A Philosophical Question


I have been trying to reason out a Philosophical question that I have posed to myself recently. My mind is too tiny to come to a conclusion and draw a line under the entire thing. I need closure!

Feel free to leave your comments and philosophical logic, but please, if you’re a religious person, give me a reasoned consideration rather than empty religious dogma. For example, don’t start your sentence with “God wants…. blah blah blah”, because it is all conjecture, you are making it up, you do possess a level of objective truth, that I do not.

So, here’s my issue.
If we start from the contentious issue that everything that is, was created from nothing, I conclude that whatever created it all from nothing, was ‘outside‘ so to speak. If I, for example, were to create a tea cup, I cannot be part of that cup, I am the creator of the cup, I am outside of the cup. I see the cup from top to bottom, from front to back, from side to side. But I am not the cup. I perceive the entire cup. Similarly, if the creator of everything is outside of what he has created; time, light, space, life etc, then he presumably has it all set out in front of him, like a tapestry. He is not part of that creation, so is not affected by time, or light, and so cannot succumb to death or decay and aging, like the Matter that he created does. He is beyond that. He can see it from top to bottom, side to side. He can see the past, the present and the future, as if it were one. He preceded existence. He created existence. He is the height of perfection, there is nothing that he cannot do. If he wanted to create a stone that he could not lift, this wouldn’t be a paradox, it would be correct. He wouldn’t be able to lift it, if that were it’s purpose. The moment he decides the purpose is something different, he’d be able to lift it. He is the limit. If he couldn’t see everything, from beginning to end, the past the present and the future; he wouldn’t be perfect. Or the creator. If I created the cup, but can’t actually see the cup, that would be ridiculous.

So, therefore, he knew I would be an Atheist. In the same way that I knew the cup I made, would be white. I wouldn’t be shocked and disgusted if it were white, because i’d made it white. If I’d intended to make it blue, and it came out white, I would be a pretty bad creator. God, is considered perfect, he apparently doesn’t make mistakes. He knew a few of my friends would be gay. He created them Gay. He knew Dr Harold Shipman would be a murderer. He knows it all. There is no limit remember. He doesn’t start our path, he knows the entire route we will take, from beginning to end. So, given that our entire lives are pre-determined, why is this supposedly loving God, going to punish me for eternity, with the worst kind of pain, simply for not believing in him? I have no choice. I cannot force myself to believe in something that not only offends my sense of rationale, but also insults my sense of morality. I cannot change my belief, I can only follow my conscience. My conscience will always tell me that the God of all organised religion hinders and holds back the progress of humanity, all in the name of a fairy man in the sky.  It is ludicrous to me. To suggest God expects me to give up my heretical views, and start believing in him, purely because the consequences of non-belief, are horrific; is blackmail. In the same way that someone dedicated to Jesus is unlikely to give up their beliefs, I cannot in good conscience, give up mine But, say i’m wrong, which i’m willing to admit I may be. If i’m wrong, God knew I would think this way, so why is he punishing me?  I am not a bad person, so why punish me? What is it achieving? Why should I believe in a God like that?

Answers please.

Advertisements

10 Responses to A Philosophical Question

  1. co says:

    Try to look back on creation as something symbolically. In a cycle of bigbangs, at the beginning there was to much pressure on one point…something smaller or equal to zero almost, cannot exist..which means whether something exist or doesn’t exist(everything wants to have a form, not wanting to be meanigless)…the voyage of making sense, more and more sense could start. First after the bigbang, there was radiation, then atoms, cells…those cells gained consciousness because the dead cells became radiation again (and plain minnerals etc…)that radiation, a sort of intuition becomes part of living matter again. So,do not use the word ‘god’, it confuses. The guidance in your exemple is a kind of matter that is spiritual as well. The old philosophical difference between matter and spiritual stuff, the old struggle between materialists and ideoligists(creation by a god for exemple) is of no more use to us, because they are one;aldough chronologically spoken the egg was first and then the chicken. greetings. PS not everything and everyone is predestinated…we are more domino’s that live to continue the stories of the past, but in fact past and present are one and the future is our responsibility.

  2. Black Flag says:

    Futile,

    So, here’s my issue.

    Only one??? LoL….

    If we start from the contentious issue that everything that is, was created from nothing, I conclude that whatever created it all from nothing, was ‘outside’ so to speak.

    Why do you hold this (seemingly) -immutable- premise?

    Why is the concept – there was always something so infinitely harder to grasp then its opposite! – that there was nothing and something appeared out of it!

    If I, for example, were to create a tea cup, I cannot be part of that cup, I am the creator of the cup, I am outside of the cup.

    Ah, but starts the fallacy!

    You assume the Creation must follow your limits!

    Why do you make such baseless assumption?

    Similarly, if the creator of everything is outside of what he has created; time, light, space, life etc, then he presumably has it all set out in front of him, like a tapestry.

    Congrats! You have reached the question of one of the greatest minds of all mankind – Hans Godel!

    He theorized that consistent systems MUST HAVE a premise that cannot be proven within that consistent system!.

    That is, there exists a truth that though 100% true, cannot be proven to be true.

    Thus, enlightenment – or the ability to “leap over the lack of complete truth” is the power of intellectual man.

    I must warn you.

    Godel went insane trying to prove his unproveable theory – for it fell into that realm of enlightenment of which he devised.

    As he was overcome trying to hold the mind of God, he starved himself to eventual death – his diet at the end of his life was a single boiled egg a day….

    He is not part of that creation, so is not affected by time, or light, and so cannot succumb to death or decay and aging, like the Matter that he created does. He is beyond that. He can see it from top to bottom, side to side. He can see the past, the present and the future, as if it were one. He preceded existence. He created existence. He is the height of perfection, there is nothing that he cannot do. If he wanted to create a stone that he could not lift, this wouldn’t be a paradox, it would be correct. He wouldn’t be able to lift it, if that were it’s purpose. The moment he decides the purpose is something different, he’d be able to lift it. He is the limit. If he couldn’t see everything, from beginning to end, the past the present and the future; he wouldn’t be perfect. Or the creator. If I created the cup, but can’t actually see the cup, that would be ridiculous.

    Ah but it all hinges on your definition of “God”, doesn’t it?

    If one defines it as the “first cause” but does not define the “fickle finger of fate” to be God, do you not believe in God?

    If another says “God can pervert his own law!” – does not that contradict God’s own law of consistency and invalidity of contradiction?

    So if we hold – at the same time – that God cannot contradict Himself yet must become the unprovable first cause…. does that not satisfy all your position?

  3. BF, your answers certainly helps.
    “Why do you hold this (seemingly) -immutable- premise?

    Why is the concept – there was always something so infinitely harder to grasp then its opposite! – that there was nothing and something appeared out of it!”

    – I don’t. I have no idea what I believe in this instance. I do favour the notion, that there was always something. I was simply playing devil’s advocate. Whilst I favour the notion that there was always something, because I cannot prove it, I want to reason through the alternatives also.

    You’re right also, that in a sense, I perhaps believe in God if I presume that the ‘other’ was the first cause. I don’t necessarily believe it. But I am willing to accept it is just as probable as any of the alternatives, given that we have no way of knowing either way. So again, I played devil’s advocate, and went from the side of the argument that says there was a ‘prime mover’.

  4. Black Flag says:

    CO advocates the core premise of “there must be a plan!

    Oh?

    I ask “Why MUST there be a plan???”

    Next, he attributes the existence of all things to be in alignment with the “Big Bang”.

    First, the “big Bang” is merely a theory and far from being a truth. Thus, caution in attributing philosophy of existence to its existence!

    Next, he believes that if all “things” in the Universe was known, the Universe would be completely predictable.

    However, there is zero evidence of such a claim.

    We know ( a very powerful word) that the Universe runs upon -at a minimum- quantum mechanics. This demonstrates -conclusively- that the Universe is not predicated but is probabilistic.

    That means the future is as amazing and unknown to God as it is to you.

    “God” waits with the same breathless anticipation for the future as you do.

  5. Black Flag says:

    Futile,

    That is why I “stick around” your blog.

    In many ways we are so opposite – in many ways, we are alike.

    But in most ways, You are a thinker and thoughtful.

    You may not hold fundamental truth and law within your knowledge – but whose knowledge is so complete as to claim perfect truth?

    We cannot -ever- prove whether there was always “something” vs. “there was nothing and then something appeared”.

    The Universe that surrounds us prohibits such knowledge for it would pre-date the Universe itself and there exists no means within the Universe to know outside the Universe – for if such a means existed, it would be therefore have to be in the Universe!

    So, correctly, Stephen Hawking does not even try to contemplate such — he says; it is wholly irrational, pointless, moot and unprovable to debate the pre-Universe – it is as equal a claim to say leprechauns created the Universe or a God or…nothing!!

  6. Black Flag says:

    Predicated vs. Probabilistic.

    I often get the “puzzled looks” when I attribute God here.

    Many say “But God KNOWS the future” – hmmm…no…no more than I KNOW what card will fall next in a Poker game.

    Oh YES! I know the probability in improving my hand (or not). But I do not KNOWN what the next card will be.

    If it makes my hand, I do not claim Exactly as I predicted. If it misses my hand, I –equally cannot claim that was inevitable, I could never have made my hand.

    The odds -probability- says “You might make that hand 2 of 3 tries and maybe not, 1 of those three tries…but who knows until that card falls!!

    So what does God know? Probability – but never outcome! This is where all the religious texts of all the world’s religions agree – the Future is unwritten and only within the Probability can Prophecy exist!

  7. Ushiku says:

    Religions all claim to have absolute truth, that their word, their holy scripture, their sacred text is THE ONE and THE ONLY ONE, all else is conjured up by heretics or as a Christian friend said to me “Their ethos and good nature of humanity is fine, but that’s just a slice of the pie, God’s holy Trinity is the whole pie and God’s love is infinite”. I do not agree with my friend on this, but that is his and many Christian’s perspective.

    Furthermore I believe Jamie was referencing the God of organised religion when he referred to pre-determined fate. The view of organised religion is that God, their God, whichever that may be, is the God, the only God – and that he knows all that is, was and shall be – and yet he punishes people for “sin”.

    Yet if we are to use the Genesis creation story analogy he created the tree with “knowledge of good and evil”. The problem there is that he must have known that Eve was going to “sin”, as God’s channel is pre-determined. The other problem there is that if God is absolute love, why would he create evil when that is his opposite?

    If God is an all powerful creator could he not create a paradoxical law whereby evil, hate, rape, murder, child sex abuse, pimping, subjugation, exploitation, Theocracy, autocracy, totalitarianism, immoral capitalism, feudalism, class/caste systems etc were not existing. If a limitless God is love, then why not use his greater knowledge and power to create these things as concepts only so that we may know the opposite of good conceptually/spiritually/philosophically, but not know it in our experience as he as the all powerful creator could create that paradox and bend all laws of reality and conceptual knowledge to create a true heaven on Earth, or Nirvana as Buddhists would call it.

    If we are his children, why not shelter us as you would shelter a child. If we are his sheep, why is he not a good shepherd? Instead he allows us to become lambs to the slaughter to false idols and man-made systems or worse yet be cannibalized by our fellow sheep.

    Now if God were a prime mover, a being of consciousness that is constantly evolving and unknowing of it’s own creation as it is truly one with it’s creation. If we are demi-Gods as new age philosophy and quantum mechanics would suggest, then instead of debating the past and the origins of the Universe would it not make more sense to move forward in a pluralist sense with a humanist approach and live out the Greek word Agape – the beauty, Godlike, immaculate, sacred, intrinsic connection between all things?

    It doesn’t matter who is right and who is wrong spiritually, scientifically or philosophically. What matters is that we as humans decide to use our “free will” (itself a paradox if pre-determined fate of organised religion is considered) to create conditions for the collective betterment of all mankind.

  8. Black Flag says:

    Ushiku,

    The root of your comments can be condensed to this:

    It is quite important to define “God” before you start arguing about it

  9. I can tell, you have never made a tea cup!
    If you had, you would KNOW you ARE the tea cup too.
    That is the problem with “out centred” creators, their tea cups don’t hold the tea.

  10. Creating an Oedipal punching ball to prove the own “humble superiority” is remaining in a paternalistic dual mindframe.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: