No, it is not.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Evidence of a Higher Power
- Thread starter Final Call
- Start date
Jeremy Mason
Well-Known Member
I be interested to hear your views on how life began with or without the help of God.
Rolling_Stone
Well-Known Member
He's referring to the second law of thermodynamics, which says that things can self-organize if the system is open. The Earth is such a system.
However, you are right is a certain sense: every effect has a cause equal to or greater than the effect. Rationalism has gone bankrupt when it persists, in the face of each recurring phenomenon, referring to what is admittedly higher as the effect of the admittedly lower. "Consistency demands the recognition of the activities of a purposive Creator." One constant in RF is that rationalism is god even when it is no longer rational.
YmirGF
Bodhisattva in Recovery
Just for good measure, you should also check out "The God Delusion" by Richard Dawkins.
Rolling_Stone
Well-Known Member
I got it from the library. A most forgettable book.
Charity
Let's go racing boys !
I read it, did a thread on it also, Found out that the Bible was completely correct when it came to this book about the new atheists.......There is nothing new under the sun.....same ole, same ole I do find Dawkins to be very interesting though.
Rolling_Stone
Well-Known Member
Same ole, same ole is right, but I had a hard time getting through it. H's a brilliant biologist, but a lousy philosopher and a worse theologian.I read it, did a thread on it also, Found out that the Bible was completely correct when it came to this book about the new atheists.......There is nothing new under the sun.....same ole, same ole I do find Dawkins to be very interesting though.
UnityNow101
Well-Known Member
Read anything by Jiddu Krishnamurti. He explains how beliefs have come into existence and how we are all conditioned to believe one thing or another and are in a constant state of conflict. UG Krishnamurti is good as well, but he comes across as a bit harsh to some...
I would say that there is no evidence that would point conclusively in either direction. We don't know whether there is a God or not, so why even try to find out? It is the way that it is, which is the way that it will continue to be. If we were meant to know, there would be no conflict of beliefs. As it is, we are in constant conflict because we try to find God through the ideas and opinions of somebody else, which only further helps to cloud the mind and weigh us down. You could always take a guess as many people do, or go back into the religion which you were conditioned to believe in, which many people do as well. Or you could honestly seek for yourself to see what is true and what is not. Drop the interpetations and petty conflict over the issue and honestly seek. If you see that nothing is there other than the idea or opinion of another, than maybe that is what is so. Atleast that is what has been the case for me...
I would say that there is no evidence that would point conclusively in either direction. We don't know whether there is a God or not, so why even try to find out? It is the way that it is, which is the way that it will continue to be. If we were meant to know, there would be no conflict of beliefs. As it is, we are in constant conflict because we try to find God through the ideas and opinions of somebody else, which only further helps to cloud the mind and weigh us down. You could always take a guess as many people do, or go back into the religion which you were conditioned to believe in, which many people do as well. Or you could honestly seek for yourself to see what is true and what is not. Drop the interpetations and petty conflict over the issue and honestly seek. If you see that nothing is there other than the idea or opinion of another, than maybe that is what is so. Atleast that is what has been the case for me...
I do not know. Therefore?
Rolling_Stone
Well-Known Member
I've read two of three of his books. Very little of what he wrote in what I've read resonates with me. This isn't so much because I disagree with what he says as much as the way he says them. He's not a particularly good spiritual teacher (if he is one).
UnityNow101
Well-Known Member
Like I said, UG is harsh and quite relentless. Many people cannot get into him. But Jiddu Krishnamurti is a little more comforting for a lot of people. Both could be considered spiritual teachers, although they believed that the truth must be sought out for ourselves and not to take anything that they say as truth. You probably want a spiritual teacher that spells everything out for you, instead of stepping back and allowing you to answer the questions that arise with their teaching. They were a different type of spiritual teacher, that is for sure. And the world is probably not ready for their simple, but revolutionary teachings...
Rolling_Stone
Well-Known Member
:biglaugh:Thanks! I needed that! It's been a long time since I laughed so hard and do long.
UnityNow101
Well-Known Member
What is so funny? You said that Krishnamurti was not a particularly good spiritual teacher, presumably because he does not give you a conclusion from which to rewrite the truth. We are all looking for somebody to give us the answer, or the conclusion, which causes us to end our search and become smug in our beliefs. People were told and believed that the earth was flat for thousands of years because they were working from the conclusion that it was indeed flat. It wasn't until after factual evidence to the contrary was given that we started to question the conclusion. It seems to be the same way with truth and "god". Give us the conclusion and we fall in line like sheep, believing anything that we are told...
