Free Will?

[Lee]

Caspian ji,

That anology does not really work though. It assumes how Gods prior knowledge works and it assumes that God is stuck within the limits of liner time.

God is largly unfathomable, which means I can't tell you exaclty how Gods prior knowledge works, nobody can tell you that. So you are making assumptions here and nothing else.

When I say pointless, I mean in the context of religoius dogma. If we really have no choice in whether first to belive in the existance of God or not, and secondly whether we seek God or not, then what is the point of any scripture aimed at getting us to make the correct choices regarding spirtuality and God? Also no free will negates the concept of sin, does it not? As well as personal morality, cultural ethics, and man made laws.

I for one cannot see how the creator of all, can be limited in any way, can you?

No my freind that is not an example of circular logic. This is though:

'The Bible is the word of God because the Bible says it is so'

Circular logic is the kind that makes a claim and referances itself to proove that claim.

What I said I have reitarated above. The proof (to my mind) that we have free will is that we have so many differant holy scripture. The point of holy scirpture is to persuied us to belive any particular view of God. If we need to be persuaed we must have freedom of choice.

No my friend that was not a joke at all, it is a serious experiment, why do you think it proves nothing?

If you had two of something, similar but differant, and you choose betwen them, or none of them or both of them, that is three of a posible of three choices that can be made.

Remember right at the very top of my initial post I have said that free will is simpmply the ability to make choices. This experiment shows that we have such an ablity, and twithin the context of the experiment the choices are arbitaury and quite meaningless, so what has determined you choice in this matter for you?

Also consider this.

When/if you reply to me, you will make many, many choices in doing so. You will choose the words you prefer to make your point. In English we know that one word can have subtly differant meanings, so you have a wide (or large, or extensive, or broad, or complex...etc..) set of words to choose from. Which ever ones you choose to use, can you show how you have been forced into the choice?

 

[Caspian]

To Naranjot (this will be a bit lengthy, hopefully not as lengthy as the actual PDF )

Okay so I got around to reading the PDF. I can't say I agree with him... and here's why.

The Free Will argument is an "Empirical Argument." The author of the PDF begins by saying.

The question of human freedom and necessity has been a difficult one in all religions and philosophic systems. Empirical logic has failed to resolve this probelm

Now heres my problem with the above quote. It was "Empirical Logic" that first illuminated the problem and despite what the author says, Empirical logic has provided an answer for the problem that is consistent with Empirical Logic (but both situations are undesirable for the Theist). The implications of the FreeWill/Destiny argument is as follows:

1) God has given man no free will (In which case there can be no judgments passed from God)
or
2) God cannot be truly omnicient (In which case the definition of "God" must be redefined)

So when the author says, "Empircal logic has failed to resolve this problem" that's a lie. Empircal logic has provided two answers, both of which are unappreciated by the religious (and rightfully so, they undermine God's ability or denounce the possibility of heaven/hell/judgments but atleast they are empircally consistant).

He then goes on to answer the problem in a very Non-Empircal way. You cannot answer an Empirical Argument/Problem with a Non-Empirical Answer. His answer also has some problems (buts thats cause hes not using logic, he using nice-sounding-language to promote his ideas that seem to make sense but upon "Logical Scrutiny" his assertions have flaws).

For example:

God is a being who is the master of the ways of his functioning and we do not know them. He is free. He is not determined by the laws of our worls

The above assertion is integral to his argument. And I've heard many people try to use similar arguments. Essentially what he is saying is "God is above logic"

But when you think about it

What he is admitting is that: "God is illogical" (and i completely agree that an illogical being can do w/e he wants . But I'm not sure if one would want to believe their god is illogical)

For example, if I was to say: "Bush is above the law" thats akin to saying "Bush is unlawful"

So when someone says "God is above logic" thats akin to saying "God is illogical."

Judging by the above quote, and some assertions in his PDF. He believe in a God that can make 2+2=5. Thats a problem in and of itself. So a consequence of his argument is that the God that he believes in, must be illogical... and if that god is illogical, then no logical argument can be made in favor of his existance. So his entire argument rubs me the wrong way, in his defence, he kind of admitted it was a non-empirical argument from the fore front. But empirical problems demand empirical answers.

