It appears deism is constantly misapprehended. And the deist is a lonely traveller. From a side, he is derided by religionists as a joker willing to countenance the existence of a supreme being but lacking the mettle to go the whole hog of abiding with the concomitant responsibilities, a wimp terrified of the strictures of a creed.

From the atheist camp, she is distrusted, sometimes denounced, as a deluded equivocator who embraces an amorphous god, a confused adventurer championing an idea that is puerile, strange and inchoate.

The above views are misguided. Deism is neither escapist nor equivocating. And people who crave the delicious irresponsibility of the “free” lifestyle cut across creeds. Short definition: Deism is the rational belief in God. Longer: There is sufficient ground for me to conclude that an intelligent First Cause exists, but there is no basis to conclude that he dispenses favours, answers prayers, helps the Super Eagles to win matches, or is personally interested in MyJoe. Think of a watchmaker and the watch. Think of a computer programmer who writes a programme, takes a look and sees the zeros and ones working perfectly, and steps back.

The more you pay attention, the more it appears atheism is a repudiation of the designer God merchandised by contemporary popular Christianity or the choleric warlord sponsored by the other Abrahamic creeds. A god who creates men with different abilities and opportunities but will judge them with the same standards written in a holy book and incarcerate the unfortunate in a hot house, a god who will set up a bad guy in a heavenly mansion as recompense for professing an article of faith but set alight a good man for disbelieving what he could not comprehend, a god who had a kid and made sacrifice of him for sins committed not by him but by others, a god who underwrote genocides.

That force created the universe and everything in it. And It then abandoned it? No. It did something logical – put perfect laws in place to govern it. You know the laws described in physics and the perfection with which they work. The spiritual realm is equally governed by laws. Those laws are encapsulated in a system called Karma. The problem with the materialist is that he believes that anything he can’t see or feel can’t exist. Now, you cannot see a virus but under a microscope. That is, you need to posses a microscope to see bacteria. What the materialist fails to realise is that the reason he cannot see beyond time and space is because his eyes and brain are bound by time and space, which does not mean that there is nothing beyond. We all know eternity exists because time exists from eternity to eternity. Yet what human brain can comprehend eternity? Or space which stretches from endlessness to endlessness. But nothing I can say here can convince you, as I am not better equipped than you are.

So, atheists and others, I invite you to put dogma aside for a moment. Eschew faith and suppress emotion – they can lead you astray – and believe only that which makes sense to you. (Proof: noetic and Abuzola both believe the other is going to Hell. Both are men of faith. Yet both can’t be right. Therefore faith alone is not enough.) Forget about the word “God”. Now carry out a study on your own on the spiritual nature of man, with particular reference to reincarnation. I am probably the least-read person around here so I cannot spoon-feed you but will let you deploy your cerebral processes to excavate things yourself. All I can say is that in it you will probably find explanations for ALL that ever puzzled you about This Life. Tip on how to go about this? You may read, then observe and possibly conduct interviews in order to learn from the observations of others. Most importantly, bear in mind that (1) Believe only what makes sense. (2) A wise man changes his mind, whereas a fool knows everything.

Is all this important? The atheist posses no threat to society and you do not need to acknowledge the existence of God to live a fulfilled life or be considered “good”. Seeking spiritual enlightenment will not take away the vicissitudes of life. But there are advantages accruable from recognising God and seeking the spiritual. Religion, too, is not bad in principle since it has the capacity to bequeath some good but unfortunately the reverse is more manifest. God mad man, then man made religion. But religion can do some good.

The true nature, colour or essence of this God is unfathomable and unapproachable. But he exists all the same. Not the workshoped God of the popular religions, but God all the same. How do I know? I can say I feel it inside me – but you don’t, so that is not a useful response. There are several reasons, but I will give just one. The atheist says the universe does not have to have a creator. Given a serious thought, that argument is reasonable. But the complexity, and more importantly, harmony, in nature speak of an intelligent mind. A piece of glass can come out of nothing, but not an electric bulb – that needs putting together. Oh, you have heard that one before. Ok, we know that man came here last of all, that is, after oceans, plants, animals, etc. Yet, you find that the earth was clearly designed with man in mind. There is food for the animals and all else that creatures need to survive. But there is more – beauty. From Cashmere to Niagara, from Obudu to Jerusalem, it appears only an intelligent being would have added such beauty in place as it serves no purpose other than to make man happy. Besides these, do I have any evidence that God exists? Have I ever heard his voice? No. No one has. If God was something I could tell you to come here and see the evidence, he would hardly qualify to be God, would he? Anyway, there is no evidence that there is no God, either. And the non-existence of God seems more far-fetched than his existence.

But why would he create us and not care? He cares. So why not intervene? Why should he? He has perfect laws in place to govern the cosmos and his interference is not necessary. The circles of incarnations of man and the refinement, reward and readjustment attached are completely inflexible and hence inescapable. You can pray from here till tomorrow, but it changes nothing, except, sometimes, the person praying. Those who pray and those who don’t have the same life experiences. On that basis, religion is superfluous. I guess it would be superfluous to talk about mere superfluity, but then religion often promotes intolerance, tyranny, and superstition, hence the disquiet it provokes. And yes, those who do good and those who don’t also have equal share of the good things of life. But that is because we can only see the here and now. You can know better.

I am not here to defend my beliefs – they are private and not gospels, and I am by no means an absolutist! – but to explain the deist perspective and defend its reasonableness. Religionists and Deep Sight’s MOGANALA (atheists) are welcome to ask questions on deism.

By the way, deism is not a creed, so different deists have different perspectives. So let’s hear from other deists like Deep Sight and naijababe on their perspectives on God, the cosmos and existence.
It will similarly be good hear from M Nwankwo as well as everyone on this. His views are always illuminating.

This is really brilliant MyJoe. I will really love to share some perspectives. Nevertheless i must confess that i am steadily becoming disillusioned regarding the idea that people can really change their perspectives. Only very few are able to step outside of themselves and behold the man or the dogma in the mirror. I find that even the best and brightest will defend the most irrational and inane dogma till death: whereas it really requires child-like simplicity to see the obvious.

On a side note, may i observe that not all are really interested in knowing the truth or put better: in seeking the truth.

There has got to be within a man that resident hunger to know what the truth really is, and without that; every discourse is worthless.

I will be back.

That force created the universe and everything in it. And It then abandoned it? No. It did something logical – put perfect laws in place to govern it. You know the laws described in physics and the perfection with which they work.

i have a few questions, How did this "force" become God? Are these laws really perfect? who says the laws of conservation of energy can't be violated in a dark hole?

the more it appears atheism is a repudiation of the designer God merchandised by contemporary popular Christianity or the choleric warlord sponsored by the other Abrahamic creeds.

there are atheists from Hindu, Sikh and buddhist households. The last time i checked, those weren't Abraham creeds. Atheists come from different backgrounds.

Those laws are encapsulated in a system called Karma

how does one know Karma exists, is it observable? karma is an hindu philosophy, so are you hindu or deist (do deists borrow from Hinduism now?)

But nothing I can say here can convince you, as I am not better equipped than you are.

that's true.

The true nature, colour or essence of this God is unfathomable and unapproachable. But he exists all the same.

if the nature of God is unfathomable, how do you know its a "he". We don't know it's True nature right?

why is there is only creator God? can't there be more?

Besides these, do I have any evidence that God exists? Have I ever heard his voice? No. No one has.

so you are making the assumption that the earth is proof God exists? The concept of intelligent design has being discarded by the way.

its safe to say deism isn't free of assumptions that are made in atheism or theism. Deism is an attempt to reason a God in which you have admitted is unfathomable and unapproachable. Seems like a futile attempt to even think about such God. Deism also seems trapped by the concept of monotheism found in Abrahamic creeds. Why aren't there polytheist philosophies among Deists?

bawomolo:

Why aren't there polytheist philosophies among Deists?

There are - several of them. However, one ready example is what is commonly (and collectively) called Polydeism.

[list]Polydeism (from Greek πολύς ( 'poly' ), meaning 'many', and Latin deus meaning God) is a polytheistic form of Deism encompassing the belief that the universe was the collective creation of multiple Gods, each of whom created a piece of the universe and then ceased to interact with the universe. This concept addresses an apparent contradiction in Deism - that a monotheistic God created the universe, but now expresses no apparent interest in it - by supposing that if the universe is the construct of many gods, none of them would have an interest in the universe as a whole.[/list]
[list]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polydeism[/list]

@ MyJoe
Very good write-up kudos to you.
@ Bawolomo
Let me attempt to answer some of your questions to the best of my abilitiy

How did this "force" become God? Are these laws really perfect? who says the laws of conservation

It seems to me that the problem here for you is the word "God" , the point is something cannot come out of nothing. If you prefer call it something else.

there are atheists from Hindu, Sikh and buddhist households. The last time i checked, those weren't Abraham creeds. Atheists come from different backgrounds.

I agree

how does one know Karma exists, is it observable? karma is an hindu philosophy, so are you hindu or deist (do deists borrow from Hinduism now?)

Karma is being used here loosely, I believe Joe is talking about what you can refer to as reward not in the afterlife but in this life for one's actions

if the nature of God is unfathomable, how do you know its a "he". We don't know it's True nature right?

why is there is only creator God? can't there be more?

He/she, doesn't really matter. Refer to God as it if that pleases you.

viaro:

There are - several of them. However, one ready example is what is commonly (and collectively) called Polydeism.

[list]Polydeism (from Greek πολύς ( 'poly' ), meaning 'many', and Latin deus meaning God) is a polytheistic form of Deism encompassing the belief that the universe was the collective creation of multiple Gods, each of whom created a piece of the universe and then ceased to interact with the universe. This concept addresses an apparent contradiction in Deism - that a monotheistic God created the universe, but now expresses no apparent interest in it - by supposing that if the universe is the construct of many gods, none of them would have an interest in the universe as a whole.[/list]
[list]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polydeism[/list]

thanks a lot viaro.  Good to see some variety in deism. 

naijababe:


@ Bawolomo
Let me attempt to answer some of your questions to the best of my abilitiyIt seems to me that the problem here for you is the word "God" , the point is something cannot come out of nothing. If you prefer call it something else.

well can't it be argued something has always existed? that matter didn't need to be created.

you should read up on this.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtual_particle
i'm obviously no physicists but who says something can't come out of nothing.   Of course it can be argued a supernatural force is responsible for the actions of this particles.

I agreeKarma is being used here loosely, I believe Joe is talking about what you can refer to as reward not in the afterlife but in this life for one's actions

Oh that's interesting, what's the deist concept of the afterlife. Maybe deepsight can drop in on this

He/she, doesn't  really matter. Refer to God as it if that pleases you.

I agree. A God this "strong" shouldn't be limited based on gender.

@bawomolo,

bawomolo:

thanks a lot viaro.  Good to see some variety in deism.

No worries.

well can't it be argued something has always existed? that matter didn't need to be created.

Could you demonstrate those in the highlight?

you should read up on this.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtual_particle
i'm obviously no physicists but who says something can't come out of nothing.   Of course it can be argued a supernatural force is responsible for the actions of this particles.

I don't know how the virtual particle demonstrates that something came out of nothing on its own. Care to elucidate?

Oh that's interesting, what's the deist concept of the afterlife.

The answer you will get for is my personal opinion and may differ from one deist to another.
I don't believe very much in the concept of the afterlife as peddled by organized religion. As far as I am concerned, I am here now and I live for this life.

Could you demonstrate those in the highlight?

I can't demonstrate it, only if we go back in time.

I don't know how the virtual particle demonstrates that something came out of nothing on its own. Care to elucidate?

Virtual particles pop in and out of existence while violating E = mc^2 (temporarily).  They even appear in a vacuum that are supposedly empty and inert.  Who is to say matter wasn't created in such a manner?  Maybe they universe came out nothingness (that would make a good sci-fi movie).

naijababe:

The answer you will get for is my personal opinion and may differ from one deist to another.
I don't believe very much in the concept of the afterlife as peddled by organized religion. As far as I am concerned, I am here now and I live for this life.

me either. we can only guess whats out there.  We are probably just gonna be dust and future construction material or manure 

bawomolo:

I can't demonstrate it, only if we go back in time.

Okay, fair enough. Nor could I.

Virtual particles pop in and out of existence while violating E = mc^2 (temporarily).  They even appear in vacuum that supposedly empty and inert.  Who is to say matter wasn't created in such a manner?  Maybe they universe came out nothingness (that would make a good sci-fi movie).

Lol, bawo. . . this is sci-fi you're conjecturing. Someday, I would like to seriously take up that idea of "popping in an out of existence" with anyone who has some muscle to go the distance in such a discussion. For now, I'll just retire to my work - see ya tomorrow.

viaro:

Okay, fair enough. No could I.

Lol, bawo. . . this is sci-fi you're conjecturing. Someday, I would like to seriously take up that idea of "popping in an out of existence" with anyone who has some muscle to go the distance in such a discussion. For now, I'll just retire to my work - see ya tomorrow.

KAG discusses it well. It sure is an interesting possibility.

I would like to hear from other deist, where is deepsight. i have question for my joe - what moved you towards deism.

bawomolo:

KAG discusses it well. It sure is an interesting possibility.

Good - I look forward to such an 'interesting' possibility.

@ op, How does logical thought lead to the conclusion that karma exists. I'll love to understand that thought process.

bawomolo:


well can't it be argued something has always existed? that matter didn't need to be created.

Well if i may briefly. To understand this, i think we should return to the philosophical question of necessary things and contingent things. Basically necessary things are things which self-exist - things which could not NOT exist. Contingent things basically are not inherently self existent: or put better - require a cause to exist.

For a simple example, let me cite these: Time is a necessary thing. Time is something that cannot NOT exist. Time is. Now without getting into the dynamics of whether or not space and time were created at the moment of the "big bang" let me just say this - i refer here to infinite time, and not finite time.

Infinite time is basically eternity. Eternity is not something that needs to be created. It quite simply is - a constancy of continuous infinity of time. It is thus a necessary and not contingent thing, and is self-existent, and needn’t be created. It is intangible, and can be referred to as a flat state of reality.

Now let’s look at another example. Let’s look, for instance (just to give a wild-example) at my Sony Bravia Flat Screen Tv. This is by no means a necessary or self-existent thing: It is a contingent thing, and even if you came upon it in the furthest reaches of the universe, you would conclude that it required a cause to exist.

Now although I know there are hairs to be split on this: let me say that the principal thing to note is that necessary things are by nature intangible, whereas contingent things are tangible. Think of every conceivable self-existent thing: eternity is self existent: and per force intangible. Numbers are also self-existent – and per force intangible.

If you think about it, you may see that anything that is self-existent, cannot also be tangible or material. One pointer to this fact is that self-existent things, being necessary and uncreated, are not capable of change. Matter, on the other hand, changes constantly and this betrays the fact that it is not a necessary or self-existent thing and accordingly: required a cause, or causative/ creative agent.

