Archive for the ‘God’ Category

You live by Logic & Reason? LOL! You have no Idea

April 15, 2013

There is no such thing as a belief based entirely on logical reasoning. Its a simple fact that the human mind though, wonderfully complex and powerful, is still ill-equipped and incapable of apprehending truth in its absolute naked glory.

Give me a guy who claims to follow logic and reason religiously and I’ll turn him into a heretical intellectual hypocrite in a minute. (Which also brings us to another question: is being intelligent and learned means being logical and rational about the way we approach our belief?) Thus we are all forced to commit to our prejudices (the ignorant or emotional) or assumptions in answering to ourselves the fundamental questions – which is in every sense intellectual heresy. Pure rationalist or logical thought is an ideal unavailable to the human mind because of its inherent inability to completely grasp fundamental concepts of cosmology, and ontology. However it is able to imagine – but that is not enough to answer the tough questions.

The real question is are we consistent in our philosophies and ideas when we when we make those assumptions be it secular or religious – is it reasonable? Is it necessary? Its a matter of committing the least errors and being right most number of times in general. But it is human nature that once it commits itself to a certain path there will be many unanswered questions that we stumble upon for which we are at a lost to explain because it does not appeal to logic and reason.

One interesting point in question here is the big bang theory which was proven by electromagnetic radiation analysis. This was traced back to the point of singularity and what happened at the exact point and what existed before it. But that is not all – the real conundrum here is that this primordial cosmic explosion not only created space and the elements therein, it also created time. We don’t even have a proper definition or explanation for time. So if this is true – and I think it is – when we talk about what existed before the big bang what are we really talking about? Because time was never a factor before time was created!!  So is it really a sequence of causal events? But if time was not there what was the measure of that sequence? What is sequence?

Thus it is impossible to achieve pure logic and pure reason because it assumes forth from pure truth which can never be known.

As such No one can claim to be above the other because no one knows where they stand in the first place and as such truth cannot be known – we don’t know what (ideas and the minds that hold them) is above or what is below. But we know one thing – we are ignorant and we have no way of knowing what we know is the truth because our understanding is limited by our mortal senses. We are simply not equipped to do know that. We also know that those who have knowledge and hold and process it with humility, sincerity and rigid honesty to the self and others are the truly learned who are on the right track to knowing and are nearest to truth and are a cut above the rest. Even to know the level of our own ignorance is impossible – if we don’t even know how wrong can we be, isn’t it just plain haughty arrogance to even proceed to measure how right we are? When the foundations of knowledge are weak, when reason cannot with absolute certainty encompass the knowledge that we hold, then sincere searching inquisitiveness, a curious mind thirsting to know and utter humility is the only way to go. We have to know what we are talking about before we actually talk about it to others to justify our stand on what we believe in.

We always make the mistake of giving credence to intellectual charlatans who appeal to our prejudices and whose works support our own assumptions thereby perpetuating our own false knowledge. Suspension of judgment or not commiting oneself to any theory, hypotheses or belief because truth cannot be known is a failure in human purpose – a hedonistic intellectual laziness that contributes in the negation of the human spirit. To partially borrow a military jingle, we are born to know who we and where we come from and what we are doing here where we are headed for. To limit our purpose to the four corners of the physical world is to justify the denial of the human spirit, cheapen the human intellectual capacity and blaspheme the purpose of our origin – for it is highly improbable that we are here by chance in a purposeless universe that happened to exist by some freakish, random cosmological explosion.

Advertisements

Natural logical choice of the human mind

November 21, 2012

The brain in wired in such a way that if we truly reason things out with some good dose intellectual processing – the natural (logical) choice is a tendency to disbelive in anything that disagrees with such a thought. It is no wonder that some of the greatest thinkers and philosophers in history did not believe in things that could not agree with logic and reason. Even the underlying assumptions behind any theory or idea must somewhat agree with the critera of logic & reason. Being so committed to their study and being faithful to themselves – It would be like committing intellectual heresy to take in something without first passing it through – thoroughly – the test of the scientific method and then conclude through the regime of logic and reason. But I‘m sure that in the choices that they make – they would have made some intellectual sacrifices and compromises to allow their minds to accept the things that they do not fully know or understand – in their line of thought – and would have to substantiate such a belief with proof that falls short of the scientific requirement. I believe that this is the clincher for the Athiests & Agnostics and other belief systems – they still cannot go on for sure and that is the most irritating thing about the human mind – it just would not let anyone break the barrier to truth. 

