Proofs and evidences of the existence of God

PROOFS AND EVIDENCES OF THE EXISTENCE OF GOD

One of the proofs and demonstrations of the existence of God is the fact that man did not create himself: nay, his creator and designer is another than himself.

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.

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. 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 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.

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. 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. 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.

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.

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.

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.

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!


Extract from "Some Answered Questions" by 'Abdu'l-Bahá,pp.5-6


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

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Hmm.. interesting theory. But also remember that we, Humans are on the threshold of ourself becoming Gods through Technology. We are messing with DNA and RNA, and withouth those, life cant exist. We started with cloning a few years ago ( Dolly the sheep)

For me then the appearent thing would be to "create" and interbreed different rases to make sure they dont become extinct from mans devastation of this planet.. Maybe we will see that in the next 100 years, or is this alleady happening?



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

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

It's the banana theory all over again.

Dumaurier:

what you write is so full of logical fallacies, I hardly know where to start!

Well, here's one poignant example: since this world is so imperfect, what gives you the idea that the creator of this world (if there indeed was one -- big question mark) is actually perfect?! It doesn't take a perfect being to create an imperfect world -- an imperfect being is sufficient, though not even necessary!

And a creator wouldn't have to be all-powerful either! It (he/she) would only have to be powerful enough to create the universe we perceive. What gives you the idea that our universe is the demonstration of *ultimate* power??!

How can you claim that the creation is perfect in one sentence, and then state that the creation is imperfect, all within the same document???!

<hr>

As I said, it's the banana theory all over again.

Just because certain aspects of our existence are dual (good/bad, true/false, existence/inexistence) -- doesn't mean they are *all* dual! For example, what is the dual pair of 'height' (as in a measurement)? Another example: 'redness' -- what is an opposite to that? Or, perhaps, you could find the counterpart to 'thought' (can you conceptualize 'antithought'?) Or what about the complement of 'electromagnetism'? Or (the one you are surely quite familiar with) -- 'temple'? Anyway, I hope you see the point by now.

On the other hand, some things just plain make no sense when you negate them to create a dual pair. For example, negating 'compute', you get 'decompute'.

<hr>

The point is, concepts can indeed be defined without defining their opposites (and in some cases, it is impossible to define an opposite!) So while it is true that you can't have poverty without wealth (by the virtue of their definitions), it is not true that you can't have a universe without a creator -- because such a notion is not inherent in the word 'universe'! On the other hand, if you assume apriori that the universe is created, then you indeed cannot have a creation without a creator. However, in this case, you are pursuing a circular argument -- you are trying to prove the very assumption you started with!

But not only that -- you paint your leaps of faith as if they were reasoned conclusions! From the presence of power, you divine the presence of *absolute* power! From existence of physical laws, you derive the existence of the *law maker*!

To further show the fallacy of your argument, I will turn your conclusions on their head. If there is a creator, then there must have been a time when there was no creator. If the creator had consciously committed an action as a first thing that ever happened, then there was a time when absolutely nothing happened -- not even the thoughts of the creator. Then of course we've got a conundrum -- where did the creator come from, if there was absolutely nothing before him? To continue: if a creator can deliberately do something, it/he/she must already obey some kind of a law -- the law of causality for example. If there was no causality, the creator could have never caused the universe, its thought could have never lead to its action, in fact its thought would have never even arizen!. So it seems at least some laws existed before the creator did. Where did the creator obtain its wisdom, its knowledge, its imagination? Gee, it must've been a scientist then, and studied whatever there was before our universe -- i.e. the creator's own universe. But now if we have a creator's universe preceding the creator, then where did *that* universe come from?

You see, there are two sides to these coins. You can go one way -- from creation to creator -- but you can also go the other way, from creator to creation. These choices are perfectly symmetrical, and neither is preferred! One can claim that the creator was good, and then defined evil. Or, one can claim that the creator was evil, and then defined good.

Finally, the power evident in the universe says nothing about its source. For example, a measly human can build and set off an antimatter bomb to outshine all the stars of the universe -- does that mean that the human was all-powerful, or that the power came from the human? No -- in this case the human merely manipulated the power that was already there. Same can be said about a creator, if any.

<hr>

But what it comes down to is this: there simply is not, nor can there ever be, evidence for an ultimate creator. That is because even if some ultra-powerful being shows up and claims to be God, there would be no way of knowing whether it's lying or not -- and whether even it knows the truth.

Therefore, as such the topic of this thread is pointless and meaningless!

The discussion of God's existence/nonexistence and evidence thereof has loooooong since been concluded hopeless by the best minds. What we should instead focus on in this forum, is the usefulness of religion per se, and especially its effects on society, knowledge, and reason.

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

[This message has been edited by Boris (edited July 02, 1999).]

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

H-kon:

Re: your thoughts that "we, Humans are on the threshold of ourself becoming Gods through Technology."

This is interesting. May i please have your definition of "Gods"?

May i suggest that man is incapable of creating anything?



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

 

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

 

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 ..

 

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

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

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).]

 

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>

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.

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.

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).

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?

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...)

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!

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.

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...

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

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.

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.)

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).

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.

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.

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).]

 

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).]

 

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 :\

 

Dumaurier:

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

But then again, this being a <u>discussion</u> 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.

 

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

 

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 :\

 

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

 

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.

 

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

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

 

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

 

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.

 

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

 

Dumaurier:

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.

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.

Ahhem, excuse me, but... <u>essential</u> 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 <u>all</u> pure speculation at this point -- your hallowed Truths about the universe have no more veracity to them than the wildest science-fiction scenarios.

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?

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. <u>This</u> 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.