Free Will

Ahmad,

"Now this is strange. I have presented you the logical arguments as how I believe as what I believe." I have no argument with what you 'believe', but you have NT presented logical arguments. Instead of refuting those arguments logically, I have been labled as "going round in circles". The proof for God, I admitted, can't be presented and (but?) given a logical explanation of it from the overall perspective of faith that I believe in. If you are saying that you have given an explanation from the perspective of 'faith', fine, but that is not "logic" it is belief only ="faith". On the same note, I did ask you to present the evidence of "no God". If a person tells me that elements exist which are not on the periodic table of elements, I will ask them to prove there existence of this new element that have been discovered. I am under no obligation to present evidence that proves those elements do not exist. Logic,science and rationalism demands that if you want me to believe something you must prove it. Otherwise it is 'faith' and only 'faith', not logic. It is you who do not believe that everything is material (which is fine with me) but because you can not prove it and  I have no evidence of my own, I don't accept your 'non-belief' in the material world.

I know as well, I am yet to hear any argument from you to logically connect with over all concepts of what you believe. I began exactly such an explanation, but you have ignored it. Check my discussion of 'materialism'.Secondly, I have given logical arguments of what I believe as how faith and morality are logically connected with each other. If you have anything to differ or any other view, kindly put forward and we all shall discuss it rationally. Why are you not content with your 'faith' as faith which I assume gives you purpose and comfort. Why do you feel the need to anchor it or place it in the language of objective, materialism.

In the end, I failed to understand as when did I ever say that morality can't be improved. You say it can't be improved by man without an element that you can,t prove the existence of.

"On the contrary, I have been giving you the examples from since the era of homo-Sapiens the development of morality among humans. However, its hard to imagine as what tools do you provide, without the aid of faith,to improve upon the "morality"? EXACTLY!!! Just because it is "hard" for you to "imagine," without the aid of "faith" it is not hard for everyone.

Please look at my previous posts and I will be happy to talk again.

Best wishes Tim

 

Dear Tim thanks for your analysis of my comments though, they are merely refreshing of the same old discussion of "existance/non existance of God". It is fallacy of materialism to assume that science is the end of the story. As I have already argued, science itself is an un-ending process of human intellect, hence incomplete. Do you disagree with this? If not, then it is even a bigger fallacy to live only in a materialistic world with incomplete understanding. Matters of "life" and "death" are the realities of this life, which science is yet to discover about. How long shall it take to do that, no one knows. Would it ever be discovered? No one can say anything about it. For me, as an individual with totally insignificant life span as compared with the creation of this life (by any standards), I am not willing to surrender to the materialistic approach only. If you like, you can read my personal story posted above. I am not here to convince anyone about any thing, but to understand what others say about their similar quests for truth, if they ever dared to venture into it. Peace. 

Dear Ahmed Joya!

Indeed a wonderful post and Logic. It is a truth that there can be no proof or physical evidence offered for the existence of God. It is futuile to argue with the students of Philosphy and reason. The most influential Phliospher of the 20th century Kant logically refuted all the reasons which were previously given for the existance of God. Probably in his work "Critique of Pure Reason".

But after some time in his work "Analysis of Practical Reason" he admitted that without the concept of God human existance is incomplete. He even said that even if there is no God we have to devise a one inorder to keep the concept of morality "Alive".

If such a renound Philospher can come to this conclusion it will require a lot of time and thinking for the ordinary atheist or agnostic to come to this point.

Logic and reason can only lead to skepticism or Agnosticism. That is why it is said in :

2: 2.  This Book, there is no doubt in it, is a guide to those who guard (against evil).
3.  Those who (are ready to) believe in the unseen (which is beyond Human Preception) and keep up prayer and spend out of what We have given them.
4.  And who believe in that which has been revealed to you and that which was revealed before you and they are sure of the hereafter.
5.  These are on a right course from their Lord and these it is that shall be successful.
6.  Surely those who disbelieve, it being alike to them whether you warn them, or do not warn them, will not believe.
7.  Allah has set a seal upon their hearts and upon their hearing and there is a covering over their eyes, and there is a great punishment for them.
18. Deaf, dumb (and) blind, so they will not turn back (from their denial).
Shams Zaman

Bro Shams, thanks for your comments, though I am not worth mentioning at all.

Bro Tim, I think, its negative to get allergic with word "dogma". An open minded person, like you, shall not neglect them without giving them their due share of analysis. Sifting through them rationally and logically. Let me give you an example. Just imagine that in your own search when you say ""a reform of consciousness not through dogmas, but through an analysis of mystic consciousness which is unclear to itself, be it religious or political." ", let us say, you become lucky in finding your own reality, a truth through your own 'mystic consiousness', as you say. Won't you share it with others, for you already said "We will need to grasp this socially/co-operatively"? If yes, then don't you think that for others, it would still be "doctrine"; and, if taken literally may become yet another "dogma" anothe "religion"? Can you ever provide them the "scientific proof" of your mystic experience? Think about it.

Human development has always been through the inspirational work of individuals taken as role models by others. These individuals are the great scientist, may thay be of philosopy (science or ideas), socialology, or the morality. Their ideas are carried by someone to reflect upon his own individual's success. When done collectively, we call it an awaken nation. Nevertheless, the fact remains that the working mechanism always remain the "core principles" of these handfull of scientists. Things become "dogma", and hence here when the problem begin to enter, when the issues of "literalism" come into these principles. When these principles are not valued through rationalistic understanding but through symbolic literalism, then emotions play dominant role than the actual understanding of the principles. More troubling, when other politic-socio-economic influences also start playing their role.   

Edited by AhmadJoyia