âI think the reason why we can't reason to Gods existence is because He is a perfect being, whereas humans are inherently imperfect. You can't reason to a perfect conclusion with imperfect logic.â Eek. On what terms do you propose people discuss the existence or otherwise of God, Jersey, if we disallow the options of reason and logic? Such an assertion may feel like sophistry to some, an attempt to shield the notion of God from enquiring minds with the catch-all defence of âyouâre not good enough to understand what Iâm talking about, me old mucker, and nor, to be fair, am Iâ. Now this may be true on both counts, of course, but it may also look and feel suspiciously like the kind of thing the religious â as opposed to those people who merely have faith - have deployed against honest questioners throughout the ages as a means of shutting down the discussion and cowing people towards a submission. (You may very loosely compare this, I suppose, with the way the Catholic Church resisted the translation of the Bible from Latin towards those languages people may more readily have understood. The demystification of the words therein was always going to cause a problem, allowing people to freely assess them for themselves and diminishing the erroneously held view that these matters were simply too recondite for the masses; as if these self-appointed keepers of the flame â almost always men, often crudely educated - were the only ones capable of discernment. But anyway. Personally, and Iâm not a Catholic and have no recognisably religious bone in my body, I prefer to hear Mass, for example, in Latin. Love that stuff. Go figure.) Yes, but if I were to use such an argument myself, Iâd feel like Iâd given up on thinking - and no, Iâm not saying this is what youâre doing. I merely try to imagine the circumstances under which I might use such a defence â and canât. I take your point about Anselmâs ontological argument being seen as more of a prayer than as a proof of Godâs existence and happily recognise that a good many deep and noble thinkers have taken it as such. They may be right, who knows? As prayers go, however â and it was certainly originally addressed not to humans but to God himself in the form of prayer - it is marked by a certain narky contempt for the âfoolsâ who fail to believe its message, no? (And we may also wonder, I suppose, why any entity capable of listening to a prayer would need convincing of his own existence, but thatâs by the by.) The trouble with the religious attempting to use logic is that they may fairly expect it to come flying straight back at them. Itâs simply no use, then, under these circumstances, to cry foul and say that logic and reason may not be used in an attempt to define (or prove the existence of) the Almighty. Anselm appears to have tried his hand at logic (wrapped in the form of a prayer) â although some may hesitate to label his thinking âlogicalâ, as such â and to many it may appear that he came unstuck, thanks to the forensic work of those who came after. Iâm minded not to care either way, really, as the man has no particular relevance to my life and all of this feels like a distraction. On a side note: As a non-believer in any (religious) god, I would be both unfazed and delighted to have his existence proved, thrilled by the new discovery. Being hideously wrong holds precisely no fears for me, my life would continue unaltered. If the non-existence of God could be categorically proved to the satisfaction of the religiously-minded, however, I wonder if the same might be said of them? Their (seeming) inability to even begin to countenance the fact that they may be wrong is the thing that always seems to ultimately repel me. I just couldnât bear having my mind so firmly shut to the multitude of sublime alternatives.
War, kill, murder, death, rape, mutilate, behead, Ji Had. Vital to the existence of Islam. Without them, there is no Islam.
yes they are it is clearly explained about the purpose of creation, the notion of sin, the concept of free will, judgement day, repentence, etc etc It will help do away with semantics etc My belief came from reading them and it answered them for me
Its not clearly explained at all. If it was there would be no discussion here. Its explained in a terrible confusing and almost riddle like sense like all religious texts.
not ignoring, too many points being made/questions asked and i must have missed a few bit of a problem on this board tbh
After 12 months on the council waiting list Satan has now got himself a lovely 1 bedroomed flat at just £57.38 a week. juicy.
