Either G-d exists or He does not.
When one is searching for an answer to a perplexing question, he can be led in the right direction in order to find the answer.
Sometimes this occurs to a person; he is led to a specific scenario in which he finds his answer. "Ha-mechin mitzadey gaver," "He (G-d) prepares the steps of man."
But what if a person uses G-d as a "tool" by which to calm his nerves when he is perplexed by a matter? He might say, "I do not know the answer now, but G-d will help me find it."
What if we were to imagine G-d as a mental structure existing in our minds to help us with this anxiety, but not a real Being (G-d forbid)?
If this were true, how could a mental structure "prepare the steps of man?"
If it were true, it would mean that the brain, somehow, has access to all information, that it knows everything.
However, if the brain knows everything, why is it that the person whom possesses the brain in his head does not know everything?
Does the brain know everything but also create a barrier to keep information away from our consciousness?
If so, then the brain is not "our brain," it is a living being with its own consciousness!
Either way, it is either the brain or G-d that has access to all information and "leaks" it to us; do we really believe that the brain is its own entity?
There is evidence for this, for the brain controls many human bodily functions without our control, permission, or authority; is this not fascinating?! Nothing a human being does is reason for the brain's behavior as such.
If we can concede that the brain controls our body (digestion, reaction, etc...), why do we vociferously reject that it can control our thoughts, or mental functions?
The brain is an outside actor planted in our head; why can we not believe that there is an outsider Actor Whom acts upon our brain?
If we reject both propositions, that the brain controls itself (and us) and that G-d leads the brain to information, then we are left with an unanswered proposal, that there is nothing.
Tuesday, May 02, 2006
Sin of Omission II
There are sections of Biblical history which the Q'uran must re-interpret. For example, the Q'uran is content enough leaving much of the Tanakh as it is, but if we do a side-by-side comparison of occurences recorded both in the Tanakh and the Q'uran, we see minor and major differences in the was those occurences were recorded. For example, the Q'uran has Moses saying saying things in a different manner than the Tanakh has him saying them. Which theory is more credible; that Moses said something and the Q'uran records it differently, or that the Q'uran's record is the genuine record and the Torah's account is the falsified version of the "original?" Keeping in mind that the Q'uran (and Islam) appeared in 722 CE and Moses lived some 3,000 years before this, I have never heard of a claim declaring that the newer document is original and the older document is the falsified version. Apparently, for Muslims, time travels in the other direction. The only sections which Muslim tradition claims the Jews falsified are sections that, if they were true, would validate Judaism, so they must be false if Islam is to command any credibility. Other than these sections, the Q'uran accepts the validity of the Tanakh's writings. It must because from where else would the Q'uran gain information about the figures and events of the Tanakh? It is not the Torah which has falsified the "original text," but the original text is the Torah and the Q'uran records what it needs how it needs in order to create a Muslim narrative. This had (and has) implications for Jews, otherwise I would say that Muslims can believe whatever they want. You cannot change a person's past into yours by chopping it up like a series of newspaper clippings. When I read the Q'uran, I realize that most of it is new material, save for some parts, which are altered sections of text from the Tanakh. These sections are "quotes" from the Tanakh, but they have been slightly altered and interjected with the new material, and this is the Q'uran, a relatively simple text, exluding the fact that it brought monotheism to the Arab world.
There are sections of Biblical history which the Q'uran must re-interpret. For example, the Q'uran is content enough leaving much of the Tanakh as it is, but if we do a side-by-side comparison of occurences recorded both in the Tanakh and the Q'uran, we see minor and major differences in the was those occurences were recorded. For example, the Q'uran has Moses saying saying things in a different manner than the Tanakh has him saying them. Which theory is more credible; that Moses said something and the Q'uran records it differently, or that the Q'uran's record is the genuine record and the Torah's account is the falsified version of the "original?" Keeping in mind that the Q'uran (and Islam) appeared in 722 CE and Moses lived some 3,000 years before this, I have never heard of a claim declaring that the newer document is original and the older document is the falsified version. Apparently, for Muslims, time travels in the other direction. The only sections which Muslim tradition claims the Jews falsified are sections that, if they were true, would validate Judaism, so they must be false if Islam is to command any credibility. Other than these sections, the Q'uran accepts the validity of the Tanakh's writings. It must because from where else would the Q'uran gain information about the figures and events of the Tanakh? It is not the Torah which has falsified the "original text," but the original text is the Torah and the Q'uran records what it needs how it needs in order to create a Muslim narrative. This had (and has) implications for Jews, otherwise I would say that Muslims can believe whatever they want. You cannot change a person's past into yours by chopping it up like a series of newspaper clippings. When I read the Q'uran, I realize that most of it is new material, save for some parts, which are altered sections of text from the Tanakh. These sections are "quotes" from the Tanakh, but they have been slightly altered and interjected with the new material, and this is the Q'uran, a relatively simple text, exluding the fact that it brought monotheism to the Arab world.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
