The concept of G-O-D in Western religions results in some perplexing ideas. Here is one more problem with the concept of the deity beside that of EVIL. Why would a perfect and supreme being create a universe? If it was for any reason then the being would be incomplete and not yet fulfilled and thus less than perfect.
If it were for no reason other than fun, entertainment, play… then that raises another set of questions. They who have their own idea of G-O-D and insist that they have a right to do so would also be in violation of the first commandment that the God of the Western religions presented to Moses.
The post modernists with their personal ideas of their own personal god have placed their god before the GOD of Abraham and Moses and Jesus and Mohammed. It is popular but certainly not orthodox. It is so popular that most who perform the substitution are unaware that they are holding ideas concerning the nature of god that would have had them condemned as heretics in prior centuries.
Another problem with the deity being ALL PERFECT is that the being would need to possess all perfections and if freedom is a perfection or a good thing as opposed to its opposite being not god then the deity that is all perfect would also need to be free and yet it cannot be free as it is not free to be or do anything that is less than perfect or the very best possible.
How is it that a deity can be thought of as a spiritual being and yet at the same time as having a sexual nature as a male or female sexual identities known to species on planet Earth when a sexual nature is a physical nature determined by physical entities such as chromosomes and organs?
There are psychological and sociological explanations offered as to why deities are given sexual natures by humans. There is even now a position taken that the nature of the deity at the time of the construction of the tales at the start of the traditions in the West was not singular and the deity was at times refereed to as male and other times female and even that the name given to the deity YHWH known as the the Tetragrammaton suggested a fluid sexual identity. If you believe in a deity or want to think about a single deity by attempting this exercise, quiz or game, you might determine whether or not your conceptions concerning the deity will produce problems such as incompatible properties or contradictions or difficulties with other issues.
The reader might want to attempt a short exercise concerning the construction of a concept of a deity with characteristics that would not be problematic. In each case, apart from Question 1, you need to answer True or False. The aim of the activity is not to judge whether these answers are correct or not. Our battleground is that of rational consistency.
Abstract : Ten arguments for the nonexistence of God are formulated and discussed briefly. Each of them ascribes to God a pair of properties from the following list of divine attributes: a perfect, b immutable, c transcendent, d nonphysical, e omniscient, f omnipresent, g personal, h free, i all-loving, j all-just, k all-merciful, and 1 the creator of the universe. Each argument aims to demonstrate an incompatibility between the two properties ascribed.
The pairs considered are: 1. Along the way, several other possible pairs are also mentioned and commented upon. How is it even possible for a deity that is everywhere and at all times to be conscious of anything and to think? Here is an examination of that issue. Abstract: It has been argued that God is omnipresent, that is, present in all places and in all times.
Omnipresence is also implied by God's knowledge, power, and perfection. A Kantian argument shows that in order to be self-aware, apply concepts, and form judgments, in short, to have a mind, there must be objects that are external to a being that it can become aware of and grasp itself in relationship to. There can be no external objects for an omnipresent God, so he cannot have a mind.
Abstract: When God is conceived of as an all-powerful and all-loving deity, many arguments for his nonexistence can be raised. In what follows, I shall provide precise formulations of those two arguments, make some comments about them, and then try to refute the main defenses of God's existence that might be put forward against ANB, which I consider the stronger of the two.
I take ANB to be a sound argument establishing the proposition that God conceived of in a certain way does not exist. There are those thinkers who hold that it is not possible for the human mind to comprehend the nature of a deity, let alone a single Supreme Being.
Even within theology there are those who think it presumptuous of humans to believe that the human mind could capture the nature of a divine being. This Ultimate Concern could be expressed in a variety of ways, including that of a Supreme Being. These ideas will be revisited as this examination moves deeper into the examination of religious beliefs.
Additionally, faith in and surrender to the Ultimate promises total completion regardless of what must be sacrificed in the name of faith. God, asserts Tillich, is present as the subject and object of ultimate faith while at the same time is transcendent beyond both subject and object. Tillich warns that there are finite things that claim infinity, such as the nation or state. For instance, a stop sign points to the command to stop the movement of a vehicle.
Similarly letters refer to sounds and meanings. However, unlike signs, symbols play a part in that which they represent and cannot be easily replaced.
Tillich also asserts that symbols allow us to experience other levels of reality that are normally off limits to us. For instance art creates a symbol for a plane that we cannot move toward by science alone. Another characteristic of a symbol is that it cannot be manufactured. Symbols arise from the unconscious and must be accepted on that level before conscious acceptance. Finally, since symbols cannot be intentionally produced, they come about and cease to exist in due time.
In essence, they are borne out of a need and they perish when they no longer generate a reaction within the group that originally used them for expressive purposes. Hubris is to we think we can know it all. This limits us. Humility opens us up to innovation, mystery and transcendence. True religious experience is transcendent, vibrant and joyful. Truth can be likened to the bright moon in the sky. The finger can point to the moon's location.
However, the finger is not the moon. To look at the moon, it is necessary to gaze beyond the finger True spirituality is experiencing truth itself — no words, no opinions, no judgments. All discussions are only a finger-pointing. Words can only suggest and direct our attention. Often we misunderstand and discuss at length about these different pointers. When we do this, we are not experiencing. Religious experience is direct connection with The Absolute, the perceptionless perception of nonduality, without labeling, without judgment.
Language binds us to dualistic experience of life, out of sync with the actual reality of Suchness. Ryan J. While every language has limitations, language is an important part of accurately describing God. Similarly, one may be unable to perfectly describe God, but those who have been touched by the power and love of God can appreciate the effort and have a better, more accurate, understanding of Him.
Without sincerity or faith, the human language does little to articulate the measure of God. High domestication atrophies our primal instincts, making it difficult to acknowledge and revere the greatness of the Universe, let alone speak about God. People are receiving sacred directions daily and do nothing with it. When we are sincere and faithful to our individual quest, each breath manifests a divine truth, not made of sound, but of light.
Faith Forum is a weekly dialogue on religion produced by religious statesman Rajan Zed. In order for the principle of conservation to work, she must find the spin of B to be negative. But — and this is where things become murky — like sub-particle A, B had a chance of being positive, so its spin state "became" negative at the time that the spin state of A was measured as positive.
In other words, information about spin state was transferred between the two sub-particles instantly. Such transfer of quantum information apparently happens faster than the speed of light.
Given that Einstein himself described quantum entanglement as "spooky action at a distance", I think all of us can be forgiven for finding this a rather bizarre effect. So, there is something faster than the speed of light after all: quantum information.
This doesn't prove or disprove God, but it can help us think of God in physical terms — maybe as a shower of entangled particles, transferring quantum information back and forth, and so occupying many places at the same time?
Even many universes at the same time? I have this image of God keeping galaxy-sized plates spinning while juggling planet-sized balls — tossing bits of information from one teetering universe to another, to keep everything in motion.
Fortunately, God can multitask — keeping the fabric of space and time in operation. All that is required is a little faith. Has this essay come close to answering the questions posed? I suspect not: if you believe in God as I do , then the idea of God being bound by the laws of physics is nonsense, because God can do everything, even travel faster than light. If you don't believe in God, then the question is equally nonsensical, because there isn't a God and nothing can travel faster than light.
Perhaps the question is really one for agnostics, who don't know whether there is a God. Does God spin galaxy-sized plates while juggling planetary balls? This is indeed where science and religion differ. Science requires proof, religious belief requires faith.
Scientists don't try to prove or disprove God's existence because they know there isn't an experiment that can ever detect God. And if you believe in God, it doesn't matter what scientists discover about the Universe — any cosmos can be thought of as being consistent with God. Our views of God, physics or anything else ultimately depends on perspective.
But let's end with a quotation from a truly authoritative source. No, it isn't the Bible. Nor is it a cosmology textbook. It's from Reaper Man by Terry Pratchett:. No matter how fast light travels, it finds the darkness has always got there first, and is waiting for it.
This story has been amended to correct an error regarding the measurement of Megaparsecs. It seeks to answer our readers' nagging questions about life, love, death and the Universe. We work with professional researchers who have dedicated their lives to uncovering new perspectives on the questions that shape our lives.
If you have a question you would like to be answered, please email either send us a message on Facebook or Twitter or email bigquestions theconversation. Join one million Future fans by liking us on Facebook , or follow us on Twitter or Instagram.
If you liked this story, sign up for the weekly bbc. Life's Big Questions Physics. Can physics prove if God exists? Share using Email.
0コメント