Would it be fair to say that comparing humans to God would be like comparing the mass of a mote (a very small speck of dust) to the mass equivalent to 1 trillion suns (stars) multiplied by infinity + 1?

A fair comparison?

Thanks,
Michael

A host of unspoken assumptions underlie your proposition.

A host of unspoken assumptions underlie your proposition.That's true, and I'm not trying to complicate the matter to much - it realy just a simple comparison - from your perspective would you say its a fair one?

Given my understanding of how most people perceive god, i.e. that he is omnipotent and omnipresent, I would say yes.

Depends on how the god has been defined. If say god like beings exist and are really only just intelligences that have evolved over trillions of years then perhaps your comparison is over the top.

You should first define its properties and then do the comparison. Although without being able to actually perform any real measurements it is unclear what this imaginary comparion would mean.

Well, I'm interested in what people who beleive in God think.

But its interesting to know what Atheist's perception of what a God-to-human comparison would be - if there were a God.

But its interesting to know what Atheist's perception of what a God-to-human comparison would be.

how would you describe a hoax in comparison to a person?

Would it be fair to say that comparing humans to God would be like comparing the mass of a mote (a very small speck of dust) to the mass equivalent to 1 trillion suns (stars) multiplied by infinity + 1?

A fair comparison?

Thanks,
Michael

In Islam God is described as As-Samad, i.e. one whose existence is neither temporal nor conditional. As such, material attributes are not ascribed to him.

Trying to quantify God or comparing him to humans is hence to be considered a pointless exercise.

In Islam God is described as As-Samad, i.e. one whose existence is neither temporal nor conditional. As such, material attributes are not ascribed to him.

Trying to quantify God or comparing him to humans is hence to be considered a pointless exercise.Hi Sam,

How can something be non-temporal and not be conditional? In that sentence you just said one condition of god is to be non-temporal.
Isn't that paradoxical? Oxymoronic?

Regardless, we agree that you do worship God and I thnk we can agree that you do so for some set of reasons. I think I can assume you do not worship a human (although I am available on request ;).

This suggests that the God-head is worthy of worship for reasons that are over and above that of a human.

Would that be fair to say?


So in some sort of manner you have made some sort of quantification of God (God is worthy of worship) over that of human (Human is not worthy of worship).


Without getting to over the top with this, could it be fair to say those things that make God worthy of worship, over human, are of such magnitude that a fair comparison of that magnitude is the mass of a mote compared with the mass of an infinite number of stars?

Michael

Michael,

You may find it difficult to obtain an agreement from theists on the comparison of a rude physical quantity such as mass to the ethereal essence of god.

how would you describe a hoax in comparison to a person? Well firstly, see the above post to Sam, if it is better to think of the question within that frame of reference.

A hoax is an action and that action is dependant on a "person". Therefore a simple comparison to a person is that a hoax can not exist with out something "alive" to perform it; i.e. a hoax's existence is "life"-dependant. Life is not hoax-dependant and can exist without hoax (as indeed many animals do - but not all).

So people, being alive, will (on my scale of mote to Inf. x sun) be more significant (in my mind) than hoax.

Michael,

You may find it difficult to obtain an agreement from theists on the comparison of a rude physical quantity such as mass to the ethereal essence of god.Well true.

That said, I am 100% positive that while most theists do not sit around trying to make such comparisons - still, somewhere the assumption that God is greater than human to some large degree - is being made.

It's kind of standard to think Gods are greater then men isn't it? I mean that's why Gods are worshipped, that why a human can be exhaulted simply because said human is connected with a God or is becoming a God or can hear what a God is thinking or knows something about what God wants, etc.. ...

I think that's pretty fair to say .... isn't it?

I guess I am just curious as to that assumption as it pertains to each persons idea of God and human - at least on this forum anyway.

MII

Hi Sam,

How can something be non-temporal and not be conditional? In that sentence you just said one condition of god is to be non-temporal.
Isn't that paradoxical? Oxymoronic?

Its one word As-Samad, which contains both qualities-unfortunately English is limited in the scope of its expression :p

Regardless, we agree that you do worship God and I thnk we can agree that you do so for some set of reasons. I think I can assume you do not worship a human (although I am available on request.

