Archive for the ‘Metaphysics’ 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.

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

Laws of physics mentioned in the quran

September 10, 2008

The physical laws – including the derivation of the speed of light in the quran mentioned way before science discovered it.

Really interesting stuff- follow the ling

http://www.speed-light.info/angels_speed_of_light.htm

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.

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?

 

Why God Doesn’t Show up

May 29, 2007

This is the second response to salahudin on the above

 I’m sorry I did not get to your initial question. I was specifically addressing to your “are you kidding me” part. But it’s response also covers my larger point that science as we know it today though complex as it seems, is simply not sophisticated enough to answer or (by extension) ask questions relating to a non-material transcendental reality. I will explain why this renders moot the question of “Why Doesn’t God show himself.”

With the options that are before me at the moment, namely the choice of theistic and atheistic belief systems, science falls flat like last years soda when it comes to the hard questions. It is particularly telling of human cognitive weakness and the failure by secularists to understand the level of their cluelessness to the question of the nature reality. Stephen Hawkings was attributed to have said :
“The greatest enemy to knowledge is not ignorance; it is the illusion of knowledge”.

Stephen Hawking also wrote that , “the actual point of creation lies outside the scope of presently known laws of physics,” The instant of creation remains a scientific mystery.
So if science is telling us about the big bang and that which preceded it – the scientists are making it up – pure and simple. Something akin to the santa claus and the tooth fairy hocus pocus but masquerading as sure knowledge.

As far as the ontological or existential questions of the universe is concerned, science may well be barking up the wrong tree together with it’s adherents.

So what would god look like if he were to show up? Obviously science cannot answer that because it blinds itself to explaining observable phenomena with fantastic theories.
Coming back, what kind of image would satisfy your notion of “God”? Would a humongous ethereal being descending from the heavens with huge white wings with a magic wand claiming to be God satisfy you? Or do you want some guy claiming to be God and curing the sick with the name Jesus to appear? Or would you dismiss him as some sort of an illusionist? What exactly do you expect to see when you talk about god never showing up? What really is your idea of “God”, the existence of which you deny? What do you want to see?
It’s pretty hard to fathom your question alone because it lacks some idea on your part as to what should constitute a “God” as the theist would like to have you believe in. Before you deny, you should know that which you deny in all reasonableness.

As far as my position is concerned, science has proven to be grossly incomplete as something that one can totally believe in. This leaves me a relatively far superior and sensible choice of subscribing myself to believing in an all-powerful transcendental reality that is responsible for all creation.

In short I’d rather be deluded by the God Delusion than be “stupidified” by science.

The reason being that the concept of an imperfect human understanding and apprehension of reality directly resulting from sensory and perceptive limitations makes it impossible to fathom a transcendental reality. Science can’t even fathom the nature of the Universe – what else the question of God? Humans are simply not equipped to apprehend and understand the true nature of reality.

So allegations of perceived delusions about God and the associated flaws in theo-centric belief systems, really exist in the human mind not in God. The mind is unable to apprehend such a reality and it’s flawed understanding, of what little it knows, tends to see something that is right as something that is wrong no matter how it sees it. This is because it’s fundamental principles, assumptions are flawed due to sensory and perceptive limitations. The concept of God is reality in supreme perfection but the understanding of humans of such a concept – both theists and secularists alike – is not.
As such proponents of secular materialistic beliefs should concentrate on perfecting their understanding of reality before they find fault with theists.

So the flaw really is in man’s ability to see “God” than it is in the fact that he exists. Just because you can’t see him does not mean that he does not exist. Just because the frog in the well cannot apprehend nor comprehend my existence does not simply negate that fact that I exist. And by virtue of the fact that the frog in the well cannot understand the fact of my existence automatically throws it’s understanding of my purpose into dreadful error if it ever gets to such a question.
Such an understanding of transcendental perfection of ideas is akin to the Socratic idea of the existence of transcendental perfection of forms as seen in it’s relative representations in the material world.
So to the question of did God create man or did man create god – the answer is the latter. It is man’s imperfect idea of God that gets represented here because of his limitations in his ability to perceive, comprehend, understand and communicate a transcendental reality which renders impossible the scientific quest for knowing the reality of God.

The microsope and the telescope can only see so far and beyond which is calculated speculation and further beyond still is absolute nonsense – such as the wild theories of the multiverse, the foggy abstractions of the M-theory and the propositions of the Anthropic principle.
So to belittle something based on ill-conceived notions, half-baked constructs without having the ability to fully appreciate the mind’s limitations is fatal for secular philosophy. That is why ideas of people like Richard Dawkins can be confined to the dustbins of science as constructs more deluded than their alleged delusions against a belief in God.

My answer to you is :
1) The asker of the question of “Why God doesn’t show up” is unsure as to what he means when he speaks of a God. What is really meant in the question is unclear? What kind of idea does the asker want to be represented with so that (hypothetically speaking) you can identify God when he does show up? What standards do we apply? Material standards (which is grossly inadequate) or metaphysical standards (which is grossly unsubstantiable nor comprehensible)?
2) Material science has been reduced to the theoretical and abstract mathematical realm of Quantum physics and cosmic science has been reduced to vague theories because up to a certain point material observations have become impossible in the infinitesimal and the overawing at the infinitude. How can one expect to “see” God when one can’t even see or know what is before him to fully understand it? The fact that important unanswered questions exist, points to a failure in understanding of the nature of reality. Without these answers being in order one simply cannot proceed from such a stance to judge the question of an all-powerful transcendental reality simply because when the basics are flawed the answers will be skewed. How does one expect to behold and apprehend the infinite with the limited self when his knowledge is imperfect?
The atheists’ question of “Why God doesn’t show up” not only shows a lack of appreciation of the concept of an all-powerful transcendental reality (i.e “God”) as it is understood, but also a failure to acknowledge the necessary flaws proceeding from human perceptive and sensory limitations.

So the question by virtue of these reasons is rendered moot at the very least.

Response to Salahudin on Why Doesn’t God show himself.

May 28, 2007

This is in respose to this piece by slahudin

As we can see from the pie chart (taken from adherents.com) about 84% of the world is religious. Theism vis-a-vis non-theism – the majority of the world believes in God. The secularists are a minority in the world today and yet they consider theocentric-belief as some kind of hocus pocus – Santa claus and the toothfairy notwithstanding.

It would be interesting to note that some of the greatest mind that are involved in revolutionising science – such as Einstein, Isaac Newton, Johann Karl Friedrich, Copernicus, Kepler and Galeleo – were believers in God. These guys were responsible for the great development of modern science as it is now and these guys thought there was an all-powerful being. I bet my last buck that they thought deeper than alot of secular scientists out there because it is far too easier to consume knowledge than it is to create it.

I consider the question of why it is more sensible to believe in a God than not, a no brainer. Science has opened up a cosmic can of worms in it’s bold quest for truth and lays there defeated by the mysteries of reality. Just to cite a few examples that science has not resolved by it’s own scientific standards :

*Why does some matter have mass while others don’t?

* Why the forces of physics (electo-magnetic, weak, strong and gravity) cannot be mathematically unified into one single expression even though they behave in the same way?

*If the theory of evolution is right what process in the so-called primordial soup triggered the animation of inanimate matter?

* What is time?

* Did time predate matter or co-existent with matter?

*What existed or happened at time zero of the big bang?

*What necessary cause caused the big bang? 

* Why only 30% of the universe can be materially accounted for while the rest of the 70% “matter” (so-called “Dark Matter”) cannot be observed?

* What is a black hole and how does it function

*Why do we sleep and what is the explanation for the loss of consciousness of the self?

* Why do we yawn?

* Why and how do we dream?

* What is the ghost behind the brain?

* What causes the effect of gravity?

* Why are there no intermediate species between the evolutionary “monkies”

*What happened to the neanderthals?

And the list just goes on. It just doesn’t end. Alot of these questions are explained away by preposterous presumptions. For example to the question of how the every parameter of the universe turned out just right that it did not collapse under it’s own weight? The answer is : The Multiverse – a theory where every possible permutation of matter is expressed in every way. This is a stupidity of convenience – because secularists just can’t answer why the universe turned out so right that made earth and all the life within it possible. Instead of finding a cause, they came up with an easy catch-all. This theory is also known as the “last refuge of the desparate atheist”. In other words – deny God at all costs – even rationality. The best of this is that they can’t answer why mater must express in all it’s possible ways to make the multiverse theory stick. They don’t even know what system can support a Multiverse. Theory after theory after theory and no answers.

Salahudin, this is the secular equivalent of the theistic Santa Claus and tooth fairy that you were referring to.

It is still true that science can tell you how something works but never why. That is the challenge for science – by it’s own standards. It cannot answer questions at a certain depth of knowledge.  And it has failed – extremely miserably. And nowadays they pass of vague “theories” as knowledge. I’m sorry Salahudin, It’s more sensible to believe in God – secular materialist answers are at the least – grossly incomplete.

If truth in this chart is denied – then 84% of the world are idiots.

The Impossible Universe, the impossible Human being

May 24, 2007

It seems now that the existence of the universe and all that is within it is balanced on a knife’s edge. Every particle – from it’s properties to it’s characteristic is a carefully calibrated manifestation of the physical reality that we live in and observe today. The parameters for the universe to exist are calibrated so so finely that an infinitessimal adjustment anyway would have produced some destructively unimaginable reality that would have precluded not only the existence of life but also (and more importantly so) the very matter itself. The diverse expressions of matter in the observable universe – both in the microcosm and macrocosm have been a product of the existence of right conditions that coincided with the right properties (existent in the force or “thing” that was responsible for the appearance of matter). Sort of like “pre-matter”. If existence of matter is seen as a progression that proceeded forth from nothingness, the most fundamental “pre-matter” that I can think of is the photon. And this has been proven, that matter could be converted into energy (i.e. photons) and vice versa.

The confluence of fundamental  matter as they have been calibrated was an impossible co-incidence and this seems to be THE question foremost in the minds of theoretical physicists today.

