, and swallow a camel. Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye make clean the outside of the cup and of the platter, but within they are full of extortion and excess. Thou blind Pharisee, cleanse first that which is within the cup and platter, that the outside of them may be clean also.

Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye are like unto whited sepulchres, which indeed appear beautiful outward, but are within full of dead men's bones, and of all uncleanness. Even so ye also outwardly appear righteous unto men, but within ye are full of hypocrisy and iniquity.

Wherefore, behold, I send unto you prophets, and wise men, and scribes: and some of them ye shall kill and crucify; and some of them shall ye scourge in your synagogues, and persecute them from city to city: That upon you may come all the righteous blood shed upon the earth, from the blood of righteous Abel unto the blood of Zacharias son of Barachias, whom ye slew between the temple and the altar. Verily I say unto you, All these things shall come upon this generation. (Matthew 23:1 to 23:36)

------------------
dumaurier

dumaurier

07-27-99, 01:14 AM

Devotion to God involves implicit obedience to His revealed Commands even when the reason for these Commands is not understood. The sailor implicitly obeys his captain's orders, even when he does not know the reason for them, but his acceptance of authority is not blind. He knows full well that the captain has served a thorough probation, and given ample proofs of competence as a navigator. Were it not so, he would be foolish indeed to serve under him....Having received such proofs [of the Captain's competence], however, to refuse obedience would be even greater folly, for only by intelligent and open-eyed obedience to the wise master can we reap the benefits of his wisdom, and acquire this wisdom for ourselves. Be the captain never so wise, if none of the crew obey him how shall the ship reach its port or the sailors learn the art of navigation? Christ clearly pointed out that obedience is the path of knowledge. He said: -- "My doctrine is not mine, but his that sent me. If any man will do his will, he shall know of the doctrine, whether it be of God, or whether I speak of myself." (John 7:16-17). So Bahá'u'lláh says: "Faith in God, and the knowledge of Him, cannot be fully attained except ... by practicing all that He hath commanded and all that is revealed in the Book from the Pen of Glory." (Tablet of Tajallíyát).

Implicit obedience is not a popular virtue in these democratic days, and indeed entire submission to the will of any mere man would be disastrous. But the Unity of Humanity can be attained only by complete harmony of each and all with the Divine will. Unless that Will be clearly revealed, and men abandon all other leaders and obey the Divine Messenger, then conflict and strife will go on, and men will continue to oppose each other, to devote a large part of their energy to frustrating the efforts of their brother men, instead of working harmoniously together for the Glory of God and the common good. (Esslemont, Baha'u'llah and the New Era, p. 77-78).

------------------
dumaurier

dumaurier

07-27-99, 01:21 AM

O contending peoples and kindreds of the earth! Set your faces towards unity, and let the radiance of its light shine upon you. Gather ye together, and for the sake of God resolve to root out whatever is the source of contention amongst you. Then will the effulgence of the world's great Luminary envelop the whole earth, and its inhabitants become the citizens of one city, and the occupants of one and the same throne...There can be no doubt whatever that the peoples of the world, of whatever race or religion, derive their inspiration from one heavenly Source, and are the subjects of one God. The difference between the ordinances under which they abide should be attributed to the varying requirements and exigencies of the age in which they were revealed. All of them, except a few which are the outcome of human perversity, were ordained of God, and are a reflection of His Will and Purpose. Arise and, armed with the power of faith, shatter to pieces the gods of your vain imaginings, the sowers of dissension amongst you. Cleave unto that which draweth you together and uniteth you. This, verily, is the most exalted Word which the Mother Book hath sent down and revealed unto you. To this beareth witness the Tongue of Grandeur from His habitation of glory. (Gleanings from the Writings of Baha'u'llah, pp. 217-218)

------------------
dumaurier

dumaurier

07-27-99, 01:36 AM

We should take care not to make the intellect our god; it has, of course, powerful muscles, but no personality.
(Albert Einstein)

------------------
dumaurier

bedlanam

07-27-99, 04:28 AM

dumaurier,

i do not believe that obedience is quite the proper word. this is similar to the message 2+2 is trying to get across. as in a display of the potential of given circumstances. in a play, the author defines the strength of each character and when the play is performed those acting in the play contribute nuances that can alter these traits. within a few rehearsals, the actors (may) have tranformed their characters into something new. a dynamic exchange is the result. what makes this creation of dynamic? is it the given knowledge of the plays movement, or the inflection of an individual akin to their world ? when the proper choice is made, the actor has a shapeable sense of empathy, which opens up possibility with an endearing sense of innocence. perhaps one can discover new perspectives on old habits. and thru this, we can realize the distincion of our choices. to some it may appear as obedience, but i believe it is best not to use the word in this context, as it is a 'hallucination' of man's meddling affairs.

Boris

07-27-99, 09:37 PM

Dumaurier:

Uhhuh.

Why is it that every time I back you into a corner of your own making, you resort to spouting the scriptures, demonising the opposition, and completely abandoning the topics at hand? Have you anything reasonable to reply with, besides 'praise the Lord' and 'heretics be damned'?

Cut the idealistic castles in the air and the veiled ad hominem attacks, kick your brain into the thinking mode, and address the issues at hand in this forum. (If that was the best you could do, then we might as well stop here.)

------------------
I am; therefore I think.

dumaurier

07-28-99, 12:06 AM

Boris, like i said, it's been nice talking to you.

"Blessed are they that have soared
on the wings of detachment
and attained the station which,
as ordained by God,
overshadoweth the entire creation,
whom neither the vain imaginations
of the learned,
nor the multitude of the hosts
of the earth have succeeded
in deflecting from His Cause.
Who is there among you,
O people,
who will renounce the world,
and draw nigh unto God,
the Lord of all names?
Where is he to be found who,
through the power of My name that
transcendeth all created things,
will cast away the things
that men possess, and cling,
with all his might,
to the things which God,
the Knower of the unseen and of the seen,
hath bidden him observe?
Thus hath His bounty been sent down unto men,
His testimony fulfilled,
and His proof shone forth above
the Horizon of mercy.
Rich is the prize that shall be won
by him who hath believed and
exclaimed:
"Lauded art Thou,
O Beloved of all worlds!
Magnified be Thy name,
O Thou the Desire
of every understanding heart!"
(Bahá'u'lláh, Gleanings from the Writings of Baha'u'llah, pp. 34-35)

"LAUDED ART THOU,
O BELOVED OF ALL WORLDS!
MAGNIFIED BE THY NAME,
O THOU THE DESIRE OF EVERY
UNDERSTANDING HEART!"

and dumaurier repeats:

"LAUDED ART THOU,
O BELOVED OF ALL WORLDS!
MAGNIFIED BE THY NAME,
O THOU THE DESIRE OF EVERY
UNDERSTANDING HEART!"

I bear witness that there is none other God but God!

May His mercy shine upon you, dear Boris.

------------------
dumaurier

Boris

07-28-99, 12:42 AM

When I was little, I thought that monsters hid in the dark. I went to bed with the lights on to comfort me.

Then I grew up.

The tale of God is a comforting one designed to shield from the harshness, finality, uncertainty and apparent purposelessness of reality. But while ignorance is bliss, such a comfort is hardly worth seeking. To find adventure, one must leave shelter, open the mind, brave the world, and be willing to endure the elements. And what is life without adventure? A life in a Cave.

Quoting Mel Gibson from Braveheart:
"Everyone dies. Not everyone really lives."

[This message has been edited by Boris (edited July 27, 1999).]

dumaurier

07-28-99, 01:28 AM

I am the resurrection, and the life: he that believeth in me, though he were dead, yet shall he live: And whosoever liveth and believeth in me shall never die. (New Testament: John, 11:25-26)

So (give) glory to God, when ye reach eventide and when ye rise in the morning;
Yea, to Him be praise, in the heavens and on earth; and in the late afternoon and when the day begins to decline. It is He Who brings out the living from the dead, and brings out the dead from the living, and Who gives life to the earth after it is dead: and thus shall ye be brought out (from the dead). (Qu'ran, 30-AR-RUM)

Those who listen (in truth), be sure, will accept: as to the dead, God will raise them up; then will they be turned unto Him. (Qur'an: 6-AL-AN`AM)

So We said: "Strike the (body) with a piece of the (heifer)." Thus God bringeth the dead to life and showeth you His Signs: Perchance ye may understand." (Qur'an: 2-AL-BAQARAH)

Verily We shall give life to the dead, and We record that which they send before and that which they leave behind, and of all things have We taken account in a clear Book (of evidence). (Qur'an: 36-YA SIN)

Say: "Who is it that sustains you (in life) from the sky and from the earth? or who is it that has power over hearing and sight? And who is it that brings out the living from the dead and the dead from the living? and who is it that rules and regulates all affairs?" They will soon say, "God". Say, "will ye not then show piety (to Him)?"
Such is God, your real Cherisher and Sustainer: apart from truth, what (remains) but error? How then are ye turned away? Thus is the word of thy Lord proved true against those who rebel: Verily they will not believe. (Qur'an: 10-YUNUS)

...God is the Reality: it is He Who gives life to the dead, and it is He Who has power over all things. (Qur'an: 22-AL-HAJJ)

Follow ye the Way of the Lord and walk not in the footsteps of them that are sunk in heedlessness. Well is it with the slumberer who is stirred by the Breeze of God and ariseth from amongst the dead, directing his steps towards the Way of the Lord. Verily, such a man is regarded, in the sight of God, the True One, as a jewel amongst men and is reckoned with the blissful. (Tablets of Baha'u'llah)

May peace be upon you, Boris

------------------
dumaurier

dumaurier

07-28-99, 01:49 AM

Great God! Although His signs have encompassed the world and His proofs and testimonies are shining forth and manifest as the light, yet the ignorant appear heedless, nay rather, rebellious. Would that they had been content with opposition. But at all times they are plotting to cut down the sacred Lote-Tree. (Tablets of Baha'u'llah)

------------------
dumaurier

dumaurier

07-28-99, 02:11 AM

But a myriad times alas for the wayward who are like unto dried-up leaves fallen upon the dust. Ere long mortal blasts shall carry them away to the place ordained for them. Ignorant did they arrive, ignorant did they linger and ignorant did they retire to their abodes. (Tablets of Baha'u'llah)

------------------
dumaurier

dumaurier

07-28-99, 02:20 AM

Unto Thee be praise, O Lord my God!
I entreat Thee, by Thy signs that have encompassed the entire creation,
and by the light of Thy countenance that hath illuminated all that are in heaven and on earth,
and by Thy mercy that hath surpassed all created things,
and by Thy grace that hath suffused the whole universe,
to rend asunder the veils that shut me out from Thee,
that I may hasten unto the Fountain-Head of Thy mighty inspiration,
and to the Day-Spring of Thy Revelation and bountiful favors,
and may be immersed beneath the ocean of Thy nearness and pleasure.

Suffer me not, O my Lord,
to be deprived of the knowledge of Thee in Thy days,
and divest me not of the robe of Thy guidance.
Give me to drink of the river that is life indeed,
whose waters have streamed forth from the Paradise (Ridván) in which the throne of Thy Name, the All-Merciful, was established,
that mine eyes may be opened,
and my face be illumined,
and my heart be assured,
and my soul be enlightened,
and my steps be made firm.

Thou art He Who from everlasting was,
through the potency of His might,
supreme over all things,
and, through the operation of His will,
was able to ordain all things.
Nothing whatsoever,
whether in Thy heaven or on Thy earth,
can frustrate Thy purpose.
Have mercy, then, upon me, O my Lord,
through Thy gracious providence and generosity,
and incline mine ear to the sweet melodies of the birds that warble their praise of Thee,
amidst the branches of the tree of Thy oneness.

Thou art the Great Giver,
the Ever-Forgiving,
the Most Compassionate.

(Bahá'u'lláh, Prayers and Meditations)

------------------
dumaurier

dumaurier

07-28-99, 06:10 PM

KNOWLEDGE WAS ONE;
THE IGNORANT HAVE MYLTIPLIED IT!
(The Qu'ran)

Does not the existence of chaos prove the existence of order?
~Yes!
Did man create himself?
~No!
Is the creator like man?
~Impossible!
Can a picture be a masterpiece and the painter imperfect in his art?
~Impossible!
Can the picture be like its painter?
~Impossible!
Can the painting be as perfect as the painter?
~Impossible!
Is this contingent world the source of imperfections?
~Yes!
Is the Creator the origin of perfections?
~Yes! This must be so.
Are not the imperfections of the contingent world in themselves proof of the perfections of the Creator?
~Yes!
If there were no power, could weakness be imagined?
~Never!
If there were no weakness, could power be imagined?
~Never!
If there were no wealth, could poverty be imagined?
~Impossible!
If there were no poverty , could wealth be imagined?
~Impossible!
If there were no knowledge, could ignorance be imagined?
~Never!
If there were no ignorance , could knowledge be imagined?
~Never!
If there were no knowledge, would there be ignorance?
~Never!
If there were no existence, could nonexistence be realized.
~Never!
Is man in certain particulars governed?
~Yes!
Does not a thing that is governed need someone/something to govern it?
~Yes!
Is not a characteristic of contingent beings dependency?
~Yes!
Is not this dependency an essential necessity?
~Yes!
Therefore, is there not an independent being whose independence is essential?
~Yes!
Is it not so that if there is a man who is sick then there must be one who is in health; for if there were no health, his sickness could not be proved?
~Yes! Absolutely true!
Can the creation be perfect and the creator imperfect?
~Impossible!
Is it not so that unless the Creator possessed all perfections He would not be able to create because He'd be like His creation?
~Absolutely!
Is it not so that there is an Eternal Almighty One Who is the possessor of all perfections, because unless He possessed all perfections He would be like His creation?
~Yes!
Is it not so that the existence of a piece of bread proves that it has a maker?
~Yes!

Praise be to God! the least change produced in the form of the smallest thing proves the existence of a creator: then can this great universe, which is endless, be self-created and come into existence from the action of matter and the elements? How self-evidently wrong is such a supposition!

------------------
dumaurier

Boris

07-28-99, 07:22 PM

And so begins the next great cycle.

Dumaurier makes a series of illogical claims painted as impregnable truths.

Boris shows there's no inherent truth in the claims.

Dumaurier spouts lots of quotes.

Enjoy, repeat...

<hr>

"Does not the existence of chaos prove the existence of order? ~Yes!"

Chaos does not exist; there is only order (due to your beloved causality, no less). What we call 'chaos' is merely an illusion of unpredictability stemming from complexity. This is just one example of some of the binary constructs (chaos/order) that we create, where only one member of the pair actually makes sense.

<hr>

"If there were no existence, could nonexistence be realized. Never!"

If there were no existence, we wouldn't be having the conversation, much less realizing anything. This is another example of a juxtapposition of two concepts, of which only one reflects reality.

<hr>

"Is this contingent world the source of imperfections? Yes!"

"Can the creation be perfect and the creator imperfect? Impossible!"

Does anybody else sense a self-contradiction here? Which one is it Dumaurier: is the creation perfect or imperfect? And how the heck do you classify it as either, when you have nothing else to compare it to?!

<hr>

"Are not the imperfections of the contingent world in themselves proof of the perfections of the Creator? Yes!"

Would you be so kind as to point out just what part of this world is imperfect, and in what way? Perfection is a relative concept; it only applies within a comparison between two tangible sets of features (and even then the criterion of perfection is arbitrarily defined). What two tangible entities are you comparing? What is your criterion for perfection?

<hr>

"
If there were no power, could weakness be imagined? Never!
If there were no weakness, could power be imagined? Never!
If there were no wealth, could poverty be imagined? Impossible!
If there were no poverty , could wealth be imagined? Impossible!
If there were no knowledge, could ignorance be imagined? Never!
If there were no ignorance , could knowledge be imagined? Never!
If there were no knowledge, would there be ignorance? Never!
"
These are all fundamentally the same; I'll take the knowledge/ignorance duo as an example. Knowledge in the sense it's commonly used is a concept that makes sense only with reference to an animal. Within that context, it denotes memory, skills, and theories formed or acquired by that animal from direct experience or from other animals. Thus, knowledge is synomymous to experience, and ignorance to lack of experience. Note that the ultimate reference -- experience -- is a singular concept (at least in English), and that you obtain its opposite by literal negation: inexperience. What we have then, is a formation of a binary pair by negation of an existing concept to obtain an opposite. However, you could never start with the opposite and arrive at the source -- because the opposite (inexperience) cannot exist prior to the source (experience); it can only be defined as a function (a Boolean negation) of the source.

You have listed several examples of such binary formations obtained by Boolean negation of a singular extant concept defined directly by observation.

The literal manifestation of a concept does not 'prove' that a literal manifestation of that concept's negation actually possesses an independent existence. Darkness is defined as opposite to light, yet it simply means absense of light. Hence, light must exist and be known before darkness can be defined.

That is all you are showing with your listings of opposites. There is no evidence for God in the fact that we can apply simple Boolean operations to percepts.

<hr>

"Is man in certain particulars governed?
~Yes!
Does not a thing that is governed need someone/something to govern it?
~Yes!
Is not a characteristic of contingent beings dependency?
~Yes!"

So far so good, but...

"Is not this dependency an essential necessity?
~Yes!"

is already questionable (it doesn't apply to your God, does it?), and

"Therefore, is there not an independent being whose independence is essential?
~Yes!"

is simply false. Instead of independent being, we can have independent physics, and be governed by that. So you see, the 'independent being' is not essential.

<hr>

"Is it not so that unless the Creator possessed all perfections He would not be able to create because He'd be like His creation?
~Absolutely!"

Not so at all. We humans regularly reproduce, thus 'creating' other humans -- but we are not any more perfect than our children. A creator can definitely create things that are just as 'perfect' (whatever that means) as the creator itself. In fact, a creator can make things more sophisticated than itself. For example, a simple program that prints out random letters will, given enough time, reproduce all the world's known literary works of genius. All one needs is a computational medium (such as spacetime, for example) within which the creator and its products can evolve.

<hr>

"
Is it not so that there is an Eternal Almighty One Who is the possessor of all perfections, because unless He possessed all perfections He would be like His creation?
~Yes!
"

In light of the above discussion, No. Without an apriori assumption of an Eternal Almighty One, that statement is a total non-sequitur.

<hr>

"
Is it not so that the existence of a piece of bread proves that it has a maker?
~Yes!
"

By itself, it proves nothing. We need a whole lot of assumptions to hold before we can name, or even demonstrate, a maker. If we assume conservation of matter and energy, and causality, then existence of a piece of bread proves that it (and its components) had a well-defined history. If we assume known physical laws, then the spontaneous formation of a piece of bread is unlikely, and we'd tend to attribute it to a more complex physical process, involving computation and knowledge, which we'd vaguely classify as 'life'. Further, possessing knowledge of Earth's life and its varied behaviors, we would be likely to conclude that a piece of bread was made by members of the species Homo Sapiens.

Existence of any object or phenomenon in the universe (including bread, paintings, stars, planets, and furniture) derives squarely from laws of physics and initial conditions at Big Bang (which specified position and momenta of all particles since). The laws of physics themselves originate within an unknown (and probably inaccessible), 'outer' reality. Whether they are dictated by other laws, by themselves in a closed loop, by a deliberate will, or by some other mechanism our limited brains can't even fathom -- is a question that will not be resolved any time soon (and probably never).

------------------
I am; therefore I think.

dumaurier

07-28-99, 08:54 PM

Boris, just answer me this with a simple YES or NO:

Is it true that a piece of bread must have a maker?

------------------
dumaurier

Plato

07-29-99, 06:52 AM

dumaurier & Boris,

This discussion that you guys are having is totally pointless ! Each has his own language and world or dare I say universe and make sure that the two don't touch at all.
A discussion also means that there must be some grounds that are agreed on by both paties otherwise there is no communication and all these pages are absolutely useless and boring to read.
Why not search for some common grounds and go from there ?

------------------
we are midgets standing on the backs of giants,
Plato

dumaurier

07-29-99, 01:49 PM

Plato,

You are keen and very perceptive. And, of course, you are totally correct in your assessment.

...sigh...

------------------
dumaurier

Boris

07-29-99, 06:00 PM

Boris, just answer me this with a simple YES or NO:
Is it true that a piece of bread must have a maker?

Yes.