I elaborate on this argument in the below reply.

 

[Caspian]

I for one cannot see how the creator of all, can be limited in any way, can you?

I have chosen to delete my original post (I didnt think I was being as clear as I wanted to be). But essentially what you saying is "God is above us" and ur using that as ur argument to disregard the logical free will/destiny argument. Your essentially say "God is above human logic" and if I'm correct in that assumption, I would rather you read my new post I just made its kinda long but in the post I deal with your argument.

Just because God is above us, doesnt meant that God can do things that violate our logic (for example, he cannot give us free will if it is logically against his characteristics without redefining his characterisitics)

In the post I have created. I don't deal with the logical free will argument, instead I deal with the logical statement: 2+2=4.

So heres the deal:

If you believe god can make 2+2=5 then please read my new thread.

If you dont believe god cant make 2+2=5 then end of discussion. I have just shown u a way in which god can be limited

 

[Lee]

Sure I can . My above post touches on this topic, but God cannot directly conflict with logic without becoming illogical. You too (like the author in my above post) make grand statements like the one I have chosen to quote. That god is "above" our logic our math our laws. That god has "created" our logic our math and our laws. But both those statements are a tacit admission of God being "illogical"

Hah now that is indeed a grand claim my freind. How can you show that it is logicaly consistant though and not mere opinion?

Besides even if you can show me such and manage to change my mind(truthfully sir I am full to the brim with 'intelectual honesty' if you can pursead me I may well change my stance), i don;t think it matters at all in the context of this debate.

Saying that God is illogical merely means defiles logics, I have no real problems with that particular concept, indeed I would find it odd for any theist to do so.

Like i said above my previous post. You too believe in a god that can make 2+2=5 if he wants to, yet you are trying to argue in a logical manner—this is almost "orwellian" style double think.

No I do not think it is. Of course I am argueing in a logical mannor, would you prefer it if I did not? I am human, I am not God, we are engaged in a a logical debate on the concept of free will. Now sir If I was to abandone logical reasoning here in favour of something else, I wonder what your response would be?

(Im replacing the original free will/destiny argument with another logical argument 2+2=4. If you cannot see the logic in the free will/destiny argument I don't know what I can do to show you it, so I've simplified the situation)

This is exactly the same empasse I reach whenever I engage in this topic.
My freind can you not see that I have provided you with some sound logical reasoning for my stance, by the very rules of debate you should now use the same to counter my arguments. That you cannot do so must mean one of two things. You have not the were-with-all to counter the ideas I have laid down here with your own logical ideas and arguments. Or You can see that I am correct yet your attachement to your own stance overrules your 'intelectual honesty'.

What you post above is tantamount to giving up. I cannoot as you say see the logic in your argument, if though you have faith in it then you should be able to present me with at least the logical argument that has pureaded you to belive it, no? If you cannot make me understand then I would suggest that your stance is not strong, nor has your belife in such an unsound stance been reached via a wholly logical procese.

A god that can make 2+2=5 is inheritly illogical. Your argument that "God is above logic" or "God created logic" (im paraphrasing) is a moot argument. Heres another example why.

Humans create robots and computers that operate under a logical set of laws. But a computers logic can be limited compared to its creator, however this does not impair the nature of logic itself. If a computer is given the problem 2+2 and logically deduces 4 then there is nothing in our futher logic (human logic is u prefer) that can outright contradict a computer's logic. Similarily, if a human deduces 4 from 2+2 there is nothing in its creators logic (godly logic this time) that can contradict our logic. If there is something in godly logic that contradicts our logic, and indeed 2+2 can equal 5. Then not only is God above logic (illogical) but god has totally destroyed logic at this point and no argument can be made in favor of his existance.

Again my freind this anology does not work well, for many reasons but the most salient one being that despite the nature of logic(or indeed any thing) the creator must be in posetion of more knowledge. The creator of logic can surly transcend logic, as the creator of a new sport will be able to chop and change any rules he likes(his sport, his rules).

Secondly maths is not a good anolgy to make regarding logic at all. A joke may help show you what I mean. 'What is 1 and 1?'

