The law of gravitation existed even when it wasn't discovered.It existed even when it was being discussed and denied by many.It won't cease to exist even if we forget it a hundred,thousand or million years later.
So does God.....
You take a finite amount of time say an hour,two hours or how much ever to learn a particular academic fundae.A lifetime you say is not enough for people to understand you.You,sometimes feel you cannot comprehend yourself.It takes a lifetime to know things,people and anything around you and not without continous effort.But,you expect to know,understand,feel,see,touch God with no effort or little effort.Failing which you deny His existence and claim to be an atheist.
Whose fault is it?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
13 comments:
Actually, the law of gravity didn't exist for all of... reality is the best term I can think. It was joined together with the other 3 of the four forces at the Big Bang and only peeled off afterward (afterward being in a really minuscule fraction of a second).
Better arguments against your position are found in the critiques of Platonism.
@samuel
thanks for being here.will definitely read anti-platonism.
law of gravity:did you miss the point?i merely pointed out that our acknowledging it or disregarding it in any sense does not make a difference to its reality.
I did not get your point.
My point was that the law of gravitation was not "always there"- it didn't exist at the state of the universe and you can eliminate it by replicating those conditions.
It was called the superforce and split by stages into the four forces we know and love.
http://library.thinkquest.org/26220/universe/
Treating it as a universal law carved in stone is as wrong as assuming all planets are active the same way Earth is.
Platonism is the belief in an ideal world, that of ideas, where the pure form of such ideas exist. The "Platonic ideal" refers to an idealized form of something or baseline that we use to judge a category.
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/platonism/
Most criticism of this (which is presumably what you are advocating for scientific laws- that they exist independantly of the universe) boils down to "you can make really pretty theories when you detach them the need for evidence" varing in their level of snarkiness.
@samuel
point taken.i wasn't thinking so "broadly"when i wrote it.yeah i do agree to whatever you said.
But,my take on atheism rmains the same.even,if any force which goes through the test of time or evolves over the years only physically evolves.so,does the concept of god.it might have started with someting else than evolved because of different forces to what we know about it now.But,whatever and however it be he still is the one in charge :)
You are repeating the Greek philosophers in chronological order... you just got to Aristotle's Prime Mover.
However, as Aristotle recognized, there is no reason for the prime mover to be God. After all, the simplest one was the most likely- an unthinking physical force.
The seeming dilemma arises only if the world and the things in it are considered akin to GOD as regards temporality.
Even if the laws of gravity didn't exist for all time,that is no justification for creation for the "with what" and the "why" can never be answered either scientifically or satisfactorily.
Ascribing personality or creatorship to GOD is an exercise in futility for consciousness is synonymous with existence and transcends time.
1. What if you don't deny a God, but instead question the basis for the belief in the existence of a God? You seem to imply to say that God is a phenomenon that can be experienced only after significant effort, but the effort prescribed to experience this God requires you to presume that this God exists. It is like performing an experiment assuming the results! So essentially, we don't have a problem with the existence of a God. Even if there really is a God, we have a problem with the blind belief in his existence that is prescribed by organized religion to detect the presence of a God.
2. What is the need to believe in the existence of a God? Will it give me something special - like say, morality? It is ironical that divinity is claimed to be a source of morality, when in fact history is evidence to the fact that millions have died in the name of God. Morality arises from an individual's moral sensibility and not from some gospel.
3. Organized religion claims that God will not be kind to those that disbelieve in him. Indeed such a God is not impartial and unconditionally loving. In fact he is an ego-manic and needs people to believe that he exists, failing which he will abuse his self-proclaimed authority to punish us. What is the need for such a God?
@balaji
first point:Just like everything else you got this wrong too.
second point:morality,you say.your atheistic views perhaps explain why morally you are dull.A trait which you have exhibited for quite some time and to a lot of people.
third point:organised religion?My religion does not say any such thing.
Please do not comment unless you have read and read extensively at that.
All said and done,thanks for dropping by.
I seem to come across this page often in blog searches. Your courteous response is highly appreciated. Your statement "your atheistic views perhaps explain why morally you are dull" clearly indicates that you think that atheists are immoral. Further, you jumped too soon to think that I am an atheist and finally you should be given an award for courtesy especially in addressing people and passing judgements on them when you don't even know them.
If you get a chance read the following blog http://balaji-ramasubramanian.blogspot.com where I explain some ancient Indian philosophical ideas on morality without invoking divinity at all. I borrow the style of argument from Kant, but try to keep the content relevant.
You say very boldly that my first point is wrong and don't care to elaborate. Is that because you don't have any real defence?
In my comment I show that there is no NEED to believe in a God. I don't say that there is no God. Whether there exists a God or not is quite irrelevant. What matters is that we live a less egotistic more fruitful and a happy life.
Lastly, thanks for your advice on reading extensively. It is clear how carefully you read my comment.
@balaji
the point here is that god exists..not wat religion tries to project as god..
n abt d second point,v believe in god to find the meaning of life.. morality is just a side effect of sorts..
N abt d third point..no religion says god will not be kind to those who do not believe in him.. some fanatic leaders/preachers have projected it that way..
its so sad to see something being dissected so bad.. n i tot the post s really good.. keep going priti..
Nice post priti ... See that you have a lot of fans above :) I think if you had made it sound more "case based" and "elaborate", your critics' stand would have been compromised.
@Samuel - Platonism itself is a very controversial/unproven concept. And even assuming your deep faith in the primary physical force :) what is the basis of it ? Just keep asking why, why, why 8 times. That will help.
@balaji - firstly, a scientific experiment is different from what we are talking about. Here, there is a variable called faith. And then you should form your theory. Because it is not still part of the "concepts" man has framed.
Secondly, what would it give you would be a very transactional reason to even start :). Please do not even go down that path. Thirdly, it is clear that you are talking about some bad examples which can be annulled by good ones. No point.
Bottomline - faith sir. Just try and then comment. No one forcing you :)
@ Priti - I stumbled across your psot . nice read.
I think basically it sums up to how we look at life. I do not want to write a big post and slip into philosophy, nor do i want to prove God's existence by saying there are some unproved theories in Science ( Like stonehenge and related ) but at the very core of our understanding, it never occured to me but the universal absolute truth is that there is no absolute truth at all. Has anyone actually questioned when exactly people statred believing in God? Even if some thing special or something miraculous happened, how did the first human to believe in a God exactly come about it ? Atheists might as well try answer this question. The underlying fallacies that we perceive God to be a supernatural being and it is bound to give some faith is true, but it is not the only reason. There are so many things, i mean so many reasons why divinity cannot be expressed as a aftermath of just a reason to attribute it to some supernatural faith. There is much more to it. True, as someone pointed out, there have been mistakes made in the name of God ,but what history has taught us continually is you cannot exactly tell anyone that there is no way that you can disprove his existence, and with no or little effort tryong to reason out that science is the real truth , not God is totally unacceptable. and i believe the first believers dint just believe out of attribution but frankly one cannot deny his existence even though it is very hard to explain it. Science as a matter of life is an offset of the Godly creations, and using it to disprove something fundamental is unacceptable. We are used to this flow of scientific advents that we tend to forget the basic creations of God- Mathematics, Sciences , so on and ininfity and so forht.. Ah all this has reminded me of angels and demons :D... sorry for deviating from the topic too much. To all the atheists out there, it is their way of life and no one is forcing you to believe, but to each his own, and I support this post :)
To add to that, i was just thinking :
God cannot be understood just by pure 'rational' means.
Nature is an infinitely open set and to comprehend it completely is impossible, as is the path to perfection is an infinite journey. :)
Post a Comment