Position:Home>Philosophy> We all are intelligent human beings and trying to know the unknown. That explain
Question: We all are intelligent human beings and trying to know the unknown!. That explains the purpose of our being!.!?
It is through thousands of years of search and research, we have reached so far!. We want to go far beyond the simple to more complicated things and find an answer!. That’s the only way to solve the unsolved mystery!. This we can do through logic and and confirm through experimentation!. We are bringing entire nature within the purview of our logic!. But there can be something beyond that also!. Now, suppose I have drawn a circle on a paper!. Once the circle is complete, no one can say from which point it was drawn!. Only I know where it was started!. How hard you might try, you can’t find!? Like that you can’t find who drew it!. But through your logic you can say with 100 % certainty that someone drew it!. Till I come forward and tell you that I drew this circle and this is the point I started to draw it!. The same logic applies to universe!. Just as I can’t go beyond the reality of circle, I can’t go beyond the reality of nature!. Just as circle had no existence before I drew it, this universe also had no existence before it was created!. Unless the creator himself comes and tells that it’s he who created it, we would never know!. We may never know which exactly is the power that created this universe!. But no one can deny that there was some power which created this universe!. So logically we accept the existence of some power!. The only thing is ‘How to decipher that power!?’ In mathematics we have to name the unknown and call it x, y , z etc!. and make an equation for that!. By making several assumptions we solve the equation!. So the super power that created this universe is called God and an effort is made to reach him!. So scientific efforts won’t help here!. It’s through logic only you can decipher God!. It’s similar to reaching me who has drawn the circle!. Through logic you can conclude what was needed to draw the circle!. You can also conclude that the person who drew the circle must be an intelligent person!. So it’s through logic only we can decide about God or God presents himself and proves His existence!. There is not going to be direct evidence!. So we seek indirect evidence!. What’s wrong in that !? So what’s wrong with any religion if their direction is right and logical!. Disbeliever in God have to answer mythis question!? I’m repeating this question for people to speak their mind and negate my point or support it!.Www@QuestionHome@Com
Best Answer - Chosen by Asker:
This is a wonderfully articulated point, and I especially like your analogy of a circle, for there is much more to see in all things and even more in the simplicity of their being!. This is true that a simple circle could make us ask questions about its nature, its being, and about the cause of it existence!. This is also true that logic is the best tool in the armoury of our reasoning, and the best way to reach certainties of a proof in knowledge!. I would not however go lightly saying that all religious ‘directions are right and logical’, if I am to win some minds over, as most people base the logical arguments upon the reason and rationality derived from the certainties of a materialistic viewpoint!. Many people might not be ready to accept that something is right just because it cannot be proved otherwise, or if there is somewhere empty then that there must have been something there just moment ago, or that the absence of beauty always means presence of ugliness, as there might just be a blank!.
I can support what I have said above with the very logic of the circle!. For instance, how would you convince the doubters upon your return that it was you who drew the circle everyone is talking about!? And how would you show as the proof of your claim the point where you started your drawing, as you yourself has said ‘How hard you might try, you can’t find’!? You see, the dilemma we have is not that we do not have claims about how circle was drawn!. We have all the claims in many of their religious forms as how the universe came into existence!. We are informed by various religions that God exists and He created the universe!. The dilemma is how could these claims be validated to satisfy our rational mind!? How can it be proved that what the religion says is the voice of God, and there is all correct!?
A scientist might like to proceed and investigate a mysterious presence of a circle scientifically!. He might speculate that circle is in fact is a growth or a pattern of some micro organisms on kitchen table, or is in fact a circular colony of lichens!. What I mean to say that it is quite possible that circle in fact is a living thing, that it has assembled itself into its presents shape and form!.
Then the problem with logic is that it is focused objectively upon what mind could see from afar, something at a distance!. It then examines objectively what is within the focus of its inquiry by staying aloof and detached!. To be logic therefore is to be completely objective and never to be one with what is being observed or investigated!. But the fact of human nature is that the mind very quickly becomes involved with what it experiences, or what it observes even from a long distance!. And this is how we relate to other people, to their circumstances, and to life in general!.
Then may be we are not as distinctively detached from the being of God as our rationally and intellectually nurtured mind makes us wish to see!? May be we are but the very part of that circle ourselves, the circle the fullness of which we are hardly able to see, and that, the circle is the part of the being of God Himself!?Www@QuestionHome@Com
I thought everyone knew the reason why we were put on earth!. "Now" it seems that only I know why!. If, anyone wants to know what I know, then they will have to come up with something equally important in exchange!.Www@QuestionHome@Com
But, what if you can't convince me that you drew the circle!?Www@QuestionHome@Com
It is only through the means of philosophy that God exists, there is no direct evidence of any sort to prove Him real, there is no indirect evidence either, though it could be argued (not by myself) that our very existence itself is indirect evidence!.
Religion as a whole does not exactly thrive on anything resembling logic, as all religions are based on supernatural(-ness, -ality!? It's too early!.!.!.), myths and plain hokum!. Yes, there is the underlying element of "What's it all about!?" and the understanding of where we were originated and by whom, but again there is nothing more than hypothesis involved!.
I really cannot tell what you're question is tbh, what's wrong in believing in Gods existence as long as logical thought is applied!? Nothing, just don't expect rational non-believers to follow suit!.Www@QuestionHome@Com
your point only makes sense if logic actually exsisted but as we all know it doesnt!. humans created logic as we created god!. remove us and you remove both logic and god!. and removing us doesnt remove the world or the universe it sits in!. ur point is pointless!. but thanks for playing the game!.Www@QuestionHome@Com
Have to be honest I can usually spot the point in a circle where it's been started!. As to the rest of your incredibly yawnsome question!. It's 5!.30am, way too early for such a long winded tedious waffle!.Www@QuestionHome@Com
Many have attained truth of th word and gained peace love and liberation by the gaining thereof!.
It is unfortunate that the powers at large seek to retain mankind in this struggle and existence and therefore focus is firmly placed on hate, glitz and scandal than truth peace and love!.
Truth is glaringly obvious to those who have eyes, heart, mind and soul to see!.!.!.
Loved Be !.!.!.Www@QuestionHome@Com
If someone only uses logic they'll end up agnostic!.
The indirect evidence I found came in the form of trancendental awareness of a unifying pattern to the universe -
I do not know if the pattern is from wholly outside of myself or is subconciously within me too, regardless of that lack of understanding of it's source it is good enough evidence for me to accept that either the pattern exists independently of me, or not -and we are part of the pattern!.
Previous experience with the simplicity of the most valid truths tells me any failure to answer a closed question characterises the fact that i am asking a question based on at least one incorrect assumption - intutition leads me guess that both possibilites are simultaneously the 'yes' answer to the correct closed question - a question which i still can't formulate
a spiritual Atheist
Buff!.Www@QuestionHome@Com
Sandeep: An Aristotilean Answer
I did not read all of that; just the boldfaced question, and from that, I saw the most rational answer to the question, "What is the purpose of life!?" Congratulation on being one of the few who can say he/she knows that little fact!.
"[T]rying to know the unknown" is exactly what human life is about!. Sometimes people get depressed about it because they think the purpose is trying to know the "unknowable!."
One of the "unknowables" is "who (or what) 'created' the universe (or existence!." But Aristotle said "existence exists!."
That is an axiom!. Here are Aristotle's words on the meaning of "axioms": It is titled "The Law of Non-Contradiction":
"It is impossible that the same thing can at the same time both belong and not belong to the same object and in the same respect!." (Aristotle, Metaphysics)
So therefore, the axiom "existence exists" cannot "both belong and not belong to the same object and in the same respect!." I!.E!., existence cannot NOT exist!. It CAN NOT!.
The Law of Non-Contradiction cannot be broken, without contradiction!.
"Anyone who denies the law of non-contradiction should be beaten and burned until he admits that to be beaten is not the same as not to be beaten, and to be burned is not the same as not to be burned!." (Avicenna, Medieval Philosopher)[2]
(Wikipedia!.)
But wait! There is more! The full quote goes like this:
The Law of Non-Contradiction: Aristotle
"These truths hold good for everything that is, and not for some special genus apart from others!. And all men use them, because they are true of being qua being !. !. !. !. For a principle which everyone must have who understands anything that is, is not a hypothesis !. !. !. !. Evidently then such a principle is the most certain of all; which principle this is, let us proceed to say!. It is, that the same attribute cannot at the same time belong and not belong to the same subject and in the same respect!."
Aristotle, Metaphysics, IV, 3 (W!. D!. Ross, trans
"For a principle which everyone must have who understands anything that is, [an axiom] is not a hypothesis !. !. !. !."
Old School Naturalism says existence has no purpose, but is not maudlin about it, just factual and scientific sounding!. There appear to be 4 Schools of Naturalism now!.
Existence HAS NO PURPOSE!.
"Naturalism, challenging the cogency of the cosmological, teleological, and moral arguments, holds that the universe requires no supernatural cause and government, but is self-existent, self-explanatory, self-operating, and self-directing, that the world-process is not teleological and anthropocentric!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!." http://www!.ditext!.com/runes/n!.html
To conclude: For the non-existence of existence to have once been, or to be in the future, would require that the word "existence" CAN at the same time belong and not belong to the same subject and in the same respect!."
""For a principle which everyone must have who understands anything that is, [an axiom] is not a hypothesis !. !. !. !."Www@QuestionHome@Com