May GOD be dispensed with ?

BThree Faiths One God compos

The idea of Supreme-Being suggests a continuum of non local intelligence, permeating space and time. This is however, in contrast with Newtonian view of a perceptive tissues locked inside the skull. The mystical scriptures of religions express the idea of a single underlying reality embodied in a Supreme Being (GOD), the absolute self. We however, delude ourselves with the thought that we know much about the science and materiality and so overestimate material (in the sense of physical/evidentiary/empirical) causation and believe that it alone can affords us a true explanation of life. Materiality, on the other hand, is as inscrutable as non-materiality. As to the ultimate thing we can know nothing, and only when we admit this, do we return to state of sensibility. Nature will reveal anything we are capable enough to handle and clever enough to seek sincerely. From materialistic point of view, the life is supernatural and from life’s point of view, mind’s realm is supernatural. Higher in these invariably permeates and influences the lower as if to perpetrate a miraculous—Divine–intervention. A Divine Order and command over the universe of matter, life and mind. Acknowledging this Order is EXACTLY the faith in UNSEEN.

 

The idea of world as an organism has been called “Gaia Hypothesis”—named after mythical Greek goddess of earth. Mass consciousness effects suggest that there is a mind of Gaia. Individual neurons in a brain would find it hard to believe, that they are participating in a complex dance called “mass consciousness”, which affects the mind of Gaia. Similarly individuals participating, through life activities, in a complex dance affect the mind of God. God affirmed this in Qura’an, “I am what My slaves perceive/imagine Me as”

 

Evidence of Existence of God

There is a small segment of society which not only disbelieves in God but refutes Him too. Some go to the extent of, I guess out of spite, declaring His non existence. In this treatise therefore, a wide range of avenues are explored to reach a tenable proclamation justifying His existence for, an overwhelming majority of human-race, one way or other believes in God.

 

Traditional theosophy presents three well recognized modes/arguments for God’s existence.

 

1) Cosmological   2) Teleological   3) Ontological

 

  • Cosmological-a

Dependent character of the universe argument concludes that a necessary, self subsistent, being must exist. Reason being that everything that moves in the universe needs a mover. Every effect needs a cause—there exists a chain of observable causes at the end of which has to be a–principal–unmoved mover, an uncaused cause, by necessity–In absence whereof this universe would have been reduced to inexplicable and unintelligible.

 

              Cosmological-b

Existence of physical/material universe; logically demands for a being, which is not just possible but “Necessary” to provide a ground and basis for its being—-That necessary being is God. (Contingency Doctrine)

 

First cosmological argument establishes that chronologically God pre-existed the universe as its “efficient Cause” Second argument established that God is Logically-prior reason of which universe is a “consequent” (popular philosophical arguments)

 

Both arguments put together compel us to acknowledge the God’s existence.

                   2) Teleological

Teleological argument or the design argument lays emphasis on Order, Harmony leading to Beauty and then moving onto Meaning and Purpose in creation. This sequential inter-dependent order in the creation demands of a conscious and intelligent being whose thoughts are being actualized with such a fine perfection.

 

Alternatively, if forms are analyzed from graduated or hierarchical scale of excellence, it would also demand a highest form/degree of perfection on the top to permeate to lesser degrees/forms to exist. Since everything is caused by the First cause, it must be par excellence (immaterial & uncaused).

 

 

        3) Ontological

Ontological argument proves the existence of God from the very basis of “perfection”

Since non existence is a sort of imperfection, therefore the “perfect Being—God” must necessarily exist.

 

Few more avenues are explored, which unwaveringly, leading to God’s Existence.

                           

                   

                    4) Law of causality

Universe was created in time. Time therefore, was created before the universe. The law of causality demands that what is created must, by necessity, have its Cause/Creator.

In Islamic parlance creation of time is crucial. It bifurcate the process in different categories. TAKWEEN (before the creation of time) –All the rules, physical, metaphysical were set and documented in Sacred Preserved Tablet (with God). This mode of Creation is sparingly used.  CREATION (after the creation of time)—this mode is continuous.

 

  •             5) Principle of Determination

Prior to the existence of the universe it was equally possible that it started existing (in the mind of its Creator-as “thought”) as Non-Entity. God being it’s determining principle—with respect to when to actualize it into form and with what governing rules.

 

  •                6) Priori Knowledge of God

I would consider belief in God as priori, and non empirical idea. Because I think experience here refers to the idea of measurement, and so the capacity of meditation as posteriori source, dependents on the idea that consciousness acts as a receptacle for information that cannot be taken in with any form through the senses—which is a priori claim. Therefore necessarily the proposition of God coming from mind must be founded on priori and non empirical statement. (Some may argue, this is true of all knowledge. maybe. But the case is more direct here).