Now logic dictates the answer should be two, but that is incorrect the real answer is in fact window(think about it). This is in all seriousness the correct answer to the question I possed, yet you claim that if we give this question to a computer that it would answer 2, and in doing so it would be incorrect. The computer must work within the limited confines of what it's creator has designed it to be, but another creator(human in this case) can transcend the fixed logics of the creation(the computer) and arive at the correct answer, the creation(the computer) will always answer this question wrong, until such a time that the creator(humans) change it's programing. So we can see that the limit applys to the creation, but not the creator.

Dont get me wrong, I believe we do have free will but unlike you, I realize then that we must redefine our definition of God and his characteristics to be in line with free will. I know you said that me earlier analogy doesnt work, but the basis of your following argument presupposes that God is above us in every way but I hope I have shown that even if God is above us in every way—he cannot contradict our basic logic without becoming illogical himself.

Ahhh then I'm sorry my freind you have not shown me this to any reasonable standard. Besides that line of my reasoning was not the entirty of it, it was actualy quite a tiny little piece of it. Heh just one line to be exact.

 

[Caspian]

Secondly maths is not a good anolgy to make regarding logic at all.

Are you kidding me? Math is like the epitome of logic =\. You've single handedly destroyed an entire 1000 years of education with that quote. Math is logic.

A joke may help show you what I mean. 'What is 1 and 1?'

Now logic dictates the answer should be two, but that is incorrect the real answer is in fact window(think about it).

Your frustrating me. Not cuz ur rite. But because your being illogical and you dont even know it. Do you know why what you said is considered a joke? BECUASE ITS ILLOGICAL. Furthermore you seem to have no problem with being illogical. You believe in a god that can make 2+2=5 i have nothing more to say to you. As a matter fact, i can only assume (to be consistant with your logic) that you actually believe 1+1=window. Sure you said it was a joke, but acknowledgin it as a joke means that you acknowledge that 1+1 can only equal 2 so its more consistant for you to actually believe that 1+1= both 2 and "window." I doubt any other member here would succumb to your kind of logic. Yes, I get the joke. But the statement 1+1 equals 2 and only 2 in a mathamatical sense is absolutly true and ur attempt to show otherwise is PURELY ILLOGICAL (thas why its a joke, and by extension, your whole argument becomes a joke [believe it or not but thats a logical conclusion to draw]). If any other person here agrees that your argument there is logical then pft =S ill shut up? lol

All you have to do is convince one other person your right. 1+1=window. (lol are u going to say "i didnt say 1+1 your putting words in my mouth. I said '1 and 1' its different... its like the 1's in combination with the math symbols can form the shape of a window! dont you get it!). I get it! Its funny! Cuz its an illogical answer to a logical problem! But yes, just convince 1 other person here you have the advantage btw, many of these people are religious like you, believe in god, and believe in free will YET i am confident none of them can consider your reasoning to be correct.

 

[Lee]

Your frustrating me. Not cuz ur rite. But because your being illogical and claiming to be logical. Furthermore you seem to have no problem with it. You believe in a god that can make 2+2=5 i have nothing more to say to you. As a matter fact, i can only assume (to be consistant with your logic) that you actually believe 1+1=window. Sure you said it was a joke, but acknowledgin it as a joke means that you acknowledge that 1+1 can only equal 2 so its more consistant for you to actually believe that 1+1= both 2 and "window."I doubt any other member here would succumb to your kind of logic. Yes, I get the joke. But the statement 1+1 equals 2 and only 2 in a mathamatical sense is absolutly true and ur attempt to show otherwise is PURELY ILLOGICAL. If any other person here agrees that your argument there is logical then pft =S ill shut up? lol

Ahh my freind, I'm sorry but what you mean is you do not get what I mean. This is fine, rest assured my logic in this matter is sound. However I would like to resolve this if we can, so to that end please describe for me where you think my logic fails and we'll see what can be done to enable better understanding between us.

As to the question I posed, again sir nope I am not joking, this is I 0take it a serious debate we have going here? So then any thing I have to say on the matter I am being serious about.

1 and 1 = window. Why?

1 and 1, you take one 1 and turn it so that it looks thus: - you put the other 1 across it so that together they look thus: + just like the four divinding panes of a window, so clearly the correct answer to the question I asked is window.

