Gav, For atheists not to believe in god, the assumption of god must first be made. Don't make that assumption for atheists. How is not believing in the non-existent, a belief?
Micah hi all, just wanna share an idea it seems to me that atheists and theists are holding identical positions. both hold onto *beliefs*, one in the existence of god(s), one in the non-existence of god(s). an argument between parties holding the same line can never be resolved. the agnostic is more honest. he says that he doesn't know and in doing so admits that we are talking of knowledge. the question remains is it possible to have conclusive knowledge on this point - can we have knowedge of the existence/non-existence of god? before i go on a clarification: 'god' here refers to any transcendent, eternal aspect of the universe, personified or not. this aspect may be taken as an implicate order that informs the explicate order of the temporal universe. this clarification moves us closer to a better understanding of the question. firstly it allows for a more exact logical positing of the problem by letting us imagine the possibility of the existence of such a thing as 'god'. secondly it allows us to logically deduce the methods by which we may gain the knowledge necessary to confirm or deny the proposition. if god is atemporal, eternal, then he/she/it is unknowable in time. time is a function of conscious awareness. therefore it is logically impossible to grasp 'god' through the mind, the psyche, the limited consciousness of the self. we cannot logically comprehend 'god' as we would comprehend that which is temporal. mathematics is the formal language of the temporal, of nature, of manifest reality. but we have more options. firstly we can suggest that the existence of immaterial forces acting upon matter is a scientific given. secondly we can add that because these energies travel at the speed of light they are therefore atemporal. this seems to confirm the existence of the atemporal/eternal plane. does this therefore confirm the existence of a sentience, an intelligence that is resident within or characteristic of this plane? two ways to answer this. one. the nature of the manifest world points to an ordering priniciple. its harmony suggests intelligence. life needs to be aware and in some way able to control its reactions in order to survive. sentience seems to extend to the planet itself: gaia. chemical elements hang around with each other in predictable ways; plants and animals behave according to type and breed but begin to display more freedom of choice; we are self-aware, meaning simply that we have the power to override instinct and conditioning. most use this power infrequently, out of ignorance or laziness. intelligence and purpose are inseparable. intelligence is intelligence for something, to do something. this something is evolution. intelligence is creative. creative evolution. i could go on here with several more supporting reasons for the existence of the divine...but all would merely suggest the *possibility of its existence*. it is all circumstantial, however rational it seems. there are always other possible explanations and if one is not intuitively aware then the ability to discern qualitatively between different propositions will be poor. the question must be examined more thoroughly. if the questioner is not intuitively aware, not highly aware of quality, then he/she is not gonna get the highly subtle rational constructions used to support the existence of the divine. we like to think of the 'rational' and the 'artistic' as polar, but they, like all polar opposites, are actually complementary. therefore to reinforce the rational we must delve into the irrational - the unconscious. it is here that we might find the knowledge we seek. the rational is social; the irrational is personal. the unconscious may be collective, it may use a common language, but it is always *experienced* uniquely in each individual. *experience* is the essence of the irrational, as in the dream. the rational is essential dialogical - the dialectic. we find knowledge of the divine, of the atemporal, in experience, which is, as pirsig showed clearly, atemporal also. experiential/existential knowledge is that other type of knowledge we seek, but its language is unknown to most in the west. this language is provided by myth. without myth there cannot be a stable society, a culture, there can only be 'civilisation', as static and doomed as it sounds. on that cheery note.... two. okay as any good lawyer may point out we have actually only succeeded in proving the possibility of a now ____________________________________________________________________________ _____ How would you spend $50,000 to create a more sustainable environment in Australia? Go to Yahoo!7 Answers and share your idea. http://advision.webevents.yahoo.com/aunz/lifestyle/answers/y7ans-babp_reg.ht ml 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/
