Here is my two cents worth regarding the existence or non-existence of God, gods, sky fairy, or whatever/whoever brings you comfort, discomfort, or plain vanilla good old fashioned escapism:

I refer to myself as an agnostic, my definition of this label I mean I actually do not believe there is any so-called mystical higher power.; However in my somewhat less than humble opinion only a damn fool or else one unfamiliar with history would waste precious time trying to prove to others either the existence or non-existence of said gods , no matter under what guise she/he/it might appear in your fertile imaginations.

If indeed a higher power just might exist and she/he/it demanded that this ...

Here is my two cents worth regarding the existence or non-existence of God, gods, sky fairy, or whatever/whoever brings you comfort, discomfort, or plain vanilla good old fashioned escapism:

I refer to myself as an agnostic, my definition of this label I mean I actually do not believe there is any so-called mystical higher power.; However in my somewhat less than humble opinion only a damn fool or else one unfamiliar with history would waste precious time trying to prove to others either the existence or non-existence of said gods , no matter under what guise she/he/it might appear in your fertile imaginations.

If indeed a higher power just might exist and she/he/it demanded that this mere earthling must observe certain rituals and believe in that which he finds to be patently ridiculous in order to obtain salvation/nirvana or whatever might turn the crank of said deity ..... then NO THANKS, I'll pass. If merely trying my best to live lightly upon this planet and following the Golden Rule is not enough then I could not possibly muster even a tiny modicum of respect for such a deity.

I hasten to point out that the Golden Rule belongs to no one religion as it can be found in almost every religion as well as several ancient philosophies

Without the intention of proving anything, and with the full intention of sharing some opinions/thoughts, an answer to Teosoma's question:
After trying to understand what you mean with 'personal absolute', a description of my perspective:

My personal absolute, in the sense of 'my reference point in life, according which I arrange everything else in it', is "The God", with emphasis on 'The'. With "God" I refer to 'The' creator of this Universe we live in (who in my opinion does exist, thus I'm not an atheist).

On the other side, I would define 'my personal experience, which is the most meaningful in my life' (so far), somewhat different. Perhaps as 'the effort to evolve, to try to get bett...

Without the intention of proving anything, and with the full intention of sharing some opinions/thoughts, an answer to Teosoma's question:
After trying to understand what you mean with 'personal absolute', a description of my perspective:

My personal absolute, in the sense of 'my reference point in life, according which I arrange everything else in it', is "The God", with emphasis on 'The'. With "God" I refer to 'The' creator of this Universe we live in (who in my opinion does exist, thus I'm not an atheist).

On the other side, I would define 'my personal experience, which is the most meaningful in my life' (so far), somewhat different. Perhaps as 'the effort to evolve, to try to get better in knowledge and in character'.

I definitely differentiate between 'God' and anything else (experience, meaning, physical, non-physical) within this universe.

Splendidus,

I share the opinion of Socratoad, that it doesn't make any sense to try
to 'scientifically' prove the existence/non-existence of God (or any
other physically non-observable being).

I agree with your view on the opinion of Socratoad . If your model of reality is based on the axiom that : "God doesn't exists", it wouldn't be impossible to prove His existence as consequence of this model. So the question is not : "is God provable ?", but : "why do i choose His (in)existence as axiom ?".

I share the opinion of Teosoma, that every opinion in that matter is
eventually a 'belief'. Since it is not 'knowledge'. The
positivity/negativity there refers not to the opi...

read more»

Splendidus,

I share the opinion of Socratoad, that it doesn't make any sense to try
to 'scientifically' prove the existence/non-existence of God (or any
other physically non-observable being).

I agree with your view on the opinion of Socratoad . If your model of reality is based on the axiom that : "God doesn't exists", it wouldn't be impossible to prove His existence as consequence of this model. So the question is not : "is God provable ?", but : "why do i choose His (in)existence as axiom ?".

I share the opinion of Teosoma, that every opinion in that matter is
eventually a 'belief'. Since it is not 'knowledge'. The
positivity/negativity there refers not to the opinion itself, but to
the construction of the sentence i understand (is - is not).

Absolutely. I thank you for making the effort to understand me. I was not aware of the ambiguity of my sentence before too late. My poor english is to blame, and my reckless attempt to venture in this debate ... ... Once again, i see that 90% of diplomacy (or "philosophy" as a kind of "abstract diplomacy") is merely a matter of defining the meanings we take for granted.

Without the intention of proving anything, and with the full intention of sharing some opinions/thoughts

That's exactely my intent here. Glad we can agree on that point. If i understand clearly the rest of your comment (i've just 686 characters remaining, no, 656, damn, have to shorten ...), may i ask u this :

If (1) God is your reference point in life and (2) the most meaningful "thing" in your life is "the effort to evolve, to try to get better", is it true to say that God show you the path to your own accomplishment, as do the lighthouse to the boat, or as do Jesus - "God in flesh and bones" - when he says that, one day, we'll be like him ?

If your model of reality is based on the axiom that : "God doesn't
exists", it wouldn't be impossible to prove His existence as
consequence of this model.

I couldn't understand this. Probably because I cannot think of any model, in which 'it would not be impossible to prove His existence'.

So there are two possibilities: Either Information is missing to make me understand your view/perspective and I was not able to fill in the blanks, or the 'neural/logical connections in my brain' are not sufficient to imagine such a reality.
(Or there is a typing error. At this point someone should say:"The world consists of three kind of people, those who can count, and those who canno...

If your model of reality is based on the axiom that : "God doesn't
exists", it wouldn't be impossible to prove His existence as
consequence of this model.

I couldn't understand this. Probably because I cannot think of any model, in which 'it would not be impossible to prove His existence'.

So there are two possibilities: Either Information is missing to make me understand your view/perspective and I was not able to fill in the blanks, or the 'neural/logical connections in my brain' are not sufficient to imagine such a reality.
(Or there is a typing error. At this point someone should say:"The world consists of three kind of people, those who can count, and those who cannot" )
Anyway, further explanation would be appreciated.

"why do i choose His (in)existence as axiom ?"

Yes, I also think that's the big question. As far as I can understand, it is simply people looking at the same thing (eixstence), and drawing different conclusions.
Or (thinking aloud..) maybe it is not always the 'same' thing people are looking at. Everyone adopts/aquires different data during his/her life, and shapes his/her own perspective. And "this" data observed from "this" perspective yields a certain conclusion.

Brief remark: english is not my natural language as well. I mostly read/wrote about technical topics, so my posts may lack some 'soul/emotion'.

But ... Crespo ... i don't understand ... keyboard-coffee is God. Instead of explaining why your supposition about my vision of God is not accurate, i would prefer to directly give you my vision of what "God" means to me (if i may).

(1) I share the classic vedantic vision of a pantheistic God, seen as Universal Presence. (2) For some reasons - probably inherents to my human nature - i feel exiled from this Presence. (3) The counterpart of this fact is my desire to join up with "It". (4) In my journey back home, i need a compass witch i can trust. For now, the most accurate compass i found is what i may call : the density of experience. No...

But ... Crespo ... i don't understand ... keyboard-coffee is God. Instead of explaining why your supposition about my vision of God is not accurate, i would prefer to directly give you my vision of what "God" means to me (if i may).

(1) I share the classic vedantic vision of a pantheistic God, seen as Universal Presence. (2) For some reasons - probably inherents to my human nature - i feel exiled from this Presence. (3) The counterpart of this fact is my desire to join up with "It". (4) In my journey back home, i need a compass witch i can trust. For now, the most accurate compass i found is what i may call : the density of experience. Not pleasure, not belief, not fairy tale. I may experience this density in the fact of drinking coffee - mmm. I may probably experience this density more deeply in the fact that this morning, at 04:00, in the middle of my all-night work, i go in my kitchen to make coffee and i remember that there is'nt any more - gnn. I may experience this density even more deeply in the fact that, just after experiencing the mourning of my 04:00 coffee, i become more aware of "i" being able to exist without my usual prosthetic consuming compensation. Three level of density - and more ! ...

Splendidus ... gee, this discussion seems inexhaustible !
Tx Wildcat

I couldn't understand this. Probably because I cannot think of any
model, in which 'it would not be impossible to prove His existence'.
(...)
Everyone adopts/aquires different data during his/her life, and shapes
his/her own perspective. And "this" data observed from "this"
perspective yields a certain conclusion.

Big question. Why choosing spiritualist axiom instead of materialist one ? I remember i was materialist, once , at 20, and i shifted for a spiritualist point of view in one tenth of a second. Like : "plop" ! Probably this choice have nothing to do with reason. In my case, it was only a matter...

Splendidus ... gee, this discussion seems inexhaustible !
Tx Wildcat

I couldn't understand this. Probably because I cannot think of any
model, in which 'it would not be impossible to prove His existence'.
(...)
Everyone adopts/aquires different data during his/her life, and shapes
his/her own perspective. And "this" data observed from "this"
perspective yields a certain conclusion.

Big question. Why choosing spiritualist axiom instead of materialist one ? I remember i was materialist, once , at 20, and i shifted for a spiritualist point of view in one tenth of a second. Like : "plop" ! Probably this choice have nothing to do with reason. In my case, it was only a matter of emotional mimetism with my father's anger (but i'll don't go into a freudian path here). Anyway, one thing certain (at least for me), is that, in respect with the principle of non-auto-contradiction, if your axiom is : "God exists", everything may become a proof of His existence, and if your axiom is : "God doesn't exists', nothing could become a proof of His existence. In the two cases (as in any logical model), the axiom acts like the central organizer of the model, every element of the model being a direct or indirect consequence of it.

The world consists of three kind of people, those who can count, and those who cannot

I like this one . I also like : "there are two kind of people, those with a dualistic view of the universe, and the others".

It would be true to say that God is my reference point while deciding what is good and what is bad, i.e. finding the right way.
(...) As I said, I strictly differentiate
between God (The creator) and anything else (the created). But I do
believe that Jesus showed people the right way.

Ok. But isn't the "right way" unifiying the two elements ? If Jesus is the son of God, Mohammed his prophet and Ali his emanation, i see here - at least - three way to "mimic" Him. Could any creature mimic Him if he/she/

Hmm...
Axiom: God exists.
After that, you can use this axiom to prove other things to those who share your axiom. But you cannot use other things to prove the axiom itself, can you? In my understanding, it is not so that "everything may become a proof of His existence". From a strict scientific point of view.

If you mean "for a believer, everything around him/her is a sign for God's existence (not a scientific proof)", than I would understand. Apparently everyone tends to interpret the things around him/her according to his/her own believe.

If Jesus is the son of God, Mohammed his prophet and Ali his emanation,i see here - at least - three way to "mimic" Him. Could any creat...

Hmm...
Axiom: God exists.
After that, you can use this axiom to prove other things to those who share your axiom. But you cannot use other things to prove the axiom itself, can you? In my understanding, it is not so that "everything may become a proof of His existence". From a strict scientific point of view.

If you mean "for a believer, everything around him/her is a sign for God's existence (not a scientific proof)", than I would understand. Apparently everyone tends to interpret the things around him/her according to his/her own believe.

If Jesus is the son of God, Mohammed his prophet and Ali his emanation,i see here - at least - three way to "mimic" Him. Could any creature mimic Him if he/she/it don't share - at least - one part of His essence ?

Well, one has first to "want" to mimic Him, or think "that it is possible and/or wanted" to mimic Him, to see it that way.
Since I blieve that no creature can ever mimic Him, and that this is not what He expects from us, I never saw it that way.

Trying to mimic Jesus, Muhammed and/or Ali (peace be upon them), is something I would rather (want to) do.

And somehow it seems to me, that the three assumptions cannot be true at the same time.

But you cannot use other things to prove the axiom itself, can you? In
my understanding, it is not so that "everything may become a proof of
His existence".

True. My mistake.

Could any creature mimic Him if he/she/it don't share - at least - one part of His essence ?
----------------------------------
Since I blieve that no creature can ever mimic Him, and that this is not what He expects from us, I never saw it that way.

Of course, "mimic" include some kind of intention. So i would rather put the accent on the verb "share". To be more precise, i could quote Ghazâli (my translation from french) : "[i]Everything has two faces : one facing itself, and one facing it...

But you cannot use other things to prove the axiom itself, can you? In
my understanding, it is not so that "everything may become a proof of
His existence".

True. My mistake.

Could any creature mimic Him if he/she/it don't share - at least - one part of His essence ?
----------------------------------
Since I blieve that no creature can ever mimic Him, and that this is not what He expects from us, I never saw it that way.

Of course, "mimic" include some kind of intention. So i would rather put the accent on the verb "share". To be more precise, i could quote Ghazâli (my translation from french) : "Everything has two faces : one facing itself, and one facing its Lord. If we consider the first, it is nothingness, and if we consider the second, it exists. So then, there is no other be-ing than God and His Face." Here we have a strict dualistic differenciation between the two faces of each creature - without ambiguity. But in the other hand, as creature, i share with other creatures the quality of be-ing. And the part of me witch have the quality of be-ing cannot have it without borrowing it to His Lord. So to be precise (i would'nt except to be so precise on this forum), the word sharing qualifies my relationship with other creatures, and the word borrowing qualifies my relationship with My Lord, on the matter of be-ing.

And somehow it seems to me, that the three assumptions cannot be true at the same time.

Maybe that's why the three consecutive traditions have (sometimes) some difficulties to agree together. But as i consider Islam as the seal of revelation - without being a muslim myself - i would preferably ask a muslim : what would be the best way to define these three "individuals" so we would'nt have to assume a contradiction.

By the way, what do you think He except from us ?

Hmmmm.... (this is me thinking hard)

I didn't read anything from Ghazali so far, and I am having difficulties understanding what he means. I never was good in understanding phylosophical and/or poem-ic descriptions, metaphors or illustrations.

The part 'everything has two faces' I can process somehow. I have difficulties with the word 'nothingness', if it doesn't mean 'worth nothing, insignificant'.
If it means, 'does not exist' (as opposed to the "exist"ence of the other face, facing the Lord), then this would be a contradiction to "everything has two faces".
And how the last sentence follows from the former one, I have no clue.

I don't write these to critisize, just to ...

Hmmmm.... (this is me thinking hard)

I didn't read anything from Ghazali so far, and I am having difficulties understanding what he means. I never was good in understanding phylosophical and/or poem-ic descriptions, metaphors or illustrations.

The part 'everything has two faces' I can process somehow. I have difficulties with the word 'nothingness', if it doesn't mean 'worth nothing, insignificant'.
If it means, 'does not exist' (as opposed to the "exist"ence of the other face, facing the Lord), then this would be a contradiction to "everything has two faces".
And how the last sentence follows from the former one, I have no clue.

I don't write these to critisize, just to show how I (don't) understand it. Certainly Ghazali had something in mind while writing this, but I cannot imagine, or figure out, what that was.

And the part of me witch have the quality of be-ing cannot have it without borrowing it to His Lord.

Does this mean something close to 'I cannot exist, without God making me exist, continously'.

I realize how difficult it is for two brains that work in different ways, to generate input that the other brain can understand correctly (with emphasis on correctly)

what would be the best way to define these three "individuals" so we would'nt have to assume a contradiction.

Hmm... do different traditions have to agree about this?
I mean, if somone believes that 'Jesus is God', than he/she should not have to change/transform/revise this believe to conform with other traditions/believes. Otherwise the believe would loose its originality.
It would be perfect (so it seems to me), if everyone would/could say exactly what he/she believes, without offending others; exchange information, debate, discuss etc., within the context of "To you be your way, and to me mine" (even if he/she wishes everyone would think like him/her )

Okay, we are facing a real difficulty here : the fact that we are discussing in english - not our natural language - about the meaning i give to a french traduction of some arabic text ... knowing that arabic, as hebrew, has a deeper level of meaning than english or french so that is merely impossible to translate it in that direction ... well ...

Anyway, i think the demonstration of Ghazali is about the fact that the quality of subject (vs object) is radiating from one unique source as the quality of lightness is radiating from the sun. So if "i" posesses the quality of subject, it cannot be so without reflecting - directly or indirectly - the unique source of the quality of ...

Okay, we are facing a real difficulty here : the fact that we are discussing in english - not our natural language - about the meaning i give to a french traduction of some arabic text ... knowing that arabic, as hebrew, has a deeper level of meaning than english or french so that is merely impossible to translate it in that direction ... well ...

Anyway, i think the demonstration of Ghazali is about the fact that the quality of subject (vs object) is radiating from one unique source as the quality of lightness is radiating from the sun. So if "i" posesses the quality of subject, it cannot be so without reflecting - directly or indirectly - the unique source of the quality of subject, witch is God. It's a metaphorical re-affirmation of the unicity of God across all His manifestations. Ghazali develops this idea from commenting Quran (XXIV, 35) - if i may :

Allah is the Light of the heavens and the earth. The Parable of His
Light is as if there were a Niche and within it a Lamp: the Lamp
enclosed in Glass: the glass as it were a brilliant star: lit from a
blessed Tree, an Olive, neither of the east nor of the west, whose oil
is well-nigh luminous, though fire scarce touched it: Light upon Light! (...)

So, now :

I mean, if somone believes that 'Jesus is God', than he/she should not
have to change/transform/revise this believe to conform with other
traditions/believes.

I certainely agree with that, but at some level, i think that diversity of beliefs must dissolve into unicity of truth, because i dont "believe" in multiplicity of truth. Of course, i will not exclude one belief for the sake of another - as it seems to be usual today in international "diplomacy". I would prefer to open my belief to include some other instead of closing it to exclude others.

Anyway, it was a pleasure to exchange these few words with you and i look forward to your presence in these forums.

Yes, it's difficult indeed. But at least now I get a glimpse of understanding of your viewpoint (the reflection of light helped).
I found a website (via clipmarks) with texts of Ghazali (in english), which I will look into.
The description in the verse you cited from the Quran: I can only to some point imagine it. I hope with more reading and thinking, and time, I can change this to the better.

I also don't believe in the multiplicity of truth. Therefore I don't know how it should be possible, that for example two statements contradicting each other could both be true at the same time, or how this contradiction could be dissolved, such that both become true.

What I would prefer is, to ope...

Yes, it's difficult indeed. But at least now I get a glimpse of understanding of your viewpoint (the reflection of light helped).
I found a website (via clipmarks) with texts of Ghazali (in english), which I will look into.
The description in the verse you cited from the Quran: I can only to some point imagine it. I hope with more reading and thinking, and time, I can change this to the better.

I also don't believe in the multiplicity of truth. Therefore I don't know how it should be possible, that for example two statements contradicting each other could both be true at the same time, or how this contradiction could be dissolved, such that both become true.

What I would prefer is, to open my mind to other beliefs (read/think/discuss about them, with due respect), accepting them as other beliefs, and leave the boundaries of my believe (which I didn't draw myself) as they are

An answer to a previous question I forgot to answer, about what I think He expects from us: "have Faith (believe, that there is no God but Him), and do righteous deeds, and (join together) in the mutual teaching of Truth, and of Patience and Constancy".

Thanks, it was a pleasure for me too. See you around then...