:D

This suggests that the God-head is worthy of worship for reasons that are over and above that of a human.

Would that be fair to say?


So in some sort of manner you have made some sort of quantification of God (God is worthy of worship) over that of human (Human is not worthy of worship).


Without getting to over the top with this, could it be fair to say those things that make God worthy of worship, over human, are of such magnitude that a fair comparison of that magnitude is the mass of a mote compared with the mass of an infinite number of stars?


I am very bad at these explanations. The two are not comparable. Its like saying art is better than food because a masterpiece is worth much more than a slice of bread. However one does not eat a masterpiece nor can one explain what quality in it is worth millions.

MII:

I guess I am just curious as to that assumption as it pertains to each persons idea of God and human - at least on this forum anyway.

Yes, that's fair. My experience is that the conception runs from the most childish, that being a bearded man waiting to welcome you to heaven through gates of pearl, to an almost complete denial of any human or material attribute whatsoever - an incomprehensible essence that is only spoken of in reference to his (its?) presence and effects.

to an almost complete denial of any human or material attribute whatsoever - an incomprehensible essence that is only spoken of in reference to his (its?) presence and effects.

This is a close description of what God would be described as Allah in Islam or even I believe, as Brahman in Hinduism. The bearded old man concept seems like a metaphor rather than an actual image. I have known many Christians (both Catholic and Protestant) in India and they do not visualise God like this. Maybe this is a Western concept?

If God is infinite, the analogy would not even come close.

The far-flung and almost absurd comparisons that Catholic nuns are wont to give for eternity are closer to the truth:

Imagine a bird passing by a mountain every ten billion years and the tiniest bit of its tiniest feather just barely brushes against this mountain. Then imagine this process goes on and on until the mountain is eroded. Then imagine that for as many fly-bys it took to erode the mountain, there are that many mountains to erode, and then you'll maybe, -maybe-, come close to appreciating the first nanosecond of eternity.

:D;)

I am very bad at these explanations. The two are not comparable. Its like saying art is better than food because a masterpiece is worth much more than a slice of bread. However one does not eat a masterpiece nor can one explain what quality in it is worth millions.That’s fair enough, and I wouldn’t want you to do something … errr ??? heretical?

But if you could indulge me:
- You do worship God?
- You do not worship human?
- You would consider a being that contains the properties of As-Samad to be of more significance than a being that does not?

If so, then in some sort of manner you have made some sort of quantification of God over that of human – at the very least that of having the property of As-Samad? Correct?

MII

Yes, that's fair. My experience is that the conception runs from the most childish, that being a bearded man waiting to welcome you to heaven through gates of pearl, to an almost complete denial of any human or material attribute whatsoever - an incomprehensible essence that is only spoken of in reference to his (its?) presence and effects.Either way, there must be come sort of comparison made somewhere in some part of the mind - else why worship the God -head? Why revere those that have connected with the God-head or those that can somehow put the God-heads “thoughts” into human words? (although I have to say it seems, to me, that a God-head should be able to do so in a snap) nevertheless, there must be some sort of quantification going on???

That’s fair enough, and I wouldn’t want you to do something … errr ??? heretical?


Thank you.


But if you could indulge me:
- You do worship God?
- You do not worship human?
- You would consider a being that contains the properties of As-Samad to be of more significance than a being that does not?

If so, then in some sort of manner you have made some sort of quantification of God over that of human – at the very least that of having the property of As-Samad? Correct?

MII

*sigh*

What part of "not comparable" is hard to figure out?

Can you compare the love of a mother for her child with the love of a woman for a man?

Is worshipping an object of beauty the same as worshipping money or status?

You cannot compare apples and oranges.

If God is infinite, the analogy would not even come close.

The far-flung and almost absurd comparisons that Catholic nuns are wont to give for eternity are closer to the truth:

Imagine a bird passing by a mountain every ten billion years and the tiniest bit of its tiniest feather just barely brushes against this mountain. Then imagine this process goes on and on until the mountain is eroded. Then imagine that for as many fly-bys it took to erode the mountain, there are that many mountains to erode, and then you'll maybe, -maybe-, come close to appreciating the first nanosecond of eternity.Ahhh, I like this :)

Yes eternity is inconceivable and in that concept even an atheist as myself can appreciate the notion of the inexplicable. It may be that all of us here will have this exact same conversation an infinite times in an infinite other lives if thing repeat for eternity.

Anyway, I don’t worship eternity (or do I?) no I don’t because eternity has not sense of consciousness or moral code or As-Samad or any other attribute that could be possibly attributed to a God-head. That being the case – I still think people make an unconscious quantification (as illogical as it may be) of the concept of God and then place it high than the concept of human and then set about worshipping.

Why else worship?

You know, that bloody bird analogy is starting to make me think – something I did NOT want to do during this post! :)


My initial question may not be so easy to answer :confused:


Michael

*sigh*
sorry....
:o

Either way, there must be come sort of comparison made somewhere in some part of the mind - else why worship the God -head? Why revere those that have connected with the God-head or those that can somehow put the God-heads “thoughts” into human words? (although I have to say it seems, to me, that a God-head should be able to do so in a snap) nevertheless, there must be some sort of quantification going on???

I was just having a discussion with another Indian (Catholic) girl today on how different religious concepts are in the East and West. I was not really surprised to find that we shared the same notions about Western religion. It seems to us that in the West there is no definition between spirituality and materialism. Perhaps it is just a difference in the way of thinking? We find no incongruencies between having many gods and living a religious life surrounded by different notions of what God represents to different individuals. To us it is comparable to needing energy to survive and yet having different ideas of what source of energy is considered appropriate for ingestion, like being vegetarian or avoiding pork. There is no desire to have everyone following the same notions regardless of whether it is religion or dietary practice.

Anyway, I don’t worship eternity (or do I?) no I don’t because eternity has not sense of consciousness or moral code or As-Samad or any other attribute that could be possibly attributed to a God-head.

Michael

Do you not value time? Time is after all, a fraction of eternity.

And a vision of immortality is not restricted to theists, there are those who dream of downloading minds into machines or who cryogenically freeze themselves in the hope of future revival. :)

Oh noooo... I'm starting to think Grrrr.....

:)



OK, lets put the God-head aside. Maybe it’s better to focus on humans. Would you say (being …. …. …. Sufi?) that Mohammed, a messenger of the God-head, is to be exulted over humans that are not messengers of the God-head? Or is it that Mohammed is equal to all life – no better – no worse?

Oh noooo... I'm starting to think Grrrr.....

:)



OK, lets put the God-head aside. Maybe it’s better to focus on humans. Would you say (being …. …. …. Sufi?) that Mohammed, a messenger of the God-head, is to be exulted over humans that are not messengers of the God-head? Or is it that Mohammed is equal to all life – no better – no worse?

Mohammed is only a man.

Say to them (O Muhammad) "I am only a man like you..." [18:111]

Do you not value time? Time is after all, a fraction of eternity.

And a vision of immortality is not restricted to theists, there are those who dream of downloading minds into machines or who cryogenically freeze themselves in the hope of future revival. :)True, if tomorrow some scientist stated that the aging process could be reversed with a pill, I think most people would accept it and take the pill in the hope of prolonging life. To me that's the main reason why most people worship.
The hope of a life after a death.
Even friends of mine who don't believe in God(s) do believe in Ghosts!!?? And think they will become a Ghost? :)
That’s the funny thing about most Atheists. It not that we wouldn’t like to believe in a Life after we die – it’s just that we lack the belief it will happen. If it were possible - I think most Atheists would be happy to accept life after death or extend their present life.

Regardless, if humans retain their human nature in that we retain the nature of our memory (as it is now) - even if we could extend our life for 10000 years or live in a heaven for as long, that person – 10000 years from now, would be as distantly removed from the person we are now so as they may as well be a great great great… grandchild anyway.

There’s no two ways about it “we” will end.

If we were to download ourselves into a machine we would no longer be “human” unless we were able to mimick memory and conscious but as I mentioned before, after enough time we wouldn’t be the person who we know to be ourselves anymore anyway.

:)
MII

Mohammed is only a man.

Say to them (O Muhammad) "I am only a man like you..." [18:111]I agree to that - but was Muhammad any greater or lesser than any other man (or woman for that matter)? Has there ever been a man greater than Muhammad or are all men equal?

Would it be fair to say that comparing humans to God would be like comparing the mass of a mote (a very small speck of dust) to the mass equivalent to 1 trillion suns (stars) multiplied by infinity + 1?

A fair comparison?

Thanks,
Michael


No. Using that comparison one would conclude that we are made of the same as God only smaller. God is not a part of our universe and is perfect. We are part of His universe and we are not perfect. The thing we have in common is we both exist. From that point on all things diverge.


All Praise The Ancient Of Days

I agree to that - but was Muhammad any greater or lesser than any other man (or woman for that matter)? Has there ever been a man greater than Muhammad or are all men equal?

All men are equal, though some distinguish themselves by good action. One tends to look up to people who teach by example, like Muhammed did, but this is respect and should not be confused with worship.

One might consider Jesus to be another such special man.


The Muslim Jesus is an ascetic, a man of voluntary poverty, humility and long-suffering. He literally turns the other cheek, allowing his face to be slapped twice in order to protect two of his disciples. He teaches the return of good for evil: "Jesus used to say, 'Charity does not mean doing good to him who does good to you . . . Charity means that you should do good to him who does you harm.' " He loves the poor and embraces poverty: "The day Jesus was raised to heaven, he left behind nothing but a woollen garment, a slingshot and two sandals." He preaches against attachment to worldly things: "Jesus said, `He who seeks worldly things is like the man who drinks sea water: the more he drinks, the more thirsty he becomes, until it kills him.' "Many of the sayings of the Muslim Jesus are clearly derived from Biblical sources - "Place your treasures in heaven, for the heart of man is where his treasure is"; "Look at the birds coming and going! They neither reap nor plough, and God provides for them." Sometimes there is a sort of gloss on words of Jesus from the Gospel: "Oh disciples, do not cast pearls before swine, for the swine can do nothing with them . . . wisdom is more precious than pearls and whoever rejects wisdom is worse than a swine."

He is certainly a wonder-worker. He often raises the dead, and gives his disciples power to do the same. More than once he comes across a skull and restores it to life, on one occasion granting salvation to a person who had been damned. The skulls, like everyone else in these stories, address Jesus as "Spirit of God". Once he is even addressed as "Word of God".

I once had a conversation with members of Hizbollah in Beirut. One of them said this: "The greatness of Islam is that we combine Judaism and Christianity. Jesus freed enslaved hearts, he was able to release human feeling, to reveal a kingdom of peace. Jesus's realm was the realm of soul. Jesus is soul; Moses is mind, the mind of the legislator. In Islam, we interweave both."

This is certainly the Jesus of these stories - the Jesus of the mystical Sufi tradition. The great Muslim philosopher Al-Ghazali actually called Jesus "Prophet of the heart".
http://www.islamfortoday.com/jesus02.htm

Would it be fair to say that comparing humans to God would be like comparing the mass of a mote (a very small speck of dust) to the mass equivalent to 1 trillion suns (stars) multiplied by infinity + 1?

A fair comparison?

Thanks,
Michael

The nature of god is unlimited. The nature of the living entity is limited. The nature of god is infallible. The nature of the living entity is fallible - I remember reading once about a farside cartoon by larson - it had god on a trivia quiz verses a frustrated brainy nerd (the scores were something like god - 276 alfred - 0) - larson was saying that it wouldn't be appropriate for alfred to even have a score of 1.

There is a quote from Isopanisad

Iso Invocation: The Personality of Godhead is perfect and complete, and because He is completely perfect, all emanations from Him, such as this phenomenal world, are perfectly equipped as complete wholes. Whatever is produced of the Complete Whole is also complete in itself. Because He is the Complete Whole, even though so many complete units emanate from Him, He remains the complete balance.
God has the ability to emmanate complete wholes without suffering any dimunition - simiarly he can absorb complete wholes without undergoing an increase - for god 1+1=1 and 1-1=1 - he remains eternally unchanged

BS 5.35: He is an undifferentiated entity as there is no distinction between potency and the possessor thereof. In His work of creation of millions of worlds, His potency remains inseparable. All the universes exist in Him and He is present in His fullness in every one of the atoms that are scattered throughout the universe, at one and the same time. Such is the primeval Lord whom I adore.

All men are equal, though some distinguish themselves by good action. One tends to look up to people who teach by example, like Muhammed did, but this is respect and should not be confused with worship. Two questions I thought of while at the gym (just returned).

1) If Muhammed is no better or no worse than any other man, why did he have more than 4 wives? I seem to remember someone telling me only he got to have more than 4 wives and everyone else only got a maximum of 4.

2) This is a personal question so feel free not to answer but the 4 wives thing got me thinking: As a female Muslim, would you be happy with a husband that took 3 other wives after you were married?


3) Non personal:
- Why do you suppose God granted men the right to have 4 wives and didn't grant women the right to have 4 husbands (In some traditional Tibetan families the women could have multiple husbands - usually brothers - so it isn’t that society can not function with women having multiple husbands – Tibet actually functioned better in this manner.

- When answering the above question: Then why stop at 4?


Michael II

About reincarnation and life after death, one thing that sticks out to me is that we are not needed to make us, we are concieved by our parents when we dont exist, so after a person dies, if a man and a womens genetic code combine to form that specific persons genetic code that person would be born again.

About incarnation and life after death, one thing that sticks out to me is that we are not needed to make us, we are concieved by our parents when we dont exist, so after a person dies, if a man and a womens genetic code combine to form that specific persons genetic code that person would be born again.
unless genetics merely refers to the mechanics of the body as opposed to the desires of the driver

like identical twins who are separated and raised in different enviroments who have common Ideas and interest's etc..

:rolleyes:

while identical twins have many similarities it wouldn't be fair to say that they are facsimiles.

Oh, identical twins have some difference in DNA too - the B cells – who knows – maybe that can effect personality?

Two questions I thought of while at the gym (just returned).

1) If Muhammed is no better or no worse than any other man, why did he have more than 4 wives? I seem to remember someone telling me only he got to have more than 4 wives and everyone else only got a maximum of 4.


That rule actually came much later during his Prophethood (after he had 11 wives) and he was given exception.


2) This is a personal question so feel free not to answer but the 4 wives thing got me thinking: As a female Muslim, would you be happy with a husband that took 3 other wives after you were married?

There is always divorce. Marriage is not a sacrament in Islam, its a mutually signed legal contract with prenuptial agreements that favor women (mehr). A woman can divorce a man if she does not care to live with him anymore. I was not brought up in a society where multiple wives are de rigeur so it would not be acceptable to me. It is not acceptable to several women who are brought up in such societies either.


3) Non personal:
- Why do you suppose God granted men the right to have 4 wives and didn't grant women the right to have 4 husbands (In some traditional Tibetan families the women could have multiple husbands - usually brothers - so it isn’t that society can not function with women having multiple husbands – Tibet actually functioned better in this manner.


At the time of creating this rule, Muslims were engaged in war against (and were heavily outnumbered by) the Meccans and there were too many war widows . The practice of four wives is meant as a consideration for the protection of war widows and orphans who may otherwise in war time be reduced to poverty or suffer indignity. The injunction of treating all wives equally itself makes it difficult for a man to have more than one and if she divorces him, he loses his children too since women are automatically granted custody.

Even in Saudi Arabia, where the practice has been most exploited, it is not seen in the educated or in cities, usually only in the rural areas. There too very few have four wives and the reasons are usually economic, since the government confers benefits depending on the number of children so larger families stand to gain. Marriage in such societies is also viewed differently from say, a Western society, and is a social relationship, not one based on love, but based on politics and economics (this is also true of arranged marriages in India).

Polyandry was actually practised in India too, in the Nair community (which follows a matrilineal system of inheritance).


- When answering the above question: Then why stop at 4?

Probably the number required at the time to ensure that most widows gained protection?

I agree to that - but was Muhammad any greater or lesser than any other man (or woman for that matter)? Has there ever been a man greater than Muhammad or are all men equal?

Christians would say Jesus!


No. Using that comparison one would conclude that we are made of the same as God only smaller.


Errr... "Let us make man in our own image" ? Was that not a statement of god?

God is not a part of our universe and is perfect.