However, there is no such thing as a 'simple' answer here. My 'yes' is a qualified 'yes', contingent on a number of world-theories my brain has been able to form since birth. Which is what I tried to show you at the end of the last post. Thing is, science shows us that a lot more goes on in the world than our brains normally assume. Thus, for example, the loaf of bread is a direct consequence of human civilization, which is a direct consequence of human evolution, which is a direct consequence of evolution of life on Earth, which is a direct consequence of stellar evolution, which is a direct consequence of evolution of matter-energy, which is a direct consequence of the laws of physics and the Big Bang. So the deeper and more informed answer to your question is "Yes, but the ultimate maker is not sentient, nor singular. The ultimate makers are spacetime, matter-energy, and the initial conditions at Big Bang." And even that answer is only as complete as are our theories and facts. For example, we cannot extend it to a specification of what gave rise to spacetime, matter-energy, or Big Bang, at least not presently. Our knowledge stops at this great wall that encircles us and confines us in an epistemological prison of sorts. All of our answers and facts seem forever doomed to exist only within this (admittedly collossal) box.

Our worldview, our logic, our intuitions about how things work -- are entirely native to the three-dimensional, Newtonian space and simple linear time within which we live. It is fruitless to attempt applying the laws we know to a reality we don't know. It is like applying the laws of blackjack to a poker game -- the likelihood of such an application being correct is vanishingly small. But for all we know, there is even less commonality between our limited existence and 'ultimate' existence; we might very well be trying to apply the laws of blackjack to stellar evolution. The real answer is that we don't know, and probably will never have a clue. Contrast that viewpoint with your own blustering arguments proposing to deductively demonstrate God, based on pre-Renaissance cosmological reasoning. You are a naive anachronism in the modern age, Dumaurier. Religion has made you so.

This has been in retort to your causality and creator-creation arguments. However, even more salient are the multiple logical contradictions, and straight-out assumptions masquerading as deductions, some of which I went over in my previous post.

<hr>

As for Plato's point:

I don't believe this debate has been about common ground. The 'proofs and evidences' claim only stems from a theist set of axyoms, and quite a few irrationalities to boot -- not from any actual, objective proof or evidence. That is what I have been trying to show.

------------------
I am; therefore I think.

[This message has been edited by Boris (edited July 29, 1999).]

dumaurier

07-29-99, 06:26 PM

And Boris, please, answer me this one with a simple YES or NO:
Is it true that a painting must have a painter (its maker)?

------------------
dumaurier

dumaurier

07-29-99, 06:34 PM

Plato, don't take it personal that Boris didn't understand one iota of what you wrote. The "sunglasses" are thicker than i thought!

And i must inject here...

sigh...

and ...sigh again.

------------------
dumaurier

Boris

07-29-99, 07:09 PM

Dumaurier:

Answer me this with a simple YES or NO:

Did you actually read my last post?

And then answer this:

Did you actually read any of my last posts???

------------------
I am; therefore I think.

Boris

07-29-99, 07:25 PM

Dumaurier:

I believe your inability to understand me may derive from a fundamental assumption we do not share. Namely:

Everything we are, everything we do, and everything we create -- is not dictated by soul, is not dictated by free will (no such thing) -- but is squarely and exclusively dictated by physical laws. What you will think two seconds from now can in principle be precisely predicted, if we knew the following:

1) the detailed construction of your brain
2) the complete state of your brain at present
3) your immediate environment (say, everything within the surrounding sphere of spacetime 2 lightseconds in diameter, down to the last photon).

Our behavior, and indeed behavior of anything in the universe, is dictated unequivocally by laws of physics. The illusion of 'creator' and 'creation' arises from the fact that we normally do not perceive this determinism -- as it is impossible to know the precise state of the brain or the surrounding environment (due to Heisenberg's uncertainty principle) -- and our brains are not capable of retaining or processing that much simultaneous information anyway.

At the most fundamental level, we and the surrounding universe are nothing but congregations of matter-energy that self-arrange and self-transform according to physical laws as time goes by. The observation that you are an independent entity within the universe is an illusion imposed by your cognitive machinery. You are as much a part of the universe as the keyboard in front of you -- and ultimately, again in principle, just as predictable, and equally devoid of ultimate independence, or free will.

------------------
I am; therefore I think.

Boris

07-29-99, 07:37 PM

Tell me this, Dumaurier:

Based on what you have sensed and observed from your birth up to now, what compels you to surmise a non-physical aspect to our existence?

------------------
I am; therefore I think.

dumaurier

07-30-99, 02:33 AM

Boris,

It has become evident to me that your mind compels you to seek answers only within the confines of a physical universe. Your arguements are all inprisoned within theories circling about a physical nucleous. You have shown that you do not believe in a spiritual existence.

One can conjure thousands of intellectual theories explaining this and that hypothesis; one can ponder for millions of years the beauty of the complexity of the material universe and yet never will his thirst be adequately gratified until and unless he recognizes a Creator behind the majestic appearance of matter, be this via the Big Bang or otherwise.

Knowledge must lead, in the end, to submission of the reality that man can never fathom the essence of matter. Such submission recognizes an Omnipotent Creator who loves you, Boris, despite your persistence in refusing to acknowledge His love for you. Intellectual arguement proves its point and should subsequently be silenced. In silence are many significant points made.

There needs must be a degree of love in the heart, my friend, if we are to be just and fair in our arguements. Such love can in no wise come from intellectual arguement of a hostile nature. Nay! One should first subdue the mind to obedience to love and next balance this wonderful condition with reason.

You and i boris, could never carry on a "love" relationship as long as you continue destroying. The purpose of our exchange should be to seek the truth. Now, this truth is not one sided; it is multifaceted.

We both agree that a piece of bread must have a maker. We needn't question who the baker is, what is his name, where he lives, if he is tall or short, fat or skinny, Canadian, Russian or American. The baker baked the loaf that sits on the table before us. And we enjoy a good slice with butter having trust that the baker did his best. So, we acknowledge that the loaf of bread had a maker.

Now, this insignificant composition of wheat, water and yeast had a maker. This you admit. Yet, the very elements comprising the wheat/water/yeast are found throughout the universe to a greater and lesser degree. They could not have come about accidentally or just appeared magically. Even though we might accept that the Big Bang is true, this does not explain Who or What created the elements which existed before the Big Bang occurred.

I believe there is a God Who brought matter into existence in ways only He knows and which are beyond my understanding. This is what i believe. I believe in an Omnipotent Creator; in God! I believe in a soul and in life after death. I believe in a spiritual existence and could never confine my mind and heart to be strict prisoner within a material universe. These are my beliefs. I don't wish to argue my beliefs and i do believe that no one has the business of endeavouring to destroy my beliefs; in fact, any such endeavours only have the effect of strengthening them!

I view existence both as a spiritual and a material phenomena, as i've said. To me life and existence is not only made of matter and dependent on itself (evolution, survival of the fittest, and what have you) Nay! I believe behind every atom the Hand of God works wonders. I believe life has a Divine Captain that leads the ship and never once abandons it. And this is where we differ; you don't believe in this. And i am not condemning you for it. I have my beliefs. You have yours.

Plato is absolutely correct: we should either find common ground or cease encumbering the good folk who take the pains to read these posts. On my part, i must most frankly admit that i am tired of arguement. My initial post expressed my beliefs. And here i reiterate and make them even clearer.

I see no point in continuing. The subject matter has been exhausted. I have stated my views; you have stated yours. I believe in an Omnipotent Creator and you don't.

There's no point in continuing.

------------------
dumaurier

Boris

07-30-99, 05:03 PM

See, now this is just the kind of reasoned argument I've been hoping for all along. Let's try to keep it at this level from now on.

It seems that this very forum is about personal beliefs, and potential justifications of them. Thus, I am not at all surprised that personal beliefs is what we finally arrive at. After all, one must first have a conjecture in order to seek proof of it. The problem is, that the 'proofs' you have been citing are not really proofs so much as derivatives of the conjecture they are trying to buttress; they are circular arguments in other words. I'll explain what I mean in more detail.

There are two kinds of proof: mathematical proof and empirical demonstration.

Mathematical proofs start with axyoms and arrive at a conclusion implied by the selected axyoms and dictated by the particular operations applied. Your 'proofs and evidences of God' are more akin to this mathematical kind of proof -- where the fact that is demonstrated is inherent in the assumptions used to demonstrate it. The problem with mathematical proofs is that they do not reflect reality unless their basic axyoms are somehow justified. However, axyoms cannot in principle be justified through mathematics (read: logical argument) -- they are apriori assumptions. Hence, mathematics, logic, and argument on their own are completely inane when it comes to actually having something to do with reality. In order for the argued conclusions to hold any pragmatic weight, their fundamental assumptions must first be justified by pure observation. Not by argument, not by revelation, certainly not by deduction or mathematics -- but by empirical observation which is independent of observer and can be verified by other independent observers.

Thus, any theory of the universe must, at its root, stem from the universe itself. Its fundamental axyoms must derive squarely from empirical observation. If even one of the axyoms is not empirically justified, then the entire theory becomes an empty mathematical construct. There is an infinity of empty mathematical constructs, since one can assume an infinity of arbitrary axyoms in an infinity of combinations. It is easy to see that the vast majority of such mathematical constructions will have nothing to do with reality. The only theories likely to at least approximate reality are those whose fundamental axyoms at least approximate empirically collected facts.

The assumption of God is an axyom. It is an apriori belief and cannot be justified logically or mathematically. However, it does not derive from empirical observation. It is in fact an arbitrary construct, one among the infinity of possible constructs, which is arbitrarily singled out of that infinity and taken on faith. As such, it is highly unlikely to reflect reality; the probability of the God conjecture being true in the real world is mathematically 0.

That is what I have been trying to show. Not only are there no empirical proofs or evidences for existence of God, but the very assumption of God is overwhelmingly likely to be false.

One more thing -- the much-dreaded "Occam's razor".

It has been demonstrated in the course of epistemological evolution that only assumptions that contribute new predictive power to an understanding of a phenomenon are likely to reflect reality. The assumption of God, on the other hand, provides no added explanatory or predictive power -- it adds no new understanding, and it models no aspect of reality. As such, it is useless and redundant. It is certainly not necessitated by anything humans have ever learned from the world.

Finally, let me remark on that comment that challenges to your beliefs only make them stronger. Such a disposition is not what I would call an open mind, and it is certainly not conducive to discussion or any kind of argument -- antagonistic and friendly alike.

------------------
I am; therefore I think.

[This message has been edited by Boris (edited July 30, 1999).]

2+2

07-30-99, 09:05 PM

It is, or has been, interesting for me to read this thread, this blizzard of words. In my opinion Boris won, because dumaurier never once in this debate intellectually struggled to answer a point. Instead he posted scripture after scripture like a BOT. Like a devotee he keeps his eyes on the guru waiting. And afraid that if he even considers a non-believers concepts, then he has sinned. That is how it reads to me anyway.

------------------
The landscape opened like a children's book...
It has the look of careful joy.John N Morris

dumaurier

07-30-99, 11:15 PM

Boris writes:
See, now this is just the kind of reasoned argument I've been hoping for all along. Let's try to keep it at this level from now on.

dumaurier responds:
Please define this "level".

Boris writes:
It seems that this very forum is about personal beliefs, and potential justifications of them. Thus, I am not at all surprised that personal beliefs is what we finally arrive at. After all, one must first have a conjecture in order to seek proof of it. The problem is, that the 'proofs' you have been citing are not really proofs so much as derivatives of the conjecture they are trying to buttress; they are circular arguments in other words. I'll explain what I mean in more detail.

dumaurier responds:
You yourself have voiced personal beliefs. Your personal beliefs center upon a focus of your so called "scientific methods." However, let me say that the fact that the piece of bread had a maker is by no means a personal belief. That humans are dependent on the sun is far from being a personal belief. That there exists within the human being something that we term "spiritual" or something which is beyond the comprehension of the methods used by materialist scientists is not personal belief. The fact that scientists do not understand a million things in this universe is no personal belief. The principle of Cause & Effect is not personal belief. That God exists is not personal belief. These are facts!

The proofs that i have presented are proofs to any intelligent thinking creature such as man. They are obvious truths, but only to the pure of heart. Einstein believed in God and he had a pure heart. It is why he contributed so greatly to the advance of mankind for he did not confine himself to the test tube and ignore the spiritual reality that infuses all of creation. He was not labouring to agrandize nor defend his own personality but rather was he working for the welfare of all. For the individual imprisoned within the confines of matter and whose vision has been clouded by the very methods which confine him therein, and whose intellectual extravagances, to begin with, refuse in acknowledging any other existence save the material existence, certainly any proof presented to him beyond the scope of his understanding and methods is rebuked and ridiculed. But he fools only himself with his personal beliefs for the fact of his being proves without a doubt that there is someone greater than he who afforded him to breath the air and to partake of the food he eats.

Although you might think that you have demolished the proofs and evidences of the existence of God with your intellectual meanderings, the principles enunciated at the start of this post are all sound and stand up to reason. You fail to understand because of your strict materialistic approach to all phenomena. You have taken out of context and added doubts based on your materialistic perceptions of all things. As i have noted before, God has no need of man, but man has need of God.

Boris wrote:
There are two kinds of proof: mathematical proof and empirical demonstration.
Mathematical proofs start with axyoms and arrive at a conclusion implied by the selected axyoms and dictated by the particular operations applied. Your 'proofs and evidences of God' are more akin to this mathematical kind of proof -- where the fact that is demonstrated is inherent in the assumptions used to demonstrate it. The problem with mathematical proofs is that they do not reflect reality unless their basic axyoms are somehow justified. However, axyoms cannot in principle be justified through mathematics (read: logical argument) -- they are apriori assumptions. Hence, mathematics, logic, and argument on their own are completely inane when it comes to actually having something to do with reality. In order for the argued conclusions to hold any pragmatic weight, their fundamental assumptions must first be justified by pure observation. Not by argument, not by revelation, certainly not by deduction or mathematics -- but by empirical observation which is independent of observer and can be verified by other independent observers.
Thus, any theory of the universe must, at its root, stem from the universe itself. Its fundamental axyoms must derive squarely from empirical observation. If even one of the axyoms is not empirically justified, then the entire theory becomes an empty mathematical construct. There is an infinity of empty mathematical constructs, since one can assume an infinity of arbitrary axyoms in an infinity of combinations. It is easy to see that the vast majority of such mathematical constructions will have nothing to do with reality. The only theories likely to at least approximate reality are those whose fundamental axyoms at least approximate empirically collected facts.

dumaurier responds:
There are only four accepted methods of comprehension-- that is to say, the realities of things are understood by these four methods. The first method is by the senses--that is to say, all that the eye, the ear, the taste, the smell, the touch perceive is understood by this method. Today this method is considered the most perfect by most philosophers: they say that the principal method of gaining knowledge is through the senses; they consider it supreme, although it is imperfect, for it commits errors. For example, the greatest of the senses is the power of sight. The sight sees the mirage as water, and it sees images reflected in mirrors as real and existent; large bodies which are distant appear to be small, and a whirling point appears as a circle. The sight believes the earth to be motionless and sees the sun in motion, and in many similar cases it makes mistakes. Therefore, we cannot trust it.

The second is the method of reason, which was that of the ancient philosophers, the pillars of wisdom; this is the method of the understanding. They proved things by reason and held firmly to logical proofs; all their arguments are arguments of reason. Notwithstanding this, they differed greatly, and their opinions were contradictory. They even changed their views--that is to say, during twenty years they would prove the existence of a thing by logical arguments, and afterward they would deny it by logical arguments--so much so that Plato at first logically proved the immobility of the earth and the movement of the sun; later by logical arguments he proved that the sun was the stationary center, and that the earth was moving. Afterward the Ptolemaic theory was spread abroad, and the idea of Plato was entirely forgotten, until at last a new observer again called it to life. Thus all the mathematicians disagreed, although they relied upon arguments of reason. In the same way, by logical arguments, they would prove a problem at a certain time, then afterward by arguments of the same nature they would deny it. So one of the philosophers would firmly uphold a theory for a time with strong arguments and proofs to support it, which afterward he would retract and contradict by arguments of reason. Therefore, it is evident that the method of reason is not perfect, for the differences of the ancient philosophers, the want of stability and the variations of their opinions, prove this. For if it were perfect, all ought to be united in their ideas and agreed in their opinions.

The third method of understanding is by tradition-- that is, through the text of the Holy Scriptures--for people say, "In the Old and New Testaments, God spoke thus." This method equally is not perfect, because the traditions are understood by the reason. As the reason itself is liable to err, how can it be said that in interpreting the meaning of the traditions it will not err, for it is possible for it to make mistakes, and certainty cannot be attained. This is the method of the religious leaders; whatever they understand and comprehend from the text of the books is that which their reason understands from the text, and not necessarily the real truth; for the reason is like a balance, and the meanings contained in the text of the Holy Books are like the thing which is weighed. If the balance is untrue, how can the weight be ascertained?

Know then: that which is in the hands of people, that which they believe, is liable to error. For, in proving or disproving a thing, if a proof is brought forward which is taken from the evidence of our senses, this method, as has become evident, is not perfect; if the proofs are intellectual, the same is true; or if they are traditional, such proofs also are not perfect. Therefore, there is no standard in the hands of people upon which we can rely.

But the bounty of the Holy Spirit gives the true method of comprehension which is infallible and indubitable. This is through the help of the Holy Spirit which comes to man, and this is the condition in which certainty can alone be attained. (`Abdu'l-Bahá, Some Answered Questions).

Boris writes:
The assumption of God is an axyom. It is an apriori belief and cannot be justified logically or mathematically. However, it does not derive from empirical observation. It is in fact an arbitrary construct, one among the infinity of possible constructs, which is arbitrarily singled out of that infinity and taken on faith. As such, it is highly unlikely to reflect reality; the probability of the God conjecture being true in the real world is mathematically 0.
That is what I have been trying to show. Not only are there no empirical proofs or evidences for existence of God, but the very assumption of God is overwhelmingly likely to be false.

dumaurier responds:
Boris, i don't believe that you exist. prove to me that you exist. Give me proofs and evidences. But such proofs and evidences must be based on the grounds that you are laying here. I have argued that for every effect there must be a cause. The universe and all that is therein is an effect; the cause was its Creator. We call this Creator, God. This is not "faith." This is sound reasoning. Why do you stubbornly refuse such an intelligent conclusion? When rain pours you do not argue the point that clouds caused it. Cause and effect. Why do you accept this principle of Cause & Effect in certain instances and refuse it in others?
No matter how deep a microscope may go in fathoming the slightest particle, man will never discover the essence of that particle for such knowledge is forbidden him. This is the domain of God and no one can join partners with God for obvious reasons already discussed here. He is THE Cause and we are all the effects.

Boris writes:
It has been demonstrated in the course of epistemological evolution that only assumptions that contribute new predictive power to an understanding of a phenomenon are likely to reflect reality. The assumption of God, on the other hand, provides no added explanatory or predictive power -- it adds no new understanding, and it models no aspect of reality. As such, it is useless and redundant. It is certainly not necessitated by anything humans have ever learned from the world.

dumaurier responds:
On the contrary! Humans have learned all they know about the world thanks to God's Messenger Who has educated man from the beginning of time. Without such education it would no longer have been possible for man to continue living on this planet. It was through God's healing Message that the brute was transformed into a social creature. Abraham taught humanity how to live in relative peace within the clan. And Moses taught man the unity of the tribe. Then Muhammad established the Muslim Ummah (nation) from the savage tribes of Arabia. And today Baha'u'llah is establishing universal peace. Moreover, the concept that the central orb of our own solar system was the sun was enunciated in the Qu'ran. Witness how sciences developed and progressed AFTER Muhammad's Revelation. We've talked about this at length. In addition, it is thanks to God's Revelation that superstition and ignorance were replaced with true knowledge down through the ages. Most great men of the Medeival and Renaissance period were God fearing men. The great nations of the West were founded on a belief in Christianity. What united people was their mutual belief in Christ. If there were no belief in God none of this could ever have come about. It is the impetus of an intensive inner belief in the existence of a benevolent Creator that drives mankind forward toward perfection in this otherwise imperfect world.

Boris writes:
Finally, let me remark on that comment that challenges to your beliefs only make them stronger. Such a disposition is not what I would call an open mind, and it is certainly not conducive to discussion or any kind of argument -- antagonistic and friendly alike

dumaurier responds:
My meaning is that upon witnessing how a great mind such as yours is wasted by narrowing its focus only to considerations of a material nature, makes me realize that God is truly Omnipotent in that no matter how reasonable, how scientific, how perceptive is the human mind, it still remains a prisoner within the confines of its own limitations and can never hope to join partners with God, the Omnipotent Creator of the very tool you use to discredit Him. Any attempt at disproving the existence of God must, in the end, end in utter failure and disappointment. Mark my words: in later life you yourself will eventually cry bitter tears for having stood so arrogant before His great majesty and might! But this is the way God works, you see. It is through tests such as these that the blind eventually attain true vision.

------------------
dumaurier

Boris

07-31-99, 02:28 AM

dumaurier responds:
Please define this "level".

No character attacks, glib dismissal, threats of divine wrath, or pounding on dogma. Now, I must admit to some of similar crimes, but this is my first serious public debate, and I am learning. I hope you do the same.

You yourself have voiced personal beliefs. Your personal beliefs center upon a focus of your so called "scientific methods." However, let me say that the fact that the piece of bread had a maker is by no means a personal belief. That humans are dependent on the sun is far from being a personal belief.

Indeed. I contend that my personal beliefs are more than just beliefs -- they are based on observed fact. They don't center on scientific method, they center on fact. Scientific method centers on fact. So you can compare my beliefs to scientific method, but you can't claim that they have it as their ultimate foundation.

That there exists within the human being something that we term "spiritual" or something which is beyond the comprehension of the methods used by materialist scientists is not personal belief.

Now that is a personal belief. If you disagree, then provide an empirical justification for this claim.

The fact that scientists do not understand a million things in this universe is no personal belief. The principle of Cause & Effect is not personal belief.

Again, true. These are demonstrable facts, and entirely have basis in reality.

That God exists is not personal belief.

But it is. Again, if you disagree, provide an empirical source for the belief.

<hr>

The proofs that i have presented are proofs to any intelligent thinking creature such as man. They are obvious truths, but only to the pure of heart.

I have shown quite clearly by now that they are not obvious truths, and in fact are not even demonstrably true.

Einstein believed in God and he had a pure heart. It is why he contributed so greatly to the advance of mankind for he did not confine himself to the test tube and ignore the spiritual reality that infuses all of creation. He was not labouring to agrandize nor defend his own personality but rather was he working for the welfare of all.

That is hogwash. Einstein contributed so much to science because he was a scientist, and not a monk. He did indeed confine himself to a test tube -- the theory of Relativity is the ultimate Test Tube! It is an epistemological nightmare; it discounts any absolute reference frame. He paid no attention to spiritual reality when he constructed his theories. He paid a great deal of attention to Maxwell's equations of electrodynamics, and later to unification of physical forces.

For the individual imprisoned within the confines of matter and whose vision has been clouded by the very methods which confine him therein, and whose intellectual extravagances, to begin with, refuse in acknowledging any other existence save the material existence, certainly any proof presented to him beyond the scope of his understanding and methods is rebuked and ridiculed.

But we are matter! We are not imprisoned within its confines; we are what we are! To acknowledge an existence, one must perceive it first. Otherwise, the so-called existence beyond material has no more veracity to it than the existence of Alice's wonderland. Who is really being blinded -- one who casts an unencumbered look at the real world, or one who rather prefers to eye a fantasy painting?

But he fools only himself with his personal beliefs for the fact of his being proves without a doubt that there is someone greater than he who afforded him to breath the air and to partake of the food he eats.

I am not trying to fool anyone. As to you -- well, your motives are yours to know.

As I have clearly shown, there is no proof 'without a doubt' of God's existence. And our existence speaks of nothing but our existence. The known laws of physics explain our existence starting with the Big Bang. However, they stop there and cannot in good conscience be used to describe something prior, or outer, to the Big Bang.

Although you might think that you have demolished the proofs and evidences of the existence of God with your intellectual meanderings, the principles enunciated at the start of this post are all sound and stand up to reason.

What you have called 'intellectual meanderings' are in fact examples of reason, exposing the lack thereof in your own arguments.

You fail to understand because of your strict materialistic approach to all phenomena.

Oh no, I understand very well. I fail to agree. And anyone who has spent any time entertaining the sources and mechanisms of thought and fact would agree that the 'materialistic approach' is the only one justified by what we have in our possession, in the pursuit of knowledge and understanding.

There are only four accepted methods of comprehension-- that is to say, the realities of things are understood by these four methods.

And therein lies your big mistake. It is not mere comprehension that we are ultimately interested in. What we seek is a comprehension that reflects reality, that models it closely -- the currently most accurate comprehension. And the accuracy of it is measured not in idle debate, but in brute empirical testing.

The first method is by the senses--that is to say, all that the eye, the ear, the taste, the smell, the touch perceive is understood by this method. Today this method is considered the most perfect by most philosophers: they say that the principal method of gaining knowledge is through the senses; they consider it supreme, although it is imperfect, for it commits errors. For example, the greatest of the senses is the power of sight. The sight sees the mirage as water, and it sees images reflected in mirrors as real and existent; large bodies which are distant appear to be small, and a whirling point appears as a circle. The sight believes the earth to be motionless and sees the sun in motion, and in many similar cases it makes mistakes. Therefore, we cannot trust it.

Here you are showing lack of understanding. The senses in themselves are merely measuring instruments. Measuring instruments cannot be fooled -- what they measure is precisely what they measure. What can be fooled is our cognitive machinery that takes the data from measurement, and proceeds to interpret it. This is where illusions and misinterpretations occur. Not at the empirical perceptual level, but at the cognitive theoretical level. In fact, our ability to be deceived by the senses is a beautiful illustration of the fact that all life in effect uses the scientific method as its fundamental mode of operation. Our perceptual mechanisms learn to discern, and later expect, certain regularities in the surrounding world. It is these expectations that are subsequently fooled by illusion. In essense, our senses are forming theories of the world, and these theories are not always complete. However, we do not possess a biological capacity to reprogram our senses after we discover that their world-theory is incomplete. However, we do possess the capacity to reprogram our higher brain centers with better theories. And that's what science is all about.

The second is the method of reason, which was that of the ancient philosophers, the pillars of wisdom; this is the method of the understanding. They proved things by reason and held firmly to logical proofs; all their arguments are arguments of reason. Notwithstanding this, they differed greatly, and their opinions were contradictory. They even changed their views--that is to say, during twenty years they would prove the existence of a thing by logical arguments, and afterward they would deny it by logical arguments--so much so that Plato at first logically proved the immobility of the earth and the movement of the sun; later by logical arguments he proved that the sun was the stationary center, and that the earth was moving.

Quite right. Pure philosophy is not a source of knowledge; it is merely a source of conjecture. This is the crucial fact that the Greeks failed to realize; philosophy must be accompanied by empirical observation in order to give rise to new knowledge.

The third method of understanding is by tradition...
But the bounty of the Holy Spirit gives the true method of comprehension which is infallible and indubitable.

Now the last two are actually one and the same. Tradition has to originate with someone. So does religion. And neither is a source of knowledge; rather they are sources of myth, speculation, superstition and sometimes irrational behavior.

Boris, i don't believe that you exist. prove to me that you exist. Give me proofs and evidences. But such proofs and evidences must be based on the grounds that you are laying here.

Indeed, you possess ample proof that I exist -- entirely based on the materialistic grounds that I have laid out for you. You have an empirical proof of my existence -- these very writings and my continual interaction with you. This you perceive, and don't just take on faith -- not by a long shot!

I have argued that for every effect there must be a cause. The universe and all that is therein is an effect; the cause was its Creator. We call this Creator, God. This is not "faith." This is sound reasoning.

God is an effect. What is the cause of God? (How many times must I repeat this question until it sinks in? If God may have no cause, then the physical universe similarly may have no ultimate cause!) You see, for every effect WITHIN OUR PERCEIVED UNIVERSE there must be a cause, at least according to our present empirical observations. This says nothing about the situation OUTSIDE our perceived universe. And it certainly says nothing about an all-powerful, sentient source-creator. Pray tell, what effects within our perceived universe cannot be explained save through God? None! (At least none we know of!) Then why must the situation be different for the medium, if any, outside our perceived universe?

When rain pours you do not argue the point that clouds caused it. Cause and effect. Why do you accept this principle of Cause & Effect in certain instances and refuse it in others?

Indeed, when rain pours I do not argue the point that clouds caused it. Strangely, you do not argue that point either! Yet, I must ask you why is it that you do not claim that rain pours because God makes it pour? Why is it that you are willing to accept that the rain is a merely physical process. But why are you refusing to recognize that fact in general for the rest of the observable universe? And what reason do you have for totally reversing that perspective as soon as you contemplate reality outside of the observable universe? You see, it is you who refuses cause-and-effect in the special cases of God, thought, mind and soul. But strangely, at the same time you attribute the universe's emergence to cause and effect -- while at the same time claiming that it emerged from an origin which does not obey causality! And, to boot, you are arguing about causality -- a physical law observed only within the known universe -- as applied to the entirety of exitence, including the origins of our universe! Not only are you making arbitrary exceptions to your 'universal law', you are wildly extrapolating a mere physical law and making it into a 'universal' one!

No matter how deep a microscope may go in fathoming the slightest particle, man will never discover the essence of that particle for such knowledge is forbidden him.

That is not at all clear, and remains to be seen. Nobody knows what the true limits to theoretical knowledge are, if in fact there even are any limits.

<hr>

Humans have learned all they know about the world thanks to God's Messenger Who has educated man from the beginning of time. Without such education it would no longer have been possible for man to continue living on this planet.

Here we go again... Man evolved from ape, and nature was and remains his educator.

It was through God's healing Message that the brute was transformed into a social creature.

No. Evolution transformed us into social creatures. And not only us. Take a day out and visit a zoo with a gorilla exhibit in it. You will see families of gorillas getting along beautifully, and as true families should. With no help from divine prophets, mind you.

Abraham taught humanity how to live in relative peace within the clan.

Hogwash. I'd say American Indians, for one, had it figured out long before the rise of the Jewish civilization.

And Moses taught man the unity of the tribe.

All the while fleeing from a unified Egyptian tribe.

Then Muhammad established the Muslim Ummah (nation) from the savage tribes of Arabia.

And long before Mohammad, in fact long before recorded history, the 'savage' Africa was home to beautiful, affluent and sophisticated civilizations, of which Egypt was only the last gasp.

And today Baha'u'llah is establishing universal peace.

Well, it's either Baha'u'llah with his x million followers (not even in double digits) -- or world economy combined with fatigue from the horrors of full-blown modern world war. Now, which is the more reasonable explanation, I wonder...

Moreover, the concept that the central orb of our own solar system was the sun was enunciated in the Qu'ran. Witness how sciences developed and progressed AFTER Muhammad's Revelation. We've talked about this at length.

Yes, witness how the European Renaissance rejuvenated the anscient Greek knowledge. Witness how science took off in an overwhelmingly Christian Europe. Witness how the mathematical knowledge was passed from the Greeks, to the Arabs, and then back to Europeans, after which the Islamic arabs descended into the depths of ignorance!

In addition, it is thanks to God's Revelation that superstition and ignorance were replaced with true knowledge down through the ages.

It is thanks to God's Revelation that one type of superstition was replaced with another! No useful knowledge has ever descended from any deity, and I dare you to show otherwise!

Most great men of the Medeival and Renaissance period were God fearing men. The great nations of the West were founded on a belief in Christianity. What united people was their mutual belief in Christ.

Those are the same great men that thought Earth was flat and at the center of the universe! And then they thought disease could be cured by letting blood. And in their Christian unity, they hunted down witches, burned books and heretics right and left, and persecuted the greatest scientists of their time! If Renaissance was truly inspired by the word of God, why did it not occur even 500 years earlier?!! What united people was their mutual terror of the Church. And what united the Church was greed, political strife, and lust for power and control.

If there were no belief in God none of this could ever have come about.

That is an empty claim. History turned out the way it did. As to why it turned out the way it did is entirely open to interpretation. This is going back to the issue of empirical observation versus theory. History is fact. Your assertion is theory. And a rather weak one at that! Anyone with even a rudimentary education in history realizes that every single event is caused by and precipitates a host of varied vactors. And in most cases, the message of Christ was not the decisive cause in any significant social change!

It is the impetus of an intensive inner belief in the existence of a benevolent Creator that drives mankind forward toward perfection in this otherwise imperfect world.

Here comes that notion of perfection again. Compared to what, may I ask, is our world imperfect???

It is certainly not a belief in God that drives the majority of the human population, save a few fanatics here and there. More often than not, the main factors are greed, yearning for recognition, power, respect and influence, sense of personal worth or achievement, or yearning for adventure and exploration of new possibilities. Humans are stimulated by novelty. This is what primarily drives the modern boom of basic research.

Any attempt at disproving the existence of God must, in the end, end in utter failure and disappointment.

Agreed. Same is true of any attempt at proving the existence of God. But what I am actually trying to do is show that existence of God as you conceive is highly improbable. I am trying to show that the only reasonable and true-to-the-facts answers are:
"I don't know what created the universe. I don't know whether the universe even had an ultimate origin. I don't know what exists outside of spacetime, and I don't know if the outside even exists. I don't know what is the limit to human knowledge; I can only speculate. But the world is sure mysterious and fascinating enough as to not require some myth to spice it up."
That would be an honest and humble answer as well, not an arrogant one as you portray it.

Mark my words: in later life you yourself will eventually cry bitter tears for having stood so arrogant before His great majesty and might!

Thank you for that bit of wisdom. But if I had a cent for every time some child of the Lord gave me dire warnings, I would be a billionaire by now.

------------------
I am; therefore I think.

[This message has been edited by Boris (edited July 30, 1999).]

god

07-31-99, 04:39 PM

dumaurier
if i may interject with a quick question. If every effect has a cause what would be the cause for the creator?

Boris
what would the cause be for the big bang?

Boris

07-31-99, 10:33 PM

That is precisely one of my points. Causality does not work as the ultimate explanation for the source of the universe. And while Dumaurier will tell you he knows exactly that God existed forever, I will tell you I don't know what was the cause of Big Bang. In fact, I don't even know if Big Bang was caused by anything to begin with.

------------------
I am; therefore I think.

dumaurier

08-01-99, 02:08 AM

The words in italics are dumaurier's from a previous post.
Those preceded by three dashes ~~~are Boris's response to these words

That God exists is not personal belief.
~~~But it is. Again, if you disagree, provide an empirical source for the belief.

dumaurier responds"
What is "proof"? What is "fact"? On the one hand you have 5 million people with little toys who weigh and measure matter and satisfy their senses through such play and conclude as established "fact" that a rock is "hard:" "Gentlemen, according to our senses through which we have gained immense pleasure and satisfaction with regards our 10 thousand years observation of this gray substance before us, we conclude that a rock is hard, from which we derive the law that one must never walk beneath a window from which it falls lest it collide with the skull and turn us all into spiritual scientists!"
On the other hand you have 500 million people without such little toys but who say God exists and put forth logical proof such as the principle of causality, yet this is not considered an "empirical" source. The conclusion is that a handful of madmen proclaiming the law of "Beware of windows and falling gray matter!" are right and the remaining 500 million are wrong. Give me a break Boris, alright already!

You fail to understand because of your strict materialistic approach to all phenomena.
~~~Oh no, I understand very well. I fail to agree. And anyone who has spent any time entertaining the sources and mechanisms of thought and fact would agree that the 'materialistic approach' is the only one justified by what we have in our possession, in the pursuit of knowledge and understanding.

dumaurier responds:
But what is the goal of knowledge and understanding? Is it to discover matter only and proclaim that people should beware of lousy windows lest they are hit on the head with a rock? Is the object of knowledge the accumulation of facts and thereby become enmeshed in meaningless muck and mire? Is it to be at one with matter; to marry illusions with which to go to bed with each night? For knowledge by itself is meaningless unless it has ulterior goals which aim at improving spiritual and moral life; the improvement of both a moral and material existence both go hand in hand (science/religion) and one cannot exist without the other. And what is there to understand about matter which is so important? We can understand the make-up of matter, it's variable components, inter-relatedness, its mechanistic functions, etc., but what next? What is the purpose of it all? You see, this is where the spiritual equation comes into play and takes on meaning because it is only by such God-derived meaning that matter itself takes on a spiritual significance for man. And why would we want to perfect implements that further human comfort and ease physical pain? Why work toward better living conditions if not to ease the soul of man? When thirst is quenched and hunger satisfied, what remains? What is the purpose of life itself if there were no spiritual meaning infused into it? You see, this is why man today is so confused; because he lacks the very stuff within his soul to uplift him from the filth of matter and into the heavenly gems of spiritual reality. On a clear night while gazing at the awesome stellar spectacle above, the pure heart is made to wonder at the greatness of the Creator of it all. How could such a puny thing as man, while gazing at such panoramic beauty, ever claim to have any power whatsoever in comparison to the Almighty and Benevolent Creator?

Boris writes:
Here you are showing lack of understanding. The senses in themselves are merely measuring instruments. Measuring instruments cannot be fooled -- what they measure is precisely what they measure. What can be fooled is our cognitive machinery that takes the data from measurement, and proceeds to interpret it. This is where illusions and misinterpretations occur. Not at the empirical perceptual level, but at the cognitive theoretical level.

dumaurier responds:
Boris, you are fiddledaddling with words. What is the difference between your "empirical perceptual level," and "cognitive theoretical level"? There is none! No scientist could categorize colors without the sense of sight. What are you talking about, Boris? How can a scientist ever study sound without the sense of hearing or sight? You are playing with words again, no more no less!

Boris writes:
In fact, our ability to be deceived by the senses is a beautiful illustration of the fact that all life in effect uses the scientific method as its fundamental mode of operation.

dumaurier responds:
This is totally false. All life does not use scientific method whatsoever; fundamentally or otherwise! Scientific method is used by intelligent creatures ONLY for such a method was invented and developed by intelligent creatures in order to aid in their understanding of external phenomena. A tornado does not use any scientific method at all. An earthquake, a tidal wave, a volcano, rain, snow, sleet, gravity, all are natural phenomena perfectly in conformity and subject to a law that is imposing, immutable and created by an Almighty God! Nature does not deviate a hairsbreadth from the universal law of which it is a slave. Nature has no will. "He created the sun, the moon, and the stars, (all) governed by laws under His command. Is it not His to create and to govern? Blessed be God, the Cherisher and Sustainer of the worlds! (Qur'an: 7 - AL-A`ARAF)

Boris writes:
Our perceptual mechanisms learn to discern, and later expect, certain regularities in the surrounding world. It is these expectations that are subsequently fooled by illusion. In essence, our senses are forming theories of the world, and these theories are not always complete.

dumaurier responds:
In essence our senses form no theories whatsoever for they do not possess intelligence. It is the power of the mind that observes data through the senses and formulates a synthesis of bits of knowledge gleaned through these senses. Because man is extremely limited in his capacity to "encompass" and "surround" the infinite knowledge of God as it is infused and revealed through all matter, he cannot hope to understand all that there is to know of the grandeur of his Creator. Yet, through the senses he can glean bits and pieces and see the majesty of the workings of the Omnipotent's greatness through observation of the phenomenal.

Boris writes:
However, we do not possess a biological capacity to reprogram our senses after we discover that their world-theory is incomplete. However, we do possess the capacity to reprogram our higher brain centers with better theories. And that's what science is all about.

dumaurier responds:
In brief, man understands bits and pieces of the laws of the physical universe through his senses and formulates theories according to observed recurring patterns. As he observes more and more of such patterns his knowledge of same increases and thus, his theories are modified to conform to the new data. This knowledge is based on experiments experienced through the senses. But i will add more: The capacity to understand and synthesize such data is a spiritual capacity which our Creator has endowed human creatures for no other purpose but that man should recognize that infinite power and bounty belongs to the Source of all such creations--namely, God. Synthesis of knowledge is made by the soul, not the senses! And the soul originated with God and will return unto Him at death.

1. The third method of understanding is by tradition... 2. But the bounty of the Holy Spirit gives the true method of comprehension which is infallible and indubitable.
~~~Now the last two are actually one and the same. Tradition has to originate with someone. So does religion. And neither is a source of knowledge; rather they are sources of myth, speculation, superstition and sometimes irrational behavior.

dumaurier responds:
Tradition is an inherited, established, or customary pattern of thought, action, or behavior. It is the handing down of information, beliefs, and customs by word of mouth or by example from one generation to another without written instruction. It is a continuity of the culture of social attitudes, customs, and institutions. It is blind belief insofar as man practices what his forefathers invented without as much as blinking an eye. It is the promotion of all sorts of prejudices to the detriment of true understanding according to the reality of life in the real present. This is tradition.
But by the bounty of the Holy Spirit is meant that knowledge revealed by a Manifestation of God which educates the human soul and makes it into a new creation. Such fresh, invigorating, and new knowledge aids in broadening man's perspectives and infuses him with the courage to break tradition. At such coming man is imbued with renewed faith, acquires confidence that religion has been divested of its old attire (the superstitions and established worn-out dogmas which are irrelevant to the time of the new Revelation). The will to acquire virtues is stimulated through such Teachings and this is indeed a bounty by the Holy Spirit unto man. The power of the Holy Spirit gives life to the world of humanity, changes the aspect of the terrestrial globe, causes intelligence to progress, vivifies souls, lays the basis of a new life, establishes new foundations, organizes the world, brings nations and religions under the shadow of one standard, delivers man from the world of imperfections and vices, and inspires him with the desire and need of natural and acquired perfections. Certainly nothing short of a divine power could accomplish so great a work as that of the Holy Spirit. In fact, the Holy Spirit it is which destroys and demolishes to the ground traditions.

Boris, i don't believe that you exist. prove to me that you exist. Give me proofs and evidences. But such proofs and evidences must be based on the grounds that you are laying here.
~~~Indeed, you possess ample proof that I exist -- entirely based on the materialistic grounds that I have laid out for you. You have an empirical proof of my existence -- these very writings and my continual interaction with you. This you perceive, and don't just take on faith -- not by a long shot!

dumaurier responds:
Last night i had a most wonderful dream. I walked in a garden where nightingales sang and the roses blossomed with the sweetest fragrances permeating the entire garden. Along the path there flowed the sweetest river and the sky above was a pastel blue. Seated in all her majesty was a damsel of tender years who greeted me with a most welcoming smile and she bade me to seat myself by her side. We had a most wonderful conversation and then she asked me why i was sad. I told her that in my waking life i had a little problem which required a solution but that i had none. She bade me explain to her the details and i consented. Then she proceeded to suggest one solution which she said i should follow. Finally i bade her farewell.
The next morning upon waking i remembered the dream very clearly. I could still smell the roses and see the pastel sky and sweet flowing river. I proceeded to apply the young damsels recommendations into practise and by the end of the day my problem was solved.
This was a dream but the recommendations were exact, precise, to the point, succinct. Her suggestions solved my grave problem without compromise.
This garden, nightingale's song, pastel sky and pretty young damsel full of wisdom was more real than talking to someone in cyberspace. Yet, i cannot prove that it was real. But the suggested solution to my grave problem was even more real for its effects were engendered by my physical person in this physical world.

Boris writes:
God is an effect. What is the cause of God? (...If God may have no cause, then the physical universe similarly may have no ultimate cause!) You see, for every effect WITHIN OUR PERCEIVED UNIVERSE there must be a cause, at least according to our present empirical observations. This says nothing about the situation OUTSIDE our perceived universe. And it certainly says nothing about an all-powerful, sentient source-creator. Pray tell, what effects within our perceived universe cannot be explained save through God? None! (At least none we know of!) Then why must the situation be different for the medium, if any, outside our perceived universe?

dumaurier responds:
Boris, you remind me of an ant speaking to another ant and saying: "I don't believe in the existence of man for i can't understand him!"
Let us be reasonable here. It is beyond the station of man to understand the station of God. I have taken up this issue with you before. I have stated that the mineral lives within the range of its own station and due to its inherent limitations cannot ever understand the station of the vegetable kingdom above it. In like manner, the station of the vegetable cannot ever understand the station of the animal above it. The animal is incapable of understanding the station of man. Man is incapable of understanding the station of God. This is sound reasoning and can be ascertained by deductive observation. A piece of bread cannot, could never ever in a trillion years understand its maker, the baker. The two stations are not analogous, not equal. Yet, if the mineral had a rational faculty, through deductive reasoning it could conclude that the vegetable kingdom exists through its effects; if the vegetable had a rational faculty, through deductive reasoning it could conclude that the animal kingdom exists through its effects; if the animal had a rational faculty, through deductive reasoning it could conclude that the human kingdom exists through its effects; if the human had a rational faculty, through deductive reasoning he could conclude that the Divine Reality exists through its effects. Praised be the Creator of all visible and invisible effects!

Boris writes:
Indeed, when rain pours I do not argue the point that clouds caused it. Strangely, you do not argue that point either! Yet, I must ask you why is it that you do not claim that rain pours because God makes it pour? Why is it that you are willing to accept that the rain is a merely physical process. But why are you refusing to recognize that fact in general for the rest of the observable universe? And what reason do you have for totally reversing that perspective as soon as you contemplate reality outside of the observable universe?

dumaurier responds:
On the contrary, dear Boris. God indeed is the cause that makes the rain fall! The process of evaporation/cloud formation/rain follows those laws in nature of which the Creator put into place. Nature cannot deviate a stitch from such laws and obeys them as an obedient servant. God created the laws; therefore God willed the entire process. Rain, indeed, is an indirect manifestation of the will of the Almighty just as the Qu'ran states: "It is He Who doth show you the lightning...It is He Who doth raise up the clouds, heavy with (fertilizing) rain! Nay, thunder repeateth His praises... with awe: He flingeth the loud-voiced thunder-bolts..." (Qur'an: 13 - AR-RA`AD)

Boris writes:
You see, it is you who refuses cause-and-effect in the special cases of God, thought, mind and soul. But strangely, at the same time you attribute the universe's emergence to cause and effect -- while at the same time claiming that it emerged from an origin which does not obey causality! And, to boot, you are arguing about causality -- a physical law observed only within the known universe -- as applied to the entirety of existence, including the origins of our universe! Not only are you making arbitrary exceptions to your 'universal law', you are wildly extrapolating a mere physical law and making it into a 'universal' one!

dumaurier responds:
Nay, dear friend, the universe and all that is therein (and beyond) is a visible effect caused by the One Who engendered the existence of your very soul that thinkest, just as God desired! He is that Infinite, Omnipotent, Omniscient Creator who caused the very notion of causality to come within the radius of man's vision for the purpose of making him aware of his limitations with regards the true power which is God's. Such a notion of causality, moreover, comes from the Messengers of God Themselves, not from man! "Do they indeed ascribe to Him as partners things that can create nothing, but are themselves created?" (Qur'an: 7 - AL-A`ARAF) "To Him is due the primal origin of the heavens and the earth: When He decreeth a matter, He saith to it: "Be," and it is. (Qur'an: 2:117 AL-BAQARAH) "He begetteth not, nor is He begotten." (Qur'an: 112:3 AL-IKHLAS). "...but in all things the master- planning is God's..." (Qur'an: 13 - AR-RA`AD). "God! There is no God but He---the Living, the Self-subsisting, Eternal. No slumber can seize Him nor sleep. His are all things in the heavens and on earth... He knoweth what (appeareth to His creatures as) before or after or behind them. Nor shall they compass aught of His knowledge except as He willeth. " (Qur'an: 2 - AL-BAQARAH). "To Him is due the primal origin of the heavens and the earth...He created all things, and He hath full knowledge of all things." (Qur'an: 6 - AL-AN`AM)

It was through God's healing Message that the brute was transformed into a social creature.
~~~No. Evolution transformed us into social creatures. And not only us. Take a day out and visit a zoo with a gorilla exhibit in it. You will see families of gorillas getting along beautifully, and as true families should. With no help from divine prophets, mind you.

dumaurier responds:
The theory of evolution takes into account the progress of man's physical nature and its adaptation to an antagonistic environment ("survival of the fittest"). It does not take into account his spiritual nature and development. It tries to explain progress and evolution in relation to circumstantial factors occasioned by the accidents of an environment which was/is beyond human control. A rose is a rose will be a rose. We may fiddle with its genetic code, modify it, but it will always remain a rose. An ape was created an ape, will continue being an ape, and will forever remain an ape with absolutely no possibility for it to become human nor attain anywhere near the station of man. This is interdicted by natural laws established by the Law Maker. Man, on the other hand, has always been man with the inherent and intrinsic potential of growth and development of his physical, mental and spiritual faculties. The foetus in the womb of a human mother may look like an animal in the beginning but soon develops physical members which relate him to the kingdom of man. But while yet in the womb he still has the potential of a human being. Observe that the fetus of most mammals (elephant, fox, cat) resembles that of the human fetus in its beginnings. The two fetuses are alike in many respects. But the potential inherent in the genetic codes are different as decreed by God. Though there may have been a time when man behaved like the beasts of the wild, yet did he still receive Divine instruction, for a Benevolent and Compassionate God would not abandon His creation to itself just as a responsible and caring gardener would not abandon his beloved garden and allow weeds and thistles to over populate it. From the dawn of man the human species has always received a Manifestation of God to guide him in his spiritual development. All ancient peoples of this planet speak of traditions relating of "prophets" that visited them with the word of God. Some of these peoples still have their Holy Books as testimonies to this fact, such as the Hindus, Buddhists, Zoroastrians, Jews. Other peoples have only legends due to the remoteness of their prophets and their incapacity to have developed adequate means to record such religious history (the Eskimos and American Indians are some of these peoples).
Moreover, recently some new scientific thinking about Darwin's theory of evolution has happened and serious scientific voices have started to call into question several of the premises of evolutionary theory. These objections are so strong that the "theory of intelligent design" is making a comeback. Biological structures have been discovered which do not fit at all within the theory of evolution and scientists are left to wonder who the designer of these biological structures might be? Could it be God, Aliens, a universal act of magic? These new discoveries throw into contradictions what scientists have adhered to uptodate and scream for new answers. When confronted with significant unexplained contradictions and new problems, the scientific mind must open up to new possibilities, or else cease to be a scientific mind.

Abraham taught humanity how to live in relative peace within the clan.
~~~Hogwash. I'd say American Indians, for one, had it figured out long before the rise of the Jewish civilization.

dumaurier responds:
The only way to truly settle your objections is to present a thorough study of both the history of the peoples in Abraham's time and the peoples of the Americas. Since you do not seem to have the time to present historical evidence on which to base your objections but, rather, go on heresy, i shall drop the matter by saying that what i say is historically verifiable and we also have the Old Testament (the Torah) to go by. In the case of the American Indian, there is no such record extant.
However, let me share with you a little legend that circulates among most of the Indians of North and South American. The legend claims that a Being in white robes and sandals visited them many moons ago, stayed with them for some time, instructed them in the ways of living and in looking up to the sky to their Creator, and then departed. Thus, if legends have any degree of authoritative truth, we may assume that the American Indians also received spiritual education from a Prophet of God. All knowledge comes from the One same God, be it in the East or in the West. There is none other God but God!

And Moses taught man the unity of the tribe.
~~~All the while fleeing from a unified Egyptian tribe.

dumaurier responds:
Again, here i point you to the Old Testament for your personal education. You may also find reference of this tribal unity as being a unique phenomenon in many passages of the Qu'ran. As to your objection, you fling words but supply no substantiating proof. First we must define "tribe" and then see if it fits as a designation of the peoples of Egypt at the time of Moses. According to established definitions, Egypt was no "tribe" but a conglomerate of warring people with a king who held powerful sway with his tyrannical dynasty. The transition from primitive nomadic and warring peoples to traditional civilization is estimated to have began in Egypt in 5500 BC. This date is considered speculative trepidation by historians. The date for the unification of Egyptian people, of both the northern and southern regions, is estimated to be sometime between 3150 and 3110 BC. At this period Egyptians were incapable of writing whole sentences but used individual symbols to represent sounds. The Jews record that the Patriarch Abraham, a caravan trader who would later become the father of the nation of Israel, traveled to Shechem and Zoan (Egypt) sometime between 1900-1500 BCE where He came upon Egyptian barbarians who practised a pagan religion. But what he met resembled not in the slightest a tribe. Moses liberated the Jews in 1250-1200 BCE when the conquest of Canaan was begun. The Hebrews emerged as victors. Under Moses' instructions they parceled the land of Canaan into tribal territories creating a system of government known as an amphictyony. Such a political system did not exist in Egypt whose people were ruled by a tyrant.

Then Muhammad established the Muslim Ummah (nation) from the savage tribes of Arabia.
~~~And long before Mohammed, in fact long before recorded history, the 'savage' Africa was home to beautiful, affluent and sophisticated civilizations, of which Egypt was only the last gasp.

dumaurier responds:
Again, you are making a free affirmation. The adjectives "beautiful," "affluent," and "sophisticated," are highly inappropriate for a people ruled by a tyrant whose population was mainly made up of slaves who suffered beyond that suffering that human imagination can conjure! The "beautiful" you speak of is an invention by modern man who wishes to glorify something that deserves pity. Also, consider that the merchants of contemporary Egyptology could in no wise sell their wares if they did not resort to the tactics of sensationalism. The kind of unity brought about by Muhammad was never experienced by humanity before His advent. I presently continue working on that paper i promised you wherein i prove that the concept of the nation originated in Islam. I have every intention of posting such findings here when completed.

And today Baha'u'llah is establishing universal peace.
~~~Well, it's either Baha'u'llah with his x million followers (not even in double digits) -- or world economy combined with fatigue from the horrors of full-blown modern world war. Now, which is the more reasonable explanation, I wonder...

dumaurier responds:
The influence of the Holy Word from a Manifestation of God is subtle. It changes the hearts of even the unbelievers who see not the source thereof. The Word of God is revealed in progressive stages and educates humanity progressively. In the West great potentates established nations through the inviolable influence of Islam. But the influence was subtle. Any historian will testify to the importation of knowledge from Islam through the Crusades. Since Baha'u'llah's advent (1863) and His promotion of the idea of world unity, the world is stirred toward its achievement. Likewise, since Baha'u'llah's promoted the equality of the sexes, the elimination of all sorts of prejudices, the establishment of an international tribunal, one universal auxiliary language and script, justice for all, one world unity, harmony between science and religion, since the enunciation of these ideas men and women in all walks of life and throughout the planet have taken these issues up to task. Mankind is in need of the Word of God which acts as a spiritual force and impetus toward progress.

Moreover, the concept that the central orb of our own solar system was the sun was enunciated in the Qu'ran. Witness how sciences developed and progressed AFTER Muhammad's Revelation. We've talked about this at length.
~~~Yes, witness how the European Renaissance rejuvenated the ancient Greek knowledge. Witness how science took off in an overwhelmingly Christian Europe. Witness how the mathematical knowledge was passed from the Greeks, to the Arabs, and then back to Europeans, after which the Islamic Arabs descended into the depths of ignorance!

dumaurier responds:
Ancient Greek knowledge was rehashed by the Muslims, not the Europeans. In Islam the sciences of the material world saw a new life and were diligently studied. It was the Arabs who acknowledged the greatness of such Greeks as Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, and took it seriously. The pagan thought of ancient Greece trickled back to the West through the medium of Islamic culture and Arabic translation, to which reaction the Church repudiated and denounced. Aristotelian and Pythagorean theorems were thrown into a rigid, immutable cast by this same Church in Europe who frowned upon Roger Bacon, disfavored Copernicus's theories, and persecuted Galileo. The great physicians, Galen and Hippocrates, were held in high esteem by the Muslims who produced al-Harith Ibn Kaladah, styled "the doctor of the Arabians." Masarjawah translated the first book on medicine from Syriac into Arabic and this set the trend for a long line of translations that opened the way for the advent of Islamic civilization and shed luster upon it. Hunayn translated Plato's Republic and Aristotle's Categories & Physics at a time when Europe forbade even the mention of such great Greeks. These Muslims were inspired directly by the Holy words of Muhammad Himself who says in the Qu'ran: "Seek knowledge from the cradle to the grave," "Seek knowledge be it even in China," "The ink from the pen of the scholar is more worthy than the blood of the martyr," "He who leaves his home in search of knowledge, walks in the path of God." These were emphatic statements of Muhammad and He adds, "Are they equal: those who know and those who know not?" (Surah 39:12)
While the fervent believers in Muhammad were studying medicine, the oratory arts, mathematics, geometry, trigonometry, astronomy, etc., the dark ages in Europe were devastating the potential in men to think!
Baghdad became the cynosure of the world of savants when the Caliph al-Ma'mun established his House of Wisdom (al-Bayt al-Hikmah). Al-Ma'mun's astronomers computed the circumference of the earth and concluded that it must be a globe. When Nestorians found it difficult to practise their Faith in Byzantium, Chosroes I, the Sasanian monarch, gave them refuge, instituted a College of medicine and philosophy in Jund-i-Shapur (province of Khuzistan), and appointed a number of the learned amongst the Nestorians to staff it. The first astronomer in the realm of Islam was Muhammad Ibn Ibrahim al-Fazari who undertook to translate a book on astronomy by an Indian. The celebrated Musa al-Kharazmi brought together the Indian and Greek disciplines of astronomy and produced the Astronomical Tables ("Zij") which gained great fame. Albategnius, another Muslim, was the author of another set of Astronomical Tables, which in its Latin version provided the groundwork of astronomy in Europe for several centuries. But al-Kharazmi's was not just an astronomer: he is more know for his work in the field of mathematics. It was he who adopted Indian numerals and made use of zero, which facilitated calculation to an extent hitherto unknown and prepared the way for great scientific advance. The word "zero" comes from the Arabic "sifr" which means "empty." When the Indian numerals reached the Western world to oust the Roman, they came to be known as "Arabic Numerals." Al-Kharazmi was also the originator of algebra. The word "algebra" comes from the Arabic "al-jabr" meaning the renovation of something broken. Trigonometry, both plane and spherical, is another branch of mathematics that owes its inception to the scientists of Islamic civilization. The term "sine" (Latin "sinus"), used in trigonometry, is the Latin translation of the Arabic word "jayb" which means an "opening."
The indebtedness of Western civilization to the civilization of Islam is great. Many names of stars and scientific terms come directly from Islam. For example, the House of Twins is called Betelgeuse which comes from Bayt al-Jawza; the Flyer, Altair, is at-Ta'ir; The Calf (Pherkad) is Farqad; Acrab (Scorpion) is aqrab; the scientific word "Alembics" comes from as-Sumut; "Nadir" comes from "Nazir"; "Zenith" comes from "Samt arra's"; "Arsenic," from "Zarnikh"; and so on. The contribution of the notion of "nation," likewise, comes directly from Islam.
I could go on and on listing thousands of items contributed to our Western civilization by the people of Muhammad.