I honestly hope that this has given some perspective as to why I do not, and will never regard material things or matter, as being self-existent.

This may also be useful in understanding God as simply the compound of all self-existent laws or realities.

Oh that's interesting, what's the deist concept of the afterlife. Maybe deepsight can drop in on this

Let me drop a brief thought only on this.

When you see that you were not always in this world, and that at a point in time, you will exit this world, then it must perforce occur to you that you are coming from somewhere and passing through a transitory world, and going somewhere. Namely that you are in transition, or passing through. But let us not dwell on this: let us face the core discussion.

Personally, I think deism is just a transitional stage for former atheist to find the true God.

Krayola:

@ op, How does logical thought lead to the conclusion that karma exists. I'll love to understand that thought process.  

Gravity is simply the physical form of the law of Karma, and vice versa.

Gravity is magnetism towards a core, on account of mass. Thus anything projected away from the core, such as a person jumping upwards towards the sky on earth, will fall back towards the core - the earth. That's gravity.

In similar terms each being is like a small magnet and in accordance with the law of gravity, anything projected out from it, will fall back on it. This simply is the law of Karma. Whatsoever a man soweth, the same shall he reap.

Let us also note another interesting part to this. A cosmic body with great mass and great gravitational pull can attract things into its orbit that were not previously there. Thus people can attract things to themselves that were not previously there: simply on account of their inner magnetic state! At all events however - it is their own pull, that attracts those things to them.

naijababe:

@ MyJoe
Very good write-up kudos to you.
@ Bawolomo
Let me attempt to answer some of your questions to the best of my abilitiyIt seems to me that the problem here for you is the word "God" , the point is something cannot come out of nothing. If you prefer call it something else.

This is a deadly argument to make to an atheist when you are trying to prove the existence of God to him, If you say some thing can not come out nothing, you compound your task , because you have to point out how God himself came into existence, it means God also came out of something which will automatically disqualify him from being a God, ( the uncaused cause that caused everything to come into existence). the truth is that God can never be proven with mere rational argument and logic. he is supernatural and consequently beyond our natural capacity of comprehension.

That's quite true Banom - save that God is not said to ever begin to exist. It is right to say that whatever begins to exist requires a cause, but things that have always existed are self-existent and do not require a cause. As i said before, God is the compound of all self-existent laws. Accordingly he needs no creative agent to bring him into existence.

Does time need a cause?

Does eternity need a cause?

Deep Sight:

Gravity is simply the physical form of the law of Karma, and vice versa.

Gravity is magnetism towards a core, on account of mass. Thus anything projected away from the core, such as a person jumping upwards towards the sky on earth, will fall back towards the core - the earth. That's gravity.

In similar terms each being is like a small magnet and in accordance with the law of gravity, anything projected out from it, will fall back on it. This simply is the law of Karma. Whatsoever a man soweth, the same shall he reap.

Let us also note another interesting part to this. A cosmic body with great mass and great gravitational pull can attract things into its orbit that were not previously there. Thus people can attract things to themselves that were not previously there: simply on account of their inner magnetic state! At all events however - it is their own pull, that attracts those things to them.

I usually just enjoy reading posts from the side lines until someone makes a scientific harakiri.

Deep Sight your definition of gravity is way off. Gravity does not have any similarities with magnetism. A person that jumps to the earth is under free fall and is not attracted by any magnetic force towards the center of the earth.

Although the earth possesses it own magnetic field (and it is not a small magnet, it is a very huge magnet), the magnetic field do not behave in anyway like gravity.

Also the strength of a magnetic field does not depend on its mass.

^^^ No need to split hairs, i agree that magnetism and gravity are not strictly the same thing: BUT you will note i was describing THEIR effects: And in this they are very similar, and apt for the purpose of my example. And gravity also is related to mass. . .


Wikipedia:

Gravitation, or gravity, is a natural phenomenon by which objects with mass attract one another.[1] In everyday life, gravitation is most familiar as the agent that lends weight to objects with mass and causes them to fall to the ground when dropped. Gravitation causes dispersed matter to coalesce, thus accounting for the existence of the Earth, the Sun, and most of the macroscopic objects in the universe. It is responsible for keeping the Earth and the other planets in their orbits around the Sun; for keeping the Moon in its orbit around the Earth; for the formation of tides; for convection, by which fluid flow occurs under the influence of a density gradient and gravity; for heating the interiors of forming stars and planets to very high temperatures; and for various other phenomena observed on Earth.

Deep Sight:

^^^ No need to split hairs, i agree that magnetism and gravity are not strictly the same thing: BUT you will note i was describing THEIR effects: And in this they are very similar, and apt for the purpose of my example. And gravity also is related to mass. . .
Wikipedia:

From your wiki example, gravitation is no where described as being remotely similar to magnetism. Yes agreed the net effect of gravitation can be attraction, it can also be revolution of the smaller mass around the bigger mass. The effect of gravity being known as free fall.

Magnetism on the other hand can be attractive or repulsive depending on the direction of the magnetic field. Also a large mass can be magnetically positive, negative or neutral. Magnetism does not depend on mass, and magnetism does not have any relation to weight.

I have no problem with deism.Acknowledgement in a first cause, or a creator of the reality that we experience while continuing to have experiences based on rational thinking is quite good for the soul.

@ Deep Sight
@ naijababe
Thanks for your words.

Deep Sight:

There has got to be within a man that resident hunger to know what the truth really is, and without that; every discourse is worthless.

It appears we are living some kind of post-spiritual era. It is far easier to plug into that than undertake the rigours of a search.

bawomolo:
i have a few questions, How did this "force" become God?  Are these laws really perfect? who says the laws of conservation of energy can't be violated in a dark hole?  

Please note that that sentence did not come out well – a paragraph existed before it that was deleted. Now, if you don’t want the force to be God, then don’t call it God. All being said is that a being created all that exists. Rosicrucians often call him “the universal essence”; Cross Bearers, the Almighty; Igbos, Chukwu (the most high); Arabs, Allah, (the god), etc.
The laws are perfect. A black hole is not commonly observable, it is far fetched. The law of gravity works perfectly.

bawomolo:
there are atheists from Hindu, Sikh and buddhist households.  The last time i checked, those weren't Abraham creeds.   Atheists come from different backgrounds.  

There are only two things to say here:
(1) The write-up above was primarily intended for the users of this forum who almost all come from Abrahamic orientation.
(2) Point 1 made, all religions have colourful perceptions of divinity and have a high propensity to place far more importance on rituals than substance. Let us take the case of Hinduism. There is a verse in one of the scriptures which says “If your son curses you, kill him.” And of course, you know of the merciless caste system, which subjugates a large number of people to a status lower than humans. So, Bawo, there are grounds for disenchantment with every religion.

bawomolo:
how does one know Karma exists, is it observable? karma is an hindu philosophy, so are you hindu or deist (do deists borrow from Hinduism now?)

Karma is a universal philosophy. Maybe they should start teaching “African Philosophy” in our universities. I grew up in Edo State and picked up a few of the myths. In Esan mythology, there is a man called umowanlan (the wise one). A woman had one day taken some maize meal along with her to the stream to wash. She finishes washing her clothes and leaving her things by the bank goes inside to bath. A man from her village comes by, sees the maize meal and attacks it. As he is chewing the last mouthful, the woman comes out of the stream and sees him. Dreading pubic humiliation and the loss of his place in the hierarchy of the community, he murders the woman. In their next incarnation they meet again and, this time, she murders him. The case was taken to Umowan to resolve. He ruled that the woman was wrong to have killed the man, at which time he was quickly reminded that it was he who killed her first. I do not know of an African society that does not recognise Karma. Call it by another name, if that feels better. The word Karma comes from the Eastern religions. That does not make Karma uniquely eastern. The only school of thought where it has not always existed is popular Western philosophy, and that largely explains why the two religions traditionally practised in the West, Christianity and Judaism, are the only major religions that do not recognize Karma. However, many prominent leaders of these two Western religions recognise Karma. I have text written by famous rabbis, bishops and others endorsing Karma and reincarnation. I have personally spoken to Catholic priests on the issue and you will be surprised how many of them accept it.

Yes, Karma is observable, but that is a rather drawn-out subject. It was on that subject I invited you to forget dogma and carry out your own investigation since only you can convince yourself.

bawomolo:
if the nature of God is unfathomable, how do you know its a "he". We don't know it's True nature right?

why is there is only creator God? can't there be more?

I don’t really see the point here, but I will answer it.

MyJoe:
That force created the universe and everything in it. And It then abandoned it? No. It did something logical – put perfect laws in place to govern it.

He/she/it, fine.
Why wouldn't it be a creator God? Most thoughts recognise this. If I recall it correctly, there are many gods in the Yoruba pantheon yet the creation was left to Obatala, while Ogun cleared the way and the other gods did their bits. If there are many gods one will have to be supreme, not so? In the Greek system, Prometheus and Epimetheus created the world but they are subservient gods. So whichever approach you take, you almost always come back to the God.

bawomolo:
so you are making the assumption that the earth is proof God exists?  The concept of intelligent design has being discarded by the way.  

its safe to say deism isn't free of assumptions that are made in atheism or theism.   Deism is an attempt to reason a God in which you have admitted is unfathomable and unapproachable.  Seems like a futile attempt to even think about such God.  Deism also seems trapped by the concept of monotheism found in Abrahamic creeds.  Why aren't there polytheist philosophies among Deists?

These points have been addressed by Deep Sight and viaro.

MyJoe:
How do I know? I can say I feel it inside me – but you don’t, so that is not a useful response. There are several reasons, but I will give just one. The atheist says the universe does not have to have a creator. Given a serious thought, that argument is reasonable. But the complexity, and more importantly, harmony, in nature speak of an intelligent mind. A piece of glass can come out of nothing, but not an electric bulb – that needs putting together. Oh, you have heard that one before. Ok, we know that man came here last of all, that is, after oceans, plants, animals, etc. Yet, you find that the earth was clearly designed with man in mind. There is food for the animals and all else that creatures need to survive. But there is more – beauty. From Cashmere to Niagara, from Obudu to Jerusalem, it appears only an intelligent being would have added such beauty in place as it serves no purpose other than to make man happy.

Not the fact there is an earth, but its purposeful nature. Coltan can come about by chance, but not mobile phones. Cassava, but not garri, oil, but hot hair cream.

The incomprehensible nature of God should not be a barrier to belief in his existence. It is only logical that the supreme being is incomprehensible, rather than a regular guy who can join us for dinner.

bawomolo:
Oh that's interesting, what's the deist concept of the afterlife.  Maybe deepsight can drop in on this

This expression is a misnomer if you recall I have earlier said something to the effect that you don't read deism from a scripture. There is a deist concept of the Supreme Being, but there is no such thing as a deist concept of the afterlife. But here is my concept of the afterlife from another thread:

MyJoe:
In the physical realm the world governed by the laws described in physics. In the spiritual realm it is governed by what they call Karma in the East.
When you die, you come back. The life you live now will likely determine the amount of difficulties you will face in the next life. If you were born into circumstances that afforded you a lot of comfort and happiness, it is likely because you deserve it. Same goes for those who experience suffering. If you close your palms to your fellow man, you may have nothing in your next life. If you share your last, you will have abundance so that you can continue the good work. If you are wicked, you will come back where you will suffer much difficulties so as to learn power is not your sole right. Many, on learning the truth about reincarnation, realise that their life encounters may be the result of Karma, accept it and try to move on - this is known as "meeting your Karma".
But the above should not be taken too literally to mean that someone who is born into wealth is being rewarded and someone who is born poor, blind or sickly is being punished. Sometimes it is all meant to teach you a lesson. It may be that you are poor and you think all rich people are wicked. You may be born rich to show you that is not so and to give you the chance to use money well. For example, I have a friend who has never tasted alcohol in his life. He said he had an uncle whose life was ruined by alcohol. Now, it is possible he was a drunk in his last incarnation and was sent there so he may learn early on in life.
My observation is that prayer changes nothing, except, sometimes, the person praying. God does not intervene. Religious people can afford to wicked to their fellow man because they claim to love God whom they can't see. If only they know that all God requires is that they love their fellow man.
This makes sense TO ME much more than the heaven taught by the Abrahamic faiths.

wirinet:

Yes agreed the net effect of gravitation can be attraction

I am happy to see that you have keyed into the sense in which i used the word gravity as being a sort of magnetism: because it has a similar force of attraction.

And do note that i did say that gravity is related to mass (which cannot be disputed), and not that magnetism is of mass. . .

Oh, heck with it, you scientist!

Now nonetheless, (and without spliiting hairs) we can still derive a general understanding of Karma from Gravity, in the sense that it acts similar to attractive magnetism. Indeed you are aware i am sure that scientist's are still trying to unravel possible direct links, and still appear at odds on the existence or non-existence of a direct co-relation between gravity and magnetism.

Now let me make a brief note on the fact that you mentioned: that magnetism may be repulsive: This is also true of Karma; It may repel certain things based on the inner state of the being concerned.

So it applies in many different ways, but the core principle remains the same.

Deep Sight:

I am happy to see that you have keyed into the sense in which i used the word gravity as being a sort of magnetism: because it has a similar force of attraction.

And do note that i did say that gravity is related to mass (which cannot be disputed), and not that magnetism is of mass. . .

Oh, heck with it, you scientist!

Now nonetheless, (and without spliiting hairs) we can still derive a general understanding of Karma from Gravity, in the sense that it acts similar to attractive magnetism. Indeed you are aware i am sure that scientist's are still trying to unravel possible direct links, and still appear at odds on the existence or non-existence of a direct co-relation between gravity and magnetism.

Now let me make a brief note on the fact that you mentioned: that magnetism may be repulsive: This is also true of Karma; It may repel certain things based on the inner state of the being concerned.

So it applies in many different ways, but the core principle remains the same.

My broda i feel you, I understand what you were trying to say. I love discussing pure science and Niraland does not provide a platform for that so sometimes i take up the opportunity when i can, especially if there are wrong or controversial notions.

But let me add, there is no possible link between gravity and magnetism. Gravity is turning out to be a property of space-time, while magnetism in undoubtedly a feature of particles, electrons and protons. A massive non magnetic object would still posses its gravitational properties.

Peace.

The laws are perfect. A black hole is not commonly observable, it is far fetched. The law of gravity works perfectly.

are you saying black holes don't exist?

If there are many gods one will have to be supreme, not so?

including the hindu or jainism system? I don't see why one god has to be supreme.

Yes, Karma is observable, but that is a rather drawn-out subject. It was on that subject I invited you to forget dogma and carry out your own investigation since only you can convince yourself.

how does one observe karma?

The incomprehensible nature of God should not be a barrier to belief in his existence.

what's to be gain by believing in it if God can't be comprehended. Isn't an attempt to comprehend God the reasons dogma's exist.

All being said is that a being created all that exists

but how do we really know this.

Deep Sight:

Gravity is simply the physical form of the law of Karma, and vice versa.

Gravity is magnetism towards a core, on account of mass. Thus anything projected away from the core, such as a person jumping upwards towards the sky on earth, will fall back towards the core - the earth. That's gravity.

In similar terms each being is like a small magnet and in accordance with the law of gravity, anything projected out from it, will fall back on it. This simply is the law of Karma. Whatsoever a man soweth, the same shall he reap.

Let us also note another interesting part to this. A cosmic body with great mass and great gravitational pull can attract things into its orbit that were not previously there. Thus people can attract things to themselves that were not previously there: simply on account of their inner magnetic state! At all events however - it is their own pull, that attracts those things to them.

I want to know how logic can lead to the idea of Karma. What u are doing is making an analogy between the concept of karma (which is what u are trying to establish as a real entity), and an observable law that applies to physical (I think, except maybe at a quantum level) entities in space-time. I'm not sure how u come to the conclusion that gravity proves karma.

Pretend karma is a concept u are totally oblivious to. . . how do u logically arrive at karma without already assuming that it exists?

MyJoe:

Karma is a universal philosophy. Maybe they should start teaching “African Philosophy” in our universities. I grew up in Edo State and picked up a few of the myths. In Esan mythology, there is a man called umowanlan (the wise one). A woman had one day taken some maize meal along with her to the stream to wash. She finishes washing her clothes and leaving her things by the bank goes inside to bath. A man from her village comes by, sees the maize meal and attacks it. As he is chewing the last mouthful, the woman comes out of the stream and sees him. Dreading pubic humiliation and the loss of his place in the hierarchy of the community, he murders the woman. In their next incarnation they meet again and, this time, she murders him. The case was taken to Umowan to resolve. He ruled that the woman was wrong to have killed the man, at which time he was quickly reminded that it was he who killed her first. I do not know of an African society that does not recognise Karma. Call it by another name, if that feels better. The word Karma comes from the Eastern religions. That does not make Karma uniquely eastern. The only school of thought where it has not always existed is popular Western philosophy, and that largely explains why the two religions traditionally practised in the West, Christianity and Judaism, are the only major religions that do not recognize Karma. However, many prominent leaders of these two Western religions recognise Karma. I have text written by famous rabbis, bishops and others endorsing Karma and reincarnation. I have personally spoken to Catholic priests on the issue and you will be surprised how many of them accept it.

Yes, Karma is observable, but that is a rather drawn-out subject. It was on that subject I invited you to forget dogma and carry out your own

Karma is not a universal philosophy. Pre -Islamic Arabia had a tradition of tribal Vendettas. Murder, theft, genocide, were all permissible and seen as necessary for survival. As long as it wasn't against a member of your tribe it was kosher. They had, to my knowledge, no concept  of their actions having unseen future consequences.

Also, universality of an idea is no proof of its validity, or truth. All it means is that a lot of people accept it as valid or true. . . kinda like a lot of people, back in the days, accepted and believed the earth was flat


The whole idea of karma needs other presuppositions to make even the slightest bit of sense. "Escape clauses" like the after life and reincarnation (ideas that I have no reason to believe in as valid) need to be applied to deal with the obvious flaws in the whole concept. What do we do with people who do evil and live happily ever-after? we just defer their karmic baggage and it's consequences to their next life, or "spiritual" life. How convenient.

bawomolo:
are you saying black holes don't exist?

They do exist. Problem is I haven't been inside one. And I don't need to. Nor will I argue points from wikipedia since it is possible to see the hand of God in simple things without resorting to Black Hole physics or anything like that. There are lots of people around here who are good at that sort of thing.

bawomolo:
including the hindu or jainism system?  I don't see why one god has to be supreme.

We were talking about the creator God who would have created other gods if such gods were a reality. But this is really a moot point. If I said two gods created the universe, would that make it more acceptable to you? I doubt it.  

bawomolo:
how does one observe karma?

You put water in a white bucket, you tie a grey scarf on your head, close your eyes, turn round in a circle of 360^o, open your eyes, and look into. . .   Sorry, just kidding. Obviously you can't observe something by dismissing it. Karma is observable to anyone who cares to observe it. You have to research this yourself as I suggested earlier. Read, and if what you read makes any sense, you may then take the next logical steps of verifying them.

bawomolo:
what's to be gain by believing in it if God can't be comprehended.  Isn't an attempt to comprehend God the reasons dogma's exist.

Yes, that is why they exist. That is why they claim to know so much about him and what we have is a workshopped God. I really can't see the problem with the incomprehensibility of God or how it proves his non-existence, though.

bawomolo:
but how do we really know this.  

That is what we have been saying all along. All I am saying now, in summary, is leave advanced science for a moment. Forget about dogma. Think, read, observe, ask questions. Try to be open minded while you are at it. I hope my simple arguments will get you to think about it. I am out.