But the thing is , just because the mind cannot break a barrier to discover something deeper, it does not mean that the human thought should end there. But the real question is should we believe in stuff that lacks logical credibility?

Living The Lie

August 10, 2009

Don’t be a tourist in my reality
For I go from here to all eternity
A state of nothingness is not to be
And I search this cage for a door to be free
Don’t be fooled by how I appear
For the truth will disappoint u my dear
Feelings that are felt deep inside
Are realised only through love and it’s light
So see not my truth in the flesh alone
But feel me all the way in your bone
I’m looking for something different behind that face
And you are smiling, thinking “what a waste”
It’s easy to take the easy path and live all the lies
And realise too late the truth before you close your eyes
But the reality is nothing but pain.
Against which my mind holds back and refrains
It’s an irony the lord made truth but he made it so hard to bear
As I carry on running away from it’s steely stare….

 

Iqbaldinho

30/6/2003

The Devil

August 26, 2008

Black Light

 

I am the legitimate child of fire and sin

I am the unheard whisper behind an innocent grin

 

I am the mystical tempter of the Garden of Eden

I am the nameless seducer of a fruit forbidden

 

I am the skewed logic of every good sense

I am the corruption in every pure essence

 

I am the righter of every conscious wrong

I am the author of every liars melodious song

 

I am the unrest after every ominous dream

I am the unseen hand in a deceptive scheme

 

I am the scented air in a haters breath

I Choreograph the steps to every unkind death

 

I am the aching beauty in every vixen’s face

I am the coldest sweat in every morbid embrace

 

I am the safe lair of every plotter’s thought

I am the truest idol of every Unholy God

 

I am the guardian of every faustian pact

I am the magician who changes fiction to fact

 

I am the subtle soul of every treacherous cheat

I am the blackest blood in every murderous heartbeat

 

I am the cryptic code in every evil seed

I am the beautifier of every deadly deed

 

I dance to the thundering emptiness of wicked minds

I am the pleasing intoxication in every wine

 

I am the shadow encompassing every light

I am the fabulous wronger of every right

 

I am the loving father of all fallen angels

I am the numinous tempter of all holy strangers

 

I am the visible void in every heartless breast

I am the fairest umpire of every evil contest

 

I dragged your father from heaven to earth

And have been your faceless friend ever since your birth

 

 

Iqbaldinho

26 Aug 2008

we all have a common denominator – God – it’s just that our numerators are different

July 11, 2008

our basis is the same, but our interpretations are different – that’s all – if only we can find a way to just get along and ignore all the hate mongering that goes on at all levels of western society and their ilk. We are so sold to the idea of hating people that are so eagerly and easily propagated by the media that we forget that these are real people who bleed the same blood when we cut them to pieces in the name of fighting terrorism. We forget that they have emotions, they have feelings, they love and have children, they have hopes and dreams. If only we can understand that the hate that is mongered at a political level that sent military hardware with a pretext as a lame excuse to establish control right over the body and blood of millions of innocent lives who were branded as terrorists, or criminals, if it becomes clear that they are neither – collateral casualty of war. Children who die like dogs on the streets while the oil installations are being protected. I just cannot understand how such hatred can have such wide international support? How asian governments who are too chicken to stand up against a bully and hide under the cover of terrorism and fighting it as a just cause that it is all right to break the sacred laws of humanity, acording to the innocents among the adversary, the most basic of human  dignity and respect. It is so easy to demonise that which is unknown and even easier to believe it.

Beautiful Poem to ponder in Contemplation of the Infinite

September 26, 2007

There is no secular definition for the word soul. The deepest recesses of the self are unknown to conscious awareness and yet we talk like we understand. In the quran it is written that nothing of the soul is known save a little.

The problem with the current secular oriented culture that tends to rob and deny the spiritual and non-material dimension of human existence. The ghost behind the machine, the will behind the volition, the very voice within our thoughts. It may seem odd that the current MTV culture is developed in such a way that life is lived in a superficial way and thoughts and actions are appraised by it’s causes and effects on the material self. What is unknown and not privy to objective materialist observation is deemed as hocus-pocus-fairy-tale stuff by secular materialism. And yet there is no denying since einstein that man has vastly underestimated the reality before him. Theoretical science (or even metaphysics) is beginning to sound more and more like religious dogma with hardly any consensus among the groups in the scientific commnity as to which is the way to go. Intellectual reach is limited by perceptual limitations and now we have infinitely more questions than we have answers for. Despite the complexities of the reality before us, the secular scholars find intellectual gratification in arrogantly holding on to simplistic answers. The m-theory, the multiverse theory, the theory of evolution gratify the base curiosities of the infinite complexities of reality.

This poem below is by a 19th century poet Khalil Gibran and he succintly puts the authors humble understanding of reality as nothing more than calculated speculation before an infinitely enigmatic reality.

Self-Knowledge

By Kahlil Gibran
(1883 – 1931)

And a man said, Speak to us of Self-Knowledge.
And he answered saying:
Your hearts know in silence the secrets of the days and the nights.
But your ears thirst for the sound of your heart’s knowledge.
You would know in words that which you have always known in thought.
You would touch with your fingers the naked body of your dreams.

And it is well you should.
The hidden well-spring of your soul must needs rise and run murmuring to the sea;
And the treasure of your infinite depths would be revealed to your eyes.
But let there be no scales to weigh your unknown treasure;
And seek not the depths of your knowledge with staff or sounding line.
For self is a sea boundless and measureless.

Say not, “I have found the truth,” but rather, “I have found a truth.”
Say not, “I have found the path of the soul.” Say rather, “I have met the soul walking upon my path.”
For the soul walks upon all paths.
The soul walks not upon a line, neither does it grow like a reed.
The soul unfolds itself, like a lotus of countless petals.

Israel : The Torah, their Title deed & God, their Real estate agent – never mind the evil

September 5, 2007

Zionism made the Jews believe this for their own political ends (that the promised land is theirs only). It used this honest Jewish belief to wreck lives and destroy a whole nation. “Never again” was their slogan but they do it again and again.

No doubt the Torah and the Quran says that the land was promised by their God to the Jews. But this is a belief that is rooted in theolgy – and in no way has any justification whatsoever for action to fulfil secular objectives. So the resultant supplanting of arab Palestine must be wholly based on Judaic theocratic ideals – not on secular ideals. Because that (the torah) was their ONLY basis of their claim to the promised land.

We must understand that the Israel of Davidian times is a theocracy – not a secular (pseudo-) democracy. The land that was promised to them in Palestine by Yahweh was contingent upon 1) their unwavering belief in Him and 2) that they act righteously – otherwise they have no claim over it.

But the death of innocents, the wanton destruction, the deliberate defoliation of cultured lands, and the continued criminal land grab of the legitimately owned property is an evil beyond expression. Would Moses – who delivered the hebrews from the Pharoah condoned such an ideology of hatred called Zionism?

Some not so cool facts here about Israel that the so-called free media of the west would be reluctant to exercise it’s freedom of expression over. But when it comes to bashing palestinians, Arabs and muslims – they reserve their right to free speech – if the Danish cartoons are at all any indicator of this media and political hypocrisy.

If a picture speaks a thousand words – this three speaks in encyclopediac volumes because of the unmitigated oppression that has been imposed upon the palestinians. Apartheid did not die with Nelson Mandela – It is still alive and kicking in the heart of the middle east. Fascism and “genocidism” did not die with Hitler – it is still alive here in the blessed promised land.

If there is one terror that will divide and destroy the world – it is not not the god loving Jews, nor their religion, nor their torah, not the christians nor their bible, not Islam nor their quran – it is the terror of this secular Zionist and their secular ilk (the neo cons) and their dangerous ideolgy of hatred – so much hatred they bring into this blessed world that it would make Hitler – their erstwhile tormentor – look like a petty bicycle thief.

