Buddhism Buddha: An Atheist Or God?

[Sinister]

There was this forum I visited, where a Sikh fellow had made a similar comment. And an atheist asked him" Why call God truth? Truth is something different. Why muddle things up by saying that?" something like that. I ask you that same question.

Okey dokey, lets have some fun with this, and let me bounce ideas.


Rational explanation for the existence of god:

Let us make the supposition that an individual not only believes in the existance of truth but also believes that god is infinite truth, yet continues to, what appears to be redundantly, to affiliate his reality with that of a infinitely describable entity, god.

Now through Descartes Law of Universal Causation we know that all beliefs are born through an agency by which effect is produced; which means, that even the birth of redundancies have cause.

But upon closer inspection, even god is not a redundancy.

So, God is, through the miracle of linguistics, a rational discription and understanding of truth.

We cannot categorize unknown truths (yet to be truths) in the same breath as known truths. We have the existence of known truths and justified true beliefs. But where is new information coming from? (what feeds and asists the ever expantion of knowledge itself). For the internalist new information is just that what is not realized within the mind, for the externalist new information has not been sensed. This new information (literally the unknown) that has not been retrieved, interpreted and realized is also god.

So God is a universal all encompassing concept of truth, whose linguistic equivalent in this case, does not exist.

God is both realized and unrealized truths.


Of co{censored}, now psychological reasons can be drawn out, because if god is both existing and yet to be existing truth, then the pursuit for god is a rational choice, that gives life meaning and may expand the cause for expansion of imagination. …we can also involve discussion of free will but... lets start with this.

 

[BhagatSingh]

Okey dokey, lets have some fun with this, and let me bounce ideas.


Rational explanation for the existence of god:

Let us make the supposition that an individual not only believes in the existance of truth but also believes that god is infinite truth, yet continues to, what appears to be redundantly, to affiliate his reality with that of a infinitely describable entity, god.

Now through Descartes Law of Universal Causation we know that all beliefs are born through an agency by which effect is produced; which means, that even the birth of redundancies have cause.

But upon closer inspection, even god is not a redundancy.

So, God is, through the miracle of linguistics, a rational discription and understanding of truth.

We cannot categorize unknown truths (yet to be truths) in the same breath as known truths. We have the existence of known truths and justified true beliefs. But where is new information coming from? (what feeds and asists the ever expantion of knowledge itself). For the internalist new information is just that what is not realized within the mind, for the externalist new information has not been sensed. This new information (literally the unknown) that has not been retrieved, interpreted and realized is also god.

So God is a universal all encompassing concept of truth, whose linguistic equivalent in this case, does not exist.

God is both realized and unrealized truths.


Of co{censored}, now psychological reasons can be drawn out, because if god is both existing and yet to be existing truth, then the pursuit for god is a rational choice, that gives life meaning and may expand the cause for expansion of imagination. …we can also involve discussion of free will but... lets start with this.

When God = what you said. Then such a God is simply a concept, not an actual seen/unseen being, who listens to prayers, intervenes, creates, destroys, and is a very personal, almost "imaginary friend" like God, which is how most people perceive Him.

Your definition of "God" seems like the Einsteinian God, the mysteries of the world which we have yet to understand, not the personal God of any religion.

I don't disagree with the fact that such a "God" or any other God may provide purpose. But essentially what you have done is that you took a word gave it another meaning. That's fine though but you have not explained the assumed existence of the previous meaning of God.

God in Sikhism may very well mean truth, known or unknown. As long as it stay there, all is well, you explanation works. But it doesn't...
Mool mantar starts off with saying there is One God, which can easily be interpreted as One Truth (partially perceived)
Satnam = God is true, this is what you are explaining
From this point on the qualities listed would make NO sense, that is, it would be pointless to list them as they do not apply, if Guru Nanak Dev ji simply meant Truth when he said God. He pictured much more!!
They apply to a being, not an idea or the "God" you talk of.
No Fear. No Hatred. Image Of The Undying, Beyond Birth, Self-Existent.

 

[jasbirkaleka]

Lee,oh what an answer.Now iI will never question the existence of God.,

 

[Sinister]

When God = what you said. Then such a God is simply a concept, not an actual seen/unseen being, who listens to prayers, intervenes, creates, destroys, and is a very personal, almost "imaginary friend" like God, which is how most people perceive Him.

well no and yes...truth can be seen and it can be percieved (as it can effect emotional states) and belief in truth no longer just becomes a concept. What I think you are trying to say is; "is truth conscious of itself (and thus sentient)?" (which you argue is how most people perceive a god).

this however is NOT the eastern philosophical construct of god at all. From what I recollect, god is traditionally pantheistic in the eastern tradition...even the ritual tradition of 'ardaas' was added much later in the 1800's. now the mere fact that it was added can be expressed in something influential...namely an increasing western influence of thought at the time.

and what constitutes conciousness?
we humans sometimes describe a society as having consciousness...the social consciousness...in that society organizes in such complexity that it breeds intelligeance.
in nature, for example an individual bee does not have a consciousness but somehow the entire hive is shows higher intelligeance than the sum of its parts which gives the hive direction and what can be argued as consciousness.

now if what you meant is self awareness...does truth have self-awareness...then how do we argue that it does?

Your definition of "God" seems like the Einsteinian God, the mysteries of the world which we have yet to understand, not the personal God of any religion.

really? im pretty sure such theistic eastern philosophies played a role in Einsteins beleif's as well.

I don't disagree with the fact that such a "God" or any other God may provide purpose. But essentially what you have done is that you took a word gave it another meaning. That's fine though but you have not explained the assumed existence of the previous meaning of God.

however correct your particular observation (or the atheists observation) may seem is albeit irrelevant to the argument of an atheist. If an atheist is someone who does not believe in god then in a pantheistic reality they do not believe in truth...and are thus void of any meaning of consciousness of themselves (who are they to question anothers?).

God in Sikhism may very well mean truth, known or unknown. As long as it stay there, all is well, you explanation works. But it doesn't...
Mool mantar starts off with saying there is One God, which can easily be interpreted as One Truth (partially perceived)
Satnam = God is true, this is what you are explaining
From this point on the qualities listed would make NO sense, that is, it would be pointless to list them as they do not apply, if Guru Nanak Dev ji simply meant Truth when he said God. He pictured much more!!
They apply to a being, not an idea or the "God" you talk of.
No Fear. No Hatred. Image Of The Undying, Beyond Birth, Self-Existent.

perhaps yes or perhaps not, poetry can be interpreted as pros and many such interpretations can be deduced and many notion of the ought can be extrapolated...without direct examples i'm afraid this argument does not hold.

you may be right. but there exist vast differences in philosophy and practices.