You may call this illogical if you like, it is not so. You can clealry see the logical structure underlying the answer.

Sir if you really do not wish to talk further then this is also fine, sad but fine. If this is the case though can I ask you to believe that you do so not because my logic is at fault (it is not) but because you have not yet understood my arguments?

 

[Caspian]

No believe me, I get the joke :| I kinda pre-emptively edited my last post because I knew you were going to try to describe the joke. rest assured, i get it.

1 and 1 = window. Why?

1 and 1, you take one 1 and turn it so that it looks thus: - you put the other 1 across it so that together they look thus: + just like the four divinding panes of a window, so clearly the correct answer to the question I asked is window.

You may call this illogical if you like, it is not so. You can clealry see the logical structure underlying the answer.

I still find it funny that you try to justify your logic with a illogical joke and then try to justify the logic behind the joke.

but there is nothing to imply your "logical structure." You did not say "what object can you get by combining two "1's" with an addition and equal symbol" you said "what is 1+1 and from that you derived a window which was illogical and thas why its considered a joke. had you actually said: "what object can you get by combining two "1's" with an addition and equal symbol" then yes you have a right to claiming that there is a "logical structure" to your window but that is not wat you said.

Sir if you really do not wish to talk further then this is also fine, sad but fine. If this is the case though can I ask you to believe that you do so not because my logic is at fault (it is not) but because you have not yet understood my arguments?

Your logic is at fault. I wish i could make like a little "voting thingy" and go "is his logic at fault" and see wat it says. Cuz i can garentee that everyone would agree ur logic is at fault. I have no idea where u aquired your philosophy from but wow. I can go on, I have nothing further to say to you (thats true) but that doesnt mean this is the end of the discussion. it just means I'm going to be repeating wat im saying over and over again to any of your posts trying to explain "your logic." Basically telling u over and over again that your being illogical

 

[Caspian]

1 and 1 = window. Why?

1 and 1, you take one 1 and turn it so that it looks thus: - you put the other 1 across it so that together they look thus: + just like the four divinding panes of a window, so clearly the correct answer to the question I asked is window.

You may call this illogical if you like, it is not so. You can clealry see the logical structure underlying the answer.

BTW, you dont have to turn the 1's horizantly or else...hld on, i think you got your own joke wrong. You havent even created a window, u created a plus sign. I think it would be more logical to keep the 1's verticle so they make the sides of the window and keep the equal sign horizantle to make the top and bottom of the window and the adition symbol is the + four dividing panes to have a complete enclosed window (thats how i was shown the joke as a little kid)... i cant believe im explainin this to you though. Im teaching you your own joke and by extension ur own flawed logic. Lol, So clearly even your logical structure is subject to question

At the very least, even if "window" is the correct answer, you have proven for me how you can reach a correct answer incorrectly. And using ur above quote as my "new analogy" now—Its not the conclusion that matters in this case, its your reasoning. And with your entire argument (and the joke itself!) your reasoning and your logic has been flawed. Wow... I cannot possibly go further without sounding unintentionally rude (and if it sounds like im being condescending, im not trying to be, im sure the feeling is mutual as you must consider my logic to be illogical as well) and for that I apologize. I deeply apologize if i have offended u in any way already by now. But i am going to end this discussion right here, perhaps we can butt heads over a different topic in the future.

But like i said: The whole reason why it is a joke—is becuase its illogical!

 

[Lee]

but there is nothing to imply your "logical structure." You did not say "what object can you get by combining two "1's" with an addition and equal symbol" you said "what is 1+1 and from that you derived a window which was illogical and thas why its considered a joke. had you actually said: "what object can you get by combining two "1's" with an addition and equal symbol" then yes you have a right to claiming that there is a "logical structure" to your window but that is not wat you said.

In actual fact sir the questuion I posed was this: 'What is 1 and 1?'

Admitedly it is a bit of trickery, but not one that is illogical. The application of some 'deductive reasoning' does indeed render the correct answer. Or do you maintian that all riddles are illogical?

The porpouse of it was to counter your claim which paraphrasing was esensitaly that a creators logic cannot contradict the logic of it's creation. I have show here with this question that it is all a question of knowldege. In pure maths the question what is 1 and 1, the computer can only answer 2. This is because the creator(humans) of the computer have not yet programed it with the relevant knowledge to understand the concept of 'latteral thought'. In this example we can clearly see that the creators(human) knowledge and logic is greater than the created(computer), and so it shows your initial premis to be false.(this is the logical way in which to debate logical points is it not?)

Do you agree that this is indeed a logicaly sound answer to your acertion?

BTW, you dont have to turn the 1's horizantly or else you would have to turn the equal sign vertically. I think it would be more logical to keep the 1's verticle so they make the sides of the window and keep the equal sign horizantle to make the top and bottom of the window and the adition symbol is the + four dividing panes to have a complete ... i cant believe im explainin this. Im teaching you your own joke.

Sir I made no mention of an = sign in my initial question.

Your logic is at fault. I wish i could make like a little "voting thingy" and go "is his logic at fault" and see wat it says. Cuz i can garentee that everyone would agree ur logic is at fault. I have no idea where u aquired your philosophy from but wow. I can go on, I have nothing further to say to you (thats true) but that doesnt mean this is the end of the discussion. it just means I'm going to be repeating wat im saying over and over again to any of your posts trying to explain "your logic." Basically telling u over and over again that your being illogical

Sir in the field of logical debate there is a term for the response of attacking the person and not the argument, this is called(as I'm sure you know) the fallcy of ad homine. It is well regarded as a sign of weakness of argument.

I have asked you to highlight for me the exact parts of my arguments you find illogical so that we can move forward, would you care to do that?

In an effert to do exactly that(move forward) let me offer you this on your original anogly of the silver screen.

Yes I would expect a film to run exactly the same on each viewing as the film is merley a recording of the actions that have already taken place.

You are lucky sir I work in the TV industry and know a little about the filming proces, so perhaps it would be a better anolgy if we equate the director with God.

During the filming of the scene the director will tell his actors what result he wants, the actors my ask him for further direction 'what is my motivation?' for example, and the director will answer in such a way so as to enable the actor to do his job and give the director the reukst he reqiures. In all of this the actor is still free to ply his craft how he sees fit, the director has not the power to tell the actor his job, only what he wants the end result to be.

The turn of the lip, the body language, the way the actor looks into camera, the inflection on the spoken words, the minute facecial work to convey emotions, these are all real time choices that the actor makes, and in reality the director may film the scene several times, each time the actor acts in a sutbly differant way. The scene is finished and ultimatly when the editing begins the diector also has the choice on just which version of the scene to keep in and which to leave out.

In this anology it is clear to see that actor has choices. The director is interested in the end result, how the actor gets it is up to the actor.

 

[Caspian]

I've highlighted the parts of ur argument that i consider to be illogical. I explained why i think there illogical. But you contend they are perfectly logical. So before we continue

Can someone else tell me there's nothing wrong with his logic? Or is there something wrong with my logic? (No offence, but i need that to be settled first before I move on in this discussion. Because if i'm being illogical, that would kill me inside... and i need to see the error of my ways in that case so I can continue)

 

[spnadmin]

Another take on this topic is attached.

 

[Lee]

I've highlighted the parts of ur argument that i consider to be illogical. I explained why i think there illogical. But you contend they are perfectly logical. So before we continue

Can someone else tell me there's nothing wrong with his logic? Or is there something wrong with my logic? (No offence, but i need that to be settled first before I move on in this discussion. Because if i'm being illogical, that would kill me inside... and i need to see the error of my ways in that case so I can continue)

Caspian ji,

The truth of the matter as I see it not one of either of us failing logicaly, I do not think you understand my points that is all.

You have indeed higlighted a few points for me, but those that you did where more about your misreading of my words. Your 1+1, instead of my intial 1 and 1 for example.

Please my freind do not let a little thing like your perception that you may be ilogical ruin you day, hah we can all be wrong sir, there is no shame in it. The bigger shame is to know you are incorrect and still stick to a line of thought that you know is now wrong. This is intectual dishonesty, a far greater crime than being wrong.(in my opinion), and as I say I don't find you illogical at all, you and I merely have a differance of opinion, this is a freindly place and I am in fact a freindly person.

I would love to move forward with this, as I'm certian you would also, lets not forget we can of course wholehartedly attack the idea, without this meaning an attack on the person having the idea.

 

[curious seeker]

Boys boys!!!!!

Perhaps I can help let me frame the argument a little differently. What is TRUTH? Nanak said God is TRUTH. Zarathushtra said God's law (Asha ) is TRUTH and RIGHT. The Buddha Said Impermanence and Suffering are TRUTH, Jesus , supposedly said I am the TRUTH

But, if we impartially analyze these sayings, we can hopefully agree tha TRUTH in the sense of what is proven to be correct can be reached by examining the circumstances of life with our mind (The Buddha reached his TRUTH that way) or we can device empirical experiments, whose end result, will prove something to be TRUE . These experiments, to be credible, have to follow a series of principles.This system is called the Scientific Method. It requires several things including that these experimenst are repeatble and falsifiable

Thus it seems to me That the Buddha (And I am talking only what can be considered the proven part of his philosophy, the rest while meritorious is not proven) basically reached a self evident conclusion in that the reality that we can know IS impermanat and involves suffering. It also seems to me that Asha which is cognate with Vedic Rita and means roughly the same , is at least in the physical sphere, the Physical laws of the Cosmos as well as being God's Law. Moreover Nanak and Zarathushtra are truly of one accord because while Nanak calls God TRUTH Zarathushtra says that TRUTH is an Essence of God's nature , that is, TRUTH IS GOD or a Part of God's Nature

Setting asides Jesus' claim (If he ever truly made it since, at best, we have only third hand accounts of what he supposedly said) We can then go on. If TRUTH is God and God is either, the LAWS of the Cosmos, (partly) which is what Zarathushtra says, or God has made them out of His essence. (emanation) We can see that from this TRUTH we can conclude that God's will and purpose must be reflected by these laws and their results.

Since evolution has resulted in a critical thinking and Ethically Endowed being, (an in this planet) then we can also assume that this is God's will and that He has also endowed man with the attributes that make him the ETHICAL animal that he is. Thus soul, ethical perceptions critical and logical minds and will are all divine endowments in man.

Furthermre more this then means that God is an Ethical and Logical Being, (or entity if you prefer) as well, and He also has a will. Being ethical and TRUTH means God can neither lie nor violate his nature . Thus God cannot be illogical He is limited by His nature

Blessings
Curious

 

[Lee]

Boys boys!!!!!

Perhaps I can help let me frame the argument a little differently. What is TRUTH? Nanak said God is TRUTH. Zarathushtra said God's law (Asha ) is TRUTH and RIGHT. The Buddha Said Impermanence and Suffering are TRUTH, Jesus , supposedly said I am the TRUTH

But, if we impartially analyze these sayings, we can hopefully agree tha TRUTH in the sense of what is proven to be correct can be reached by examining the circumstances of life with our mind (The Buddha reached his TRUTH that way) or we can device empirical experiments, whose end result, will prove something to be TRUE . These experiments, to be credible, have to follow a series of principles.This system is called the Scientific Method. It requires several things including that these experimenst are repeatble and falsifiable

Thus it seems to me That the Buddha (And I am talking only what can be considered the proven part of his philosophy, the rest while meritorious is not proven) basically reached a self evident conclusion in that the reality that we can know IS impermanat and involves suffering. It also seems to me that Asha which is cognate with Vedic Rita and means roughly the same , is at least in the physical sphere, the Physical laws of the Cosmos as well as being God's Law. Moreover Nanak and Zarathushtra are truly of one accord because while Nanak calls God TRUTH Zarathushtra says that TRUTH is an Essence of God's nature , that is, TRUTH IS GOD or a Part of God's Nature

Setting asides Jesus' claim (If he ever truly made it since, at best, we have only third hand accounts of what he supposedly said) We can then go on. If TRUTH is God and God is either, the LAWS of the Cosmos, (partly) which is what Zarathushtra says, or God has made them out of His essence. (emanation) We can see that from this TRUTH we can conclude that God's will and purpose must be reflected by these laws and their results.

Since evolution has resulted in a critical thinking and Ethically Endowed being, (an in this planet) then we can also assume that this is God's will and that He has also endowed man with the attributes that make him the ETHICAL animal that he is. Thus soul, ethical perceptions critical and logical minds and will are all divine endowments in man.

Furthermre more this then means that God is an Ethical and Logical Being, (or entity if you prefer) as well, and He also has a will. Being ethical and TRUTH means God can neither lie nor violate his nature . Thus God cannot be illogical He is limited by His nature

Blessings
Curious

Curious Ji,

That is very nice my freind. A little question just to clarify though. God is limited by God's nature, yet could it not also be the case, that whenever we encounter seemigly illogical actions or words from God that it appears so due to our own lack of knowledge?

The rest fits nicley with my own belifes though.

 

[Caspian]

God is limited by God's nature, yet could it not also be the case, that whenever we encounter seemigly illogical actions or words from God that it appears so due to our own lack of knowledge?

This is a "cop-out." Im not sure if ur familiar with phrase but essentially what I mean to say is that when you come across illogical actions from god—justifying them by saying "we just dont understand and we may never" is not giving an answer and its stemming the process of thought to try and understand. So to provide u with an answer—"Yes, that could be the case" but that could be the case for almost anything (we just dunt understand anything ). And if thats the case, then well get no were—no progression of thought. I respect the previous poster for atleast providing an asnwer—i dont have too much time to dwell on cases like "well wat if we just dunt understand" or "god did everything." SO I would agree with the previous poster, that god is "limited" but where me and him differ is that he believes god has limited himself through "gods nature" —i believe god is limited to logic, math, and scientific laws (and if i was a more poetic man, a more religious man, i would probably says "God's very nature IS TO BE logical, mathamatical and sciencetific).

 

[curious seeker]

Curious Ji,

That is very nice my freind. A little question just to clarify though. God is limited by God's nature, yet could it not also be the case, that whenever we encounter seemigly illogical actions or words from God that it appears so due to our own lack of knowledge?

The rest fits nicely with my own belifes though.

HI Lee

Sure, it could be that some times our lack of knwledge coud cause us to see some of God's acts as illogical. However, just to give an example, in Judaism God was pictured as ordering genocide, infanticide and giving fathers the right to kill disobedient children, (Of course now a days they do not practice any of these monstruosities) It is thus illogical to believe that this part of Hebrew scripture could possible be true since it would be illogical to believe that the God of Love, Wisdom, the Marvelous Teacher, would ever order such a thing.

Blessings

 

[Lee]

This is a "cop-out." Im not sure if ur familiar with phrase but essentially what I mean to say is that when you come across illogical actions from god—justifying them by saying "we just dont understand and we may never" is not giving an answer and its stemming the process of thought to try and understand. So to provide u with an answer—"Yes, that could be the case" but that could be the case for almost anything (we just dunt understand anything ). And if thats the case, then well get no were—no progression of thought. I respect the previous poster for atleast providing an asnwer—i dont have too much time to dwell on cases like "well wat if we just dunt understand" or "god did everything." SO I would agree with the previous poster, that god is "limited" but where me and him differ is that he believes god has limited himself through "gods nature" —i believe god is limited to logic, math, and scientific laws (and if i was a more poetic man, a more religious man, i would probably says "God's very nature IS TO BE logical, mathamatical and sciencetific).

I'm sorry you see it as a cop out. It is not and let me try to explian why.

Can you remember whan you was a little kid? Did you always understand the adult stuff that your dad did?

I can tell you I certianly didn't. Not until I got older anyhow. What does a child know about paying taxes, or how an internal combustion engine works? What do you know about balistics or the 7 layered OSI model?

The point is that as a Sikh we are trying to undergo a proces of turning from one thing to another. Manmukh to Gurmukh. Can you tell me for sure what knowledge and what intuitive understandings occour once a person is Gurmukh?

I don't you see but then I have some knowldege about many things and as the old adage rings, the learned man knows he knows nothing.

I know nothing my freind, I have a tiny little amount of knowledge, why then would I even think that my understanding on what God is is compleat? Not a cop out mate, a realisatuion of just how much I do not know.

Can you really say that you are differant?


What you appear to be after is to reduce all asspects of spirtuality into the realm of logic. It wont work my freind, the mere fact that it is matters of sprit that we discuss means that such things are hidden from our 'matter' based scientific reasources. No measuring machine made of 'matter' can measure spirt, there is in fact only one thing capable of doing so, that is us.

 

[Lee]

This is a "cop-out." Im not sure if ur familiar with phrase but essentially what I mean to say is that when you come across illogical actions from god—justifying them by saying "we just dont understand and we may never" is not giving an answer and its stemming the process of thought to try and understand. So to provide u with an answer—"Yes, that could be the case" but that could be the case for almost anything (we just dunt understand anything ). And if thats the case, then well get no were—no progression of thought. I respect the previous poster for atleast providing an asnwer—i dont have too much time to dwell on cases like "well wat if we just dunt understand" or "god did everything." SO I would agree with the previous poster, that god is "limited" but where me and him differ is that he believes god has limited himself through "gods nature" —i believe god is limited to logic, math, and scientific laws (and if i was a more poetic man, a more religious man, i would probably says "God's very nature IS TO BE logical, mathamatical and sciencetific).

I'm sorry you see it as a cop out. It is not and let me try to explian why.

Can you remember whan you was a little kid? Did you always understand the adult stuff that your dad did?

I can tell you I certianly didn't. Not until I got older anyhow. What does a child know about paying taxes, or how an internal combustion engine works? What do you know about balistics or the 7 layered OSI model?

The point is that as a Sikh we are trying to undergo a proces of turning from one thing to another. Manmukh to Gurmukh. Can you tell me for sure what knowledge and what intuitive understandings occour once a person is Gurmukh?

I don't you see but then I have some knowldege about many things and as the old adage rings, the learned man knows he knows nothing.

I know nothing my freind, I have a tiny little amount of knowledge, why then would I even think that my understanding on what God is is compleat? Not a cop out mate, a realisatuion of just how much I do not know.

Can you really say that you are differant?


What you appear to be after is to reduce all asspects of spirtuality into the realm of logic. It wont work my freind, the mere fact that it is matters of sprit that we discuss means that such things are hidden from our 'matter' based scientific reasources. No measuring machine made of 'matter' can measure spirt, there is in fact only one thing capable of doing so, that is us.

 

[curious seeker]

Hi Caspian

The reason I believe God is limited by His nature is that thoose things you mention as limiting him, are His nature or part of it. He is Truth and the ONE proof of Truth we can eempirically know is the one proved by the Scientific Method and framed by His Laws. Besides being IN all He is in the Laws, the Science (Which as you know means knowledge) and definitely in the math which is the languague of logic. What I am saying is what you are saying , just take it one step further and realize His nature ARE HIS LAWS, think about it. The Laws of Science discover Truth, God is Truth.

Blessings
Curious

 

[curious seeker]

I'm sorry you see it as a cop out. It is not and let me try to explian why.

Can you remember whan you was a little kid? Did you always understand the adult stuff that your dad did?

I can tell you I certianly didn't. Not until I got older anyhow. What does a child know about paying taxes, or how an internal combustion engine works? What do you know about balistics or the 7 layered OSI model?

The point is that as a Sikh we are trying to undergo a proces of turning from one thing to another. Manmukh to Gurmukh. Can you tell me for sure what knowledge and what intuitive understandings occour once a person is Gurmukh?

I don't you see but then I have some knowldege about many things and as the old adage rings, the learned man knows he knows nothing.

I know nothing my freind, I have a tiny little amount of knowledge, why then would I even think that my understanding on what God is is compleat? Not a cop out mate, a realisatuion of just how much I do not know.

Can you really say that you are differant?


What you appear to be after is to reduce all asspects of spirtuality into the realm of logic. It wont work my freind, the mere fact that it is matters of sprit that we discuss means that such things are hidden from our 'matter' based scientific reasources. No measuring machine made of 'matter' can measure spirt, there is in fact only one thing capable of doing so, that is us.

Hi Lee

Great post! I am curious. Pardon my ignorance but I was looking at what I presume is your picture and I did not see a turban, yet I see you say you are Sikh , I thought it was a requirement to wear the turban, am I wrong?

Blessings
Curious