Is There A God?

Hi Atheist ji

Well since you have read enough of one of my posts to pick up on the 'spoiled brat' (sorry!) comment,, why don't you answer my post # 74, seeing that it was addressed to you, please?


Blessings
Curious

 
Do share your immediate thoughts or reactions on this issue? We value your views! Login Now! or Sign Up Today! to share your views with us.. Gurfateh!

Hello Narayanjot ji

1. Well this one (as I put on my Zoroastrian hat) is easy . God created the Laws of of the Cosmos they are called Asha and in many ways it is almost identical to Hukam. Undoubtedly S/He in Her/His All Wisdom (Mazdaa) has decided to place the thirst for knowledge and curiosity in man's mind and heart , so it follows that it is His/Her will for men to know the Universe.

Further more since S/He is CREATOR S/He has indeed Created the object of man's curiosity and of Science's search, namely, the Universe . Finally Since He is Ahura ah being the Essence of Being itself S/He is indeed present as the very framework of all reality which S/He rules (ra) Being thus Creator and Reality S/He is both transcendent and Immanent (Where have I heard that before)therefore to know the Cosmos is to know Her/Him

Can then Science 'Discover ' God? Sure, but illumined men like Zarathushtra and the Sikh Gurus and perhaps others have long ago discovered the God that IS. Besides I think Science has already begun to discover God , but neither Science ( at least not most Scientists) nor atheist would recognize God or realize Her/Him through empirical facts if God literally came up and bit them, not that S/He would, of course.

2. Hmmm. Either I am incredibly dense , or this question begs the answer Yes and Yes! Of course semantically we can argue over the word God, but the Creator, by whatever name is 'there' and does exist.

3. Again , this has to be yes and yes for me. First you must belief there is or exists a God before you can believe Her/Him. However the moment you believe there is a God your only logical reaction is to want to believe in Him/Her in what S/He stands for, in what S/He teaches. The problem however, and it is a very big problem, is that in order to believe in God in what S/He is, what S/He stands for, what S/He teaches, you have to know what S/He is , What S/He stands for and what S/He teaches

How do you know any such thing? First God cannot possibly be fully known by our limited minds in the brief span of 1 or 1 million lives. Second to fully know what S/He stands for would seem to be equally impossible. and Third and even more difficult is how to know what God teaches considering that there are hundreds and hundreds of belief systems and thousands of interpretations of those systems.

However, I being the eternal optimist that I am do believe we can get to know God in the aspect of His relation towards His Creation fairly well. And this will more than suffice us. We can get to know Him because he has obviously wired us to know Him and, as we have discussed above, has given us the curiosity and desire to know him through Science and religion as well.

Besides we have some rather good guidelines. First I believe the evidence points to us that S/He is a Creator. If that is so S/He has to be transcendent because in order to have created this reality He must first have been beyond and outside it. Second He must be immanent . Because He is Creator, He must have created the Laws of of the Universe and these laws are so immanent in Creation, that there could not be anything existing without these laws of chemistry, physics , biology etc. Without gravity there would not have been planets, stars, galaxies or even atoms, without photosynthesis there would have been no plant life, without Osmosis we could not breath. All these processes are immanent in nature and all these processes are the Laws of the Cosmos which God created

Being Other and the Same God could only have created either by emanation or out of nothing (ex-nihilo) However since all evidence is that God has worked through His laws it seems also obvious that He creates through them and not outside them and an ex-nihilo creation would violate the Laws of Physics ( Apparently)

The more ticklish question is the area of what does S/He teach. There are many and sundry religions, and they all purport to teach about God, there have been many who claim to be seers, saints and prophets with Divine Messages and there are many who have devised complicated traditions and rituals to supposedly express, appease and obey God's will. However upon close examination we can see that all these religions are fundamentally different at some point

1. If God is immanent we must all be the sons and daughters of the Creator. His Message would have to be for all without distinctions or differences. This fact by itself disqualifies many sects of many religions. There cannot be a chosen race, a chosen people, a chosen caste, a chosen gender, etc.

