| נשלח ב-7/10/2005 16:52 |
 |
| |
It's turtles all the way down
The famous story,
A young scientist was lecturing on the motion and trajectory of our planet, the law of inertia etc.. and an old lady stands up and says, what are you talking about, we all know that the world is resting on a large turtle. Hmm the lecturer responds, and on what is that turtle resting on? On another turtle, the old lady answers. And on what is that other turtle resting on the scientist retorts? Young man it's no use, the old lady says, it's turtles all the way down.
What I don't understand is that people who understand the absurdity of this old lady, yet don't understand the absurdity of proving the existence of God by asking 'how was this world created, how does it have so much design etc. without God?'. Isn't it obvious that you haven't answered anything by just pushing the issue onto the next step i.e. God? As obviously absurd as 'the turtle all the way down response'.
Existence is ultimately without cause. And there is nothing illogical about it it's just a matter of getting used to.
תוקן על ידי - עני_בפתח - 07/10/2005 16:52:09
 |
|
|
|
|
| נשלח ב-9/10/2005 03:30 |
|
| |
On the other hand, if we really understand what is meant by the word God, we actually need no proof. Or as my Rebbe Veto once said "A God that needs proof is not God".
Here's why;
It's common knowledge that man is the sum total of his consciousness. An example to prove this point is by asking ourselves what if there is another man with all the experiences, and i mean "all" the experiences as myself, right up to this present moment, then he will actually be me, there will be no distinction at all. Now if that's the case then we agree that there is no "self in itself" there is ONLY a sum of consciousness. But the word consciousness implies the concept of there being an 'entity' that "has" consciousness, yet we have just seen that there is 'nothing' other than these collective consciousness. So we will have to use the word 'existences' and say that there is here a sum of certain existences that we call 'self'.
Through a process of logic we have annihilated the concept of an 'entity' that 'has' consciousness. We have realized that it's a contradiction in terms. For on the one hand we understand that there is nothing more to consciousness than the fact of being conscious yet on the other hand it implies a 'thing' that is conscious, as if there is something out there even before it is conscious.
So if we will eliminate the word conciousness from our dictionary we will have to do the same when we talk about God. There is no Entity out there which we shall call God that 'has' consciousness for that is a contradiction in terms as above (Hu Ve'yedioso Chad). We can only call It Existence. And we really need no proof that Existence Exists.
|
|
|
|
|
| נשלח ב-20/10/2005 21:55 |
|
| |
You wrote
''Existence is ultimately without cause. And there is nothing illogical about it it's just a matter of getting used to.''
Isn't the question what is existence, how it came about, and what is the reason of it's existence, the fact that there is existence nobody can deny, the above is something that hunted mankind all along, is it human nature that wants to know all of this, is it just the ego that cant grasp the concept that our existence is without cause which in the same note its without reason? I don't know.
|
|
|
|
| נשלח ב-21/10/2005 03:16 |
|
| |
Dear Ani
I just want to comment on your Rabbi's saying: " A God that needs proof isn't a God."
Proof doesn't undermine the concept of God, it just binds the concept to the humans mind.
I know that your preliminary problem is the sentence: "God exist" that seems like, existences
is higher then God. But after all if one agreed to use, for some reason, the word (idea) God, he can not disregard the need of proof for God.
|
|
|
|
| נשלח ב-15/6/2006 21:33 |
|
| |
What I don't understand is that people who understand the absurdity of this old lady, yet don't understand the absurdity of proving the existence of God by asking 'how was this world created, how does it have so much design etc. without God?'. Isn't it obvious that you haven't answered anything by just pushing the issue onto the next step i.e. God? As obviously absurd as 'the turtle all the way down
*:namespace prefix = o />
I do not see the absurdity.
Everything in our existence has a beginning and an end. It is then logical to inquire what the beginning of the universe is.
Now, you cannot ask the same question about G-D. Do you know for definite what G-D is? Who he is? What kind if existence he is? How can you ask: Who created G-D when you don't even know that he needed to be created!
Take a look at this vido clip
G-D's EXISTENCE
תוקן על ידי - אמונתחכמים - 15/06/2006 21:34:05
תוקן על ידי - אמונתחכמים - 15/06/2006 21:34:35
תוקן על ידי - אמונתחכמים - 15/06/2006 21:35:17
|
|
|
|
| נשלח ב-22/6/2006 18:38 |
|
| |
Time is also a concept that is part of creation. It coceptualizes diversity-change, but Being-Hove (named god)
is beyond beginning and end.
|
|
|
|
| נשלח ב-26/6/2006 06:00 |
|
| |
שכליאל
The number 1 is before 2. The number 1is before 2 not beacuse I said so or anybody else said so. Its a fact and it will not change. You could asign any term you want to it, but the number 1 will always be before number 2. Now, the word time is only a term used to explain that 1 o'clock is befre 2 o'clock, that's all it is, a term. You could change the term and call it, dog, lion or whatever. The fact will remain that 1 is before 2. I agree that this is a creation, neverthless now that were in this existance where 1 is before 2., there is no way that you could understand with our existing minds understand what Hova means. I could say it just as you could, but it's the same as saying: "2 is before 1
|
|
|
|
| נשלח ב-13/7/2006 23:58 |
|
| |
Am I the only one seeing your absurdity here?
You Wrote:
A young scientist was lecturing on the motion and trajectory of our planet, the law of inertia etc.. and an old lady stands up and says, what are you talking about, we all know that the world is resting on a large turtle. Hmm the lecturer responds, and on what is that turtle resting on? On another turtle, the old lady answers. And on what is that other turtle resting on the scientist retorts? Young man it's no use, the old lady says, it's turtles all the way down.
What I don't understand is that people who understand the absurdity of this old lady, yet don't understand the absurdity of proving the existence of God by asking 'how was this world created, how does it have so much design etc. without God?'. Isn't it obvious that you haven't answered anything by just pushing the issue onto the next step i.e. God? As obviously absurd as 'the turtle all the way down response'.
Now, do you realize what is so absurd about this old lady's answer? I guess everyone does. But why is it that it is so absurd? Is it because the lady "haven't answered anything by just pushing the issue onto the next step", or because we all understand that the answer "it's turtles all the way down" is no real answer but rather generates another copy of the same question "what is that turtle resting on?". While that is the case in this example, it is not so in the second example. When someone tries to prove God's existence by asking the question "'how was this world created, how does it have so much design etc. without God?", he cannot be considered absurd, because absurdity here is NOT because one "hasn't answered anything by just pushing the issue onto the next step", but because of what I explained above. I don't know where you took your logic from, but I think that what I just explained is quite comprehensible.
|
|
|
|
|
| נשלח ב-14/7/2006 08:45 |
|
| |
I'm sure you'd agree that if the old lady would answer that the turtle rests on a horse it still would be an absurd answer. For by pushing the question to the horse rather than the turtle you don't accomplish anything, it just doesn't answer the question.
Same goes to the question of who created the universe. You can answer that a computer created it, but the it will just be pushing the question onto this
computer, the question now being how was this computer created
The same with God. You're in awe at the intricacies of the world so you claim tha the only way to understand it is by there being a God. So I'll ask you why do you find that an intricate world cannot create itself but an intricate God can create itself? If intricacy begs for a creator outside of itslef then it will be asking you to find who created God.
Please realise that I answer the above issue by explaining what God really means
|
|
|
|
| נשלח ב-14/7/2006 13:55 |
|
| |
Yes. I do agree that if the lady were to answer that the turtle rests on a horse, the question would still remain. Why? Because changing one trivial detail of the picture does not answer anything. It does not matter whether it is a turtle or a horse or whatever, the question still remains: What does that rest on?
When someone raises the question of "Who created the universe", the answer "that a computer created it" really does not amount to anything because the same question remains, although in a different form, "who created the computer?". But when someone answers that same question with "god created the world." one cannot ask again the question "who created the god than?" since in essence the definition of god is above our comprehension.
|
|
|
|
| נשלח ב-18/7/2006 08:11 |
|
| |
Think of a detective who is trying to figure out who did this certain act. His problem is that it is incomprehensible how this particular act came to be. Now how would you like when he comes over to you and tells you excitedly "I got the answer", so you ask him to share it with you and he answers "it was done in an incomprehnsible way by an incomprehnsible force" Duh.
You politely explain to him that he didn't add any info here. It was incomprehensible before and it's incomprehensible now. By changing the object of incomprehensibilty you don't help any.
|
|
|
|
| נשלח ב-24/7/2006 14:54 |
|
| |
I think this conversation has reached a point where I say: WHATEVER
|
|
|
|
|
| נשלח ב-26/7/2006 18:43 |
|
| |
Oni B'pesahc is attepmting to explain that G-D is existence, therfore we can not ask who created G-D because exitstence exists. But as I pointed out before, these are only words without any intelectual understanding. The human mind will always come back to the same question: what was "before", because everything we encounter in our existence has a beginning and an end, so why should "existence" be different? However, it is comprehensible that there exists is an existence that is beyond ours of which we don't konw much about. The laws of that existence may well be different then ours, and maybe if we know what that existence is we will understand that it does not need a beginning.
|
|
|
|
|
