iambiguous wrote:Okay, but please note:
This exchange that we are having exist objectively in my view. In other words, anyone in the world [irrespective of their views about God and religion and identity and morality] who has access to a computer and the internet can read these words. Everyone will agree that it in fact does exist. It doesn't make any difference whatsoever how different their experiences, relationships and sources of information are. And that's what I construe to be "objective reality". Again, insofar as mere mortals can ever really grasp that given the staggering mystery that is existence itself.
But then we can ask: which of our arguments is more reasonable? Here our particular experiences, relationships, sources of information etc. will have far more relevance. And then we can ask any philosopher to demonstrate which of our subjective narratives here reflects the most rational and objective manner in which to grasp the "reality" of God and religion.
I think that i more or less understood what you are trying to say.
But, it is my humble request not to use too complex or vague language and terms as one can draw any meaning that he wants. Please keep it as straight and simple as possible. That will help both of us.
Yes, words like "God" and "religion" in my view. On the other hand, my understanding of "dasein" and "conflicting goods" is such that in using them in discussions relating to
God and religion [or value judgments and identity] there is
only so much precision available to us. In fact, that is basically my point here. In other words, I just don't want whatever precision that is said to exist to revolve basically around definitions and deductions. Words that are said to be true only because other words insist that they are.
iambiguous wrote:...I always aim the philosophical beam at those things we all seem to share in common -- objective truths that in fact transcend dasein. One being that God is everywhere. Hundreds and hundreds of denominations. And we can explore the reasons for this. But how much closer does that get us to the actual existing God? If He exists at all.
zinnat13 wrote:I do not see that there is much difference in how people cogitates things. They all do that the same way. The actual difference is in the benchmark or thought process/perception/a priori knowledge that they use to examine things. That is all.
cogitate [v]: To think deeply about something; meditate or reflect.
There is [in my view] a considerable distinction to be made between cogitating about abortion as a medical procedure and cogitating about abortion as a moral issue.
Same with cogitating about the existence of the Christian Bible and cogitating about the extent to which the Christian Bible reflects the word of the one true God.
And the extent to which you don't grasp the manner in which I make this distinction is [perhaps] the extent to which I will not grasp yours. We can only try to grapple with this as best we can.
zinnat13 wrote: imb, the first thing that you need to understand here is that is no isolation available here in this universe for anything, whether physical or metaphysical. Anything, if that exists, is somehow related to other things, more or less. Yes, there will be some difference in the degree to that one thing will affect and got affected by other things.
Yes, but to me there is a considerable distinction to be made between noting this [which, let's face it, is merely to point out that we exist in
the universe] and in suggesting that all of this is related existentially [and then essentially] to a
God. Again, if for no other reason that God is invarably linked to immortality, salvation, divine justice and an objective moral font. And that brings into focus not only the question of what we are but of how we ought to behave in order to align ourselves with the will of a
zinnat13 wrote: The cornerstone of mathematics is philosophical derivation from religious investigations. Both 1 and 0 represent male penis and female vagina respectively. These represent Shiva (1 and male) and Shaki ( 0 and female), and when they come together and make a union, creation happens. And, that does not happen once but it is an eternal process. That is why a penis has to go in and out manytimes from the vagina. In the same way, basic numbers from 1to 9 have go in and out from 0 to create mathematics.
Sure, and religious investigations are derived from the fact that our brain evolved such that it is able to apprehend and to construct particular continuities out of what it is able perceive and sense regarding the relationship between "in my head" and "out in the world". And, yes, that eventually leads the brain [the conscious mind] to go all the way back to pondering what brought about existence in the first place. And one of the possibilities here is a
But how specifically is this related to the penis and the vagina?