Evidence? How the hell do you know this? or is it, that you just believe this, and have "faith" to be it so?


The nature of god is unlimited.

God is supposedly "unknowable, incomprehensible" yet there are many theist advocates who speak BS like this! How do you know this?

Godless

“ The nature of god is unlimited. ”

God is supposedly "unknowable, incomprehensible" yet there are many theist advocates who speak BS like this! How do you know this?

SB 10.14.7: In time, learned philosophers or scientists might be able to count all the atoms of the earth, the particles of snow, or perhaps even the shining molecules radiating from the sun, the stars and other luminaries. But among these learned men, who could possibly count the unlimited transcendental qualities possessed by You, the Supreme Personality of Godhead, who have descended onto the surface of the earth for the benefit of all living entities?

LG,

who could possibly count the unlimited transcendental qualities possessed by You, the Supreme Personality of Godhead, who have descended onto the surface of the earth for the benefit of all living entities?The difference is between real objects and mystical gibberish.

LG,

The difference is between real objects and mystical gibberish.
So how do you determine that god is not real?

Lg,

So how do you determine that god is not real?How would you show that "unlimited transcendental qualities possessed by You, the Supreme Personality of Godhead, who have descended onto the surface of the earth for the benefit of all living entities." has any basis in reality?

Lg,

How would you show that "unlimited transcendental qualities possessed by You, the Supreme Personality of Godhead, who have descended onto the surface of the earth for the benefit of all living entities." has any basis in reality?

by application - just like to show that an electron actually exists depends on application

now how do you determine that god doesn't exist?

lg,

by application - just like to show that an electron actually exists depends on applicationExistence of an electron is demonstrable, your claim of a god by apllication is not. You haven't answered the question.

now how do you determine that god doesn't exist?Why are you asking me something I haven't claimed?

How do you distinguish your supreme godhead statements from mystical gibberish?

by application - just like to show that an electron actually exists depends on application

You haven't applied, nor demonstrated any evidence for your deity, why not trying to back up your assertions with evidence?


now how do you determine that god doesn't exist?

How do you determine that the IPU does not exist? You are an atheist to the IPU! ;)

cris


“ by application - just like to show that an electron actually exists depends on application ”

Existence of an electron is demonstrable, your claim of a god by apllication is not. You haven't answered the question.
neither have you - existence of an electron is demonstratable only to persons who have applied scientific methodologies


“ now how do you determine that god doesn't exist? ”

Why are you asking me something I haven't claimed?

why are you denying what you claimed?

The difference is between real objects and mystical gibberish.

How do you distinguish your supreme godhead statements from mystical gibberish?

Application - the same thing that is required for a layman to distinguish what the scientific writings of a rocket scientist indicates?

Godless

“ You haven't applied, nor demonstrated any evidence for your deity, why not trying to back up your assertions with evidence? ”


So if a rocket scientist presents his findings to a group of laymen (who obviously can't make heads or tails of it) it is evidence that the rocket scientist has not properly applied science to determine his scientific conclusions -

or to put in other words - if you are too recalitrant to accept the process for understanding something, how do you expect to understand it?

In such situations it would be more progressive to talk about it theoretically than have unqualified persons always clamouring with "But how do you know" - they do the same thing when they have 30 second prime time snippets of some latest scientific discovery that the layman has no means to comprehend (they talk of it s functionality, benefits etc)




How do you determine that the IPU does not exist? You are an atheist to the IPU! ;)

How does an astronomer determine that epicycles don't exist?

LG,

The largest, most glaring deficiency in your entire line of reasoning is that all of the entities that you say can only be apprehended by "experts" are demonstrable by their unique effects on nature.

You are completely confusing the detailed knowledge of the nature of an entity with knowledge of the existence of the entity.

Laymen know that electricity actually exists by direct experience, not necessecarily the underlying nature of it.

Laymen know that rockets actually exist by direct experience, not necesseraliy the esoterics of rocket technology.

So, while you may claim that we can't understand the underlying nature or esoteric details of the nature of god, surely you can show to a layman that god exists by direct experience?

Once you do this, then your argument of expertise re the nature of god may be valid.