Most Scientific discoveries could be nothing more than puerile nonsense

August 26, 2007

Einstien once was known to have remarked :

One thing I have learnt in a long life: that all our science, measured against reality, is primitive and childlike – and yet it is the most precious thing we have”

If we think that science has answered all our questions we are dead wrong. If reality is a baby – the scientific sperm has not even met it’s egg yet. And yet we have secular fundamentalists – most notably the evolutionists – making fantastic and cocksure claims about their findings and then foiting it down society as gospel truth in complex pseudo-scientific lingo. I once had an argument with at least two of my blog’s commentors about the veracity of science vis-a-vis reality and they was so sure that the “scientific method” would suffice as a surefire check against any kind of scientific claim or proposition. These are the same guys who happen to believe in the theory of evolution as the gospel truth. But alas – very little could be proven of such claims that seems to even fly in the face of secular science’s much vaunted methodolgies. These guys need to get a grip of themselves. They must understand that believeing in science as an answer to the fundamental existential questions is nothing better than to believe that God created the universe in 6 days and also Created Adam – the first Human being. I mean the whole creationist story may seem like a cheap B-grade fairy tale, but the arrogance and evagelical zeal with which otherwise intelligent scientists and scientific theorists promote the various scientific theories and publish their findings as gospel truth is cheap b-grade porn. It’s obscene. It has no scientific basis to start with and yet we are supposed to believe in it as truth. To these guys I have nothing more than pity. I post this video from youtube where Ali-G trashes guys who think they know it all. If einstein was right – we know next to nothing

watch this – LOL

“Where is the best place to meet your woman?”

June 23, 2007

I was with my cousin Samer last week at a St Georges Road Eatery when he asked me this question. It was unexpected and I have never really thought about it. I was thinking somewhere along the lines of a beach resort in Mauritius. The thing about Samer is that he is an unusually poetic guy who can have the most unusual perspectives to ordinary things. Like once before he told me that

“I hold my Lover in my heart as a mother holds her child in her tummy”.

It’s a refreshing perspective that describes a whole host of experience for a simple subject : intense love, yearning, anxiety, curiosity, expectation, sacrifice, pain, protectiveness, miracle, hope, anguish, impatience etc.

Think for a second about it…

What would your answer be to the question of “Where is the best place to meet your woman”

His answer was very simple

“In my eyes”

A simple answer that was pregnant with meaning. He did not care where he met her as long as her image is in his eyes and that would be an ideal location for his woman to be because it means that his woman is within his reach when she is found in his eyes.

 I came across a beautiful poem one other day printed on a wedding invitation card that reflected upon such mental meanderings about love. It is probably one of the best poetry I’ve read that captured the essence and meaning of love. It told me love is something spiritual felt at the very heart of the human consciousness. Something that can never be manufactured or truely imitated. If there is anything that makes us essentially human it must be the capacity to feel and experience an irrational serendipitous love deep within the soul. 

This piece is by Rumi the great Persian Mystic:

I am only the house of your beloved,

Not the beloved herself:

True love is for the treasure,

Not for the coffer that contains it.

The real beloved is that one who is unique,

Who is your beginning and your end.

When you find that one,

you’ll no longer expect anything else:

that is both the manifest and the mystery.

That one is the lord of states of feeling,

dependent on none;

month and year are slaves to that moon.

During the day I praised you and I didn’t know

At night I laid with You and I didn’t know

I had thought that I was myself

But I was entirely You

And I didn’t know.

Why must God Show up?

June 19, 2007

I write this in response to Salahdin’s “Why God doesn’t show up”.  In the cartoon that was displayed it could possibly be an allusion to God’s non-existence. If that was the intended allusion that the cartoon tried to evoke – I don’t believe the position is neither objectively provable nor a intellectually sensible position to take.  One thing we have to understand is that the reality of the existence of God is far separated from the one espoused by religions. They are basically different interpretations for this core of “God”. You can say religions are the diverse dogmatic assumptions behind the notion of a non-material omnipotent transcendental reality. God is a related issue, but distinguished enough in itself to demand a separate regard.

As far as investigations into the nature of reality are concerned, religion as well as science (as it is regarded today) are dogmas. Just because science is widely accepted across belief systems and the fact that it works at a practical level of human affairs does not mean that it is a superior representation of truth. I have no axe to grind with science per se, just the interpretative philosophy (as represented by that of secular materialists) behind it to suit its own ends – that existence can happen by itself independent of any higher extraneous cause. The scientific method as a measure of objectivity and that objectivity as a standard of proof speaks not only of the severe limitations of the human condition but also the severe limitations such a method places on the advancement of human intellectual understanding and, hence, knowledge.  

 To quote Robert Anton Wilson, the agnostic, who said- “I consider dogmatic belief and dogmatic denial very childish forms of conceit in a world of infinitely whirling complexity.”

 He advocated a suspension of judgement not only on the issue of God but also at a general level. Simple denial of God based on objective sense experience is not enough to qualify the position of denial.  But one should not speculate on it without some sort of calculated assumptions right?.  In this article I use “SM” to mean “secular materialism” or “secular materialist” (to be applied as the context requires). In it I assert, albeit a tad dogmatically, that God should exist – by necessity. It may not be sufficiently objective for the purposes of science but neither is it sufficiently absurd that science can disregard even by its own standards. So in a crux, based on my arguments that follow, what I am asserting here is that 

1)     I fundamentally assume God exists (unless otherwise conclusively disproved by secular standards) because there exists a certain design in the way the universe is made to exist. I look around and see it every day in every place the “infinitely whirling complexities” that science has little answers for. The convenience of preconceived ideas as to what I define truth to be is only as true as a secularist assumes ideas in his own terms about the nature of reality.  

2)     Objectivity is not ideal as a standard to identify proof because, just like religions, it’s veracity is vitiated by it’s underlying assumptions. The scientific method notwithstanding, objectivity is not absolute if the fundamental assumptions are not proven. In other words there is no such thing as absolute objectivity and as such SM should not be regarded as such. 

3)     God does not manifest to human perception because I don’t see why he should and that even if he can and he doesn’t, that does is not proof that he does not exist in reason. 

4)     The question of why God doesn’t show up is moot because if He does show up He necessarily exists but if He exists he doesn’t need to show up to prove his existence. If he doesn’t exist, God necessarily cannot show up and if he cannot show up, he cannot be God – because an entity that cannot do something cannot be God. But that does not mean that God must do something to prove that he can do it or to justify his existence. God’s existence is a reality that is independent of belief by His creations and his manifestation is independent of human perception. So the showing up part is irrelevant because the real question is if He exists. 

5)     If the question of why God is not showing up is on the assumption of the theistic position (that he does indeed exist) is to show there is no objective arguments for God to exist then the question must contain a reasonably obvious inference – proving the absurdity of the reality of God’s existence – which it, by and large, did not. 

6)     Magical cereal formations and divine clouds above the Kabbah notwithstanding, the existence of supernatural events per se is no proof that God’s exists 

7)     In SM philosophy, there is no ideological equivalent of “God”. It has neither the intellectual or ideological platform to support the arguments for or against it nor does it have the sufficiency in the advancement in it’s knowledge base to tackle the conundrum of God. It can only object to the inconsistency of the idea behind “God” to it’s own notions of what constitutes fact and it’s own standard of proof.  The real problem here is that the SMs could well be mistakenly addressing an issue that was not a theists position on God in the first place.

8 )     If science wants to disprove the existence of God conclusively it has to assume or borrow the theistic ideological platform to address that because  :

a.      (as said earlier) the idea of God is alien to secular materialism i.e. it has no intellectual platform on the issue so it has to borrow the theistic position to address the question.

b.       The objective intellectual experience being squarely sandwiched between a priori deductions and a posteriori inductions – both of which  are required to form an absolute truth  – are fundamentally unsubstantiable. What I mean is that you either know the cause and speculate on the effect or know the effect and speculate of the cause. It is impossible to know both the fundamental cause and the fundamental effect to objectively realise absolute truth. In other words one cannot arrive at absolute truth via objective reasoning.

As such human knowledge as it is limited, is a floating crib that has no foundation in the vastness of knowledge.The superiority of SM could not be sufficiently established over other dogmatic belief systems. Period. 

Euclid once said that every proof relies on at least a few assumptions (or postulates) which themselves cannot be proven. Set the standards of proof too high and nothing at all can be proven. By the same token, set the standards too low, practically anything can be proven. At the heart of secular materialist (“SM”) belief (as with theism) are unprovable assumptions that require faith to believe in.  At the heart of those assumption is this assumption : “that which eludes scientific explanation has a scientific explanation yet to be discovered.” And God does not feature in those assumptions as a valid premise “yet to be discovered”. One thing we have to distinguish is reason and logic and SM.

Reason and logic does not represent SM’s philosophy but it forms a means to verify it’s postulates and justify belief in it’s claims. Thus the assumptions of science defines it’s principles not reason and logic which float above those assumptions.

Reason and logic define the reality of these materialist principles. So negation of God per se does not form the hallmark of SM. It’s just that the premises behind the hypothesis (that God exists) that does not conform to materialist definition of reality and as such it becomes anathema to science.  

Despite objective scientific findings that conclusively points to the existence of non-material entities, secular science refuses to even suspend judgement on the issue of God – it goes straight into the “God offensive”. SM has it’s own standards of proof, evidence and definitions for reality.  So for secularists, there is no definition or platform to allow a belief in God which it views as an irrational amorphous a posteriori abstraction that is beyond the scope of SM definitions because God cannot be observed or secondarily inferred from specific supernatural phenomena.

Thus there is no secular definition for the term “God” in secular materialist philosophy as theists understand it because it lies beyond the scope of SM objective intellectual experience. But SM sees the reality and the possibility of existence of an omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent and eternal entity through it’s own terms. However it finds no basis to include the possibility, however remote, the existence of that reality.  In other words what I am essentially saying is :  

i)                   The evidence against God is at least in the objective sense – inconclusive. In such an instance, reason and logic requires a suspension of judgement in this case.

ii)                 The centrality of absolute adherence to the objective way (the so-called scientific method) towards ascertainment of truth cannot be assumed to be superior or the only way because objective establishment of hard facts requires solid data – and if Euclid was right, absolute fact is impossible. 

So what is Transcendental Reality? There can be no answer to it in SM philosophy because, essentially, it holds that there can be no reality transcending the objective experience or observation. Such a line of thought has no room for the acceptance of subjective or intuitive deduction as valid explanations of reality. As such they don’t see the point (of the reality of God’s existence) because they don’t have one to start with.

In SM theory, the idea of God as defined by theists, simply cannot be observed or at least reasonably inferred. Yes as you said God is “NOT empirically verifiable”. To rephrase that you were effectively saying “your proof does not fit my standards”. That’s all. Standards vary and you have to prove beyond reasonable doubt that SM’s standards are superior before I can be required to satisfy for my opinions to be intellectually acceptable.

As I have said earlier religion does not need to objectify it’s arguments to secular materialist definitions because it follows a different philosophy. If you consider empirical verifiability of hypotheses, there are indeed tons of observed, realities that secular science subscribes to, that does not fit SM’s empirical objectivity. I hold the standard of objectivity that goes into the theory of evolution to be in the same league as that of the theory of the existence of God both of which are basically a posteriori rationalisations of their respective claims to essential truths.  Thus to say that religion is a fantasy is thus a matter of secular, value-based opinion and I cannot reasonably regard it as superior to theistic constructs. 

How To identify God?

But seriously if I had the answer to that I’d be in some uncharted Himalayan highland happily meditating till death takes over me. But if you want God to show up like say in a clear night you see the stars in the sky clearly going out of their usual positions to make the words “I am God and to prove it, I will make the stars disappear in exactly 7 minutes”. And then say it does happen. Does that prove the existence of God? How do you know it is from God? Could be one of those angels teasing or maybe satan himself playing tricks? Can this event be empirically verifiable as something that is indeed coming from God?