It was indeed an impossible co-incidence that from the point of singularity the universe expanded containing the right amount of mass with the right amonut of force to facilitate the creations of electrons and nuclei (i.e protons and neutrons).

It was an impossible coincidence that when the universe cooled, the electrons with their charge at the right amount coincided with the nuclei matter to form atoms, such as hydrogen

The universe continued to expand and cool down that further facilitated the creation of basic elements. The way the atoms were married to express themselves only in a limited way amidst the infinite possible permutations is a mystery.

These molecules coincided to form complex bodies such as gases and cosmic dust that inturn coincided to form stars and galaxies. Some of the stellar systems coincidentally formed planets.

And as you may have it, and by a huge stroke of luck, the planet in one such system, formed with the right constitution, with the right tilt, at the right distance from it’s star, with it’s right size and density managed to somehow contain a system that could be hospitable for organic materials to form.

And by a huge impossible co-incidence through a marriage of a variety of chemical reactions that took place in the primordial soup of primitive earth, the right amount of DNA coincided with the right amino acids at the right amount to form the first proteins and thus the first inkling of primitive life. Surprizingly this first life created in this primordial soup survived to replicate itself to transform into other simple organisms.

How life happened is a catch-22 mystery because for proteins to develop they need the encoded information from the DNA but DNA cannot replicate without catalytic proteins. But chance happenings are a wonderful gift to humanity to just explain away just about anything.

These organisms via a subtly slow process called evolution managed to diversify itself through freak mutations into a myriad of life forms in a surprizingly self sustaining environment conducive for such a process to happen.

And through these mutations came animals and through them came the monkey. And this monkey evolved in many stages into a much smarter monkey more informally (and rather unscientifically so!) referred to as the Human being.

This massive coincidence that dates back to the big bang itself, just to create smart monkeys to ask existential questions in a lonely outpost called the earth takes a huge quantum leap of faith to believe let alone think it.

The impossibility just for the universe to exist, let alone the existence of human beings requires a faith that is far more irrational than it is to believe in an intelligent omnipotent being that had a hand in such a creation. The Universe as it is now is so irrationally impossible that something just had to interfere and calibrate the fundamental particles and it’s attendant forces to facilitate the creation of the universe and life itself.

The theory of evolution as a catch all answer to existential questions is nothing but an irrational and totally preposterous idea that is an absolute insult to the mind that has the chutzpah to think it. To believe in secular justifications that seeks to easily explain away through suspiciously simple theories coated with complex scientific explanations based on wildly improbable assumptions requires a faith that is a billion times more than it is required to believe in an intelligent all-powerful being. In other words one need to make a conscious effort at stupidity to believe the trash the secular materialists dish out as valid scientific explanations just to exclude an intelligent calibrator that a majority of us in this world refer to as God.

I think the advancements in science has made it impossible for a secularists to exist becasue he is constantly being frustrated to come up with new theories to explain away the signs that point in the opposite direction of his line of thinking to a point that he has to disregard known truths and accept abject nonsense as truth. The worst of it is that he sells it as something valid and worthy of embracing. I’m sorry man, I don’t want to make an effort to be stupid just so you can say I’m a clever monkey. No thank you.

Top 20 Oxy-Morons

February 11, 2007

Didn’t know if I got the oreder right but this is my view… 

20. American Culture (about the only culture worth anything at all are the ones in the petri dish)

19. Government Organization

18  Government Intelligence Services

(Here’s a triple Oxy , No government intelligence, nor Intelligence services nor government services coz these are all just euphemisms for “Really Arrogant Bastards in Public Office” )

17. Friendly Fire

(“Hi, name’s bob, would you like the bullet through you head or the balls please”)

16. Airline Cuisine

(You can either one not both)

15. Civil Service

(they are neither civil nor do the assholes serve)

14.
College Education

(common sense dictates that anything even vaguely educational should not involve guns, drugs, booze or sex unless you’re a pimp)

13 Military Intelligence

(Think George Walker Bush and you’ll get the idea)

12 Criminal Justice

(More criminal than the criminals they are punishing)

11 Happily Married

(Never heard that one before)

10 Western Civilisation

(West and being civilised? Nah)

09
Iraq War Strategy

(Mindless bombing would not constitute a strategy)

08 Economy Class

(No class in  going economicaleven the peanuts are soggy)

07 Medical Ethics

06 Impartial Media

05 Career Choice

(It’s no longer a career and when it comes to moneypeople don’t have a choice)

04 Honest Politician

(Some scientists believe he could be found in the nearest galaxy)

03 Fast Food

(It’s neither fast nor is it food. Their marketing depts are so good that they could create mass appeal for shit eating)

02 Non-stick Pan

(Try frying an egg with no oil)

01 Microsoft Works

(Yeah right!)

Hello Comrades

January 1, 2007

This is my first blog ever. All this while I have been writing my thoughts in bits and scraps of paper in sunny Singapore, now it’s about time to I create my blog to pen my thoughts. I love philosophy, politics, psychology, metaphysics and anything that deals with life’s most fundamental questions. I am most passionate about the origin of life, the question of God and of course the miracle of science.

I will put further commentaries in time to come and till then adios!