Krayola:

Karma is not a universal philosophy. Pre -Islamic Arabia had a tradition of tribal Vendettas. Murder, theft, genocide, were all permissible and seen as necessary for survival. As long as it wasn't against a member of your tribe it was kosher. They has no concept, to my knowledge,  of their actions having unseen future consequences.

Also, universality of an idea is no proof of it's validity, or truth. All it means is that a lot of people accept it as valid or true. . . kinda like a lot of people, back in the days, accepted and believed the earth was flat

Certainly it would be possible to find exceptions to the universality of Karma. You may not have noticed that I brought up the issue of universality, not to validate, but in direct response to Bamowolo's thesis presenting Karma as an adjunct of Hinduism and wondering how deism burrowed into Hinduism.

Krayola:

The whole idea of karma needs other presuppositions to even make the slightest bit of sense. "Escape clauses" like the after life and reincarnation (ideas that I have no reason to believe in as valid) need to be applied to deal with the obvious flaws in the whole concept. What do we do with people who do evil and live happily ever-after? we just defer their karmic baggage and it's consequences to their next life, or "spiritual" life. How convenient.

I feel you on this, brother. I, too, had this problem with "the whole idea of Karma" for a long time. Perhaps I should not have brought up the subject in this thread at all, then, because whenever it is broken down to pellets to be taken once day, this problem arises. [b]It is only when you study it as an organic whole that is makes perfect sense. [/b]Once I did I found it answered all my questions and nothing I had ever heard had made so much sense.
Anyway, there are still human laws here and no state has yet held up a Karmic constitution.

MyJoe:


I feel you on this, brother. I, too, had this problem with "the whole idea of Karma" for a long time. Perhaps I should not have brought up the subject in this thread at all, then, because whenever it is broken down to pellets to be taken once day, this problem arises. [b]It is only when you study it as an organic whole that is makes perfect sense. [/b]Once I did I found it answered all my questions and nothing I had ever heard had made so much sense.
Anyway, there are still human laws here and no state has yet held up a Karmic constitution.

The highlighted part I agree with 100%. . . . The difference is that I strongly believe we know too little about the WHOLE to be able to say anything with any bit of certainty, talk less absolute certainty. My issue is not with any world-view or idea, per se. . . . It is with the certainty and authority some proclaim these things, and try to ridicule others for not subscribing.

Perhaps it is important for me to make a certain clarification here: God certainly is and remains incomprehensible to every human mind.

What i certainly believe can be ascertained or logically inferred is his/ her/ it's EXISTENCE.

In much the same way as if we hear scratching within a box, we may logically infer that a creature of some sort is within the box. We may not be able to infer its nature.

But we may be able to infer that such a creature has paws with which to scratch. Or some other ability to make the scratching sound.

This is only a crude example, but i simply mean to say that a full absorbtion of the fact that 0 + 0 = 0 will settle the question that nothing could exist if there was not on the left side of the equation (i.e outside of space & time) a permanent self existent quantity which i call God. Now, from what i see within the universe, i can also infer a few of his/her/ its attributes - in much the same way as we inferred that the creature in the box had the abvility to scratch things. I can easily infer, for example the attributes of great power and intelligence withim that quantity on the left side of my equation.

We may not be ble to apprehend the quantity, what it means and its nature: but we can certainly apprehend that it is there and this we can do empirically, but better still - intuitively.

Deep Sight:

What i certainly believe can be ascertained or logically inferred is his/ her/ it's EXISTENCE.

Could you please ascertain the existence of God?

Deep Sight:

Now, from what i see within the universe, i can also infer a few of his/her/ its attributes - in much the same way as we inferred that the creature in the box had the abvility to scratch things. I can easily infer, for example the attributes of great power and intelligence withim that quantity on the left side of my equation.

one problem though, planet earth is only a small portion of the universe so how can you infer the attributes of the creator from such a small portion of it's creations?

What attributes can you infer by the way. do you believe this creator is an interventionist one?

bawomolo:

one problem though, planet earth is only a small portion of the universe so how can you infer the attributes of the creator from such a small portion of it's creations?

That's easy and presents no problem at all. Besides seeking analogies for the Creator as regards His nature and attributes, men have sought to understand issues of a *universality about the cosmos from a telluric standpoint ('telluric' - that is, as relating to matters of the earth) It is from the earth that men have sought to understand the cosmos.

But of *'universality', I have in mind the idea that it is "the quality ascribed to an entity whose existence is consistent throughout the universe". This extends beyond religion and embraces even the metaphysical, in which case we can see that men have tried to infer the attributes or properties of any entity in the universe from a small portion of the cosmos. So, the 'small portion' of the universe presents no problem at all in seeking an understanding (or inference) of that which is beyond the earth.

However, bawomolo, I'm interested in this:

bawomolo:

viaro: Someday, I would like to seriously take up that idea of "popping in an out of existence" with anyone who has some muscle to go the distance in such a discussion.

KAG discusses it well. It sure is an interesting possibility.

Could you point me to any link in the forum where KAG has discussed this sometime in the past? Thanks in advance.