His argument can be understood as a practical one. Spinoza grants the Judeo-Christian line that God is infinite perfection (which he calls "substance"). He would also agree that humans are privy to certain attributes of that perfection. More importantly, he considers "good" anything that adds to our understanding of, and thus ability to act in, Naure, and "bad" anything that decreases our power of understanding--"good and bad" replace the orthodox "Good and Evil" in this context. Placing God outside of Nature necessarily limits our ability to understand both God and Nature, and is therefore a confused, or inadequate, idea.
God is the creator. He created everything, including the laws of physics, etc.. What we are is referred to as the creation. We are created. It is distinct and not semantic. I believe at some point you said there probably existed something before the big bang. That something, to me, is God. It is not created. It has always been. This is an important distinction. Take for example the silly question asked thousands of years ago. "If God can do anything, can't he create a rock so big he can't lift?" This causes confusion for a second, despite being very silly. The answer is that matter, gravity, and force are creations. God is not created. We don't know or understand the parameters of his being IMO. The created does not apply to the creator. Also, personally, I reject any attribution of human features to God, except when put in a way to make us comprehend something rather than define Him. Simpler example.. If you made a box with freezing temperature and no gravity, that is the law of the box - no gravity and eternal freezing are constants. That does not mean that there is no gravity or that it is always freezing outside the box. If little beings were put in the box with the required intelligence, they would invent the law of freezing and the law of gravity and define it whereby it is always cold for a reason and there is no gravity for a reason. It is inconceivable that whatever theory they concoct will apply to the world outside the box. These beings must develop some order, some form of knowledge discovery and order. So when they create a theory, let's call it the scientific theory, for just that purpose, it is not smart to assume that this "scientific theory" will be able to prove anything outside the creation (the box in this case). It is a simple yet key concept. I was personally unaware of it until recently and it changed my entire view of Islam and in fact was a key component in my essentially disowning much of the authority and content of the Hadith. To summarize, think of the creation as a tiny box. Everything outside that box is not the creation. Everything non-creation is God. The laws of nature, science, anything we know that's not God, do no apply to God. This is why I'm pro-science. IMO the only thing science can't do is show physical evidence/proof of God. Everything else, me and you are the same. I don't think science is the devil. I do think the Hollow theory is a load of crap.
Your example, if I understand it, implies a completely closed system. You write: "It is inconceivable that whatever theory they concoct will apply to the world outside the box." But if that is the case, on what grounds do people within the box believe that their exists something transcendent outside the box? Christianity and Islam makes very pointed claims about things outside our "box". Why should any of it be believed?
Forgot what the fallacy is called in philosophy/logic but it's where you think there's only 2 outcomes possible and since the one that Mathloom proposes doesn't 'satisfy' you, you reject it. For your question, on what grounds, it is entirely possible that there exists something outside the box. I support this notion after experiments performed on lab rats for a psych class: using electric shocks at specific parts of their brains, we controlled the animals' hunger/sex drive/movements, just like a remote toy car. They were genetically modified to never look up from the maze which we placed them in and to be mostly deaf. The rats could have been having a philosophical conversation about why they were dying so strangely and the nature of existence/God/their closed system or maze-world, and never been aware of the researchers hovering above in a darkened room writing down notes and discussing the Super Bowl in an attempt to understand mental disorders.
You're talking about false dichotomy, but I don't know where I committed this fallacy. Mathloom wrote it is inconceivable that any concocted theory can be applied to the outside world. Isn't that what religion tries to do? The response I was expecting is that with a religion like Christianity or Islam, we have supposedly obtained knowledge about what is outside our box through divine revelation. But if we allow for that, then that means God can and does influence things within the box. And, consequentially, the analogy doesn't work and the legitimacy of science itself seems to me to be undermined.
It could be something like God existing in higher dimensions...where His influence in 3d would look like shadows to a 2 dimensional being. I don't think God of the gaps is the ultimate answer, but there's a lot of room to ponder in between.
Scientifically, it shouldn't be believed. I can speak for myself and not others here. There is something which I comprehend in my head when I read the Quran. There is nothing like it to me. This thing I'm referring to is called faith. I have absolutely no scientific reason to believe in this. Some of the grounds on which I believe something exists outside the box: - Big bang theory is at least vaguely mentioned in the Quraan - The Quraan itself, which I view as a perfect moral code when independent - Completely reject that the Prophet PBUH could have created the Quran The point I was trying to make there is.. You can't prove what's outside the box with something created in the box. This applies (in my case) to science and the Quran (physical book/pages). I won't get into whether the ideology of the Quran is part of creator or created. That debate hasn't been resolved in 1500 years lol.
When you say God can influence things, you're talking about creation. If God enters the box, it's over. This is why, IMO, an angel was sent to deliver the Quranic message. Divine revelation you're referring to is a book. That's definitely creation and completely fallible. THe inspiration was created. The paper was created. The brain and memory was created. All created. Simple rule of thumb: If it has always existed, it is not created. Again though, don't want to enter this territory at all. This is one of the single longest debates in the history of Abrahamic religions, particularly with Islam, and generations of Muslim and non-Muslim scholars haven't been able to resolve it. I doubt that me and you will sort this out right now and I don't believe I have the answer to every question on this topic through a google search. Just a warning.
So by your beliefs, God does not influence events in our world, beyond creation and the revelation of the Koran?
Durvasa, I think Mathloom is basically agreeing with you. He is stating that he has no rational basis for his belief but takes it as a matter of faith. God to him is beyond science and a rational understanding of he/she/it is impossible.
He CAN influence them remotely or through an agent (the angel Gabriel in the case of the Quran). Personally, I'm not sure that He actively does influence anything, since by his nature, He is aware of everything that will happen in the creation forever. A perfect being wouldn't need to tinker with His plan. I'm sure that He knows what will happen one way or another. It is explicitly stated in the Quran that humans were created with free will. He is not present though IMO. He is not IN nature, he is not IN us, etc.. The revelation of the Koran is all creation. It did not exist and now it does. The Poprhet PBUH did not exist and then he did. The book dictating the Quran did not exist and now it does. These are creation. Now, the actual ideology of the Quran... The ideas, the theories, etc. such as mandated charity. I'm not certain of my position on whether they are creation or creator, nor is any other Muslim. You may argue that the theory is created, but if it is perfect (no error whatsoever) and was relayed to Adam PBUH then it may have existed forever and therefore be part of creator rather than created. What you WILL find though is tons of errors in non-Quranic Islamic ideology which gets caught out by this stuff. For example God having human physical features. It's quite obvious that, even if the Prophet PBUH DID actually say these things as Hadith (non-Quran), that the point was to give an idea rather than actually define God. Note: Now we are entering territory where most Muslims probably would not agree with everything I'm saying. I'm constantly taking in, reviewing, cleaning and considering information regarding God and Islam, I do not like the typical Muslim ideology at ALL. I'm highly critical and skeptical of the Hadith. I believe the Prophet PBUH may have made mistakes and that his followers certainly made many mistakes - to an average overly religious Muslim, these are statements of apostasy. In any case, I like to distingiuish my beliefs from theirs while never distancing myself from them. My beliefs develop constantly and I don't anticipate that ever changing - not that it matters to me that I reach an endpoint, since I believe that judgement will becarried out this way: (What you believe at the moment of the action) - (the action) = final score Obviously I've super-simplified that, but you get the idea. If someone truly believes that they have scoured the earth for information regarding covering your face or head and is still convinced that, as a woman, she should not cover her head/face, then I believe God will judge her by her sincerest beliefs. I completely reject that we will all be judged by one single standard as if the Prophet PBUH is going to show up on judgement day and say "Alright, if you have a 4-inch beard, have read the Quran, and have an average mosque attendance above 4.5 per day, stand behind me. If you don't get on your knees and start begging." As a consequence of my core beliefs, I don't think anyone ever leaves Hell for example. However, I think the definition of Muslim is far far far far far far wider than generally thought and that the 'criteria' for going to hell is far far far far far far far far far far more narrow and serious than generally thought. Who knows what I'll believe in a few months.