2. If God wants us to know Him, that also disqualifies many religions and sects from following the will and nature of the Creator, because no one that teaches that S/He cannot made himself understood (enough) by His own Creation could possibly believe what is rather obvious that we have been created to know and seek Him Now true there will always be facets of God and of His will that are either unknowable or incomprehensible by creatures. To start out it is impossible to fully know Him and specially so he is transcendent Aspect. But for practical p0urpose we can know enough about God to Discover Him, Believe in Him, Love Him, Serve Him,and Place Ourselves at His Command.

3. Since He wants us to know Him He has endowed us with a discerning intellect, a limited free will capable of informed choice, and a Conscience to enable us to know what is Right (That is His will as expressed by His Law/ Command (Asha/Hukam) and what is wrong. Therefore any teaching that urges us not lean on our understanding, which tells us that we have no free will at all, etc, cannot be accepted as teaching us God's teaching

4. The same applies to religions that sanction harm to other creations , in the form of discrimination, racism, sexism etc. Religions that engage in animal sacrifice and thus in the killing of God's creatures for some, supposedly religious, purpose.

5. The Fact that God has endowed us with a conscience tells us That He is ethical and that unethical behavior cannot be God like. Thus when we read that God orders infanticide, Genocide, the killing, of animals, the killing of infidels. etc, we must steer clear of these things.

6. Furthermore that he gave us discerning intellects, tell us that He is not irrational therefore irrational beliefs, superstitions, contradictory doctrines etc are not the way of God's teachings.

7. His immanence, teaches that He does not need any intermediary when dealing with his creatures . These disqualifies all priesthoods.

There are many such principles that can help us get at what God truly teaches. But I offer a better idea. Look for the only two religions that do not teach rituals , that are against blind traditions , that teach equality of all before God. that condemn idolatry and shun the priesthood.

There are only two in the history of religions. They are, both, either ignored by the powers that be, persecuted (historically so) or opposed on the sly with many weapons but not directly in the light of day but, rather, covertly and in the shadows. You ask which are these two? The Gathic Religion of Zarathushtra Spitama and the Religion of the Disciples of God (Sikhism) and one more and last point. These two, when we get rid of the dross of religiosity that they can accumulate are not religions of man but describe and address the Teaching of God. Interestingly, AND PERHAPS REVEALINGLY, their scriptures are meant to be sung

Ushta te (Divine Light for You
Gurfateh! Curious

curious seeker ji
Reference:: Sikh Philosophy Network http://www.sikhphilosophy.net/general-discussion/29504-is-there-a-god.html

Thanks. It was not my intention to give you an extra homework. LOL. I was just replying to your idea that there are conversations which would more properly be about theism among theists.

I am sure that the forum membership appreciates the time you have taken to answer.

[QUOTE=Atheist;122945]...............I am merely trying to figure out why people on this forum believe in god for my own curiosity and education. And if in the process I find god, all the better, because I get closer to the truth (let us recall, everyone on this forum has the same goal - to find truth, whatever it may be). I prefer if people on here speak their mind so I know what you're thinking, as that also helps me get closer to the truth, yes?

Atheist ji.

You say, “Everyone on this forum has the same goal - to find truth, whatever it may be”.

I’d like to respond to the above, which is tangential to what you are asking, but I hope no one minds that I go into this a bit. It is about what I consider truth and reality.

As I write this, I am aware of some preconceptions influencing my thoughts. These thoughts pertain to the matter of what is truth / reality and what is not. If I wasn’t aware of this and instead went on to simply express whatever that came to mind, could I then be said to ‘know’ the truth? Or would it be an instance at best, of putting forward some concepts and expecting to influence others?

The point I am trying to make is this:

If there is no understanding of what is really going on when thinking about what we think, one can’t be said to ‘know’ the truth. And when there isn’t even an interest in this, how can one ever consider oneself to be ‘seeking’ truth?

In short, truth is either known or it isn’t. Yes, there are degrees of this understanding which can be gradually developed to ever deeper levels. However if one has no inclination to acknowledge even in principle, that the truth pertains to the experience “now”, then one is likely going along with some illusion and not touching upon the matter of truth.

Religion in general encourages people to *believe* in what it puts forward as truth. The result is that some people end up mindlessly following some rite and ritual (including the seemingly useful activity known as ‘meditation’), or else they are involved in projecting into their experiences what they like to see. However religion also talks about the value of such things as kindness, truthfulness, morality, generosity etc. and the harm in greed, pride, envy, hatred and so on. A person sincerely following his religion, who on one hand remains ignorant as to what the truth is, may in spite of this, still on occasion act rightly and therefore said to have gained some good out of his religion.
Reference:: Sikh Philosophy Network http://www.sikhphilosophy.net/showthread.php?t=29504

But can the same be said about science? Science is equally lost with regard to what the ‘truth’ is. It starts with concepts and ends with concepts and its means of investigation involve not one instance of having recognized the truth. But the science person believes otherwise, indeed most of those who believe in religion are also drawn in by the arguments and explanations offered. However when it comes to that which religion correctly teaches about, the person of science who is moral and kind, would have been so not due to his education in science, but in fact any ‘religious’ inclinations that he might have.
Reference:: Sikh Philosophy Network http://www.sikhphilosophy.net/showthread.php?t=29504

In other words, although religion largely misses the point with regard to truth, it however does point out rightly, about the value of good and disadvantages of evil. Science would likely dismiss these as being only relative, having flitted off to pre-conceived ideas one or the other. But for the one who walks the path of goodness, there is no doubt for example, that kindness, morality, compassion and so on are intrinsically valuable and that greed, pride, jealousy, miserliness, aversion etc. are intrinsically undesirable. In this regard hence, the man of religion is on firmer ground and is likely more stable. The person of science in trying to explain consciousness and such things as will, perception, feeling, moral restraint, kindness, generosity, greed, hatred and so on in terms of his acquired knowledge, must necessarily face inner conflict when doing this.

One question for both theist and atheist, ideas about creation, origination of the universe and such, why are these ever important?

I've been following the discussion with great interest but have decided to weigh in because of what Satyaban ji said in the above quote, to which I agree.

For 'Atheist' to say "...let us rationally and honestly try to justify the existance(sic) of god." is grossly unfair. Unfair because he calls himself an atheist and NOT an agnostic. Turning the argument on its head, one could as well ask 'Atheist' to justify his belief that god does not exist.

But, as Satyaban ji implies, we don't need to and we don't. I would go one step further and say this: If 'Atheist' would say he's an agnostic,( meaning that he does not deny the existence of god but that he does not know for certain that god does exist), I could respect that. And, maybe join in the main debate/discussion/whatever.

HS Rakhra

Agree totally. It is hard to see the logic. To define God in narrow and specific terms, like a straw man in an argument, then to knock down the straw man, is much like rigging a discussion to go in a preferred direction.

Especially today -- when any Sikh who defies the recent edicts of Akal Takht is being declared both an RSS agent and an atheist. This is labeling used to ignite warfare, to marginalize the enemy, to firm up one's following.

The word "atheist" is now being defined according to political agendas and has lost is fundamental meaning. Some proclaim themselves atheists because they subscribe to the theory of evolution in opposition to Christian fundamentalists. Those associated with Rozana Spokesman are accused of being atheists, as are the members of Delhi Gurdwara Management Committee, because they have defied the excommunication of Professor Darshan Singh. Some call their oponents atheists because they do not follow the edicts of Akaal Takht, or they disagree with Makkar, Lamba, and Dasam Granth advocates. Yet others say -- "Oh Yes -- I am an atheist because God has no form. There is no personal god in Sikhism."

So how much of this is labeling and reacting to labels? The word "atheist" has lost its meaning and is being used as a grenade.

