Showing posts with label Praise be upon the only God whose unity is one by all without exception. Amen. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Praise be upon the only God whose unity is one by all without exception. Amen. Show all posts
Sunday 5 July 2020
Saturday 13 June 2020
My argument to prove God exists (I)
I am starting a series to show proof that God exists, although there may be many examples of cases on the internet to show proof or at least a just cause to believe there is a God I am looking beyond the usual philosophical realm. So what I will be doing is taking a look at all factors, factoring in probabilities much in the same way as gambling odds etc. Once I cannot continue further (or simply run out of ideas) I will place all that I have come up with on a MS Word document or PDF for you to download and hopefully inspire you to type down your concepts to display for others.
And hopefully we can cure atheism which is the most horrid, evil mental illness known to mankind.
Praise be upon the only God whose unity is one by all without exception. Amen
The Argument From Anthropology
(this is probably not strictly anthropology in relation to the accepted purely scientific understanding)
Although with society today we see the likes of identity politics, in that people will categorise themselves into categories not of their own choosing or creation. But rather that of the political and social establishments of the day which are not concrete, but rather temporary. They do this to be politically correct and socially compliant even though they may not personally approve of the groupthink or hivemind of these categories and their actions.
It is fair to say that all humans have a complex and individual personality, but it would be absurd to say that such a complexity could have emerged from nothing and with no cause. The atheist would claim that personalities are formed through environment, circumstances, experience and DNA, but if that was truly the complete case then personalities could be manufactured according to the states' needs and wants. And if that was the case would the individual personality simply approve of its use by the state and be in full agreeance with it? If the answer uniformly is "yes" then we are seeing slavery and moral relativism as factors. While we cannot erase the factor of fear in relation to politics (of violence and other physical harm) or social (abandonment and isolation) realms, the reality is that moral relativism cannot be enforced. Yes you can force people to obey, but you cannot force them to approve.
Whether they are bribed or whether they are terrorised they will mostly hold the same opinion, there is an individuality within them that is not a result of mental and physical circumstances, but spiritual. Whether you wish to call that factor spirit or soul it is not self made and the only reasonably logical explanation to me is that it is the result of a higher entity. Some may say that our individuality is a result of our parents along with environment, circumstances and experience but if that was the case we would be clones of our parents and indeed to an extent everyone else in our society. And indeed it would be the groupthink/hivemind society which would be continuously replicating because everyone would be predisposed to replicate their parents. There would have been no great thinkers or doers because the level of education or free thought would have never risen. Nor would the level of aspiration or even imagination, people would still believe the Earth is flat (if they had the concept of a planet) and the inventions we take for granted in modern life would never have been invented.
If the atheists and evolutionists had their way we would be still living in caves...but under their control. In fact we would be little better than baboons and feral dogs.
As we have seen in history (and indeed today) people can be compelled to act against their own beliefs, opinions, and wishes due to physical acts (whether it be of bribery or terror) but control of ones' thoughts as an individual being can never be enforced or known to be enforced. But we are seeing attempts at that with various pharmaceuticals and police looking for "thought crime". It is not the individuals' belief that is being curtailed but rather their ability to act on their individual belief.
It can be said that the human personality (that being the result of spiritual, mental and physical factors) would need to be made by an entity or being with the same and actually greater, complex personality which would have factored in autonomy. As we are created in the image of God and have the ability to aspire we would have to look at examples of a 'greater whole' of the personality of God that we can comprehend.
An example can be found on the 'Tree of Life' which gives us 10 aspects of God, there are 10 sections (or sephiroth) and each individual section is overlooked by an aspect of God. The reference to the Tree of Life can be found in Kabbalah teachings, and there are four worlds regarding the Tree of Life in the Kabbalah
They are;
Atziluth (Emanation)
Briah (Creation)
Yetzirah (Formation)
Assiah (the world of action, what we refer to as the physical)
But Assiah has Tebhel (Immanent) and Cheled (Transcendental)
There is no doubt that we are born with unique personalities, though we may have them altered or changed by the likes of environment and the people we associate with. Or else things such as mental illness, drug addiction and even peer pressure or coercion. The fact is we are born with a unique personality which existed before we were exposed to various elements which we may of interacted with. The uniqueness of the personality comes from our soul, regardless of our external appearance we will hold true what we 'feel is right' or else what our 'gut instinct' says. We all hold some thought of intuition but whether we enact on it or not is another matter depending on circumstance, but circumstances regarding our physical and mental factors can be altered.
The circumstances of spiritual factors regarding our soul cannot, even if you look at atheism you will see people hating God. The atheist will proclaim that God does not exist and yet have a hatred for this great being, this can be only said and seen in a personal relationship. To hate God makes as much sense as hating Mickey Mouse.
And yet atheists will accept Mickey Mouse as an animate being because to them Mickey Mouse can exist in psychological, aesthetical, emotional and even physical (like some guy in Disneyland dressed up in an outfit, although it cannot be THE Mickey Mouse it is a suitable proxy). But all these facets of Mickey Mouse can only be symbolic, this is because these facets do not come from or are even created by a single independant animated entity. If you examine it, the existance of Mickey Mouse came into being through the emanation, creation, and formation in the mind of Walt Disney before it 'came' into the physical realm. You also have to factor in consultants and staff who helped fine tune the final but yet evolving product.
You might argue that the existance of God came about through a simular measure, to that I would say that the existance of religion and denominations can be said to have come about through similar measures. But you cannot forget about the consultants and staff required to propagate and 'sell' the religion or denomination. A church without clergy and parishioners could not open, but a church without the support staff (whether paid or voluntary) could not survive. There would be no one to help or aid the clergy, parishioners, or maintain the church and its grounds. A belief in the existance of and in God does not require actors or an audience or stagehands or even a theatre. It does not require these things because God is infinitely greater than mankind and its inventions (whether they are psychological, aesthetical, emotional or physical).
Mankind may have a concept of something, it may visualise how that concept may look like, and it may even draw up plans on how this concept will come into the physical realm. But the reality is that these plans fail or distort from the original concept. Essentially they are plans from other plans which were from other plans. Mankind cannot create nature, yes it may corrupt, distort, imitate and re-invent nature but it cannot create nature. Mankind has yet to create a new species with an amount of chromosomes that no other species has, this shows that only a greater entity could have brought the concept of the universe into physical reality. A greater entity with greater intelligence and greater experience. Even if all the thinking abilities and intelligence of all humans were to be collectively contained within a single brain, mankind would be no better off than it is today.
Unless mankind realises that itself is a creation, indeed a self replicating creation like other mammals then it will ignore the very thing that differentiates us from the other mammals besides our physical attributes. And that thing is our soul, if we had no soul then we all would be sociopaths. And if that was the case then you and I would not be here as history would have gone extinct and disappeared some time ago.
Existance does have an "order of things" and we can see this in nature, it is mankind that is increasingly collectively seeking to alter this. In fact what we are seeing today is the collective attempt to install a new collective 'god' under the title of "humanity" and applying labels to its methods such as 'evolution' and 'progress'. But words like 'evolution' and 'progress' have been redefined into different contexts much like the word 'racism'. What is written in an English language dictionary may not be the same as taught in a university because the context has changed, their definitions may come from a political dictionary or a psychological dictionary and even then the definitions may be differing in each subject due to the vested interests. Much like the different denominations in the various religions will push their own specific beliefs, if these beliefs were not so separately specific then there would be no need for separate denominations.
A demonstration is the word "transsexual", what is its definition? Is it someone who "identifies" as the opposite gender? Is it someone who has had surgery to 'be as' the opposite gender? Or is it something different? People can make as many lofty pronouncements and definitions as they want, but at the end of the day you cannot change your sex/gender. You can have surgery, hormones and various forms of 'counseling' to help you identify as the opposite gender, but if a clone was made from your DNA it would be the same gender as you were born. In the same way that whatever lifestyle you choose to live or else are caught up in, you will have a sense of right and wrong that cannot be altered.
However that does not mean that 'mankind' will not try to 're-invent' itself, but this is not actually the case. When people scream and wail "for humanity!!!" they are only reflecting an extreme minority of human beings at any given time. As for 're-inventing'? You can only re-invent what you, yourself have actually invented. That is everything from concept to physical reality, everything from emanation to creation to formation to physical action (whether it be producing a product or implementing a method). It is easier to redefine language than to re-invent that of the physical, and that is what we are seeing today. We have no right and wrong, instead we have moral relativism which is not about "the greater good of humanity" but rather a comfort blanket for solipsists.
People whether they be of various racial groupings, ethnicities, or bloodlines will be judged to be civilised, uncivilised, or 'evolving'. However this is not likely to be a judgment based on their intelligence but rather their material gain, a city full of skyscrapers will be deemed to be more civilised than a village full of huts. Even though the city will be overpopulated, have high levels of crime and suicide in addition to isolation with the mandatory loneliness. The city will be deemed more successful and more civilised than the village, but it is the village from which the basis of civilisation came from. In regards to religion the more people that are adherants of that religion, the more prone that religion is to dissent, apostasy, fragmentation and splintering. In relation to God the best mindset is K.I.S.S. (Keep It Simple Stupid), short, sharp answers will give people something understandable to work with as they begin their own quest or own research. I started this project to present an argument that there is a God. I do not care about how many aspects it has, how many people view God or don't view it. I suppose one of my main motivations to write this are the repeated worn out arguments used by those faithful to God in the hope of converting others to their particular faith.
To that I say:
No.1 - You are serving God, not your sect.
No.2 - Don't do something because others are doing it. I especially see this among Christians handing out CHICK Tracts on the street, don't bother because everybody has seen then, they convince no one because they are the sort of comics written for 5 year olds and you come across as arrogant because it makes it look like you think everyone is as stupid as you.
You can do better than this, did God give you a brain? THEN USE IT!
*i think im done with anthropology*
And hopefully we can cure atheism which is the most horrid, evil mental illness known to mankind.
Praise be upon the only God whose unity is one by all without exception. Amen
The Argument From Anthropology
(this is probably not strictly anthropology in relation to the accepted purely scientific understanding)
Although with society today we see the likes of identity politics, in that people will categorise themselves into categories not of their own choosing or creation. But rather that of the political and social establishments of the day which are not concrete, but rather temporary. They do this to be politically correct and socially compliant even though they may not personally approve of the groupthink or hivemind of these categories and their actions.
It is fair to say that all humans have a complex and individual personality, but it would be absurd to say that such a complexity could have emerged from nothing and with no cause. The atheist would claim that personalities are formed through environment, circumstances, experience and DNA, but if that was truly the complete case then personalities could be manufactured according to the states' needs and wants. And if that was the case would the individual personality simply approve of its use by the state and be in full agreeance with it? If the answer uniformly is "yes" then we are seeing slavery and moral relativism as factors. While we cannot erase the factor of fear in relation to politics (of violence and other physical harm) or social (abandonment and isolation) realms, the reality is that moral relativism cannot be enforced. Yes you can force people to obey, but you cannot force them to approve.
Whether they are bribed or whether they are terrorised they will mostly hold the same opinion, there is an individuality within them that is not a result of mental and physical circumstances, but spiritual. Whether you wish to call that factor spirit or soul it is not self made and the only reasonably logical explanation to me is that it is the result of a higher entity. Some may say that our individuality is a result of our parents along with environment, circumstances and experience but if that was the case we would be clones of our parents and indeed to an extent everyone else in our society. And indeed it would be the groupthink/hivemind society which would be continuously replicating because everyone would be predisposed to replicate their parents. There would have been no great thinkers or doers because the level of education or free thought would have never risen. Nor would the level of aspiration or even imagination, people would still believe the Earth is flat (if they had the concept of a planet) and the inventions we take for granted in modern life would never have been invented.
If the atheists and evolutionists had their way we would be still living in caves...but under their control. In fact we would be little better than baboons and feral dogs.
As we have seen in history (and indeed today) people can be compelled to act against their own beliefs, opinions, and wishes due to physical acts (whether it be of bribery or terror) but control of ones' thoughts as an individual being can never be enforced or known to be enforced. But we are seeing attempts at that with various pharmaceuticals and police looking for "thought crime". It is not the individuals' belief that is being curtailed but rather their ability to act on their individual belief.
It can be said that the human personality (that being the result of spiritual, mental and physical factors) would need to be made by an entity or being with the same and actually greater, complex personality which would have factored in autonomy. As we are created in the image of God and have the ability to aspire we would have to look at examples of a 'greater whole' of the personality of God that we can comprehend.
An example can be found on the 'Tree of Life' which gives us 10 aspects of God, there are 10 sections (or sephiroth) and each individual section is overlooked by an aspect of God. The reference to the Tree of Life can be found in Kabbalah teachings, and there are four worlds regarding the Tree of Life in the Kabbalah
They are;
Atziluth (Emanation)
Briah (Creation)
Yetzirah (Formation)
Assiah (the world of action, what we refer to as the physical)
But Assiah has Tebhel (Immanent) and Cheled (Transcendental)
There is no doubt that we are born with unique personalities, though we may have them altered or changed by the likes of environment and the people we associate with. Or else things such as mental illness, drug addiction and even peer pressure or coercion. The fact is we are born with a unique personality which existed before we were exposed to various elements which we may of interacted with. The uniqueness of the personality comes from our soul, regardless of our external appearance we will hold true what we 'feel is right' or else what our 'gut instinct' says. We all hold some thought of intuition but whether we enact on it or not is another matter depending on circumstance, but circumstances regarding our physical and mental factors can be altered.
The circumstances of spiritual factors regarding our soul cannot, even if you look at atheism you will see people hating God. The atheist will proclaim that God does not exist and yet have a hatred for this great being, this can be only said and seen in a personal relationship. To hate God makes as much sense as hating Mickey Mouse.
And yet atheists will accept Mickey Mouse as an animate being because to them Mickey Mouse can exist in psychological, aesthetical, emotional and even physical (like some guy in Disneyland dressed up in an outfit, although it cannot be THE Mickey Mouse it is a suitable proxy). But all these facets of Mickey Mouse can only be symbolic, this is because these facets do not come from or are even created by a single independant animated entity. If you examine it, the existance of Mickey Mouse came into being through the emanation, creation, and formation in the mind of Walt Disney before it 'came' into the physical realm. You also have to factor in consultants and staff who helped fine tune the final but yet evolving product.
You might argue that the existance of God came about through a simular measure, to that I would say that the existance of religion and denominations can be said to have come about through similar measures. But you cannot forget about the consultants and staff required to propagate and 'sell' the religion or denomination. A church without clergy and parishioners could not open, but a church without the support staff (whether paid or voluntary) could not survive. There would be no one to help or aid the clergy, parishioners, or maintain the church and its grounds. A belief in the existance of and in God does not require actors or an audience or stagehands or even a theatre. It does not require these things because God is infinitely greater than mankind and its inventions (whether they are psychological, aesthetical, emotional or physical).
Mankind may have a concept of something, it may visualise how that concept may look like, and it may even draw up plans on how this concept will come into the physical realm. But the reality is that these plans fail or distort from the original concept. Essentially they are plans from other plans which were from other plans. Mankind cannot create nature, yes it may corrupt, distort, imitate and re-invent nature but it cannot create nature. Mankind has yet to create a new species with an amount of chromosomes that no other species has, this shows that only a greater entity could have brought the concept of the universe into physical reality. A greater entity with greater intelligence and greater experience. Even if all the thinking abilities and intelligence of all humans were to be collectively contained within a single brain, mankind would be no better off than it is today.
Unless mankind realises that itself is a creation, indeed a self replicating creation like other mammals then it will ignore the very thing that differentiates us from the other mammals besides our physical attributes. And that thing is our soul, if we had no soul then we all would be sociopaths. And if that was the case then you and I would not be here as history would have gone extinct and disappeared some time ago.
Existance does have an "order of things" and we can see this in nature, it is mankind that is increasingly collectively seeking to alter this. In fact what we are seeing today is the collective attempt to install a new collective 'god' under the title of "humanity" and applying labels to its methods such as 'evolution' and 'progress'. But words like 'evolution' and 'progress' have been redefined into different contexts much like the word 'racism'. What is written in an English language dictionary may not be the same as taught in a university because the context has changed, their definitions may come from a political dictionary or a psychological dictionary and even then the definitions may be differing in each subject due to the vested interests. Much like the different denominations in the various religions will push their own specific beliefs, if these beliefs were not so separately specific then there would be no need for separate denominations.
A demonstration is the word "transsexual", what is its definition? Is it someone who "identifies" as the opposite gender? Is it someone who has had surgery to 'be as' the opposite gender? Or is it something different? People can make as many lofty pronouncements and definitions as they want, but at the end of the day you cannot change your sex/gender. You can have surgery, hormones and various forms of 'counseling' to help you identify as the opposite gender, but if a clone was made from your DNA it would be the same gender as you were born. In the same way that whatever lifestyle you choose to live or else are caught up in, you will have a sense of right and wrong that cannot be altered.
However that does not mean that 'mankind' will not try to 're-invent' itself, but this is not actually the case. When people scream and wail "for humanity!!!" they are only reflecting an extreme minority of human beings at any given time. As for 're-inventing'? You can only re-invent what you, yourself have actually invented. That is everything from concept to physical reality, everything from emanation to creation to formation to physical action (whether it be producing a product or implementing a method). It is easier to redefine language than to re-invent that of the physical, and that is what we are seeing today. We have no right and wrong, instead we have moral relativism which is not about "the greater good of humanity" but rather a comfort blanket for solipsists.
People whether they be of various racial groupings, ethnicities, or bloodlines will be judged to be civilised, uncivilised, or 'evolving'. However this is not likely to be a judgment based on their intelligence but rather their material gain, a city full of skyscrapers will be deemed to be more civilised than a village full of huts. Even though the city will be overpopulated, have high levels of crime and suicide in addition to isolation with the mandatory loneliness. The city will be deemed more successful and more civilised than the village, but it is the village from which the basis of civilisation came from. In regards to religion the more people that are adherants of that religion, the more prone that religion is to dissent, apostasy, fragmentation and splintering. In relation to God the best mindset is K.I.S.S. (Keep It Simple Stupid), short, sharp answers will give people something understandable to work with as they begin their own quest or own research. I started this project to present an argument that there is a God. I do not care about how many aspects it has, how many people view God or don't view it. I suppose one of my main motivations to write this are the repeated worn out arguments used by those faithful to God in the hope of converting others to their particular faith.
To that I say:
No.1 - You are serving God, not your sect.
No.2 - Don't do something because others are doing it. I especially see this among Christians handing out CHICK Tracts on the street, don't bother because everybody has seen then, they convince no one because they are the sort of comics written for 5 year olds and you come across as arrogant because it makes it look like you think everyone is as stupid as you.
You can do better than this, did God give you a brain? THEN USE IT!
*i think im done with anthropology*
|
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)