Perhaps I'm misunderstanding, but if the revelation is creation itself, and if we are part of that creation, how is the Koran or the Prophet PBUH any more special than us? Do you and I, indeed the entire universe, not also count as this revelation?
It's a good question (second one) which I don't know how to answer as it's exactly where I'm at in my reading/research and I've just barely scratched the surface. I don't think your question can be answered anyhow because it would require a better understanding of what's outside the creation than we have. The revelation I was referring to was the ideology of the Quran. I don't know why you think the revelation is all creation. I hope I didn't say that, and I don't think it's true. I don't even know if the revelation is creation. As for the Prophet PBUH, He is essentially like a lottery winner. If there is some special official reason God selected him specifically, I'm not aware of it. The only thing I could guess is that it's for the following reasons: - He couldn't read or write. Poetry and the like was so prominent among Arabs, and he was not known for it at all. This, to me, makes the revelation more miraculous. It is the equivalent of you not being able to dance then one day showing up and schooling all the top dancers around. - He is Arab and: Notice how "kufran" is translated to unbelief or hypocrisy. Kufran is from Kufr, from which Kaafir/infidel comes from. This translation here is being nice to Arabs. Personally, I believe part of the reason the Prophet PBUH was chosen is because the Arabs needed it most and to show them that poetry, tribe-worship and obsession with race/ethnicity is wrong. The Prophet PBUH dispelled all these things. Obviously, historical materials will tell you that Arabs and Arabic are the "chosen ones" - ironic since the truth is exactly the opposite. It is not a prize, it is actually God's way of saying they are so messed up that they need this more than anyone else. So, no, I don't think the Prophet PBUH was special before he received revelation. I guess you can consider him special because he became a Prophet - he saw angels, he received messages, he led one of the largest civilizations in history, etc. But it's all a consequence of being chosen as the Prophet PBUH.
Catching up ... What we’ve just shown here, however, is that there is evidence suggesting the existence of a god or gods. It’s not evidence that proves conclusively that there is a god, but it’s evidence that suggests that there is a god. It’s important to make this distinction clear because we have people here who keep getting tripped up on it. Your concluding statement is a fair sentiment, but without knowing the reasons why people are certain that god exists the bolded part can’t be concluded.
I’m sure that such studies have been done and we could probably dig them up, but if we’re going to go down this road I’ll start a different thread for it, and I think we’ve got two general approaches to choose from. We can go broad and shallow or narrow and deep. In other words, we can look for studies that say x number of people believe god has y impact in their lives, etc., or we can take more of a case study approach and look at a smaller group of individuals and dig down deeper into their experiences and beliefs about god in much more detail. This is a typical decision you have to make before stating a research project, btw, and you can publish papers using both approaches. They come at the question from different angles and they both have their strengths and weaknesses, and the researcher has to make a decision about what kind of information he’s most interested in.
I’m not sure which comment you’re referring to. We’ve gone off on small tangents at various points in this thread but I think the core question has remained the same. And don’t agree with you that almost everyone in this thread would agree that genuinely looking into why such belief structure exists is a good idea. If you look back through the thread, and even just these last few pages, you see people are taking completely irrational positions to try to hold onto their belief that a belief in god is silly, a fantasy, unquestionably wrong, etc., and that it deserves nothing more than ridicule. Not everyone here is like that, I should add, and not all atheists are like that, but if we’re going to have a serious discussion on this topic I think we need to start with very basic questions and weed out the screamers and deniers before we move on to more challenging questions, if people want to take the discussion in that direction.
