Greetings Akshay, Do you really think that there is a knower and something to be known?
Marsha At 12:09 AM 1/29/2008, you wrote: >1. On your criticism to my idea of defining God: you see, if God is left >undefined, then how will we even know when we have found God? It simply is a >philosophical dead-end then, to search for something, when that >something happens to be an experience we have no clue of. Even though we >have not yet perceived God, we can still *anticipate/expect *some experience >that we might, depending on our idea of God, possibly experience in the >future. You can think of God as the grey-bearded old man with a lot >of advice and kindness, you can think of God as the ultimate unificatory >quantum equation of the universe, you can think of God in many ways. If you >have some expectation in mind, only then will you know if you have found God >or not. > > >How is this obvious? Do atheists acknowledge the > >existence of that which they cannot see? Do they accept the existence of a > >divinity as a logical principle? > >Atheists have to acknowledge a higher power. If there is no entity governing >them, then do they imply that they have all the power in the world? If there >are any limits to your powers, then obviously there is a higher power >(unless you yourself chose to have lesser power, in which case you should be >able to gain back the power to be able to not believe in a higher power). >Atheists primarily don't believe in a personal God. I have known atheists >who believe in a God (as in, a higher power) but they deny that he should be >something you pray to and get rewards from. This is why I have stuck to my >idea of first having a clear idea of what to expect when we're trying to >find God. As the famous song goes, if you don't know where you're going, any >road will take you there. > > >Do you refute the fact that what > >you've defined as "obvious" -- "a highest power governing this universe" -- > >has some consequence > >for man? > >Maybe it does have some consequence. That is simply what I meant by my >second statement. Let's see now... we know there is a higher power. Now, let >us see if this higher power cares about us enough and actually answers our >wishes. The question "does God exist?" is of low importance because it's >very simple, it's a mere yes or no question. > >I do understand my mistake there. I made it sound as if all the stuff about >God was simply meaningless, which was not what I intended at all. You see, >depending on your idea of God, the question can be answered. Now, the case >is entirely different when all you know about God is "highest power" and >you're investigating its characteristics. This scenario was completely >outside the domains of the two statements I made. What I commented was only >on whether the entity (highest power) exists, not on the features of this >entity, which is of course a lifelong pursuit of truth. > >Akshay > > > >On 29/01/2008, Ham Priday <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > Akshay -- > > > > > > The reason I responded to your 1/20 post is that one so logical and > > articulate in his analysis of other matters could toss off the existence > > of > > God as an irrelevant issue. It seems to me that there is no single belief > > in the annals of philosophy that is more paramount to man's understanding > > of > > meaning and purpose in existence. > > > > Your assertion that "We only have to define God and then find out if such > > an > > entity exists," is ludicrous for several reasons. First of all, a > > definition is a statement designed to express the meaning of a word or > > term > > in common usage. To define something that is unknown and not experienced, > > let alone believed in, is a fabrication out of whole cloth. One might as > > well define the tooth fairy or the Easter bunny. > > > > So the logical process of definition begins with naming what we know or > > experience, then narrowing down that name to express its essence or > > nature. > > Since, unless we've had a mystical experience, we don't know God as an > > entity, and are therefore unable to define it. But the fact that God is > > not > > accessible to man does not mean that God doesn't exist. > > > > You now say: > > > [I]t is very obvious that there is a highest power > > > governing this universe, who is to the universe what a > > > dreamer is to the dream. I believe that atheists only > > > nominally abandon. > > > > You see, that's my point. How is this obvious? Do atheists acknowledge > > the > > existence of that which they cannot see? Do they accept the existence of > > a > > divinity as a logical principle? Some may, but I don't think the majority > > do, or they wouldn't call themselves atheists. I don't think the MOQists > > here understand DQ as "a power governing the universe". In fact, I don't > > define God as a either a governing power or an existent. What "exists" is > > what appears to conscious experience in time and space, what has > > "universal > > reality". My idea of a primary source does not have such a description. > > > > [Akshay]: > > > I do not deny that they seem ludicrous, however, if you > > > really attempt to ponder over the question, "does God exist?", > > > at some point you have to define the word "God". > > > > I agree. And that's of critical importance to any philosophy. > > > > > Whether such an entity exists or not does not truly make a > > > difference to us (coupled with the agnostic opinion), unless > > > of course it is an entity that answers all our wishes provided > > > we pray to him enough. > > > > If we cannot be certain that such an entity exists, how certain can we be > > that it doesn't make a difference to us? Do you refute the fact that what > > you've defined as "obvious" -- "a highest power governing this universe" > > -- > > has some consequence > > for man? On what basis do you say that it doesn't make a difference to > > us? > > Wouldn't it be more reasonable to conclude that your believe in a primary > > source that creates and supports the universe makes you "different" from > > someone who does not share your belief? > > > > > You could add many more layers of power and end up > > > with an uninteresting hierarchy, what difference would it > > > make about the question of existence of a higher power? > > > This is what I meant by my first statement. > > > > Frankly, I think Mr. Pirsig has done precisely what you describe. His > > philosophy adds layers of patterns to an arbitrarily-defined four-level > > hierarchy that makes the existence of a higher power uninteresting and > > inconsequential. It offers no cosmic role for human beings, suggests no > > entelechy or purpose for individual consciousness, and even relegates > > morality to an evolving universe rather than to man himself. > > > > Someone here quoted the philosopher-historian Joseph Margolis as musing > > that > > if "...we use "exist" and "existence" of things which offer brute > > resistance, while keeping 'the real' or 'reality' for numbers, and such > > entities which lack corporeal substance, we may escape many a > > philosophical > > headache." If God is a primary reality, like the number '1' or '0', it > > does > > not exist; it simply IS. As one who believes in Essence as the primary > > source, I suggest that this concept is worth looking into. > > > > Thanks for clarifying your points, Akshay. I hope I've clarified my > > criticisms, as well. > > Regards, > > Ham > > > > > > > > Moq_Discuss mailing list > > Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. > > http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org > > Archives: > > http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ > > http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/ > > >Moq_Discuss mailing list >Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. >http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org >Archives: >http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ >http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/ ************* DEFINITION of Marsha, I, me, self, myself, & etc.: Ever-changing collection of overlapping, interrelated, inorganic, biological, social and intellectual, static patterns of value. Moq_Discuss mailing list Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org Archives: http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