If God is the absolute truth, then believing in god is believing in the truth, every person has the choice to believe whatever they want, some might prefer to believe something else if the truth is not good enough for them.

superluminal

LG,

The largest, most glaring deficiency in your entire line of reasoning is that all of the entities that you say can only be apprehended by "experts" are demonstrable by their unique effects on nature.

You are completely confusing the detailed knowledge of the nature of an entity with knowledge of the existence of the entity.
Before i answer this can you clear up whether you are saying a successful theist cannot display any unique or distinctive symptoms or that a successful theist cannot display any unique or distinctive achievements in this world?

Laymen know that electricity actually exists by direct experience, not necessecarily the underlying nature of it.
correct - therefore since god is the under lying feature of reality (just like an electron is teh underlying feature of electricity) it is understandable why some perceive him and some do not

Laymen know that rockets actually exist by direct experience, not necesseraliy the esoterics of rocket technology.
I have never seen a rocket in my direct experience - I see many representations of rockets in media that I have faith in however (TV, magazines, Newspapers etc) - I imagine my situation is not unique

So, while you may claim that we can't understand the underlying nature or esoteric details of the nature of god, surely you can show to a layman that god exists by direct experience?
You can give indications of gods existence, just like you can give indications of the presidents existence (like there is no anarchy and molotov cocktails on the streets, credible persons vouch for his being, representations in credible media like tv and newspapers etc) - perceiving him first hand is a different matter however

Once you do this, then your argument of expertise re the nature of god may be valid.

Just like if an electricity is indicated as evidence of an electron to a layman the argument may not always be successful, similarly indicating the natural order of this cosmic manifestation as evidenceof god may not always be successful

You can give indications of gods existence, just like you can give indications of the presidents existence

Please do so.

Please do so.

I thought the analogy was quite clear

(like there is no anarchy and molotov cocktails on the streets,
ie there is a universal order on a macro and micro level


credible persons vouch for his being,
huge backlog of literature and commentaries on god and the means to understand him by erudite scholars, saints etc


representations in credible media like tv and newspapers etc)
numerous scriptures available - you can practically choose and piece of geography on the planet and determine some cultural links to god from the area

(like there is no anarchy and molotov cocktails on the streets,
ie there is a universal order on a macro and micro level
And we can easily ascribe this to fundamental natural law.

"And where did those laws come from?"

They are an eternal feature of matter in a cyclic cosmos with no beginning and no end.

So far, no indication that cannot be adequately explained by natural law. Whay do you leap to a god based on nothing but a series of unknowns? This is not how a reasonable person behaves.


credible persons vouch for his being,
huge backlog of literature and commentaries on god and the means to understand him by erudite scholars, saints etc


representations in credible media like tv and newspapers etc)
numerous scriptures available - you can practically choose and piece of geography on the planet and determine some cultural links to god from the area

All anecdotal and useless as evidence as you know.

Supe

“ Originally Posted by lightgigantic
(like there is no anarchy and molotov cocktails on the streets,
ie there is a universal order on a macro and micro level ”

And we can easily ascribe this to fundamental natural law.
easily? I doubt it - at leat in terms of direct emprical evidence - I think I hhav ebrought up the issue of the limitations of the reductionist model numerous times before without having to repeat it here (but I am always happy to oblige if you feel you need it again ;) )

"And where did those laws come from?"

They are an eternal feature of matter in a cyclic cosmos with no beginning and no end.
I guess that safely puts a wet towel on any curiousity we might have about why natural laws act the way they do, eh?

So far, no indication that cannot be adequately explained by natural law.
I am surprised that you can say this ....

Whay do you leap to a god based on nothing but a series of unknowns? This is not how a reasonable person behaves.
and then tag this on in the same sentence - what are you basing your conclusions on but a series of unknowns - you don't know how abiogenisis manifested, you don't know what the essential building blocks of life are (or at the least you don't know how to a construct life out of such inanimate matter), you can't penetrate beyond the appearance of the numerous axioms relied upon for scientific observation and cannot give any clear evidence why they act in such unified ways (chance = "I don't know") etc etc

And then you try to assert that you are more reasonable than me
:bugeye:


“ credible persons vouch for his being,
huge backlog of literature and commentaries on god and the means to understand him by erudite scholars, saints etc


representations in credible media like tv and newspapers etc)
numerous scriptures available - you can practically choose and piece of geography on the planet and determine some cultural links to god from the area ”

All anecdotal and useless as evidence as you know.

therefore I mentioned they were indications, since the endeavour for direct experience required for the perception of evidence is not available for a person to recalcitrant to apply the required processes (the old electron argument, remember)

That rule actually came much later during his Prophethood (after he had 11 wives) and he was given exception. To me, I find that rather convenient that of all of the humans on the planet, the one that just happens to end up with almost triple the number of wives, just so happens to be the person God was telling how many wives men can have? A little too coincidental for me.