  •                   7) Posteriori knowledge of God

Existence of God, I have had one of those experiences, which could also be classified as “God feelings” instead of knowledge of existence of God. (Depending on how the knowledge of “God” is defined) In any case, I think the term “Belief” is more appropriate here than the “knowledge” if we accept this, then this is a straightforward example of a posteriori belief. The belief has been predicated upon the experience. We can keep the term knowledge if we simplify the initial claim to be knowledge of profound and ineffable spiritual feelings rather than knowledge of the existence of God. The latter is a little dodgy, but no one will deny that the former constitute truly valid knowledge, albeit of the subjective kind. So here too we have a posteriori, in this case posteriori knowledge of spiritual experience. No one knows what the spiritual experience truly is until,–one experiences it—a clear cut example of a posteriori knowledge.

 

 

  •                             8) Public (reasoning) Justification for knowledge of God

Existence of God could also be demonstrated through public (reasoning for cognition of the knowledge of God). The justification will be presented on the lines of established “CONSENT   THEORIES” of Hobbes, Locke and Rousseau; who developed “Consent theories of legitimacy”, but these three theorists seemed to oscillate between an empirical standard of consent and something deeper, a normative standard of consent. On the empirical account, we have public justification for (God feelings) knowledge of God which an individual experiences and actually believes, desires, and values as tangible effectuation (transitioning from psychological/emotional to physical comfort on a consistent basis) cementing further his conviction for the knowledge (existence) of God. On the normative account, we have public justification for (God feelings) knowledge of God Which an individual experiences and ideally believes, desires, and values as tangible effectuation (transitioning from psychological/emotional to physical comfort on consistent basis) Cementing further his conviction for the Knowledge (existence) of God. In the latter case, they sometimes speak of hypothetical consent (For familial or community reasons) One reason these theorists may have had for transitioning from actual to hypothetical consent is that they hoped to identify a rational justification of a “religious order” consequent upon “knowledge of existence of God” which, in the absence of an absolute and all encompassing acceptance by any given community, is hoped to enjoy widespread support within the relevant community — imagining public possessing superior information and cognitive abilities (delineated above) despite their diverse interests and reasons, still have conviction to comply with revealed knowledge of God even if this adherence did not permit them to act as they would like to.

 

(Note: The mechanism of “CONSENT THEORY” developed by the named scholars has been adapted and applied to religious institution–consequent upon Knowledge of God—instead-Author).

 

 

  •                                    9) Empirical evidence

Evidence——Everything is evidence which the historian can use as evidence. But what can he so use? It must be something here and now perceptible  empirical connotation that ‘reason to believe’ lacks: it sounds more natural, at least to some ears, to describe a priori philosophical considerations as reasons to believe some philosophical thesis.

               

Charles Sanders Peirce—Mixed empiricism and rationalism.

 

Whatever we find in the intellect is also incipiently present in sense.

Charles Peirce (1839–1914) was highly influential in laying the groundwork for today’s empirical scientific method Although Peirce severely criticized many elements of Descartes’ peculiar brand of rationalism, he did not reject rationalism outright. Indeed, he concurred with the main ideas of rationalism, most importantly the idea that rational concepts can be meaningful and the idea that rational concepts necessarily go beyond the data given by empirical observation. In later years he even emphasized the concept-driven side of the then ongoing debate between strict empiricism and strict rationalism, in part to counterbalance the excesses to which some of his cohorts had taken pragmatism under the “data-driven” strict-empiricist view.

 

As a result of greater familiarity with scientific and empirical deduction, the human mind tends naturally to shy away somewhat from purely intellectual deduction, particularly if the matter under investigation is non-material and insensible

 

Since the specialists in the empirical sciences devote all their mental energy to the sensory sciences, they are alien to matters that lie beyond sense perception. One of the most destructive and misleading factors in thoughts concerning God is to restrict one’s thought to the logic of the empirical sciences and to fail to recognize the limits and boundaries of that logic. This alienation, this distance from non-sensory matters, this extraordinary trust in the data yielded by the empirical sciences, reaches such a point that testing and experimentation forms the whole mental structure and world view of such specialists. They regard experimentation as the only acceptable tool and means of cognition, as the sole criterion. They expect it to solve every problem.

The function of the sciences is to explain the relationships between phenomena; their aim is to establish the connection between events, not between God and events. In the experimental sciences, man is not at all concerned with God. One should not expect to be able to perceive supra-sensory realities by means of sensory criteria, or to see God in a laboratory. The sciences cannot carry out a laboratory experiment on the existence of God and then reach the verdict that if a thing is not physically observable and it cannot be established by means of laboratory experiment and mathematical calculation, it does not exist.