There is no way you can make that assumption. Possibly even David Blane could create stellar formations. The fundamental mistake in your wanting God to prove himself by manifesting to within the limitations of human perception is that you ascribe some supernatural event as satisfactory “empirical” proof of God’s existence. That would be a great folly because theists do not understand God to be defined as supernatural per se. God is also seen through the reality of the existence of the devil – and devils are supernatural. And so too are angels and Jinns who exist in another realm of empirically unverifiable reality which science has no definitions for. And hence your mockery of which in the cartoon. You simply cannot identify with that. God is understood in a variety of contexts that really narrows and sharpens, rather than widens and blurs, as to what is God.  SM have to consider all contexts before making any judgement about God.

The secular materialistic understanding of God simplistically and conveniently misconstrues the multi-dimesionalities of theo-centric belief of God and it’s existence.  So if you want some cloud above the Kabbah or ceral formations to conclusively proof of God’s existence, I have to say that your standards are pretty low because it just proofs one thing. – and that is the existence supernatural things – at most. That’s all. One cannot make the mistake of simply drawing a definite line from supernatural events to the existence of God because that is not how God is understood by theists. And you cannot assert the position that any supernatural event that claims to Godhood has to be taken as that because secularists have no definition in their theories as to what should be considered as God to start with.  In mainstream  Islam and Judaism it gets even weirder because it essentially holds the reality of God to be beyond the grasp human comprehension. That is why I say secularists such as youselves have no idea what you are into really when you ask such questions. 

God : A belief of convenience?

Another thing is that I don’t think I believe in God because it gives me the answers I want. I believe in God because I am essentially left with the choice of two fantasies of secular materialism and theism. And that I admit this is an opinion. This is due to my realisation that science has failed to adequately answer the hard questions and refuses to establish the truth of God’s existence other than to vehemently deny it. If the size of the universe is a barometer, science, in my opinion, has answered next to nothing the questions arising about the nature of reality. So this makes the choice of theism and secularism arbitrary not clear in any one direction.  

The irrelevance of God’s material absence

My reason for claiming your question to be moot is because it necessarily assumes : “Proof that God exists underpins in him supernaturally showing up, otherwise he doesn’t exist” And your conclusion I infer as  :            – And God showing up means manifesting himself to human perception. –  Thus far God has not showed up and therefore he does not exist?   This logic is warped. 

Thomas Aquinas said to the question of God’s existence that God is neither self-evident nor beyond proof. I brought up the oblivious frog-in-the-well analogy to imply the fact that the lack of appeal of the concept of the existence of an omnipotent being to materialist reason and logic may not be sufficient to disprove god’s existence even though it may also be insufficient to prove it. The lack of a reason as to why God doesn’t show up does not automatically beg the question as to the proof of God’s non-existence.

Aquinas also said about dogmatic belief (faith) and denial :  

“If our opponent believes nothing of divine revelation, there is no longer any means of proving the articles of faith by reasoning, but only of answering his objections — if he has any — against faith”.  

In other words the question of God’s existence is beyond rational abstractions. And being an irrational concept you don’t see the point of God’s existence. It is beyond the ken of SM. And when you don’t see the point, you object based on your own standards belief. And when I object to your objections based my standards of belief, you may call it fantasy. So now, I am answering to your objections based on your understanding of reality.  

However, you will never find an answer based on your basic requirement for materialist proof. That is why I used the word Transcendental-reality in place of “God” in my earlier reply as God transcends materialist perception. And reality in theo-centric thought lies beyond human intellectual perception and as such I can only try and disprove your objections to it. You may find some faint questionable evidence here and there but one will never be able to grasp it. As secular-materialist reason and logic is contingent upon objective extrapolation of sense perception, it cannot “see” why god should or can exist. Having said that said, I must also add that the lack of proof as in the so-called scientific method should not necessarily point to a conclusion as to God’s non-existence. You have to do a better job at disproving it to debunk the idea of God as a necessary myth. So far the hypothesis of God’s existence cannot be scientifically disproved.

Is SM standards really superior?

Notwithstanding other unanswered ontological questions, can materialist logic find an answer to the question of god’s existence? The question of why God doesn’t show up underpins the question of his existence. If he exists then it does not matter at all if he shows up or not. If he doesn’t exist then the question of why he doesn’t show up is moot. Is it fair that for the purposes of proof to human understanding it necessitates a certain manifestation of God in the material world. But God is not obliged to do this as he is understood to be independent of this requirement. My simple take on this would be “Look around”. So the question that is within secular materialist range to know and too within that of the theists (non-materialists?) to prove is “can god exist?”

By virtue of the fact that the universe seemed to be “designed” can mean God does exist. But by virtue of the fact of existing scientific hypotheses proposing other ways in which the universe could have come into existence, he may well not exist. The proof behind the “can” and “cannot” of God’s existence is inconclusive. 

If one regards the theory of evolution as a valid explanation for the origin of all that exists, he is sadly mistaken because it can be scientifically be debunked as a glaringly unverifiable hypothesis. (see here for more info)

Must God “show up”?To the question of why God doesn’t show up I ask why must he? If it is within his capacity to be within our perceptual grasp, it is also within God to to be beyond it (i.e to “not show up”). Why should he? A secular materialist wants to see him?

The reason why God doesn’t show up does not mean he doesn’t exist. But I am not begging that that points conclusively that God does not “not exist” either (which is different from “God exists”). It is still inconclusive by SM requirements. Religious philosophy holds that belief is a prerequisite for perception. Sometimes, you have to believe in order to see. In other words it is far true that you can only see what you believe than vice versa.

If you were blind all your life with no sensory link to the material world whatsoever and were suddenly given sight, you will not be able to make out or even see what appears before your eyes. A complementary neuro-intellectual infrastructure (that has adapted to the environment) is a necessary requirement to complement the optical hardware in your body to complete the faculty of sight. While the functional eye receives the signal, it is the neural hardware and the software within that gives it a functional meaning and purpose. The eye provides a window for the intellect to “perceive”.  SO it is the brain that acually “sees” rather than the eyes which is only an instrument.

So the objective system of ascertainment of proof, technically speaking, is hardwired to effectively preclude the belief in the existence of a non-material all-powerful transcendental being. That is because the intellect extrapolates incoming sensory data by hard objective standards.

An analogy to explain this would be this :  It is grossly meaningless that you just have a computer without the software to run it. You need the software to complement the hardware to make the computer meaningful for the purposes for which it was intended. The hardware (eyes) and the software (the neural network) are mutually complementary. By themselves they are useless and need to be married to be functional and purposeful.

What I mean by this is that we all only see (“truth”) as far as we believe (“assumptions”). If you live by the basis of not subscribing by any assumptions you cannot possibly think.You cannot see because you believe in something else.

So just because I have an eye does not mean that everything that is real should fall within my sight to be regarded as existing in truth.  If you ask why God doesn’t show up – I ask you why must he? If he is indeed God and He wants his creatures to know Him then he should or else he does not exist? I can’t see the logic behind this. If you want something you need to know what exactly you mean by that. If you want to see that which I believe in, then you can only see it by my definitions because that’s what I believe in.  And I believe that if I can see “God” materially manifested as a burning bush I don’t think that is God in His true nature but a representation of God through which God communicates to me. Thats because I believe God in his true nature is unknowable. If you want God to show up you must be able to handle the truth of which and so far SM has no handle to hold to even start to grasp the reality of God

I can only base my arguments by the requirements of your standards which does not see beyond the confines of intellectual extrapolation of objective sense perception (i.e the materialist platform) with regards to even existential questions. Science as it advanced through the ages has proven that there exists things that are beyond human comprehension and at the moment the case for God can neither be objectively affirmed nor denied. It is thus your burden, as a secular materialist to disprove god’s existence as much as it mine, as a believer, to prove god’s existence. So far neither of us have done a good job.  

If the theory of evolution needs to be disproved objectively to negate its acceptance for scientific purposes, then so too the case of the existence of God. But the theory of Evolution even fails by science’s own standards of proof. At the most, you and I can only suspend judgement on the question of God – for neither position is superior to the other.

The origin of creation and the determination of the primary cause for existence is far too complex for simple answers.  It may be poetic if not absurd that the universe, created itself and managed to arrange itself in such a way as to create man (among others) in a lonely outpost in the middle of a unimaginably vast nowhere to ask existential questions about itself. An infinitesimally tiny bit of the universe is searching for its own identity and origin and getting no real answers. Hmmm…How could that be?