In addition, it is thanks to God's Revelation that superstition and ignorance were replaced with true knowledge down through the ages.
~~~It is thanks to God's Revelation that one type of superstition was replaced with another! No useful knowledge has ever descended from any deity, and I dare you to show otherwise!

dumaurier responds:
Muhammad said that the sun and moon have their own orbits, that these orbits are "rounded," and that our years and time are dependent on the sun:
"It is not permitted to the Sun to catch up the Moon, nor can the Night outstrip the Day: Each just swims along in its own orbit according to Law." (Qur'an: YA SIN, 36:40).
"It is He Who created the Night and the Day, and the sun and the moon: all the celestial bodies swim along, each in its rounded course." (Qur'an: AL-ANBIYAA, 21:33).
"It is He Who made the sun to be a shining glory and the moon to be a light of beauty, and measured out stages for her; that ye might know the number of years and the count of time." (Qur'an: YUNUS, 10:5)
This was and is useful knowledge.
At the time of Moses and Muhammad people had no knowledge of maggots in dieing carcasses of animals, nor were they aware of "germs." Thus they made laws and prohibitions to protect people from their own ignorance: "...if a soul touch any unclean thing, whether it be a carcass of an unclean beast, or a carcass of unclean cattle, or the carcass of unclean creeping things, and if it be hidden from him; he also shall be unclean, and guilty. (Leviticus, 5:2). This was and is "useful knowledge."
"The carcasses of every beast which divideth the hoof, and is not clovenfooted, nor cheweth the cud, are unclean unto you: every one that toucheth them shall be unclean. And whatsoever goeth upon his paws, among all manner of beasts that go on all four, those are unclean unto you: whoso toucheth their carcass shall be unclean until the evening. And he that beareth the carcass of them shall wash his clothes, and be unclean until the evening: they are unclean unto you. (Ibid 11:26-28). This was and is "useful knowledge".
"O ye who believe! when ye prepare for prayer, wash your faces, and your hands (and arms) to the elbows; Rub your heads (with water); and (wash) your feet to the ankles. If ye are in a state of ceremonial impurity, bathe your whole body. But if ye are ill, or on a journey, or one of you cometh from offices of nature,... and ye find no water, then take for yourselves clean sand or earth, and rub therewith your faces and hands, God doth not wish to place you in a difficulty, but to make you clean, and to complete his favor to you, that ye may be grateful. (Qu'ran, Al-Ma'idah, 5:7) This was and is "useful knowledge".
"Bull-like, noble, a hero, a great sage, and a conqueror, he who is motionless of mind, washed clean and awakened - that is what I call a Brahmin." (Buddhist Dhammapada, p. 422). This was and is "useful knowledge".
"...when there is sprinkled of the blood thereof upon any garment, thou shalt wash that whereon it was sprinkled...." (Leviticus: 6:27)
These are just scant examples of the many gems to be found in all Holy Scriptures. This was and is "useful knowledge."

Muhammad, like Christ, Moses and Abraham before Him, taught humanity about hygiene and exhorted men and women to wash themselves regularly. The Word of God through these Manifestations revealed to mankind not only laws of hygiene, but laws of nature and of social behavior. All this is and was "useful knowledge."

Most great men of the Medieval and Renaissance period were God fearing men. The great nations of the West were founded on a belief in Christianity. What united people was their mutual belief in Christ.
~~~Those are the same great men that thought Earth was flat and at the center of the universe! And then they thought disease could be cured by letting blood. And in their Christian unity, they hunted down witches, burned books and heretics right and left, and persecuted the greatest scientists of their time! If Renaissance was truly inspired by the word of God, why did it not occur even 500 years earlier?!! What united people was their mutual terror of the Church. And what united the Church was greed, political strife, and lust for power and control.

dumaurier responds:
It is undoubtedly true that the Church committed unpardonable crimes. I said "most great men." The dominant leaders of the Church were not "great men." The fact remains that the Christian civilization carries the name of Christ and under His banner did they unite to become one.

If there were no belief in God none of this could ever have come about.
~~~That is an empty claim. History turned out the way it did. As to why it turned out the way it did is entirely open to interpretation. This is going back to the issue of empirical observation versus theory. History is fact. Your assertion is theory. And a rather weak one at that! Anyone with even a rudimentary education in history realizes that every single event is caused by and precipitates a host of varied factors. And in most cases, the message of Christ was not the decisive cause in any significant social change!

dumaurier responds:
History has no mind of its own; men of wisdom and who feared God made the great events of history to occur. The great Roman empire came down thanks to the spiritual influence of Christians who were subjected to great tortures. But by "Christians" i do not include the "Church." I speak of the true Christians like the Nazarenes of Jerusalem, the Corinthians, the Colossians, the Ephesians, the Philippines, and other Christian communities to whom Paul wrote his epistles and whom did not recognize any Church. If you'd like me to give you a course on the greatness that was the peoples of Christian persuasion, just ask and this shall be forthcoming. History is replete with great men and women who lived for the Cause of His Lordship the Christ. The effect of the social changes due to Christ's Divinely inspired Message can be seen in the several ecumenical councils beginning with the Council of Nicaea in 325 which formulated the creed proclaiming the doctrine of the Trinity (first enunciated by Tertullian, who later, in 220, turned his back on the Church and joined the Montanists). It was from this Council of Nicae that the form and contents of the New Testament emerged.

It is the impetus of an intensive inner belief in the existence of a benevolent Creator that drives mankind forward toward perfection in this otherwise imperfect world.
~~~Here comes that notion of perfection again. Compared to what, may I ask, is our world imperfect??? It is certainly not a belief in God that drives the majority of the human population, save a few fanatics here and there. More often than not, the main factors are greed, yearning for recognition, power, respect and influence, sense of personal worth or achievement, or yearning for adventure and exploration of new possibilities. Humans are stimulated by novelty. This is what primarily drives the modern boom of basic research.

dumaurier responds:
There are over 900 million Muslims in the world. Dare you say they are all "fanatics"? There are more than this who claim to be Christians. Are they all "fanatics"? There are millions more who claim belief in Moses, Buddha, Krishna, and Baha'u'llah. All these people–in fact, most people on this planet– are driven by their belief in an Almighty God. And you have dumped them all into your basket of "fanatics." Get real, Boris! You're not the only one on this planet. In fact, you're an exception to the rule!!!

Any attempt at disproving the existence of God must, in the end, end in utter failure and disappointment.
~~~Agreed. Same is true of any attempt at proving the existence of God. But what I am actually trying to do is show that existence of God as you conceive is highly improbable. I am trying to show that the only reasonable and true-to-the-facts answers are: "I don't know what created the universe. I don't know whether the universe even had an ultimate origin. I don't know what exists outside of spacetime, and I don't know if the outside even exists. I don't know what is the limit to human knowledge; I can only speculate. But the world is sure mysterious and fascinating enough as to not require some myth to spice it up."
That would be an honest and humble answer as well, not an arrogant one as you portray it.

dumaurier responds:
"Any attempt at disproving the existence of God must, in the end, end in utter failure and disappointment."

Mark my words: in later life you yourself will eventually cry bitter tears for having stood so arrogant before His great majesty and might!
~~~Thank you for that bit of wisdom. But if I had a cent for every time some child of the Lord gave me dire warnings, I would be a billionaire by now.

Dumaurier responds:
You're very welcomed!

------------------
dumaurier

bedlanam

08-01-99, 02:17 AM

boris,

it is interesting how you leave 'the' out of bigbang; it is/as if u refer to bigbang as your (kinda) buddy. just something u 'know' well and respect with integrity.

bedlanam

08-01-99, 02:29 AM

dumaurier,

don't you see ? , you just acknowledged yourself to be as the countless others. recognize the approach. there is still no-one listening.

dumaurier

08-01-99, 02:39 AM

"god" wrote:

dumaurier
if i may interject with a quick question. If every effect has a cause what would be the cause for the creator?

dumaurier responds:
I have amply answered this question several times in these posts. Not meaning to offend or be rude, i must ask you to please be so kind as to re-read my posts.

Thank you

------------------
dumaurier

dumaurier

08-01-99, 02:41 AM

bedlanum:

I fail to see your point. Please be clear and state your mind.

Thank you.

------------------
dumaurier

god

08-02-99, 12:14 AM

OK dumaurier
if I understand you correctly you say god is an effect however we humans are incapable of understnding the cause. thats very convenient , but i'll buy it for now.
you also say we see the effects therefore god is the cause (natural laws , intelligence , ect..)thats nothing more than a leap of faith. The same effects could be used as evidence ( and have been ) for evolution & other sientific theorys.
You tell me all these holy scripture that you quote are truths. I could quote you science text as truths . what makes one real and the other not ? faith ?
I agree the universe is awfully complex to come to be on its own , but one almighty creator? That's no more likely than any other theory.

dumaurier

08-02-99, 03:48 AM

god writes:
if I understand you correctly, you say God is an effect however we humans are incapable of understanding the cause. That's very convenient, but i'll buy it for now.

dumaurier responds:
There is a slight misunderstanding here. I do not say that God IS an effect. No! Rather do i contend that man is capable of discerning God's existence through the effects He has initiated within this phenomenal existence. I have beforehand provided a clear example in comparing the sun to God. I have said that we know of the sun through its effects (light, heat, etc.). We cannot know the sun directly but indirectly, through its visible effects. If a blind man walked outdoors on a sunny day he would feel the heat of the sun and may declare that the sun does, indeed, radiate heat. He needn't see the bright, luminous orb itself. Thus the blind man knows of the existence of the sun by its effects. Color is dependent on light and this is another indication of the sun's effects for without the sun light is not possible. Now, you might argue that man has developed artificial light which is independent of the sun. But this is not so because the elements required to build the instrument which provides that artificial light came into being due to the effects of the sun. There are many examples where man has indirect knowledge of something without actually having had direct experience with that thing. One of our own planets was discovered through mathematical calculations years before it could actually be observed with a telescope. But all these are examples relative to the finite, physical realm. There are other examples indicating the existence of God in the spiritual realms. For example, the spiritual graces and the effects thereof prove the existence of an Almighty One Who caused such subtleties of the angelic condition to be manifest. For example, the virtue of compassion is not material but a spiritual phenomenon. Then what is the origin of such a virtue? What is the origin of all virtues? In fact, all virtues are spiritual phenomena which have been revealed gradually to mankind by the Representatives of God on earth (Christ, Muhammad, Baha'u'llah, etc.). Witness also the power in the Word of God as revealed by His Holy manifestations. See how the Word has transformed humanity down through the ages. So, for example, Socrates, Aristotle and Plato were God-fearing men who developed great sciences. According to Eastern histories, Socrates journeyed in Syria and learned about the Oneness of God from those who adhered to Judaism, he brought back such beliefs to his native land and educated all those who circled about him; such as Plato and others. The great Arabian physicians and mathematicians who gave us algebra, trigonometry, astronomy, etc., were all God-fearing, believing men. They were not atheists who didn't believe in the bounties of God! Their education derived from their belief in an Ever-Loving and Benevolent God Who directed their lives through their belief and obedience to His Messenger.

The knowledge of the existence of God comes to us from the Manifestations of God Themselves. Christ, upon whom the Christian civilization was founded, said that His Word came from the "Father." He did not say that His Word came from Himself, from His imagination. Read these passages:

"All things are delivered unto me of my Father..." (Matthew, 11:27)

"For I have not spoken of myself; but the Father which sent me, he gave me a commandment, what I should say, and what I should speak. And I know that his commandment is life everlasting: whatsoever I speak therefore, even as the Father said unto me, so I speak." (John, 12:49-50)

In the Qu'ran, Muhammad said similar words:

"They [the Apostles] speak not before He speaks, and they act in all things by His [God's] Command." (AL-ANBIYAA, 21:27)

"Say: "I am but a man like yourselves, but the inspiration has come to me, that your God is one God: whoever expects to meet his Lord, let him work righteousness, and, in the worship of his Lord, admit no one as partner." (AL-KAHF, 18:110)

"Say thou: "I am but a man like you: It is revealed to me by Inspiration, that your God is one God: so stand true to Him, and ask for His Forgiveness. And woe to those who join gods with God." (HA-MIM AS-SAJDAH, 41:6)

Moses, likewise said that the Word He uttered did not come from Himself but was given to Him by Yahveh, or God. We've only to refer to his sojourn up Mount Sinai (see Exodus 31:18) where God revealed to Him the Ten Commandments.

Moreover, Baha'u'llah also said that His Revelation came from God, not from Himself.

So, God has revealed Himself to mankind through His Divine Manifestations. Baha'u'llah says that in the world of being there are three ranks:

1. the rank of God or Divinity;
2. the rank of the Divine Manifestations;
3. the rank of man.

He says that the Divine Manifestation is the intermediary between God and man; man can only know God through the Divine Manifestation and in no other way. Moses, Christ, Muhammad, Baha'u'llah were all Divine Manifestations who revealed Books in which are written divine instructions for men to follow. And they all claim that this knowledge comes from God.

god writes:
you also say we see the effects therefore God is the cause (natural laws, intelligence, etc..) that's nothing more than a leap of faith. The same effects could be used as evidence (and have been) for evolution & other scientific theories.

dumaurier responds:
Please give me some examples of the same effects as evidence for evolution and other scientific theories.

god writes:
You tell me all these holy scripture that you quote are truths. I could quote you science text as truths. What makes one real and the other not? Faith?

dumaurier responds:
I am not saying that there are no truths in worldly sciences. Of course there are! For example, on the earth what goes up must come down! This is a truth. Man needs oxygen to live. Plants need the sun. Water evaporates. Fire burns. There are many truths. The sun is luminous. I am a man. Women bear children. Airplanes fly. Man has landed on the moon. These are all truths. They are not unreal! But they all pertain to the material world. Why do you reject that there is a God? Is it because He can't be dissected like the frog or be weighed on a scale? You see, when we speak of God we must refer to things which are beyond and above the material world; we must use something other than the senses to comprehend and understand. The Prophets of God revealed laws of hygiene, social laws, and they also revealed spiritual laws of a moral character. Such moral laws are not material. They are spiritual for they have to do with the education of souls. For example, They have all promoted the concept of goodness and righteousness. Such concepts are not material but they have an effect in the material world. So, when the Prophets teach man about washing the body, about chastity, and the like, although these instructions are directed toward the material body they have an effect on the soul of man. Baha'u'llah says that science and religion must go hand-in-hand. He does not say to accept one and reject the other. So there are sciences that concentrate on discovering the material world. And there are sciences that concentrate on discovering the spiritual worlds. Both are complimentary, not antagonistic.

But if you try to understand everything from a material perspective, you are limiting your search from the start.

Salutations

PS: If you emailed me your email address, i would send you something which i think you would find immensely interesting to read.

------------------
dumaurier

bedlanam

08-02-99, 04:02 AM

" incapable of understnding the cause" that is what i believe is missing. - it does not mean we cannot sense the 'cause' . for many the words 'leap of faith' imply innocence or blindness. this is a presumtion that relates nothing to the notion. have u ever been walking on the sidewalk and approched a slow caterpillar. if so, did u try to get it to a safe place in the foliage? perhaps instinct in combination with logical deduction creates intuition. is it that we take a chance during a leap of faith or is it a sense ot trust thru intuition. and say this is debated to be a self induced delusion, but if nothing bad ever comes of it (including vanity) then so be that explanation, right. the inference is 'sense' .

Boris

08-02-99, 04:11 AM

What is "proof"? What is "fact"? On the one hand you have 5 million people with little toys who weigh and measure matter and satisfy their senses through such play and conclude as established "fact" that a rock is "hard:" "Gentlemen, according to our senses through which we have gained immense pleasure and satisfaction with regards our 10 thousand years observation of this gray substance before us, we conclude that a rock is hard, from which we derive the law that one must never walk beneath a window from which it falls lest it collide with the skull and turn us all into spiritual scientists!" On the other hand you have 500 million people without such little toys but who say God exists and put forth logical proof such as the principle of causality, yet this is not considered an "empirical" source. The conclusion is that a handful of madmen proclaiming the law of "Beware of windows and falling gray matter!" are right and the remaining 500 million are wrong. Give me a break Boris, alright already!

The principle of causality is an empirical fact. By itself, it would mean nothing if it could not be demonstrated. 'Empirical' means observed; empirical fact means observable fact. When you claim to have knowledge of something you have never observed, nor can in principle observe, you are making an empty claim that has no bearing on reality.

Is the term 'madman' defined by numbers of people, or by their mental state? Besides, I don't call the believers madmen. I simply say that they are ignorant and misled, that's all. If I followed your methodology, then I'd call Baha'u'llah, Mohammad, Christ, Moses and Abraham madmen too -- their solitary word stood against the rest of the world! However, them you view as Prophets, while you view scientists as madmen. Where's your consistency?

(though let me remind you that whereas the Prophets had nothing but rhetoric to back themselves up, the 'madmen' of science have indeed empirically demonstrated extraordinary comprehension of reality.)

But what is the goal of knowledge and understanding? Is it to discover matter only and proclaim that people should beware of lousy windows lest they are hit on the head with a rock? Is the object of knowledge the accumulation of facts and thereby become enmeshed in meaningless muck and mire? Is it to be at one with matter; to marry illusions with which to go to bed with each night?

The object of knowledge is formation of theory. Scientific theory reflects and approximates the true reality; it is our only way to learn of the world's true nature, extent, sophistication, or behavior. Evolutionarily the theory-forming capaciy emerged as a behavioral adaptation, its purpose to guide the animal through the world safely, and to enable it to formulate optimal foraging strategies.

But in the answers to such questions as purpose of life and origin of everything, knowledge has no place. Such questions cannot be answered through knowledge (at least not as far as we can tell), and thus should not be answered at all -- for any answer even at present would be nothing but pretense.

And what is there to understand about matter which is so important? We can understand the make-up of matter, it's variable components, inter-relatedness, its mechanistic functions, etc., but what next? What is the purpose of it all?

We know of no ultimate purpose. We strive to understand matter because it is the only thing we can presently understand. As our understanding grows, we may be able to extend our investigation into areas not fathomed today. If there is an ultimate purpose, it can only be ascertained through empirical investigation; anything else is a mere random stab in the dark. Actually, not even all that random -- it never fails to have stark humanistic and earthly overtones. The choices are these:
1) stop wondering altogether and simply subsist
2) investigate, and nurture knowledge, in hopes of uncovering clues for further investigation.
3) manufacture answers that make you feel all warm anf fuzzy inside, and simply subsist from there on.

Why do detectives collect clues at a crime scene? Is it so they can marry and go to bed with those clues? Or is it because they want to provide answers as to what actually happened? After all, they could just pick a person at random and hang him/her -- and satisfy the mob that someone has paid for the crime. Question is: do people actually care who? It appears that a small minority of 'madmen' does...

What is the purpose of life itself if there were no spiritual meaning infused into it? You see, this is why man today is so confused; because he lacks the very stuff within his soul to uplift him from the filth of matter and into the heavenly gems of spiritual reality.

The man today is increasingly educated and knowledgeable. Thus, he is increasingly immune to the religious doctrine. However, science is commonly demonized as the domain of 'madmen' and 'geeks' -- so modern man is left with no available systematic perspective on life, and is forced to invent his own. Hence, confusion. Nevertheless, I do observe an increasing dependence on science when advice in life is needed -- especially when it comes to such things as nutrition, education, health care, or economic forecasts. The world at large is slowly coming to terms with the fact that science is the only source of reliable and thorough interpretation of reality, and this fact is true only because of modern science's empirical foundation.

If you need to be 'uplifted', there are many ways to accomplish that. Religious bliss is only one. An alternative way is to fall in love, start a family, and raise children. Another is through creativity and self-expression (art, in other words). Another is through finding an occupation that you enjoy and are really good at. Yet another is by simply soaking in the vastness, complexity and beauty of both the universe and human beings themselves. Yet another is to assume the role of a seeker -- no quest is as fulfilling, noble, or rife with inspiration, as that of a seeker after truth. The cuddly comfort of Sunday church meetings pales to nothingness in comparison. This is especially so when the truth one seeks concerns the fundamental nature of reality itself. There is a certain punch of exhilaration in realizing ones own ignorance, and the evident vastness of the universe filled with mysteries we cannot yet even fathom. Oh yes, there are indeed ways of being uplifted other than, and far superior to, religion.

On a clear night while gazing at the awesome stellar spectacle above, the pure heart is made to wonder at the greatness of the Creator of it all.

A pure heart would simply wonder at the greatness of it all. A confused one would rather contemplate Creator. By the way, the 'little toys' of science get extremely handy when it comes to the appreciation of greatness and complexity of the universe -- but also when it comes to understanding thereof.

Boris writes:
Here you are showing lack of understanding. The senses in themselves are merely measuring instruments. Measuring instruments cannot be fooled -- what they measure is precisely what they measure. What can be fooled is our cognitive machinery that takes the data from measurement, and proceeds to interpret it. This is where illusions and misinterpretations occur. Not at the empirical perceptual level, but at the cognitive theoretical level.

dumaurier responds:
Boris, you are fiddledaddling with words. What is the difference between your "empirical perceptual level," and "cognitive theoretical level"? There is none! No scientist could categorize colors without the sense of sight. What are you talking about, Boris? How can a scientist ever study sound without the sense of hearing or sight? You are playing with words again, no more no less!