Just to let everyone know - I have not fallen off the face of the planet and am not trying to overtly avoid this topic (after all I started it). But I am working now on two research projects, doing my regular work, and have about a million things to do and no time to do them all, hence my recent inability to chime in - nothing personal!
Reference:: Sikh Philosophy Network http://www.sikhphilosophy.net/showthread.php?t=29504
Reference:: Sikh Philosophy Network http://www.sikhphilosophy.net/showthread.php?t=29504

Thanks for everyone's understanding.

Narayanjot ji

I am sorry if my answer was too extensive I rather be extensive than misunderstood, but I realize that I might sometimes go beyond the direct answer, sorry. I have no idea that you are giving me extra work, first you can do no such thing and second I am volunteering my infornation. But if you believe my replies are too long, please let me know I won't be offended.

Anyway do you have any comments on the points I addressed? I mean they were your points/questions

May we all realize Sat Guru!
Curious

curious seeker ji

As I said -- the forum appreciates the time you have taken to answer my questions. The more elaboration one can give on any theme the richer the material that we have to offer them.
Reference:: Sikh Philosophy Network http://www.sikhphilosophy.net/showthread.php?t=29504

I do feel disconcerted, even sad, if my questions made you feel you had to expound. But you say that you took on the answers willingly. So that makes me feel much better.

As for reactions to your answers. My personal reaction is that I agree with your focus and your analysis. Lately I find that our perspectives are aligned. Having said that -- well -- that is one theist talking to another theist. Your reply does portray theism as a continuum of religious experiences -- more or less likely to emphasize a duality of "mankind" and God, and a sense of immanence in His Creation. That is how I also see theism -- not a monolithic experience at all -- but one in which there are a variety views regarding how the I/Thou relationship is bridged or whether it is an I/Thou relationship at all.
Reference:: Sikh Philosophy Network http://www.sikhphilosophy.net/showthread.php?t=29504

I may need to add to my answer and probably will, since I have already added to it in the past few minutes. My way of thinking things through is to figure out what my mental image is, and describe that. Then go in to speak to specifics.

[quote=Confused;123031]Confused ji

Creation is central to theism and its validity. If there is a creator, then the whole ethical situation changes radically, we are placed in subordinate position to an entity that must be greater than us, and that, clearly, its greater in power and and knowledge. In fact man is faced with two undeniable and self evident everyday realities about his material surroundings and his own self. One everything is temporal, unlasting, ever changing and involves both plain and pleasure. Two, man lacks knowledge and is mired in ignorance and must accumulate knowledge, both individually and as a race.

These, above, are self evident truths, what are not so quite as clear are other things that we consider true, such as, self, free choice, conscience and predispositions. These might or might not be phenomena that are true or not true. They are basically semantic and mental constructs that we create which many or may not reflect a deeper reality that we have no complete and exact knowledge of.

If there is creator then ethics has an objective and absolute aspect and life would have some sort of ultimate purpose, independent of our will and our desires. Also if there is a Creator, then our logic and common sense are validated, since it is clear that all that we can observe has an origin and a cause. Moreover if there is a creator then atheism and agnosticicim have no validity.

On the other hand if there is no creator we are simply the products of an intelligence that is infused in the very fabric of reality and that just simply IS, taking different forms for unknown reasons. OR there is nothing but chemical, biological and physical interactions that through time and chance have produced what is. Both these poissibilities give no Objective purpose and grounding to ethics which then becomes strictly situational; and subjective.

That is the importance of a Creator in my opinion. As an aside from our present, and foreseeable positions, as a race we lack enough knowledge to prove or disprove the Atheist or the Theist, on strictly logical and empirical grounds. However, the Theist can attain intimate and undeniable proof and knowledge of a Creator through a personal experience with Deity. An experiemce so powerful and overwhelming that it cannot be denied. (For the one who is experiencing it of course)

Divine Light for Us
Curious