I have seen too many incidences of Xian groups in the USA where a charismatic leader ends up with a harrum of women that God just happens to want him to have. Usually one or two are the age of his grandchildren (or are his grandchildren). Yuck - bloody sick.

Sam, I don’t want to be to negative here, some Quranic writings just cut across my personal line of morality and polygamy is one of them – especially in regards to Muhammad’s youngest wife. To be honest I actually shutter in revulsion and it’s very very few things that can bring about such a feeling in me. I hope you can forgive my transgression in saying so - but that’s just too much to me.


Anyway, I think we can agree simultaneous multiple partners is not a good thing and leave it at that?


On a lighter side of things, my Iranian buddy has convinced me to go to a retreat that his friend has organized in the mountains. Its 2.5 days of meditation – as I have never in my life meditated - 3 days of no talking is really going to be difficult - - but, I thought what-the-hay, I’ll just jump in feet first. Reza has been meditating for many years and does so 30 minutes each morning and has only reached a state referred to as zen 2 times. That’s a worry because really that’s the main reason I want to do meditation…. Oh well, I’ll write if it was of any consequence.


Have a nice weekend,

Michael

I'm curious: does Islam also permit polyandry (a woman with multiple husbands)?

I'm curious: does Islam also permit polyandry (a woman with multiple husbands)?

Only one at a time. :)

There are no restrictions for age or number, though.

To me, I find that rather convenient that of all of the humans on the planet, the one that just happens to end up with almost triple the number of wives, just so happens to be the person God was telling how many wives men can have? A little too coincidental for me.

You assume he was the only one to do so.

Having several wives was a common practice in the society at the time.

Rich men had as many wives as they could afford to keep.

Sam, I don’t want to be to negative here, some Quranic writings just cut across my personal line of morality and polygamy is one of them – especially in regards to Muhammad’s youngest wife. To be honest I actually shutter in revulsion and it’s very very few things that can bring about such a feeling in me. I hope you can forgive my transgression in saying so - but that’s just too much to me.

This is a Western concept. In traditional Asian societies (as well as Arab and African), marriage is conducted (arranged, in fact) for political or economic reasons, not for love or sex. Currently, societal mores find such unions to be unacceptable, but even today, in areas of the world where Western education and concepts are still alien, it is merely a way of life. If I am not mistaken, women in Europe too were married at an early age in those times and multiple partners were considered acceptable for men? Morality is not an absolute; divorce is considered perfectly acceptable today in Western societies, but it was not for a very long time. It has been present in Muslim society for over 1400 years.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/1617759.stm


Anyway, I think we can agree simultaneous multiple partners is not a good thing and leave it at that?

Yes, we agree that having several partners is alright so long as they are not simultaneous (and/or legally conracted?). :p




On a lighter side of things, my Iranian buddy has convinced me to go to a retreat that his friend has organized in the mountains. Its 2.5 days of meditation – as I have never in my life meditated - 3 days of no talking is really going to be difficult - - but, I thought what-the-hay, I’ll just jump in feet first. Reza has been meditating for many years and does so 30 minutes each morning and has only reached a state referred to as zen 2 times. That’s a worry because really that’s the main reason I want to do meditation…. Oh well, I’ll write if it was of any consequence.


Have a nice weekend,

Michael

Good luck with your retreat.

SamCDKey:

You are correct. The European peoples have a long history of polygamous relationships. The idea of having multiple-wives was not considered abhorrent until Christianity declared it such, although it was not a practice commonly done in Rome throughout most of its history. Oddly enough, though, Christianity reveres as prophets many men that had multiple wives.