Boris writes:
In fact, our ability to be deceived by the senses is a beautiful illustration of the fact that all life in effect uses the scientific method as its fundamental mode of operation.

dumaurier responds:
This is totally false. All life does not use scientific method whatsoever; fundamentally or otherwise! Scientific method is used by intelligent creatures ONLY for such a method was invented and developed by intelligent creatures in order to aid in their understanding of external phenomena. A tornado does not use any scientific method at all. An earthquake, a tidal wave, a volcano, rain, snow, sleet, gravity, all are natural phenomena perfectly in conformity and subject to a law that is imposing, immutable and created by an Almighty God! Nature does not deviate a hairsbreadth from the universal law of which it is a slave. Nature has no will. "He created the sun, the moon, and the stars, (all) governed by laws under His command.
is it not His to create and to govern? Blessed be God, the Cherisher and Sustainer of the worlds! (Qur'an: 7 - AL-A`ARAF)

Play on words is all you see, but one who reads with care and at least attempts to follow my argument would disagree with you. You split a coherent paragraph into chunks and ridiculed each, without seeing the unifying message:

The act of capturing information is done at the sensory organs. It is done in the rods and cones of the retina, in the hair cells of the ear, in the taste buds of the tongue. The recorded information is then transmitted along nervous tracts to higher centers where it is filtered, interpreted and registered. The sensory organs are empirical measuring instruments. They can be somewhat modulated by the higher cognitive machinery, but their fundamental registration of information is an unobstructed process. Senses themselves are not capable of being fooled. They are merely the cameras, the microphones, the thermometers and the spectrographs of the human body. Their data is submitted to higher processing nodes, which at genesis are jumbled but with maturation slowly modify themselves to make sense of the incoming information. Eventually, they learn to perceive and identify patterns within sensory input -- and these learned responses constitute a theory, an interpretation
of the empirical measurement.

Such implicit theory-making is inherent in adaptation. Animal life, long before it became conscious, was forming theories of the world. Depending on how successful a theory is encoded in an organism's body, that organism will have greater or lesser chance of survival. You see, the narrow sundry meaning of the word 'theory' is the one you presume; I am using a much more essential meaning of the word. A theory is a symbolic representation of the natural world that enables interpretation, dependable manipulation, and prediction of events within that world. Scientific theories are only a subclass of a much larger lot; every single behavioral adaptation present in animal life is a theory of the world. And, depending on how complete is the theory encoded by the behavioral adaptation, the animal is either more or less fit to survive.

Practically all of your knowledge, Dumarier, consists of theories. You know that fire burns flesh, and water soaks clothes. You know that the sky is blue and that you are a Canadian. Every one of these generalizations is a theory -- and even as you were emerging from your mother's womb you were already employing the scientific method to form such theories. We, and all other animals, learn by trial and error -- which this is only a simple restatement of the scientific method. Life itself, no matter what kind, evolves by trial and error. So you see, I was right after all. The scientific method is one of the most fundamental principles on which life operates. So you are welcome to eat yet another shoe.

You see, this is just what I mean when I relate scientific knowledge to awareness. No 'revelation' has ever increased our awareness of the world; our awareness has always grown only through experience and accompanying theory making. You have demonstrated an awareness too limited to even grasp the essense of my argument; instead you proceeded to attack it in bizzarre ways as a strange beast it was to you. What was all that about tornadoes, rain, sleet, and volcanoes? They are not alive; they do not adapt; they do not evolve -- they naturally do not form theories. You are miles off the point here!

Boris writes:
Our perceptual mechanisms learn to discern, and later expect, certain regularities in the surrounding world. It is these expectations that are subsequently fooled by illusion. In essence, our senses are forming theories of the world, and these theories are not always complete.

dumaurier responds:
In essence our senses form no theories whatsoever for they do not possess intelligence. It is the power of the mind that observes data through the senses and formulates a synthesis of bits of knowledge gleaned through these senses. Because man
is extremely limited in his capacity to "encompass" and "surround" the infinite knowledge of God as it is infused and revealed through all matter, he cannot hope to understand all that there is to know of the grandeur of his Creator. Yet, through the senses he can glean bits and pieces and see the majesty of the workings of the Omnipotent's greatness through observation of the phenomenal.

What you refer to as the 'power of the mind', I refer to as 'perceptual mechanisms'. You proclaim knowledge of the mind, whereas you actually possess virtually none. Just this once, cast away your presumption, and hear out the objective fact.

The vast majority of the sensory illusions occur prior to entering the stream of consciousness. Such illusions are produced by adaptations in the sensory corteci which have come to represent the 'normal' behavior of the world. For example, when you see some object that is bright at the top and dark at the bottom, you cannot help but perceive it as an oblique object illuminated from above by sunlight. However, this object might actually be a crater on Mars, and the sunlight is coming from the bottom. Your visual system refuses to contemplate such a perspective, however -- because it has by now formed a rather rigid theory of how objects are illuminated in the world. Another example is the Gestalt principle of continuity. When you see a tree, and from one side of the tree you see a shovel tip up in the air, and on the other side of the tree you see the shovel head dug into the ground, you will automatically assume that the shovel is continuous behind the tree, and that the tip of the handle you see up in the air is connected to the head in the ground on the other side of the tree. Such an assumption is a theory formed by your visual apparatus; in this case it may or may not actually represent reality. However, this is not a conscious theory you have arrived to through reason; you learned the principle of Continuity even as you were a toddler. The same can be said about the principle of adjacency, where two events exhibiting similar or simultaneous behavior are automatically attributed to a common source, and sometimes even perceived as the same object. For example, you can make a computer program draw a random spattering of black pixels on a white computer screen. Then, the program would pick at random any two of those pixels, and start synchronously moving them around. Your visual system would immediately interpret the two dots as belonging to the same object -- with no conscious input whatsoever.

Theories permeate our consciousness even deeper than that. For example, a prototype is a theoretical construct. When you envision a prototypical chair, or a prototypical tree -- you are employing a theoretical representation of an entire class of often varied and quite dissimilar objects. Such formation of mental symbols, or prototypes, for objects, behaviors, and even sensory qualities is just a veiled formation of a theoretical representation.

So you see, our sensory systems are indeed full of theories -- as indeed is all life on this planet. These theories strive to represent the world as best they can; however, they can be fooled deliberately and very reliably once one understands their basic assumptions.

Finally, let me correct you on this notion of 'encompassing and surrounding' the universe with one's mind. The brain does no such thing. Theories are formed by detection of correlation. The brain detects repeated patterns, and makes the fundamental assumption that these patterns represent
natural behavior and are likely to be repeated in the future. Correlation plays a huge role in cognition; it is the only source of statistical information about the behavior of the world. We don't 'encompass' the world with our minds; we merely correlate events and behaviors, and thus try to discern regularities and predictability within the influx of information delivered by our senses.

But i will add more: The capacity to understand and synthesize such data is a spiritual capacity which our Creator has endowed human creatures for no other purpose but that man should recognize that infinite power and bounty belongs to the Source of all such creations--namely, God. Synthesis of knowledge is made by the soul, not the senses! And the soul originated with God and will return unto Him at death.

Synthesis of knowledge is not performed by the senses. Neither is it done in the 'soul', whatever that is. It is done in the higher cognitive centers of the brain. They draw together and correlate varied sensory memories, theories, and qualities in order to synthesize them into a more general representation, which is again stored back in the brain -- this time near the higher cognitive centers. When we die, our entire brain dies -- including the upper cognitive centers.

These posts are getting unwieldy; I'll break off here and continue in the next post.

------------------
I am; therefore I think.

bedlanam

08-02-99, 06:12 AM

knowledge itself is the outcome of the synthesis of sense and soul. synthesis of knowledge is more theory and speculation.

Boris

08-02-99, 07:19 AM

1. The third method of understanding is by tradition... 2. But the bounty of the Holy Spirit gives the true method of comprehension which is infallible and indubitable.
~~~Now the last two are actually one and the same. Tradition has to originate with someone. So does religion. And neither is a source of knowledge; rather they are sources of myth, speculation, superstition and sometimes irrational behavior.

This is the claim that you have attempted to dispute. So, let's see how well you did:

<hr>

Tradition is an inherited, established, or customary pattern of thought, action, or behavior. It is the handing down of information, beliefs, and customs by word of mouth or by example from one generation to another without written instruction. It is a continuity of the culture of social attitudes, customs, and institutions. It is blind belief insofar as man practices what his forefathers invented without as much as blinking an eye. It is the promotion of all sorts of prejudices to the detriment of true understanding according to the reality of life in the real present. This is tradition.

1) I don't agree with this last little maneuver to assert that tradition must be non-written. It is simply a mere fact that most cultures until recently did not possess writing. However, in the case of literate cultures, tradition can be and indeed is transmitted both by word of mouth *and* in writing. Similar is the case of the world's many religions.
2) So far, you description of tradition in general describes religion to the tee.

I think your entire opposition to my statements here is rather misguided. Religion is just a subset of tradition -- nobody in their right mind ought to dispute such a self-evident fact.

But by the bounty of the Holy Spirit is meant that knowledge revealed by a Manifestation of God which educates the human soul and makes it into a new creation. Such fresh, invigorating, and new knowledge aids in broadening man's perspectives and infuses him with the courage to break tradition. At such coming man is imbued with renewed faith, acquires confidence that religion has been divested of its old attire (the superstitions and established worn-out dogmas which are irrelevant to the time of the new Revelation).

And so tradition evolves. New replaces the old; fresh overcomes the worn-out. As our empirical awareness of the world grows, and as the average capacity for reason increases, 'revelations' are adjusted and renewed to track this process and stay roughly in synch with the known world.

The will to acquire virtues is stimulated through such Teachings and this is indeed a
bounty by the Holy Spirit unto man. The power of the Holy Spirit gives life to the world of humanity, changes the aspect of the terrestrial globe, causes intelligence to progress, vivifies souls, lays the basis of a new life, establishes new foundations, organizes the world, brings nations and religions under the shadow of one standard, delivers man from the world of imperfections and vices, and inspires him with the desire and need of natural and acquired perfections.

The will to acquire virtues drives men into monasteries and caves, devoting their life to prayer and worship. Again, I will reiterate that for the majority of human population save a few fanatics, religion (or God) does not enter the mind any more often than once or twice a day (or perhaps even a week!) Most people go about their lives with no regard for God or religion; only on special occasions and in congregations do they return their attention to their religion in earnest. To suggest that human condition worldwide has improved because of religion is laughable. As I said before: if the modern age was indeed spurred by word of God, why did it not begin immediately after Mohammad's revelation? Why did it take a thousand years since the last 'prophet' for Renaissance to take off? The fundamental tenets of modern civilization can be traced back much more readily to the British Magna Carta than to Qur'an. It is the British representative political system that ultimately spurred the American democracy, with its associated
declaration of fundamental human rights and independence from tyranny. The present improvements in human condition are due in much larger part to greatly advanced and amplified social analysis and criticism, as well as technological progress. Neither is driven by the scriptures; rather these things arise from ever-growing freedom of thought and opinion, which has always originated with reach and powerful aristocrats -- as was the case in Greece, Arabia, or Renaissance Europe.

Certainly nothing short of a divine power could accomplish so great a work as that of the Holy Spirit. In fact, the Holy Spirit it is which destroys and demolishes to the ground traditions.

There is no such thing as 'Divine Power'. Lightning is not the work of Zeus. And historical progress is not the work of a mysterious invisible hand. That which is not tangible cannot touch you. Which goes back to my point about awareness. Religion creates a mildly nonsensical dream out of reality; objective thought, on the other hand, builds awareness. The readers of our debates can judge the fairness of this observation for themselves.

<hr>

Last night i had a most wonderful dream. I walked in a garden where nightingales sang and the roses blossomed with the sweetest fragrances permeating the entire garden. Along the path there flowed the sweetest river and the sky above was a pastel blue. Seated in all her majesty was a damsel of tender years who greeted me with a most welcoming smile and she bade me to seat myself by her side. We had a most wonderful conversation and then she asked me why i was sad. I told her that in my waking life i had a little problem which required a solution but that i had none. She bade me explain to her the details and i consented. Then she proceeded to suggest one solution which she said i should follow. Finally i bade her farewell. The next morning upon waking i remembered the dream very clearly. I could still smell the roses and see the pastel sky and sweet flowing river. I proceeded to apply the young damsels recommendations into practise and by the end of the day my
problem was solved. This was a dream but the recommendations were exact, precise, to the point, succinct. Her suggestions solved my grave problem without compromise. This garden, nightingale's song, pastel sky and pretty young damsel full of wisdom was more real than talking to someone in cyberspace. Yet, i cannot prove that it was real. But the suggested solution to my grave problem was even more real for its effects were engendered by my physical person in this physical world.

Sounds like another fable. You are certainly fond of those (just stop making them out to seem real). The things you supposedly saw in your dream are in fact no more real than talking to someone in cyberspace. Whereas
the former were visions generated by your mind, the latter is an actual process observable by everyone else. And while the former are not observable by everyone else, they were ostensibly observed by you: they were an observation of your own internal state. If you indeed had such a dream, then it indeed was real. However, it would say nothing about dreams or consciousness being supernatural (if that's what you are trying to imply). The brain does not shut down during sleep; indeed it is very active, sometimes more so than in a wakeful state. It has been observed that the state of the brain over the period of falling asleep has an influence on the contents of the dreams that ensue. It has also been known to happen
that solutions to real problems were discovered in a dream. All that proves is that the brain can process information even when it is in an altered state of consciousness. And perhaps, an altered state of consciousness is precisely what is needed to get around a mental block in a problem-solving activity. The images and events conjured up by the brain during sleep are indeed real insofar as they are directly represented within the brain's activity; however, they do not reflect reality, as any sleepwalker knows. Furthermore, ask yourself this question: if dreams were indeed otherworldly, would they not involve objects and concepts completely alien to our earthly experience? And yet, we see in our dreams only the types of things we have already seen when we were awake.

<hr>

Boris writes:
God is an effect. What is the cause of God? (...If God may have no cause, then the physical universe similarly may have no ultimate cause!) You see, for every effect WITHIN OUR PERCEIVED UNIVERSE there must be a cause, at least according to our present empirical observations. This says nothing about the situation OUTSIDE our perceived universe. And it certainly says nothing about an all-powerful, sentient source-creator. Pray tell, what effects within our perceived universe cannot be explained save through God? None! (At least none we know of!) Then why must the situation be different for the medium, if any, outside our perceived universe?

dumaurier responds:
Boris, you remind me of an ant speaking to another ant and saying: "I don't believe in the existence of man for i can't understand him!"
Let us be reasonable here. It is beyond the station of man to understand the station of God. I have taken up this issue with you before.

I am flattered to remind you of an ant. LOL. (Have I been pestering you much lately?) ;)

The issue is not understanding; the issue is emiprical evidence and sensibility. First of
all, an ant can certainly obtain evidence of a human's existence. Compare that with our God conundrum.

The GREAT BIG POINT is that you yourself are trying to use that miserable little human mind of yours to conjure up proof of God. And the 'proof' that results is more of a 'poof'.

I have stated that the mineral lives within the range of its own station and due to its inherent limitations cannot ever understand the station of the vegetable kingdom above it. In like manner, the station of the vegetable cannot ever understand the station of the animal above it. The animal is incapable of understanding the station of man. Man is incapable of understanding the station of God. This is sound reasoning and can be ascertained by deductive observation.

What you are saying is utter nonsense. (And I thought humanizing nature was against the Judaic doctrine!!!) A mineral has no comprehension whatsoever as it is not alive. A plant has no comprehension whatsoever as it is not conscious. An animal has no comprehension whatsoever because it does not possess language to handle such abstract concepts as 'station'. What the heck are you talking about in this passage when you mention 'deductive obsevation'????? Not only does it not make sense given the context, but 'deductive' and 'observation' are essentially opposite concepts! Observation is inductive, not deductive! Deduction works on axyoms, not on observations!

A piece of bread cannot, could never ever in a trillion years understand its maker, the baker. The two stations are not analogous, not equal. Yet, if the mineral had a rational faculty, through deductive reasoning it could
conclude that the vegetable kingdom exists through its effects; if the vegetable had a rational faculty, through deductive reasoning it could conclude that the animal kingdom exists through its effects; if the animal had a rational faculty, through deductive reasoning it could conclude that the human kingdom exists through its effects; if the human had a rational faculty, through deductive reasoning he could conclude that the Divine Reality exists through its effects. Praised be the Creator of all visible and invisible effects!

The only way any one of the objects you mentioned, had they possessed intelligence, could ascertain the existence of such things as minerals, plants, animals, or humans, is by direct observation! The only way
humans could ascertain the existence of God is through direct observation. What the heck are you talking about when you mention the 'invisible effects'?????? An effect, by definition, must be measurable!!

Boris writes:
Indeed, when rain pours I do not argue the point that clouds caused it. Strangely, you do not argue that point either! Yet, I must ask you why is it that you do not claim that rain pours because God makes it pour? Why is it that you are willing to accept that the rain is a merely physical process. But why are you refusing to recognize that fact in general for the rest of the observable universe? And what reason do you have for totally reversing that perspective as soon as you contemplate reality outside of the observable universe?

dumaurier responds:
On the contrary, dear Boris. God indeed is the cause that makes the rain fall! The process of evaporation/cloud formation/rain follows those laws in nature of which the Creator put into place. Nature cannot deviate a stitch from such laws and obeys them as an obedient servant. God created the laws; therefore God willed the entire process.

So who is it that makes the rain fall -- the laws of nature, or God? I think the laws of nature. As to where those laws came from -- your claim is no more valid than mine. But you totally avoided the questions that were
asked. First, I want to see an explicit recognition from you that all observed phenomena to date have been shown to follow physical laws. Next, I would like you to finally stop evading the question of why you use causality in explaining the origin of the physical laws, where causality does not actually apply to the origin itself! (God in your case) You cannot continue to use causality as your 'proof' of God until you answer this question!

He is that Infinite, Omnipotent, Omniscient Creator who caused the very notion of causality to come within the radius of man's vision for the purpose of making him aware of his limitations with regards the true power which is God's.

Rubbish. Causality is at the root of all learning and the most fundamental principle of existence; one needs no God to perceive causality. Fire burns flesh. Sun warms up the air. Food satisfies hunger. Injury results in pain. Just a few examples of causality to show you that one does not need a divine messenger to perceive it.

"Do they indeed ascribe to Him as partners things that can create nothing, but are themselves created?" (Qur'an: 7 - AL-A`ARAF) "To Him is due the primal origin of the heavens and the earth: When He decreeth a matter, He saith to it: "Be," and it is. (Qur'an: 2:117 AL-BAQARAH) "He begetteth not, nor is He begotten." (Qur'an: 112:3 AL-IKHLAS). "...but in all things the master- planning is God's..." (Qur'an: 13 - AR-RA`AD). "God! There is no God but He---the Living, the Self-subsisting, Eternal. No slumber can seize Him nor sleep. His are all things in the heavens and on earth... He knoweth what (appeareth to His creatures as) before or after or behind them. Nor shall they compass aught of His knowledge except as He willeth. " (Qur'an: 2 - AL-BAQARAH). "To Him is due the primal origin of the heavens and the arth...He created all things, and He hath full knowledge of all things." (Qur'an: 6 - AL-AN`AM)

In other words:

"Shut up you stupid annoying little thing. My Divine knowledge comes straight from God and He knows best. I don't have to make sense because He doesn't either. God makes no sense, but you must nevertheless believe everything I tell you because He said so. Believe me or else..."

<hr>

A rose is a rose will be a rose. We may fiddle with its genetic code, modify it, but it will always remain a rose. An ape was created an ape, will continue being an ape, and will forever remain an ape with absolutely no possibility for it to become human nor attain anywhere near the station of man.

Really???! I suggest you browse through the Evolution vs. Creation thread, and plomp this blather in there so we could examine it closer.

This is interdicted by natural laws established by the Law Maker.

Laughable! These very laws are the ones responsible for evolution in the first place!

A rose is a rose will be a rose. We may fiddle with its genetic code, modify it, but it will always remain a rose.

Depending on how old you are, you might actually live to see the day when you would have to swallow these words.

From the dawn of man the human species has always received a Manifestation of God to guide him in his spiritual development. All ancient peoples of this planet speak of traditions relating of "prophets" that visited them with the word of God. Some of these peoples still have their Holy Books as testimonies to this fact, such as the Hindus,
Buddhists, Zoroastrians, Jews. Other peoples have only legends due to the remoteness of their prophets and their incapacity to have developed adequate means to record such religious history (the Eskimos and American Indians are some of these peoples).

Hmmm... Are you here referring to those very superstitions that God himself is out to destroy??? The prophets of the Incas told them to sacrifice children to God. Nice work, God. Admirable work. Does it ever enter your mind that superstitions and religions arise on their own, with humans being their only source??? What is so hard to comprehend about such a possibility?

Moreover, recently some new scientific thinking about Darwin's theory of evolution has happened and serious scientific voices have started to call into question several of the premises of evolutionary theory. These objections are so strong that the "theory of intelligent design" is making a comeback. Biological structures have been discovered which do not fit at all within the theory of evolution and scientists are left to wonder who the designer of these biological structures might be? Could it be God, Aliens, a universal act of magic? These new discoveries throw into contradictions what scientists have adhered to uptodate and scream for new answers. When confronted with significant unexplained contradictions and new problems, the scientific mind must open up to new possibilities, or else cease to be a scientific mind.

On Evolution vs. Creation, I have examined a paper from one of such 'scientists' concerning intelligent design. I suggest you go read it. The so-called 'comeback' of intelligent design is a non-event. This line of opposition has always been present, and can be found in Sunday School textbooks from fourty years ago (I've seen it myself!) It is merely yet another attempt by religious individuals to claw at the last vestiges of hope in order to salvage their faith from the relentless onslaught of fact. Please do read my post in the Evolution vs. Creation thread (it's among the last posts in the thread).

Abraham taught humanity how to live in relative peace within the clan.
~~~Hogwash. I'd say American Indians, for one, had it figured out long before the rise of the Jewish civilization.

dumaurier responds:
The only way to truly settle your objections is to present a thorough study of both the history of the peoples in Abraham's time and the peoples of the Americas. The only way to truly settle your objections is to present a thorough study of both the history of the peoples in Abraham's time and the peoples of the Americas. Since you do not seem to have the time to present historical evidence on which to base your objections but, rather, go on heresy, i shall drop the matter by saying that what i say is historically verifiable and we also have the Old Testament (the Torah) to go by. In the case of the American Indian, there is no such record extant.

This is not a reasonable request. Anybody in their right mind will just take a look at some of the remnants of the Incan empire, or some of the archaeological digs in the Andes uncovering flourishing cities interconnected with well-engineered trade routes. The mere existence of such relics proves that Indian tribes indeed lived in peace and prospered long before Abraham. A 'study' would only be requested by you, Dumaurier. It is clearly an overkill for such a self-evident matter.

While it may be true that no written record equal to the Torah remains of the anscient American tribes, they did indeed write down many things, which are found engraved on tablets and unearthed buildings. In time,
we will decode these writings and learn of anscient life in the Americas. Written record is not the only type of record to provide us with information about the past. You are ignoring an even more important type of record: archaeological.

According to established definitions, Egypt was no "tribe" but a conglomerate of warring people with a king who held powerful sway with his tyrannical dynasty. The transition from primitive nomadic and warring peoples to
traditional civilization is estimated to have began in Egypt in 5500 BC. This date is considered speculative trepidation by historians. The date for the unification of Egyptian people, of both the northern and southern regions, is estimated to be sometime between 3150 and 3110 BC. At this period Egyptians were incapable of writing whole sentences but used individual symbols to represent sounds. The Jews record that the Patriarch Abraham, a caravan trader who would later become the father of the nation of Israel, traveled to Shechem and Zoan (Egypt) sometime between 1900-1500 BCE where He came upon Egyptian barbarians who practised a pagan religion. But what he met resembled not in the slightest a tribe.

...

The adjectives "beautiful," "affluent," and "sophisticated," are highly inappropriate for a people ruled by a tyrant whose population was mainly made up of slaves who suffered beyond that suffering that human imagination can conjure! The "beautiful" you speak of is an invention by modern man who wishes to glorify something that deserves pity. Also, consider that the merchants of contemporary Egyptology could in no wise sell their wares if they did not resort to the tactics of sensationalism.

So... The other civilizations are definitly being viewed through a distorted lens due to the salesmanship of modern Egyptologists. (By the way, I was referring to the pre-Egyptian sub-saharan kingdoms). However, from the Jews themeselves, no less, we are getting a clear as glass, true representation of their own culture 3,000 years ago, and a high-fidelity representation of the rest of the world, to boot???! I believe it is time for me to caugh a few times in a fery evocative manner.

By the way, recent evidence indicates that Egypt was not a slave-driven country overall. It seems the popular belief that the Pyramids were built by the slaves is a myth. They seem more likely to be religiously-motivated monuments to love, submission and worship.

<hr>

As for that look into the transferrence of Arabic knowledge to Europe, I can't agree more. However, you have glossed over the main fact: the Arabs obtained their original knowledge from the Greeks!!! What divine prophet, may I ask, provided the anscient Greek noblemen with their ideas and inspirations, may I ask?!

<hr>
I wrote:

"It is thanks to God's Revelation that one type of superstition was replaced with another! No useful knowledge has ever descended from any deity, and I dare you to show otherwise!"

Let's look at your response:

Muhammad said that the sun and moon have their own orbits, that these orbits are "rounded," and that our years and time are dependent on the sun:

"It is not permitted to the Sun to catch up the Moon, nor can the Night outstrip the Day: Each just swims along in its own orbit according to Law." (Qur'an: YA SIN, 36:40).
"It is He Who created the Night and the Day, and the sun and the moon: all the celestial bodies swim along, each in its rounded course." (Qur'an: AL-ANBIYAA, 21:33).
"It is He Who made the sun to be a shining glory and the moon to be a light of beauty, and measured out stages for her; that ye might know the number of years and the count of time." (Qur'an: YUNUS, 10:5)
This was and is useful knowledge.

Come on!! All he is saying is that the sun and the moon, and indeed all 'celestial bodies' trace arcs in the sky. This is what 'orbit' (probably a translation error) refers to. There is no concept of a Keplerian celestial system here!

It is common and very obvious knowledge that night and day alternate. Come on Dumauruer, do you really need Mohammad to tell you that????

The statement "It is not permitted to the Sun to catch up the Moon" is very dubious indeed!
If he is implying that the sun and the moon do not co-exist in the sky, he is dead wrong -- the moon is regularly seen during the day (in fact it is seen just as often during daytime as it is during night). If he is implying that the moon and the sun's positions cannot coincide in the sky, he is dead wrong -- solar eclipse is a very well-known occurrence, I hope.
If he is implying that the moon moves across the sky faster than the Sun does, then he is stating a fact that is directly (and easily!) observable during daytime, and ought to have been common knowledge. It certainly ought to be for any civilization that pays any attention to the celestial events.

And what is this reference to the celestial bodies 'swimming along'???

Finally, I hope you realize that practically every civilization on earth has used the sun and the stars to tell the time of day, and days and seasons to measure years. The Greeks alone knew way more astronomy than that!!!

At the time of Moses and Muhammad people had no knowledge of maggots in dieing carcasses of animals, nor were they aware of "germs." Thus they made laws and prohibitions to protect people from their own ignorance: "...if a soul touch any unclean thing, whether it be a carcass of an unclean beast, or a carcass of unclean cattle, or the carcass of unclean creeping things, and if it be hidden from him; he also shall be unclean, and guilty. (Leviticus, 5:2). This was and is "useful knowledge."

Come on!! Are you suggesting that people observed the maggots on the dead carcasses, but were not aware of them??! (They are pretty hard to miss, if you've seen them!)

Are you suggesting that the natural instinct of disgust engendered by foul stench and the sight of decomposing meet (or any type of decomposing food) was not present in humans before a prophet showed up??!

What you are quoting is common knowledge. It is certainly useful, but it is also obvious, self-evident, and common.

"The carcasses of every beast which divideth the hoof, and is not clovenfooted, nor cheweth the cud, are unclean unto you: every one that toucheth them shall be unclean. And whatsoever goeth upon his paws, among all manner of beasts that go on all four, those are unclean unto you: whoso toucheth their carcass shall be unclean until the evening. And he that beareth the carcass of them shall wash his clothes, and be unclean until the evening: they are unclean unto you. (Ibid 11:26-28).
This was and is "useful knowledge".

Come on!! This says that cows, horses and camels are actually clean! (useful knowledge???)

"O ye who believe! when ye prepare for prayer, wash your faces, and your hands (and arms) to the elbows; Rub your heads (with water); and (wash) your feet to the ankles. If ye are in a state of ceremonial impurity, bathe your whole body. But if ye are ill, or on a journey, or one of you cometh from offices of nature,... and ye find no water, then take for yourselves clean sand or earth, and rub therewith your faces and hands, God doth not wish to place you in a difficulty, but to make you clean, and to complete his favor to you, that ye may be grateful. (Qu'ran, Al-Ma'idah, 5:7) This was and is
"useful knowledge".

This conveys only the need to be clean when worshipping God. It says nothing about the importance of personal hygiene. Now, if it actually demanded a washing of hands (and not feet, or the face) particularly before food is eaten, then I'd be impressed.

"Bull-like, noble, a hero, a great sage, and a conqueror, he who is motionless of mind, washed clean and awakened - that is what I call a Brahmin." (Buddhist Dhammapada, p. 422). This was and is "useful knowledge". "...when there is sprinkled of the blood thereof upon any garment, thou shalt wash that whereon it was sprinkled...."
(Leviticus: 6:27)

Are you kidding me??? Do you really suppose that before these great religions came along, people went around filthy?? Is the smell of filth attractive? Is the sight of filth attractive? Is filth suggestive of a higher social status? What woman would you find more attractive: one who has never washed, or one who just washed? It is ridiculous to suggest that cleanliness is not an obvious enough thing to be known without help from 'revelation'! Even animals regularly clean themselves -- because they itch when they are dirty (and so do people)!

The only culture, to my knowledge, that actually endorsed filth was that of European Christians. They believed that filth was God's filth, and that it is a sin and it is presumptious to wash it off. Not to mention that cleanliness makes you sexually attractive, and in God's eye that is a big no-no.

<hr>

These are just scant examples of the many gems to be found in all Holy Scriptures. This was and is "useful knowledge."

Muhammad, like Christ, Moses and Abraham before Him, taught humanity about hygiene and exhorted men and women to wash themselves regularly. The Word of God through these Manifestations revealed to mankind not only laws of hygiene, but laws of nature and of social behavior. All this is and was "useful knowledge."

It is painfully obvious that what the 'prophets' were 'teaching' humanity has been common knowledge among their own people! They were merely re-iterating the knowledge they themselves acquired from their own culture. But, they were also embellishing it with extraneous bells and whistles -- thus, for example, pigs are dubbed unclean, whereas cows are clean (and in India, even sacred!).
Mohammad was clearly pandering to the Hindu beliefs within his exception for the 'cloven-hoofed, cud-chewing beast'.
As for the 'uncleanliness', he was probably turned off by pigs and their propensity to wallow in mud. So much for divine knowledge, eh?


My challenge to you was to produce evidence of useful knowledge which has demonstrably DESCENDED FROM A DEITY, and was not, nor could have been, already possessed by the parent civilization. I want examples of knowledge which is not self-evident, which is not obvious, which is well beyond the common wisdom of the Bronze age, and way too esoteric for anyone to have arrived at on their own back in those times.


It is undoubtedly true that the Church committed unpardonable crimes. I said "most great men." The dominant leaders of the Church were not "great men." The fact remains that the Christian civilization carries the name of Christ and under His banner did they unite to become one.

And under His banner did they split into a gazillion warring denominations, each one persecuting the other! Give me a break!!! And you still didn't answer the question: "If Renaissance was truly inspired by the word of God, why did it not occur even 500 years earlier?!!"

And you know, speaking of the "great men". In addition to being God-fearing, they all without exception also believed in Creation, to the point of actually painting pictures of it, sculpting sculptures of it, and writing exaltations to it. They had no idea
of evolution. But do you think, perhaps if they possessed access to modern knowledge, at least a few of these 'god-fearing' men would change their mind? Greatness and ignorance can go hand-in-hand. Even the most brilliant geniuses can believe and say the stupidest things when they are not in full possession of all the facts.

History has no mind of its own; men of wisdom and who feared God made the great events of history to occur. The great Roman empire came down thanks to the spiritual influence of Christians who were subjected to great tortures.

Really???! Wow! And silly me, I thought the fall of the Roman Empire was due to political weakness and attacks of the Germanic tribes...

The effect of the social changes due to Christ's Divinely inspired Message can be seen in the several ecumenical councils beginning with the Council of Nicaea in 325 which formulated the creed proclaiming the doctrine of the Trinity (first enunciated by Tertullian, who later, in 220, turned his back on the Church and joined the Montanists). It was from this Council of Nicae that the form and contents of the New Testament emerged.

This is the 'social changes' you proclaim??! The emergence of the New Testament??!
I was hoping for a hint to what prompted the transition from Feudalism to the Industrial era, or what incited the urban centralization that forever transformed the European cultures and the rest of the world. But, I suppose, the New Testament is certainly more significant to the world than the social and technological evolution since the Dark Ages... NOT!

It is the impetus of an intensive inner belief in the existence of a benevolent Creator that drives mankind forward toward perfection in this otherwise imperfect world.
~~~Here comes that notion of perfection again. Compared to what, may I ask, is our world imperfect??? It is certainly not a belief in God that drives the majority of the human population, save a few fanatics here and there. More often than not, the main factors are greed, yearning for recognition, power, respect and influence, sense of personal worth or achievement, or yearning for adventure and exploration of new possibilities. Humans are stimulated by novelty. This is what primarily drives the modern boom of basic research.

dumaurier responds:
There are over 900 million Muslims in the world. Dare you say they are all "fanatics"? There are more than this who claim to be Christians. Are they all "fanatics"? There are millions more who claim belief in Moses, Buddha, Krishna, and Baha'u'llah. All these people-in fact, most people on this planet- are driven by their belief in an Almighty God. And you have dumped them all into your basket of "fanatics." Get real, Boris! You're not the only one on this planet. In fact, you're an exception to the rule!!!

'Claiming' a religion is quite different from being driven by religion, won't you agree???! Beliefs were not even the point here; I was discussing the main motivations that most influence peoples' lives!

But since you want to confront me with the "you are in the minority, therefore you can't be right" b.s., let me then address this particular charge. Just remember: the Baha'i are also in the minority, Dumaurier.

A belief in an almighty God is absolutely no evidence for existence thereof. Moreover, neither Hindus nor Buddhists espose a belief in an allmighty God; they have multiple Gods in complex hierarchies and arrangements. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if all the Judeo-Christian people in the world were still a minority when compared to the rest of the population which does not believe in a single, obscure, abstract Allmighty God.

Furthermore, I am not claiming the 'believers' to be fanatics. There is a rather big distinction between a misguided individual and a fanatical one. But yes and yes, I am indeed claiming the majority of the world to be ignorant and misguided. Which should not be too surprising, since the majority of the world is still struggling to emerge to the Second-World status, or to catch up with the scientific progress since those geeky math and science classes they used to flunk in grade school, or to free their minds from under the tonnes of horseshit that has been piled upon them in Sunday School or in Church by the Holy Debunkers of Evil Materialism, or to progress beyond the brainwashed mindset instilled by the mandatory daily prayer and other mind-control rituals.

------------------
I am; therefore I think.

dumaurier

08-02-99, 08:08 PM

It is amazing to see how the defeated proclaim allegiance to truth while tripping in their own blindness.

Verily, they know not what they say nor what they do. God, forgive them their trespasses against Thee.

------------------
dumaurier

dumaurier

08-02-99, 11:15 PM

According to Boris, Muhammad and His religion of Islam was a pack of lies, full of superstitious beliefs, and didn't contribute anything at all to humanity or sciences.

The following writers, according to Boris' assessment, therefore, would all be a bunch of "fanatics," ignorant, full of superstition, and they didn't know what they were talking about.

Ladies and gentlemen, allow me to present some comments by famous "ignoramuses" (according to Boris) on the worth of Islam as founded by His Honour, Muhammad...

=================================

Napolean Bonaparte:
"Moses has revealed the existence of God to his nation. Jesus Christ to the Roman world, Muhammad to the old continent...
"Arabia was idolatrous when, six centuries after Jesus, Muhammad introduced the worship of the God of Abraham, of Ishmael, of Moses, and Jesus. The Ariyans and some other sects had disturbed the tranquility of the east by agitating the question of the nature of the Father, the son, and the Holy Ghost. Muhammad declared that there was none but one God who had no father, no son and that the trinity imported the idea of idolatry...
"I hope the time is not far off when I shall be able to unite all the wise and educated men of all the countries and establish a uniform regime based on the principles of Qur'an which alone are true and which alone can lead men to happiness." (Napolean Bonaparte as Quoted in Christian Cherfils, 'Bonaparte et Islam,' Pedone Ed., Paris, France, 1914, pp. 105, 125. Original References: "Correspondance de Napoléon Ier Tome V pičce n° 4287 du 17/07/1799; profession de foi, voir aussi pičce n° 3148. Also, Journal inédit de Ste Hélčne, de 1815 ŕ 1818" du Gal Baron Gourgaud -2 tomes-Ed. Flammarion. [Note: Some Muslim historians have suggested that Asad bin Al Furat, the commander of Muslim forces in Sicily [see 827 CE in Muslim History], is the progenitor of Napoleon Bonaparte (1769-1821). Asad's descendants were known as 'Banu Furat'; for other such names see 1031 CE. One of Napoleon's brother-in-law was Joachim Murat.]

Sir George Bernard Shaw:
"If any religion had the chance of ruling over England, nay Europe within the next hundred years, it could be Islam."
"I have always held the religion of Muhammad in high estimation because of its wonderful vitality. It is the only religion which appears to me to possess that assimilating capacity to the changing phase of existence which can make itself appeal to every age. I have studied him - the wonderful man and in my opinion far from being an anti-Christ, he must be called the Savior of Humanity."
"I believe that if a man like him were to assume the dictatorship of the modern world he would succeed in solving its problems in a way that would bring it the much needed peace and happiness: I have prophesied about the faith of Muhammad that it would be acceptable to the Europe of tomorrow as it is beginning to be acceptable to the Europe of today." (The Genuine Islam, Vol. 1, No. 8).

Bertrand Russel:
"Our use of phrase 'The Dark ages' to cover the period from 699 to 1,000 marks our undue concentration on Western Europe...
"From India to Spain, the brilliant civilization of Islam flourished. What was lost to christendom at this time was not lost to civilization, but quite the contrary...
"To us it seems that West-European civilization is civilization, but this is a narrow view." (History of Western Philosophy, London, p. 419).

H.G. Wells:
"The Islamic teachings have left great traditions for equitable and gentle dealings and behavior, and inspire people with nobility and tolerance. These are human teachings of the highest order and at the same time practicable. These teachings brought into existence a society in which hard-heartedness and collective oppression and injustice were the least as compared with all other societies preceding it....Islam is replete with gentleness, courtesy, and fraternity."

Dr. William Draper:
"During the period of the Caliphs the learned men of the Christians and the Jews were not only held in great esteem but were appointed to posts of great responsibility, and were promoted to the high ranking job in the government....He (Caliph Haroon Rasheed) never considered to which country a learned person belonged nor his faith and belief, but only his excellence in the field of learning." (History of Intellectual Development of Europe).

Edward Montet:
"Islam is a religion that is essentially rationalistic in the widest sense of this term considered etymologically and historically....the teachings of the Prophet, the Qur'an has invariably kept its place as the fundamental starting point, and the dogma of unity of God has always been proclaimed therein with a grandeur a majesty, an invariable purity and with a note of sure conviction, which it is hard to find surpassed outside the pale of Islam....A creed so precise, so stripped of all theological complexities and consequently so accessible to the ordinary understanding might be expected to possess and does indeed possess a marvelous power of winning its way into the consciences of men." (La Propagande Chretienne et ses Adversaries Musulmans, Paris. Also in T.W. Arnold in 'The Preaching of Islam,'London.)

Thomas Carlyle:
"As there is no danger of our becoming, any of us, Mahometans (i.e. Muslim), I mean to say all the good of him I justly can...
"When Pococke inquired of Grotius, where the proof was of that story of the pigeon, trained to pick peas from Mahomet's (Muhammad's) ear, and pass for an angel dictating to him? Grotius answered that there was no proof!...
"A greater number of God's creatures believe in Mahomet's word at this hour than in any other word whatever. Are we to suppose that it was a miserable piece of spiritual legerdemain, this which so many creatures of the almighty have lived by and died by?...
"A poor, hard-toiling, ill-provided man; careless of what vulgar men toil for. Not a bad man, I should say; Something better in him than hunger of any sort, -- or these wild arab men, fighting and jostling three-and-twenty years at his hand, in close contact with him always, would not revered him so! They were wild men bursting ever and anon into quarrel, into all kinds of fierce sincerity; without right worth and manhood, no man could have commanded them. They called him prophet you say? Why he stood there face to face with them; bare, not enshrined in any mystry; visibly clouting his own cloak, cobbling his own shoes; fighting, counselling, ordering in the midst of them: they must have seen what kind of man he was, let him be called what you like! No emperor with his tiaras was obeyed as this man in a cloak of his own clouting. During three-and-twenty years of rough actual trial. I find something of a veritable Hero necessary for that, of itself...
"These Arabs, the man Mahomet, and that one century, - is it not as if a spark had fallen, one spark, on a world of what proves explosive powder, blazes heaven-high from Delhi to Granada! I said, the Great man was always as lightning out of Heaven; the rest of men waited for him like fuel, and then they too would flame..." (Heroes, Hero
Worship, and the Heroic in History, Lecture 2).

Simon Ockley:
A rugged, strife-torn and mountaineering people...were suddenly turned into an indomitable Arab force, which achieved a series of splendid victories unparalleled in the history of nations, for in the short space of ninety years that mighty range of Saracenic (Muslim)conquest embraced a wider extent of territory than Rome had mastered in the course of eight hundred. (History of the Saracens).

Phillip Hitti:
"During all the first part of the Middle Ages, no other people made as important a contribution to human progress as did the Arabs, if we take this term to mean all those whose mother-tongue was Arabic, and not merely those living in the Arabian peninsula. For centuries, Arabic was the language of learning, culture and intellectual progress for the whole of the civilized world with the exception of the Far East. From the IXth to the XIIth century there were more philosophical, medical, historical, religious, astronomical and geographical works written in Arabic than in any other human tongue." (Short History of the Arabs).

Carra de Vaux:
"Finally how can one forget that at the same time the Mogul Empire of India (1526-1857 C.E.) was giving the world the Taj Mahal (completed in 1648 C.E.) the architectural beauty of which has never been surpassed, and the ‘Akbar Nameh’ of Abul Fazl: "That extraordinary work full of life ideas and learning where every aspect of life is examined listed and classified, and where progress continually dazzles the eye, is a document of which Oriental civilization may justly be proud. The men whose genius finds its expression in this book were far in advance of their age in the practical art of government, and they were perhaps in advance of it in their speculations about religious philosophy. Those poets those philosophers knew how to deal with the world or matter. They observe, classify, calculate and experiment. All the ideas that occur to them are tested against facts. They express them with eloquence but they also support them with statistics."...the principles of tolerance, justice and humanity which prevailed during the long reign of Akbar." (The Philosophers of Islam,' Paris, 1921).

Marcel Clerget:
"Many proofs of high cultural level of the Ottoman Empire during the reign of Suleiman the Magnificent are to be found in the development of science and law; in the flowering of literary works in Arabic, Persian and Turkish; in the contemporary monuments in Istanbul, Bursa, and Edirne; in the boom in luxury industries; in the sumptuous life of the court and high dignitaries, and last but not least in its religious tolerance. All the various influences - notably Turkish, Byzantine and Italian mingle together and help to make this the most brilliant epoch of the Ottomans." (La Turquie, Passe et Present').

Thomas Arnold:
"We have never heard about any attempt to compel Non-Muslim parties to adopt Islam or about any organized persecution aiming at exterminating Christianity. If the Caliphs had chosen one of these plans, they would have wiped out Christianity as easily as what happened to Islam during the reign of Ferdinand and Isabella in Spain; by the same method which Louis XIV followed to make Protestantism a creed whose followers were to be sentenced to death; or with the same ease of keeping the Jews away from Britain for a period of three hundred fifty years." (The Call to Islam).

Michael the Elder (Great):
"This is why the God of vengeance, who alone is all-powerful, and changes the empire of mortals as He will, giving it to whomsoever He will, and uplifting the humble beholding the wickedness of the Romans who throughout their dominions, cruelly plundered our churches and our monasteries and condemned us without pity, brought from the region of the south the sons of Ishmael, to deliver us through them from the hands of the Romans. And if in truth we have suffered some loss, because the Catholic churches, that had been taken away from us and given to the Chalcedonians, remained in their possession; for when the cities submitted to the Arabs, they assigned to each denomination the churches which they found it to be in possession of (and at that time the great churches of Emessa and that of Harran had been taken away from us); nevertheless it was no slight advantage for us to be delivered from the cruelty of the Romans, their wickedness, their wrath and cruel zeal against us, and to find ourselves at people. (as Quoted in 'Michael the Elder, Chronique de Michael Syrien, Patriarche Jacobite d’ Antioche,' J.B. Chabot, Editor, Vol. II).

James Addison:
"Despite the growth of antagonism, Moslem (Muslim) rulers seldom made their Christian subjects suffer for the Crusades. When the Saracens finally resumed the full control of Palestine the Christians were given their former status as dhimmis. The Coptic Church, too had little cause for complaint under Saladin's (Salahuddin) strong government, and during the time of the earlier Mameluke sultans who succeeded him the Copts experienced more enlightened justice than they had hitherto known. The only effect of the Crusaders upon Egyptian Christians was to keep them for a while from pilgrimage to Jerusalem, for as long as the Frank were in charge heretics were forbidden access to the shrines. Not until the Moslem victories could they enjoy their rights as "Christians." (The Christian Approach to the Moslem, p. 35).

M. M. Pickthall:
"In the eyes of history, religious toleration is the highest evidence of culture in a people....It was not until the Western nations broke away from their religious law that they became more tolerant, and it was only when the Muslims fell away from their religious law that they declined in tolerance and other evidences of the highest culture. Before the coming of Islam it (tolerance) had never been preached as an essential part of religion...
"If Europe had known as much of Islam, as Muslims knew of Christendom, in those days, those mad, adventurous, occasionally chivalrous and heroic, but utterly fanatical outbreak known as the Crusades could not have taken place, for they were based on a complete misapprehension...
"Innumerable monasteries, with a wealth of treasure of which the worth has been calculated at not less than a hundred millions sterling, enjoyed the benefit of the Holy Prophet's (Muhammad’s) Charter to the monks of Sinai and were religiously respected by the Muslims. The various sects of Christians were represented in the Council of the Empire by their patriarchs, on the provincial and district council by their bishops, in the village council by their priests, whose word was always taken without question on things which were the sole concern of their community...
"The tolerance within the body of Islam was, and is, something without parallel in history; class and race and color ceasing altogether to be barriers." (Lecture on 'Tolerance in Islam,' Madras, India).

Sir John Bagot Glubb:
Khalif (Caliph) Al-Ma'mun's period of rule (813 - 833 C.E.) may be considered the 'golden age' of science and learning. He had always been devoted to books and to learned pursuits. His brilliant mind was interested in every form of intellectual activity. Not only poetry but also philosophy, theology, astronomy, medicine and law all occupied his time.
By Mamun's time medical schools were extremely active in Baghdad. The first free public hospital was opened in Baghdad during the Caliphate of Haroon-ar-Rashid. As the system developed, physicians and surgeons were appointed who gave lectures to medical students and issued diplomas to those who were considered qualified to practice. The first hospital in Egypt was opened in 872 AD and thereafter public hospitals sprang up all over the empire from Spain and the Maghrib to Persia.

On the Holocaust of Baghdad (1258 C.E.) Perpetrated by Hulagu:
The city was systematically looted, destroyed and burnt. Eight hundred thousand persons are said to have been killed. The Khalif Mustasim was sewn up in a sack and trampled to death under the feet of Mongol horses. For five hundred years, Baghdad had been a city of palaces, mosques, libraries and colleges. Its universities and hospitals were the most up-to-date in the world. Nothing now remained but heaps of rubble and a stench of decaying human flesh.

[This message has been edited by dumaurier (edited August 02, 1999).]

dumaurier

08-02-99, 11:56 PM

Ladies & Gentlemen,

Forgive me for citing even more on the worth of Islam.
The object is to show the ignorance of those who stubbornly continue to refuse to see the facts though they dare to claim a right to speak of "science" :

=====================================

Thomas Carlyle in 'Heroes and Hero Worship and the Heroic in History,'1840

"The lies (Western slander) which well-meaning zeal has heaped round this man (Muhammad) are disgraceful to ourselves only."
"A silent great soul, one of that who cannot but be earnest. He was to kindle the world, the world’s Maker had ordered so."
------------------------------------

------------------------------------
A. S. Tritton in 'Islam,' 1951

The picture of the Muslim soldier advancing with a sword in one hand and the Qur'an in the other is quite false.
------------------------------------

De Lacy O'Leary in 'Islam at the Crossroads,' London, 1923.

History makes it clear, however, that the legend of fanatical Muslims sweeping through the world and forcing Islam at the point of sword upon conquered races is one of the most fantastically absurd myths that historians have ever repeated.
------------------------------------

Gibbon in 'The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire' 1823

The good sense of Muhammad despised the pomp of royalty. The Apostle of God submitted to the menial offices of the family; he kindled the fire; swept the floor; milked the ewes; and mended with his own hands his shoes and garments. Disdaining the penance and merit of a hermit, he observed without effort of vanity the abstemious diet of an Arab.
------------------------------------

Edward Gibbon and Simon Oakley in ‘History of the Saracen Empire,’ London, 1870

"The greatest success of Mohammad’s life was effected by sheer moral force."
It is not the propagation but the permanency of his religion that deserves our wonder, the same pure and perfect impression which he engraved at Mecca and Medina is preserved after the revolutions of twelve centuries by the Indian, the African and the Turkish proselytes of the Koran....The Mahometans have uniformly withstood the temptation of reducing the object of their faith and devotion to a level with the senses and imagination of man. ‘I believe in One God and Mahomet the Apostle of God’ is the simple and invariable profession of Islam. The intellectual image of the Deity has never been degraded by any visible idol; the honors of the prophet have never transgressed the measure of human virtue, and his living precepts have restrained the gratitude of his disciples within the bounds of reason and religion.
------------------------------------

Lane-Poole in 'Speeches and Table Talk of the Prophet Muhammad'

He was the most faithful protector of those he protected, the sweetest and most agreeable in conversation. Those who saw him were suddenly filled with reverence; those who came near him loved him; they who described him would say, "I have never seen his like either before or after." He was of great taciturnity, but when he spoke it was with emphasis and deliberation, and no one could forget what he said...
------------------------------------

Annie Besant in 'The Life and Teachings of Mohammad,' Madras, 1932.

It is impossible for anyone who studies the life and character of the great Prophet of Arabia, who knew how he taught and how he lived, to feel anything but reverence for that mighty Prophet, one of the great messengers of the Supreme. And although in what I put to you I shall say many things which may be familiar to many, yet I myself feel, whenever I reread them, a new way of admiration, a new sense of reverence for that mighty Arabian teacher.
------------------------------------

W.C. Taylor in 'The History of Muhammadanism and its Sects'

So great was his liberality to the poor that he often left his household unprovided, nor did he content himself with relieving their wants, he entered into conversation with them, and expressed a warm sympathy for their sufferings. He was a firm friend and a faithful ally.
------------------------------------

Reverend Bosworth Smith in 'Muhammad and Muhammadanism,' London, 1874.

"Head of the State as well as the Church, he was Caesar and Pope in one; but he was Pope without the Pope's pretensions, and Caesar without the legions of Caesar, without a standing army, without a bodyguard, without a police force, without a fixed revenue. If ever a man ruled by a right divine, it was Muhammad, for he had all the powers without their supports. He cared not for the dressings of power. The simplicity of his private life was in keeping with his public life."
"In Mohammadanism every thing is different here. Instead of the shadowy and the mysterious, we have history....We know of the external history of Muhammad....while for his internal history after his mission had been proclaimed, we have a book absolutely unique in its origin, in its preservation....on the Substantial authority of which no one has ever been able to cast a serious doubt."
------------------------------------

Edward Montet, 'La Propagande Chretienne et ses Adversaries Musulmans,' Paris 1890. (Also in T.W. Arnold in 'The Preaching of Islam,' London 1913.)

"Islam is a religion that is essentially rationalistic in the widest sense of this term considered etymologically and historically....the teachings of the Prophet, the Qur'an has invariably kept its place as the fundamental starting point, and the dogma of unity of God has always been proclaimed therein with a grandeur a majesty, an invariable purity and with a note of sure conviction, which it is hard to find surpassed outside the pale of Islam....A creed so precise, so stripped of all theological complexities and consequently so accessible to the ordinary understanding might be expected to possess and does indeed possess a marvelous power of winning its way into the
consciences of men."
------------------------------------

Dr. Gustav Weil in 'History of the Islamic Peoples'

Muhammad was a shining example to his people. His character was pure and stainless. His house, his dress, his food - they were characterized by a rare simplicity. So unpretentious was he that he would receive from his companions no special mark of reverence, nor would he accept any service from his slave which he could do for himself. He was accessible to all and at all times. He visited the sick and was full of sympathy for all. Unlimited was his benevolence and generosity as also was his anxious care for the welfare of the community.
------------------------------------

Alphonse de LaMartaine in 'Historie de la Turquie,' Paris, 1854.

"Never has a man set for himself, voluntarily or involuntarily, a more sublime aim, since this aim was superhuman; to subvert superstitions which had been imposed between man and his Creator, to render God unto man and man unto God; to restore the rational and sacred idea of divinity amidst the chaos of the material and disfigured gods of idolatry, then existing. Never has a man undertaken a work so far beyond human power with so feeble means, for he (Muhammad) had in the conception as well as in the execution of such a great design, no other instrument than himself and no other aid except a handful of men living in a corner of the desert. Finally, never has a man
accomplished such a huge and lasting revolution in the world, because in less than two centuries after its appearance, Islam, in faith and in arms, reigned over the whole of Arabia, and conquered, in God's name, Persia Khorasan, Transoxania, Western India, Syria, Egypt, Abyssinia, all the known continent of Northern Africa, numerous islands of the Mediterranean Sea, Spain, and part of Gaul.
"If greatness of purpose, smallness of means, and astonishing results are the three criteria of a human genius, who could dare compare any great man in history with Muhammad? The most famous men created arms, laws, and empires only. They founded, if anything at all, no more than material powers which often crumbled away before their eyes. This man moved not only armies, legislations, empires, peoples, dynasties, but millions of men in one-third of the then inhabited world; and more than that, he moved the altars, the gods, the religions, the ideas, the beliefs and the souls.
"On the basis of a Book, every letter which has become law, he created a spiritual nationality which blend together peoples of every tongue and race. He has left the indelible characteristic of this Muslim nationality the hatred of false gods and the passion for the One and Immaterial God. This avenging patriotism against the profanation of Heaven formed the virtue of the followers of Muhammad; the conquest of one-third the earth to the dogma was his miracle; or rather it was not the miracle of man but that of reason.
"The idea of the unity of God, proclaimed amidst the exhaustion of the fabulous theogonies, was in itself such a miracle that upon it's utterance from his lips it destroyed all the ancient temples of idols and set on fire one-third of the world. His life, his meditations, his heroic revelings against the superstitions of his country, and his boldness in defying the furies of idolatry, his firmness in enduring them for fifteen years in Mecca, his acceptance of the role of public scorn and almost of being a victim of his fellow countrymen: all these and finally, his flight his incessant preaching, his wars against odds, his faith in his success and his superhuman security in misfortune, his forbearance in victory, his ambition, which was
entirely devoted to one idea and in no manner striving for an empire; his endless prayers, his mystic conversations with God, his death and his triumph after death; all these attest not to an imposture but to a firm conviction which gave him the power to restore a dogma. This dogma was twofold the unity of God and the immateriality of God: the former telling what God is, the latter telling what God is not; the one overthrowing false gods with the sword, the other starting an idea with words.
"Philosopher, Orator, Apostle, Legislator, Conqueror of Ideas, Restorer of Rational beliefs.... The founder of twenty terrestrial empires and of one spiritual empire that is Muhammad. As regards all standards by which human greatness may be measured, we may well ask, is there any man greater than he?"
------------------------------------

Mahatma Gandhi, statement published in 'Young India,'1924.

I wanted to know the best of the life of one who holds today an undisputed sway over the hearts of millions of mankind.... I became more than ever convinced that it was not the sword that won a place for Islam in those days in the scheme of life. It was the rigid simplicity, the utter self-effacement of the Prophet the scrupulous regard for pledges, his intense devotion to his friends and followers, his intrepidity, his fearlessness, his absolute trust in God and in his own mission. These and not the sword carried everything before them and surmounted every obstacle. When I closed the second volume (of the Prophet's biography), I was sorry there was not more for me to read of that great life.
------------------------------------

Sir George Bernard Shaw in 'The Genuine Islam,' Vol. 1, No. 8, 1936.

"If any religion had the chance of ruling over England, nay Europe within the next hundred years, it could be Islam."
I have always held the religion of Muhammad in high estimation because of its wonderful vitality. It is the only religion which appears to me to possess that assimilating capacity to the changing phase of existence which can make itself appeal to every age. I have studied him - the wonderful man and in my opinion for from being an anti-Christ, he must be called the Savior of humanity."
"I believe that if a man like him were to assume the dictatorship of the modern world he would succeed in solving its problems in a way that would bring it the much needed peace and happiness: I have prophesied about the faith of Muhammad that it would be acceptable to the Europe of tomorrow as it is beginning to be acceptable to the Europe of today.
------------------------------------

Michael Hart in 'The 100, A Ranking of the Most Influential Persons In History,' New York, 1978.

My choice of Muhammad to lead the list of the world’s most influential persons may surprise some readers and may be questioned by others, but he was the only man in history who was supremely successful on both the secular and religious level. ...It is probable that the relative influence of Muhammad on Islam has been larger than the combined influence of Jesus Christ and St. Paul on Christianity. ...It is this unparalleled combination of secular and religious influence which I feel entitles Muhammad to be considered the most influential single figure in human history.
------------------------------------

Dr. William Draper in 'History of Intellectual Development of Europe'

Four years after the death of Justinian, A.D. 569, was born in Mecca, in Arabia, the man who, of all men, has exercised the greatest influence upon the human race... To be the religious head of many empires, to guide the daily life of one-third of the human race, may perhaps justify the title of a Messenger of God.
------------------------------------

J.W.H. Stab in 'Islam and its Founder'

Judged by the smallness of the means at his disposal, and the extent and permanence of the work that he accomplished, his name in world's history shines with a more specious lustre than that of the Prophet of Makkah. To the impulse which he gave numberless dynasties have owed their existence, fair cities and stately palaces and temples have arisen, and wide provinces became obedient to the Faith. And beyond all this, his words have governed the belief of generations, been accepted as their rule of life, and their certain guide to the world to come. At a thousand shrines the voices of the faithful invoke blessings on him, whom they esteem the very Prophet of God, the seal of the Apostles.... Judged by the standards to human renown, the glory of what mortal can compare with his?
------------------------------------

Washington Irving in 'Life of Muhammad,' New York, 1920.

His military triumphs awakened no pride nor vain glory as they would have done had they been effected by selfish purposes. In the time of his greatest power he maintained the same simplicity of manner and appearance as in the days of his adversity. So far from affecting regal state, he was displeased if, on entering a room, any unusual testimonial of respect was shown to him.
------------------------------------

Arthur Glyn Leonard in 'Islam, Her Moral and Spiritual Values'

It was the genius of Muhammad, the spirit that he breathed into the Arabs through the soul of Islam that exalted them. That raised them out of the lethargy and low level of tribal stagnation up to the high watermark of national unity and empire. It was in the sublimity of Muhammad's deism, the simplicity, the sobriety and purity it inculcated the fidelity of its founder to his own tenets, that acted on their moral and intellectual fiber with all the magnetism of true inspiratio