Mulugbaadh
New Member
Check out Quantum Physics .
.
UnityNow101
Well-Known Member
Check out Quantum Physics
Every theory begins as a conclusion, but you must have enough sense to understand that you could be wrong. The conclusion has blinded many an individual from seeking out the answer. Take God, for example. Many people have grown up with the conclusion given that he is indeed there and is working in ways unknown. So they question nothing and accept anything concerning him. The conclusion has become a blockade against their understanding of what seems to be true.
Rolling_Stone
Well-Known Member
Then why is doubt so important to faith in God?
UnityNow101
Well-Known Member
You must doubt to be able to see the truth clearly. If I just blindly accept what I have been told or just head down the conditioned road throughout life, what good is there in that? I know that it would be a miserable existence for me to follow. We all seem to want to follow the road that has been laid out, either by our parents or society, without doubting anything that we are told concerning life, God, or truth. Are we finding the truth to anything or does that search end once we are told what is supposed to be truth? Most of the people that I talk to are working from the premise that God is real and that he works in exactly the ways that they have been told. There is no fact to back this up, but they are afraid to doubt for some odd reason or another....
Rolling_Stone
Well-Known Member
Many do have unreflective belief, but many have unreflective disbelief, too. Either God is, or God is not. Honest doubt is fine. A shattered faith can lead to disbelief, but just as often it leads to a more sophisticated belief. Did you know that Israel means "wrestling with God"?
Science and reason are useful to theology because they establish parameters for what can be considered reasonable in its attempt to define, clarify, expound, and justify the experiential claims of religion. Left to themselves, science and reason emphasize man's separation from the world and give rise to a sense of isolation, powerlessness and want of control. They're alienating, and when they assume to be the final arbiter of what's real, they invariably project upon society the same insecurities and alienation.
The gap between religion and science is so wide that conflict between them is logically impossible. Yet, their interaction in society is inevitable: science cannot not ignore religion's endeavor to make man at home in the universe and religion cannot not ignore new developments in science.
I previously asked the question, "What must be in order for what is to be as it is?" It seemed no one wanted to answer it. Its answer requires us to take into account the whole range of human experience, which for many includes a sense of connectedness with the universe; not just a reactionary awe of an objective reality, but a living and participatory relationship. "Life feels itself" is an utterly inane statement to at least on person in RF, but many know its truth as a personal experiential reality.
People today want something they can wrap their minds around, not a vague, ill-defined amorphous feeling of something intangible. Hence, the incessant demand for evidence--as though some were possible. Negative theology, or "Apophatic theology," has fallen into disuse primarily as the result of the influence of reductionist science. It "focuses on a spontaneous or cultivated individual experience of the divine reality beyond the realm of ordinary perception, an experience often unmediated by the structures of traditional organized religion or learned thought and behavior." (Wikipedia)
It is indeed true that for many "God" is just an idea, but for increasing numbers of people it's a word-symbol for a Higher Power of actual experience.
Science and reason are useful to theology because they establish parameters for what can be considered reasonable in its attempt to define, clarify, expound, and justify the experiential claims of religion. Left to themselves, science and reason emphasize man's separation from the world and give rise to a sense of isolation, powerlessness and want of control. They're alienating, and when they assume to be the final arbiter of what's real, they invariably project upon society the same insecurities and alienation.
The gap between religion and science is so wide that conflict between them is logically impossible. Yet, their interaction in society is inevitable: science cannot not ignore religion's endeavor to make man at home in the universe and religion cannot not ignore new developments in science.
I previously asked the question, "What must be in order for what is to be as it is?" It seemed no one wanted to answer it. Its answer requires us to take into account the whole range of human experience, which for many includes a sense of connectedness with the universe; not just a reactionary awe of an objective reality, but a living and participatory relationship. "Life feels itself" is an utterly inane statement to at least on person in RF, but many know its truth as a personal experiential reality.
People today want something they can wrap their minds around, not a vague, ill-defined amorphous feeling of something intangible. Hence, the incessant demand for evidence--as though some were possible. Negative theology, or "Apophatic theology," has fallen into disuse primarily as the result of the influence of reductionist science. It "focuses on a spontaneous or cultivated individual experience of the divine reality beyond the realm of ordinary perception, an experience often unmediated by the structures of traditional organized religion or learned thought and behavior." (Wikipedia)
It is indeed true that for many "God" is just an idea, but for increasing numbers of people it's a word-symbol for a Higher Power of actual experience.
Last edited: