how r u? where r u based now? what do u do?

a very nice blog indeed…keep blogging!!!

Medha
(DAV Kolkata 2002 batch)

And I guess we also agree when –

the concept of a God is just something invented to coax the strength out, nothing more, nothing less.

and you say –

We don’t get endowed with any extra hope or strength by praying, but maximize the use of that which is already within us.

I don’t think we have a conflict when we are using the word God as simply a not-existent personal metaphor, and I knew that from my first reading alone

But we all would agree that all three of them are right in their own way

Actually I think all three of them are wrong in their own way, if they take their God to be a existential being and not as a personal metaphor.

Of course I know about the origin of the God concept as an explanation of the unknown and its subsequent “elevation” to “an omnipresent, omnipotent, omniscient” being. And this is where I differ. I think that as animals capable of thought, we now ought to know better and take God, if at all, only in the personal metaphorical sense that I guess we both agree upon, and not as the traditional religions and even some individual believers have taken it literally and as an existent being.

As Steven Weinberg said once “If you want to say that ‘God is energy,’ then you can find God in a lump of coal.”

But I guess a lump of coal cannot send me to Hell

PS:

Well, the question of delusion comes when there is some proof or rational argument against it

That is not quite correct.. but it will be quite a digression to discuss this.

But I rather see God as a source of my completeness, an institution within myself. She is my friend and motherlike to me. I rather love Her than worship Her and imagine Her than believe in her.

.
The question of believing in earth to be a flat surface and its falseness is not an analogy to be drawn here. Here we are not dealing with any physical entity or trying to be scientific. Somebody might say his God is in a temple idol, and some might attack him saying God is formless. But to be practical, we all know that both are true and false at the same time. God is not something that some physicists would discover someday making all other notions fall flat. I again emphasize, its a part of our imagination, an imagination that is powerful enough to hold our faith unmoved.

Throughout time, the concept of God and the fear of God has kept order in the society and sustained the civilization. Its for the same reason that although we don’t carry stone weapons with us any longer we bear the very same God in our minds that our ancestors had invented, in the ‘beginning of time’.

.
The only point in my trying to rationalizing the current concepts is to let people know that the concept put forward by some ancient men are not something to be considered perfect and unquestionable. We have our own freedom to choose our God. Religion and tradition do bring people close, I agree. But if an idol is what you would love to see God in, then please go ahead and don’t deprive your mind of the privilege, even if your institution of faith forces you to think otherwise.

What we are dealing with here is certainly something that for certain we know is purely our imagination and source of our hope and inspiration for sticking to righteousness. I would again request you to distance your loathing for people who generate metaphysics out of science. That’s an issue altogether different from this, I hope.

If you truly think that God is just a human conception to cope up with various events (tragic or otherwise), that do not lie within her control, then you must again realize that this hope or strength then comes from the human and the concept of a God is just something invented to coax the strength out, nothing more, nothing less.

I never defended the existence of an Almighty. Rather, throughout the whole post I have been trying to prove such a concept wrong. I, think that should justify what I had been trying to say and answer your other questions. And yes, what you say is perfectly right. We don’t get endowed with any extra hope or strength by praying, but maximize the use of that which is already within us.

For example: Munshi has a female God. So is God male or female? If by God you refer to just your delusion of an almighty protector then it could be male or female, knock yourself out with your delusion. But if you mean it as a “truth” with any kind of existence, then it is a valid objective question and not a personal thing.

You wrote the above before it got too long. Well, the question of delusion comes when there is some proof or rational argument against it. My friend worships Ganesha and his friend worships Allah. Are both of them making fool of themselves? A Christian missionary might drop in to convince them so. But we all would agree that all three of them are right in their own way. If there had been a physical entity who could be framed as God, the question of delusion in believing otherwise could have been aroused.
I am not trying to be an atheist, but do attach importance to the fact that prehistoric men developed the concept of God associate with phenomena those were not in their control, and ever since the concept has become a distinct and intimate part of human society and entity as a whole.
So the concept of an omnipresent, omnipotent, omniscient God has developed over some time and it is not a discovery or invention. Early Aryans and even medieval mongols practiced animism and their religion was based on that. So, we see that even religions with no God associated with them existed.
With the questions sprouting in your mind, i would suggest a careful re-reading of the post. I, think all your answers are well in there.

I am always available for real arguments, as you already know and I don’t think any soul would like to be called a poor one.

Unfortunately you seem to have miss interpreted what I said, partly because I was so very brief.

I have no problem with anyone believing in “spiritual infinity” (whatever the hell that means) or “quantum connectedness” (again whatever the hell that means) as God. What I am saying is that these concepts have nothing to do with math or physics. They just, wrongfully in my opinion, borrow ideas from mathematics and physics and try to generate metaphysical concepts from them. Unfortunately, what people miss is that “sounding” mathematical is not really “being” mathematical. Usurping solid and rigorous ideas and blurring them to metaphysics doesn’t make them valid or true or real by a long shot.

“Can you fathom infinity? You cannot write down or imagine what the largest possible number looks like.”

Well, if Nikhil is a mathematician he should know that the answer to the first question is “yes”, thanks to Cantor and the second one is a meaningless question, thanks to Euclid (I guess).

So I think that should clear up things that I wasn’t commenting on your personal beliefs nor was I saying that you go about coercing people to call you “Prophet Nikhil”, but only questioning your “mathematical motivations”.

Now I have no doubt as to the effectiveness of a belief in God, as a source of hope, motivation or moral strength. I have been religious at a point of time my self and then rejected it.

But, then do such notions really exist? You people say its a personal matter. Well, if I personally believe with all my heart and soul(whatever that is again) that the earth is flat, does that make it true in any sense?

I guess not. Then why does believing with all your heart and soul that there exists a metaphysical entity who will provide me help and solace and answer my prayer, make it true?

People keep saying that their beliefs are their beliefs and cannot be questioned by others. But then such “beliefs” like the earth is flat are certainly within the realm of objective enquiry. Then why is not the belief that “an all-powerful supreme being exist”?

If you truly think that God is just a human conception to cope up with various events (tragic or otherwise), that do not lie within her control, then you must again realize that this hope or strength then comes from the human and the concept of a God is just something invented to coax the strength out, nothing more, nothing less. If your beliefs are just that “beliefs” and not statements asserting the existence of anything, then of course the notion of them being true does not arise. But then fact that you are “believing” in them, means that you consider them as some existential truth.

For example: Munshi has a female God. So is God male or female? If by God you refer to just your delusion of an almighty protector then it could be male or female, knock yourself out with your delusion. But if you mean it as a “truth” with any kind of existence, then it is a valid objective question and not a personal thing.

( this is getting too long)

to conclude (?)…

1. I don’t care what your “personal beliefs” are, using vague mathematical arguments do not justify any conceptions of God.

2. If God is personal, then it is just a psychological delusion made up to keep you hopeful and sane.

3. If it is not so, if God really “exists” in any reasonable sense of the term, then it cannot be a matter of personal choice.

There are many more subtle points but this is really getting too long (and I have to get breakfast now ). You are welcome to reply and I will answer when I get time. So, Munshida is welcome to stop harassing other poor souls in the department and have a real argument with me sometime ;D