In other words, what we can know objectively about human sexuality biologically
is one thing, and what we can know about the morality
of human sexuality, another thing altogether. Or so it seems to me. The biology largely transcends dasein and conflicting goods. But not the morality. Unless, of course, one is able to establish the actual existence OF a transcending moral font. One able to truly settle the conflicts once and for all.
iambiguous wrote:...what this encompasses [for me] is that profound mystery still beyond the reach of science: the mystery that is mind. In other words, matter that is like no other. Ever. Mindful matter. Matter able to explore itself as matter...as mind. And here the question of autonomy itself is deconstructed. Could it possibly be that we both embody merely the illusion of choosing our words "freely" here? Yeah, sure, mind may well be the second biggest mystery of all. Behind only the mystery of existence itself. Why something and not nothing? Why this something and not another something?
zinnat13 wrote: imb, if you ever read Upnishads, this is the first thing that they asked; what is reality and how can we know that?
Then, they deduct it further and ask; who is exactly this I/We, that wants to know?
That is what that is the actual purpose of the religions, neither the God, nor the morality. God happened accidently and morality is the use of those small findings they came across during their journey.
It is certainly beyond the reach of the science, but not beyond the reach of mankind for sure. Though, science can easily find the evidence of something beyond physical reach, but unfortunately, it has not made enough attempts in this direction.
You say this. But, still, all I can do is to assume that you believe
this to be true. But how does it then earn
the right to convince others? To me, it is an entirely abstract set of assumptions that you have "deduced' into existence based on all of the other assumptions you have made above. And what I am looking for instead is a way to connect the dots between these theoretical/conceptual assumptions and the nuts and the bolts of the lives that we live when they come into conflict with others; and the extent to which they can be made relevant to our fate after we die.
In other words, the actual reasons that the overwhelming preponderance of religious folks do
predicate their own faith on.
iambiguous wrote:But how does one then make the profound leap from mind to soul...and from soul to God... and from God to my God...and from my God to the only God?
In other words, beyond the definitions and the deductions that are held to be true "in my head"?
And you respond:
zinnat13 wrote: Although, your line of questioning is right but not the finding the answers. That confuses you and you are not able to make a call on anything and have to keep every judgment pending. That is why you bring God in everything.
Let me ask you one very simple question. If i ask you what your height is exactly, how would you measure it?
Would you take a measuring tape and measure your height from it or will start questioning the authenticity of the tape itself?
That is precisely the issue with you. When i ask you anything, you start questioning your mind. You must remember here that every level of existence has its own reality. So, do not try to measure any existence of one reality from the benchmark of another reality. You will never able to find the answer, unless you become omniscient, and that is not possible for you or anyone else.
That is exactly that happened to our discussion in the poll thread.
Do not bring the issue of in the head or god, when these are not under the scanner per se. Or, leave all other issue behind and first settle the issue of I/WE. Make up your mind.
Yes, and somehow "in your head" this reflects an adequate explanation for the points I raise. And, therefore, you can assume that all the "confusion" here stems from my inability to grasp what, instead, I construe to be basically an intellectual/theoretical/conceptual contraption that in my view exist by and large only
in your head.
As though when folks in any particular human community struggle to legislate behaviors relating to conflicting sexual behaviors [like homosexuality from the other thread] your speculations here will actually be of crucial importance. How? And I am still a long, long way from grasping how, further, you connect this to a
God. All I know with any real certainty is that, somehow, you have in fact been able to accumplish this "in your head
This is the world that we live in: http://www.globalissues.org/article/26/
And it is a world that clearly revolves around political and economic power. And, yes, there are folks who will justify this philosophically by positing things like WTP: Survival of the fittest, might makes right, the masses are sheep etc.
Now, science may not [yet] be able to fully explain our emotional and psychological reactions to these statistics, but it seems rather obscure [to me] to suggest anything other than the brute facticity of power in both creating and then sustaining this world.
zinnat13 wrote: That explanation is not scientific by any mean. You may not able to realize but you are arguing in the same way how theists do. You are holding WTP the motivating force while they say it is God. What is the difference? Neither you have any physical evidence nor they.