 

                      10) Denying God, Denying Reality

Does God exist? This is the question being constantly raised by Atheist. The question is often put forward in different guises but the premise is always the same; does God exist and what evidence (PROOF) is there to support this belief? In fact, I would argue that we don’t need any evidence of His existence. So the question itself needs debating.  It shouldn’t actually be “does God exist?”, but rather “what reasons do you have to reject His existence?”

God is an axiomatic belief. In other words, God’s existence is self-evidently true. In the language of philosophy it is also known as “Basic-Belief”. The idea of self-evident truths is accepted by all. Take science for example: science takes the world’s reality as a self-evident truth; it believes that the world is real. In other words, the physical world is separate and external from our minds and our thoughts.

An Innate Belief: Properly basic beliefs, axiomatic beliefs, and self-evident truths, do not require information transfer.  For me to understand what a spaghetti monster is, I require information to be transferred to me. For example, I require knowledge of western cuisine and Italian culture. But when it comes to the idea of God’s existence as the creator of the universe, you do not require any information transfer, whether from culture, or education. This is why sociologists and anthropologists argue that even if atheist children were stranded on a desert island, they would come to believe that something created the desert island. Self-evident truths do not have to be universal: Self-evident truths, basic beliefs or axioms can be individualized and do not have to have universal appeal.

 

 

  •                                          11) Principle of Oneness

There are two kinds of Oneness we are conversant with (a) Number one and also (b) reference to characteristic of Simplicity.  In the first case it applies to the worldly objects as well as to God, whereas in the later it applies ONLY to God; since any singularity (oneness) referred to, other than that of God, would be composite until reduced to an absolute singular.  It could, therefore, logically be argued that that “ONENESS” is inevitable for the creation of the universe. Hence that inevitably indivisible ONENESS is GOD.

 

There are numerous Muslims scholars who have expounded on the subject. Few most prominent ones are; Al kindi, Ibn Tufail, Ibn Sina, Abu Rushd, and Farabi..

 

Abu Rushd was an eminent Spanish Muslim scholar known in the West as (Averroes) mostly for his Islamic-legal work, He also tried to establish the belief in the existence of God and His attributes, through Qura’anic approach, by presenting various point of views within Islam. Few are presented here in brief.

 

Asha’rites.

Thought God is known through reason. Abu Rushd agreed but did not agree with their dialectical approach rather than philosophical. Asha’rites based this on several presuppositions. —world is temporal, bodies are composite of atoms, God neither eternal nor temporal and so on.

 

 

According to Abu Rushd

Qura’an recommends two rational philosophical ways to God.

 

Teleologicalthrough proof of providence everything in the universe has been created for the benefit and service to human being. Therefore the way universe has been organized and planned necessitates that there be a willful planner/designer of this universe, with a purpose of service to human being. That designer/planner is God.

 

CosmologicalThrough proof of Creation If something comes to life out of nothing or something lifeless is endowed with life suddenly that would necessitate a Creator i.e God.

 

Sufi, on the other hand, hold that mystical experience is the only method through which God can be recognized. This experience however, needs an extensive exercise in self discipline for its eventualization. It also draws heavily on the grace of almighty God. Thus it becomes the prerogatives of the selected few. Qura’an being the book of guidance for all would not therefore, recommend Sufi way for the understanding of divine existence in general.

 

 

The belief in God is universal: In spite of the number of atheists in the world, the belief in God is universal. A universal belief does not mean every single person on the planet must believe in it. A cross cultural consensus is enough evidence to substantiate the claim that God’s existence is a universal claim. Evidently there are more theists than atheists in the world, and this has always been the case from the beginning of recorded history and most likely will always be.

 

Atheistic fallacy proven by Godel’s incompleteness theorem

In 1931, the young mathematician Kurt Gödel made a landmark discovery, as powerful as anything Albert Einstein developed. Gödel’s discovery not only applied to mathematics but literally to everything, to all branches of science, logic, math, language, philosophy and human knowledge. It has truly earth-shattering implications. And: If the universe is mathematical and logical, Incompleteness also applies to the universe.

OK, so what does this really mean? Why is this super-important, and not just an interesting geek factoid?

  • Faith and Reason are not enemies.In fact, the exact opposite is true. One is absolutely necessary for the other to exist. All reasoning ultimately traces back to faith in something that you cannot prove.
  • All closed systems depend on something outside the system.
  • You can always draw a bigger circle but there will still be something outside the circle.
  • It cannot be PROVED that gravity will always be consistent at all times. It can only be observed that it’s consistently true every time. It cannot be proved that the universe is rational. It can only be observed that mathematical formulas like E=MC^2 do seem to perfectly describe what the universe does. It also can’t be proved that the sun will come up tomorrow morning either. It literally has to be taken on faith. In fact most people don’t know that outside the science circle is a philosophy circle. Science is based on philosophical assumptions that could not be scientifically proven. Actually, the scientific method cannot prove, but only infer. (Science originally came from the idea that God made an orderly universe which obeys fixed, discoverable laws.)
  • Now please consider what happens when we draw the biggest circle possibly can – around the whole universe.(If there are multiple universes, we’re drawing a circle around all of them too) There has to be something outside that circle. Something which we have to assume but can not prove) will give you the right answer every time.)
  • The universe(all matter, energy, space and time) cannot explain itself
  • Whatever is outside the biggest circle is boundless. By definition it is not possible to draw a circle around it. If we draw a circle around all matter, energy, space and time and apply Gödel’s theorem, then we know what is outside that circle is not matter, is not energy, is not space and is not time. It’s immaterial.
  • Whatever is outside the biggest circle is not a system – i.e. is not an assemblage of parts. Otherwise we could draw a circle around them. The thing outside the biggest circle is indivisible.
  • Whatever is outside the biggest circle is an uncaused cause,because you can always draw a circle around an effect.
  • In the history of the universe we also see the introduction of information,some 3.5 billion years ago. It came in the form of the Genetic code, which is symbolic and immaterial
  • The information appears to have come from the outside, since information is not known to be an inherent property of matter, energy, space or time
  • All codes we know the origin of are designedby conscious beings.
  • Therefore whatever is outside the largest circle is a conscious being.
  • In breaking the deadlock between Darwin and Design and exploring the question of origin of information in depth, we add the information to the equation, we therefore conclude that not only is the thing outside the biggest circle infinite, immaterial but also conscious.
  • Isn’t it interesting how all these things sound suspiciously similar to how theologians have described God for thousands of years?
  • So it’s hardly surprising that 80-90% of the people in the world believe in some concept of God. Yes, it’s intuitive to most folks. But Gödel’s theorem indicates it’s also supremely logical. In fact it’s the only position one can take and stay in the realm of reason and logic.
  • The person who proudly proclaims, “You’re a man of faith, but I’m a man of science” doesn’t understand the roots of science or the nature of knowledge!
  • That high school geometry book is built on Euclid’s five postulates. Everyone knows the postulates are true, but in 2500 years nobody’s figured out a way to prove them.
  • Euclid’s 5 postulates aren’t formally provable and God is not formally provable either. But… just as you cannot build a coherent system of geometry without Euclid’s 5 postulates, neither can you build a coherent description of the universe without a First Cause and a Source of order.
  • Thus faith and science are not enemies, but allies. It’s been true for hundreds of years, but in 1931 this skinny young Austrian mathematician named Kurt Gödel proved
  • Godels two theorem acknowledges another concept of “Dualism” in the Creation. It is confirmed in Qura’an that everything has been created in pairs Even Muslim Article of faith starts by confirming this concept—“There is God but no god” Likewise matter and anti matter, However since matter is fractionally more than the anti-matter, therefore pervades.(adapted by the author as addendum to Godel’s theorem).
  • No time in the history of mankind has faith in “God” been more reasonable, more logical, or more thoroughly supported by science and mathematics.
  • Assumption to the contrary?

The mainstream secularization thesis states that as societies become more modernized, the authority and influence of religious beliefs and institutions will eventually disappear from public life and will only be relevant to individuals on a private level, if at all. As William Swatos, Jr and Kevin Christiano (2) argue.* (adapted as addendum to the Godel’s theore by the author)

Conclusion

Faith in the “unseen” is man’s conviction that there is an order of existence beyond the visible order which we confront here and now, a metaphysical, supernatural order that is seriously to be reckoned with.

Qura’an recognizes iman bil ghaib (Faith in the Unseen) as the source and ground of man’s conviction in the Ultimate Existence. In order to achieve the awareness of metaphysical realities Faith in the Unseen must preside over all recognized sources of knowledge although they are relevant in their own ways and capacities.

Mystics, as a consequence of their efforts towards the purification of soul and concentration on the Might and Majesty of God achieve an “I- Thou” encounter with Him. This is living assurance of His existence leaving absolutely no room for doubt or misgiving. This “I-Thou” experience becomes objectivized  “I” subsumes “Thou” and “Thou”— Yazid Bastami (famous mystic)  declares— “I am the Reality”  Since God sys  “I become his (the seeker’s) hearing, his seeing, his hands, his feet—so much so whatever he does, does through me. ( Hadith Qudsi)

Advertisements

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

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: