Why converse of G-d is needed by humans?

1. 50

   paarsurreyposted 9 years ago

   This is because logic and reasoning alone cannot lead to the perfect cognition of G-d.
   
   Everyone’s thoughts are welcome whether one belongs to a religion or no religion.
   
   Regards

   replyreport
   1. 93

      wildernessposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      And what is the converse of god?  Reason and knowledge?

      replyreport
      1. 50

         paarsurreyposted 9 years agoin reply to this

         It is Word of Revelation by G-d descended on the Prophets/Messengers for guidance of humanity.
         
         Regards

         replyreport
         1. 93

            wildernessposted 9 years agoin reply to this

            The converse of God is the Christian bible?  An odd definition, I must say.  Or did you mean conversation with a god?  Or conversing about a god with other people?

            replyreport
            1. 50

               paarsurreyposted 9 years agoin reply to this

               Any Converse of G-d with the truthful persons like Buddha, Krishna, Zoroaster, Moses, Jesus and Muhammad, the original words revealed in any language of any religion at any time.
               
               Regards

               replyreport
   2. 59

      Righteous Atheistposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      I am assuming you mean "conversation"? If not ignore my answer.
      
      People who believe in god need to talk about it in order to attempt to get validation for something they know in their hearts to be false. Hence the arguments and conflict surrounding this concept.

      replyreport
      1. 77

         Kathryn L Hillposted 9 years agoin reply to this

         Perfect cognition of God does require more than logic and reason. It is definitely fruitless and to no avail to converse about G-D. So,why do we? 
         
         Why do I?
         
         Because I imagine (young) others will read what the atheists have to say and become convinced there is No God and that is horrible to me. Just horrible. Mine is a knee jerk response to the ideas of atheists. If there were no atheists keyboarding here on the HP Forums, I would not be keyboarding in the religious/philosophy forums at all.
         I acknowledge it is a problem that I have. One of these days I will get over it. Meanwhile...

         replyreport
         1. 59

            Righteous Atheistposted 9 years agoin reply to this

            I just explained why you feel the need.

            replyreport
            1. 77

               Kathryn L Hillposted 9 years agoin reply to this

               Well, I disagree. It is because of atheism. I can't stand it.

               replyreport
               1. 59

                  Righteous Atheistposted 9 years agoin reply to this

                  Yes, I know it makes you angry that some people don't believe your claims. This is why religionists have spent so much time murdering non believers. Why does it make you so angry that I don't believe you?

                  replyreport
                  1. 77

                     Kathryn L Hillposted 9 years agoin reply to this

                     Oh no... you completely, utterly and profoundly misunderstand me.
                     Anger has nothing to do with it. Fear does. The spread and acceptance of the ideas of atheism by the youth frightens me. I never claimed that some people not believing my claims makes me angry.
                     Why do you misunderstand me like that?
                     
                     PS I keyboard for those who would like to consider an alternative to atheism. Thats all.
                     (PSS I have nothing against atheists personally, after all, I was one at one time.)
                     
                     
                     PMC

                     replyreport
                     1. 59

                        Righteous Atheistposted 9 years agoin reply to this

                        Fear breeds anger and hatred. What are these "ideas of atheism," you are so scared of?
                        
                        PS. I don't think any reasonable person is likely to take what you say too seriously.
                        PPS. You clearly have something against atheists. You just said so.
                        
                        NGBWRA

                        replyreport
                        1. 77

                           Kathryn L Hillposted 9 years agoin reply to this

                           I disagree. I have nothing against atheists, for instance I like you. We are friends, right? But sadly, you said:
                           
                           No Good Being With Righteous Atheist ( ? )

                           replyreport
                           1. 59

                              Righteous Atheistposted 9 years agoin reply to this

                              You clearly stated that you have a problem with atheists. You are scared of the "ideas of atheism" and then did not answer what those ideas were that scared you. Clearly 2,000 years of religionists murdering atheists for not believing proves fear leads to anger.
                              
                              So - once again - what are these ideas that scare you so badly?

                              replyreport
                              1. 77

                                 Kathryn L Hillposted 9 years agoin reply to this

                                 No. I will not. Goodbye for today. You are making me feel forced. Same reason I was an atheist once.

                                 replyreport
                                 1. 59

                                    Righteous Atheistposted 9 years agoin reply to this

                                    Oh well - guess you were not being truthful again. Not to worry. Keep on saying baseless things and refusing to answer questions. All my fault I guess. For not believing.
                                    
                                    Forced, persecuted. You religionists sure do have a terrible time of things.

                                    replyreport
2. 50

   paarsurreyposted 9 years ago

   Why converse of G-d is needed by humans?
   
   The study of creation alone cannot lead to perfect certainty (about God) is proven by the fact that creation is not a book wherein one can read plainly that all these things have been created by God, that God in fact exists, that the joy of meeting Him is the ultimate bliss and that He will reward those who are obedient and punish the transgressors.
   
   Rather, when one observes Allah’s creation and finds the design of this universe to be perfect and flawless, one can only conclude, by way of conjecture, that there ‘ought to be’ a Creator of this creation.
   
   However, there is a great difference between the import of ‘ought to be’ and ‘is’. There is an element of doubt in ‘ought to be’ and it does not bring about the degree of certainty that ‘is’ does.
   
   When a person says by way of conjecture that such and such a thing ‘ought to be’ he means to say only that it has to exist so far as his reasoning is concerned, but he is unable to say whether or not it actually exists.
   
   This is why all those who have restricted themselves to the study of nature have never agreed upon a conclusion—neither do they now, nor will it be possible in the future.
   
   Mirza Ghulam Ahmad (see p. 41)
   Barahin-E- Ahamdiyya— Part three

   replyreport
   1. 71

      Jomine Joseposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      
      
      I am sure you will not want to see some other "perfect and flawless" design like harlequin or anencephaly.

      replyreport
      1. 50

         paarsurreyposted 9 years agoin reply to this

         I think you missed the point.
         
         Regards

         replyreport
         1. 71

            Jomine Joseposted 9 years agoin reply to this

            I think you either missed it or you have none because 'existence' has nothing to do with consensus or what one thinks about it.

            replyreport
   2. 93

      wildernessposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      "Rather, when one observes Allah’s creation and finds the design of this universe to be perfect and flawless, one can only conclude, by way of conjecture, that there ‘ought to be’ a Creator of this creation."
      
      Perfect?  Flawless?  I assume you don't live in New Orleans.  Or Japan.  Or Pahoa, Hawaii.  Or around the time of the dinosaur killer asteroid. 
      
      One can only assume that the universe was "created" by chance, without regard to the needs of life or humanity.

      replyreport
      1. 50

         paarsurreyposted 9 years agoin reply to this

         I think you missed the point.
         
         Regards

         replyreport
         1. 93

            wildernessposted 9 years agoin reply to this

            Oh?  If it isn't perfect, what IS the point?

            replyreport
            1. 50

               paarsurreyposted 9 years agoin reply to this

               The point is:
               
               When a person says by way of conjecture that such and such a thing ‘ought to be’ he means to say only that it has to exist so far as his reasoning is concerned, but he is unable to say whether or not it actually exists.
               
               The reason would never be in consensus, it could be fifty/fifty sometimes more some times less from group to group.
               
               The near-certainty or certainty would be with consensus if our faculties are normal.
               
               I think it helps.
               
               Regards

               replyreport
               1. 71

                  Jomine Joseposted 9 years agoin reply to this

                  Not exactly, our faculties are indeed normal, for  the animal we are. It is being honest and rising above our instincts that can bring consensus with reason.

                  replyreport