No, I am providing you with a statistical snapshot of the world we live in. I am then noting the obvious: that men and women who possess considerable political and economic power have had an enormous input in the creation of this world. And in sustaining it to reflect their own material interests. I am not saying that this power is a manifestation of WTP. WTP is merely one philosopher's contention regarding how one might look at a world [sans God] in terms of one particular subjective/subjunctive narrative.
Instead, this revolves around the organic, historical evolution of the capitalist political economy. And then [for some] the extent to which they are able to rationalize it in terms of their own particular rendition of God. After all, most of the folks who own and operate the world economy today are
Christians. Or call themselves that.
iambiguous wrote:This, of course, is the aspect of our discussion that piques my own interest. Different folks have faith in -- believe in -- different Gods. And part and parcel to this is the belief that in worshipping their own God, they will achieve immortality and salvation. But only in worshipping their God. And with immortality and salvation itself at stake, what could be more crucial than believing in the "right God"? Why yours and not all the others? What substantive arguments can they provide us here.
zinnat13 wrote: I can answer this easily but for that i have to put forth my complete theory of existence, including the God. It is difficult for me to explain that now. We will take up this issue later.
Okay. And I am most curious to see how
you accomplish this. On the other hand, to the extent to which you claim this can be done "easily" is the extent to which it reminds me of others here who insist it might be done "simply". And that to me is but another indication that they will accomplish this largely "in their head". But that, of course, is the one place I can never go. You know, for confirmation.
zinnat13 wrote: My reasoning is entirely different from [James and Phyllo and Wizard]. As i said before, I will show you that something is existing there for sure which is beyond our physical reach. And, i will not use any highly philosophical arguments but very simple and common things and observations around us, which would certainly be out of the head.
Again, just to be clear:
I am not at all impressed with their thinking because, in my view, they ask us to believe that the definitions and the deductions that they provide for us in
their "analysis" is what makes
their argument true.
And that seems to revolve not only around their God but around human behaviors that come into conflict [morally and politically] over conflicting goods; and then the manner in which we acquire an identity.
iambiguous wrote:If a theist argues that his God does exist but He has nothing to do with attaining immortality, salvation, divine justice and an objective morality...I'd naturally be curious as to what purpose He does serve in our lives. But you yourself noted above that, "[m]y purpose is also the same; immorality and salvation."
zinnat13 wrote: You are again conflating two levels of reality. The concept of God serves different purposes to different levels of human reality/existence. One is for this world and that is morality and the second one is for other level of existence, where it leads to immorality and salvation.
The premise of the god is like crude oil. It gives different byproducts at different stages, from tar to Kerosene oil, Diesel, Petrol and lastly ATF (fuel used for aero planes).
And here all I can do is to wait patiently for you to actually connect what I construe to be abstract arguments like this to the lives that we live; and then to what becomes our fate after we stop living [down here]. Either you are able to conflate these two levels of "reality" such that I am able to grasp the existential implications of God and religion [your God and your religion] or you are not. In other words, I keep waiting for what I construe to be more tangible arguments. There are just too many crucial reasons in which, for me, God is not like crude oil at all.
iambiguous wrote:And I am still a long way from understanding how "something exist beyond physical means" is related to the existence of a God, the God, your God -- whatever the purpose of believing in Him might be.
zinnat13 wrote: I will try to establish that there is certainly something such in all the living creatures that controls and guides those, yet cannot be verified physically. If there can be anything such for sure, there is a possibility that the God may exist somewhere.
So it seems [to me] that you are hinting at the existence of something analogous to a "soul" -- something "spiritual" that "controls and guides" some. And that IF such a thing does exist then there is the POSSIBILITY that God might exist too.
And yet [in all honestly] what most intrigues me is the manner in which you are then able to take a "leap" [as did Kierkegaard?] to the
God -- to the God that includes Jesus Christ in His narrative. To Christianity. And then from that to the analysis of behaviors such as homosexuality. In other words, which makes me all the more curious the extent to which you are able to say with any certainty [ie deontologically] what our moral obligations must be if we wish to be "saved" by this God of Jesus once we die.
iambiguous wrote:Yes, we both seem to be on a very different trajectory here. These folks had their own narratives relating to particular Gods and particular religious denominations. But sooner or later they have to address the flock regarding behaviors that will be rewarded or punished. As in on that day of reckoning -- Judgment Day. Now, unless one is arguing that whatever any of them tell their followers to do [in order to be righteous before God], is the right thing to do, what is someone concerned with doing the right thing before God to do?
Really, if any of them [or their followers today] would not be forthright with me regarding the reality of "conflicting goods" out in the world of actual interacting men and women, how seriously could I take them?! If a belief in God is not intimately related to "how ought I to behave?" on the sojourn from birth to death, it would seem entirely sterile to me.
And what does it mean for someone to respect Jesus as a "human being" [as a "social worker"] if they genuinely and sincerely believe that the values he embodied back then are not in accordance with their own regarding issues like abortion or capital punishment or gender roles or economic justice or homosexuality.
zinnat13 wrote: imb, you seem to be too much obsessed with the idea of theism/atheism. That is intruding your mind. You need to get out from this and try to see the things from other angles.
1] a thought, plan, or suggestion about what to do
2] an opinion or belief
3] something that you imagine or picture in your mind
So, in regard to the relationship between "I" and God and religion, it is the extent to which any particular ideas that any particular individuals have are able to be encompassed such that they can be shown to be true for all of us. In other words, such that it is not just something they hold to be true "in their mind" -- but something that in fact is true objectively.
zinnat13 wrote: No matter whatever were the beliefs of Gandhi Or Mother Teresa about the God, they were not in conflict about social guidelines. Both did not talk much about God in their public life. Gandhi’s first priority was the elevation of the last man standing in the line and Teresa devoted her whole life to serve the ill people. Do we need the any religious doctrine to measure whether they did good or bad?
But show me a community of human beings where the "social guidelines" regarding right and wrong behavior is not linked [often intimately linked in some communities] to
their belief in God and religion.
You can have a community where the behavior we call homosexuality is entirely tolerated and permitted...or one in which to engage in it means a certain punishment. Even death. Now, one can either link their own narrative here to the existential reality of this "out in the world" that we live in today or they can't.
And what we need -- or surely what most clearly want
-- is a frame of mind in which to know with certainty how a virtuous soul is to behave in order to pass muster on Judgment Day. And that is as close to being factual about God and religion "out in the world" as we are ever likely to establish here. If, in the end, it is not intimately aligned with either "sin" or "not a sin" then what is it really but
an academic exercise revolving instead around definitions and deductions. Around what our "ideas" are said to "mean".
zinnat13 wrote: Say, there are two neighboring cities or almost same size and population, A and B. In the A, there are no good public facilities like roads, water, electricity etc. You cannot go in the night alone as you may be robbed. You cannot leave your house alone as there may be a theft. You have to be very watchful in the crowded places as someone may pick your pocket. You may not go out with the females of your families as goons may cause them trouble. You cannot live in your house peacefully as your neighbors are always ready to fight with you on one issue or other. You hesitate to send your children out as they may fall for bad company and so on.
On the other hand, B is relatively free from all these things. People are generally happy and use to live and interact peacefully with each other. Neighborhoods are good and so are the public places.
Now, if i ask you which city is better and you prefer to live?
Would you choose B without any hesitation or start investigating what the people of both cities think about the God, before making your decision?
That city B is my definition of good and better.
It is quite simple and straight. You need not to complicate it by provoking unnecessary philosophical viewpoints.
It cannot be clearer than that.
Do not bring God into this as that is unwarranted here.
And this might well speak volumes regarding the gap between us. Or at least the gap as it exist now.
After all, there are folks who insist that only by embracing their God and their religion and their moral values can this be realized. Or that only capitalism can bring about this better world. Or that only socialism will bring it about. And then there are any number of "liberals" and "conservatives" who will insist [in turn] that their own political agenda is the only sure fire way of ever
bringing about a better world.
And what of issues like abortion or gun control or hunting or animal rights or gender roles or homosexuality --- what makes a world "better" with respect to these behaviors? And hundreds more like them? And how is one's answer to this then linked to the question of a
And isn't that
an accurate reflection of the world we actually live in?
zinnat13 wrote: ....you did not answer my question that, why the question mark is only behind Jesus, neither Moses nor Buddha?
I did answer it. I directed you to the links of folks who are
very much interested to delving into this historically. Me, I am interested more in the extent to which those who claim to establish the existence of "Jesus the man" are then able to link him in turn to the actual existence of the Christian God.
Or the extent to which the moral and political agenda embodied by the historical Christ can be shown [philosophically] to reflect a deontological ethics.
iambiguous wrote:Here we will just have to agree to disagree that you either understand the point I am raising about the profoundly problematic nature of dasein [identity] or that you address it. In my view, we think about these things as we do based on the differing experiences, relationships and sources of information we have encountered. There is no objective truth here...only an exchange of subjective/subjunctive vantage points.
zinnat13 wrote: I am not disagreeing with you at all. I understand your perspective but there is something more besides that too, which you still do not know. You are still struggling with the definition of I/We. As you do have an exact answer to that, thus assuming that there cannot any exact answers to any other thing as well. But, that is not true.
My aim is less to define
human identity than to situate
it [my own] out in the world existentially as dasein. After all, only actual flesh and blood men or women use the word "I". And, in some respects, to reflect on things that are true objectively, and, in other respects, to offer up subjective opinions regarding the relationship between things. In particular when, in interacting socially, politically and economically, these relationships come into conflict.
With or without God and religion.
iambiguous wrote:With immortality, salvation, divine justice and objective morality literally at stake, you want me to agree that maybe there is a god if I can agree with you that "something exist beyond physical means". Again: what on earth does that mean pertaining TO "how ought I to live my life" in the here and now in order that I might be embraced by a God, the God, your God after I am dead and gone?
zinnat13 wrote: Whether it could be related to the God or not, is the verification of something exist beyond physical means does not mean anything to you? Is it a small thing?
Let's just say that, as of now, at this juncture in our exchange, it will become considerably more meaningful to me given the extent to which you are able to link it to a
Otherwise you are just leading me to a premise
-- a premise about the relationship bewteen the life that I do live and the mere possibility that it is linked to something that "exist beyond physical means".
In the interim, as I noted above, I am running out of time. If there be a
God, how can I reach Him in time before immortality and salvation really do become [along with everything else pertaining to "I"] nothing at all. You know, for eternity.
In short, I am considerably less concerned with what others "think" here and more with what they are able to demonstrate to me -- substantively, substantially -- regarding the actual existence of their God and their religion.
iambiguous wrote:Yes, and to me, "I" and "me" are the embodiment of dasein. In other words, the existential layers that we accummulate revolving first around our genetic/biological predispositions, then around our historical and cultural context, and then around the experiences, relationships and sources of information that any one particular individual encounters en route from the cradle to the grave.
zinnat13 wrote: So, does that mean that we are nothing but our layers of brainwashing, or there is something else besides it?
Please make it clear because i will argue on that.
Obviously, there are manny, many aspects of the lives we live [of "I"] that have little or nothing to do with brainwashing. And that is because they pertain to those things [and to the relationships between things] that are in fact true objectively. It is only when we contemplate the relationship between "I" and conflicting goods or conflicting Gods or conflicting ontological and teleological speculations, that "I believe" becomes considerably more problematic. And thus considerably more reflective of subjective/subjunctive points of view and personal opinions.
For example, when I speak of living in Baltimore, of being male, of being 5' 10" tall, of having a daughter, of wearing glasses, of typing these words etc., that is not because I was indoctrinated to believe it.