Comments on: Looking over and under the fence.. http://blog.somik.net/looking-over-and-under-the-fence To boldly go where I have never gone before.. Mon, 09 Aug 2010 21:56:38 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0.1 By: Kedar http://blog.somik.net/looking-over-and-under-the-fence/comment-page-1#comment-661 Kedar Thu, 07 Feb 2008 21:27:33 +0000 http://blog.somik.net/looking-over-and-under-the-fence#comment-661 Thanks for your comment.. when I started thinking about this, I tried to refrain from everything I have heard so far. Because I am against people who hide behind a wall of words and high sounding phrases to explain God. They use words as toys and come up with clever sentences that can surely be appreciated as literature but not, according to me, as arguments. I cannot be in awe of words alone, and that's the reason I can't stand the preachings on this topic. I wanted to find something that is more analytical when I talk to an atheist. The ant colony idea was the closest I could get. So that I can at least put a doubt in an atheist's mind, if you know what I mean :-) Turn the tables kind of thing! But like you said, it is sort of an "ego" thing - you look down upon ants and you see yourself exploring the depths of the Universe. But you don't realize you are still moving in the same 3-D world like they do in their 2-D world. Thanks for your comment.. when I started thinking about this, I tried to refrain from everything I have heard so far. Because I am against people who hide behind a wall of words and high sounding phrases to explain God. They use words as toys and come up with clever sentences that can surely be appreciated as literature but not, according to me, as arguments. I cannot be in awe of words alone, and that’s the reason I can’t stand the preachings on this topic. I wanted to find something that is more analytical when I talk to an atheist.

The ant colony idea was the closest I could get. So that I can at least put a doubt in an atheist’s mind, if you know what I mean :-) Turn the tables kind of thing! But like you said, it is sort of an “ego” thing – you look down upon ants and you see yourself exploring the depths of the Universe. But you don’t realize you are still moving in the same 3-D world like they do in their 2-D world.

]]> By: saprejan http://blog.somik.net/looking-over-and-under-the-fence/comment-page-1#comment-660 saprejan Wed, 06 Feb 2008 16:14:19 +0000 http://blog.somik.net/looking-over-and-under-the-fence#comment-660 Interesting topic. Anything that involves God, is inherently interesting. In a way we are indeed like the ants. Its difficult to move to higher dimension. Its even more difficult to perceive, accept and then break the paradox. I too agree with the idea that God is not babysitting the creation, rather the (karmic ?) laws and causality relationships working on all levels from quantum to cosmic, runs everything. That is why everything has some free will to make progress. God does not kill the ants nor does he gives them food. But then each ant, the food and everything else in the creation is God too. Everything about us, mind, body etc etc struggles to maintain the paradox! We, the unrealized, are afraid of things due to this paradoxical and illusionary separation from God. Once the illusion of separation is thwarted, which takes extreme efforts over N lifetimes as per saints and seers, then there is God. And why is it so damn difficult? Because, to see God is to become God!!! Its not like you went and saw the Grand Canyon and took pictures and got back to your work. It whatever I try to say, it seems true that I can only say it in the existing dimensions (body, mind, feeble intelligence) and under the influence of all the impressions made by religion, great people, .... and what I ate for breakfast too :-) "finding" God is a battle of each one with his/her own false self (ego?) may be that is why its difficult? Interesting topic.
Anything that involves God, is inherently interesting.
In a way we are indeed like the ants. Its difficult to move to higher
dimension. Its even more difficult to perceive, accept and then break
the paradox.
I too agree with the idea that God is not babysitting the creation, rather
the (karmic ?) laws and causality relationships working on all levels from
quantum to cosmic, runs everything.
That is why everything has some free will to make progress.
God does not kill the ants nor does he gives them food.
But then each ant, the food and everything else in the creation is God too.

Everything about us, mind, body etc etc struggles to maintain the paradox!
We, the unrealized, are afraid of things due to this paradoxical and illusionary separation from God.

Once the illusion of separation is thwarted, which takes extreme efforts over
N lifetimes as per saints and seers, then there is God.

And why is it so damn difficult?
Because, to see God is to become God!!!
Its not like you went and saw the Grand Canyon and took pictures and got back
to your work.

It whatever I try to say, it seems true that I can only say it in the existing
dimensions (body, mind, feeble intelligence) and under the influence of
all the impressions made by religion, great people, …. and what I ate for
breakfast too :-)

“finding” God is a battle of each one with his/her own false self (ego?)
may be that is why its difficult?

]]> By: Kedar http://blog.somik.net/looking-over-and-under-the-fence/comment-page-1#comment-659 Kedar Wed, 06 Feb 2008 15:42:31 +0000 http://blog.somik.net/looking-over-and-under-the-fence#comment-659 Joe thanks for your comments.. I was curious as to which paradox you are drawn to - that theists can only prove their point using something that atheism denies, or just the paradoxical nature of atheism? Or did you mean the paradoxical nature of atheism is because of that paradox? And well that way, theism is paradoxical too. Because I think the only way to prove the existence conclusively is by way of physical, our-world proof that can be understood by everybody, and that seems tough. In addition, *divine revelation* is contradictory according to me. We all know human mind is the biggest trickster. With the right level of consciousness (!), you can feel or experience the most amazing things. I basically tried to approach this with 2 minds - one of a theist and one of an atheist. And I found it to be very hard to prove one thing to the other - because I was honest with both the sides. That is important, many people think that their way of thinking is quite logical and obvious if explained - which is far from the truth. Joe thanks for your comments.. I was curious as to which paradox you are drawn to – that theists can only prove their point using something that atheism denies, or just the paradoxical nature of atheism? Or did you mean the paradoxical nature of atheism is because of that paradox?

And well that way, theism is paradoxical too. Because I think the only way to prove the existence conclusively is by way of physical, our-world proof that can be understood by everybody, and that seems tough. In addition, *divine revelation* is contradictory according to me. We all know human mind is the biggest trickster. With the right level of consciousness (!), you can feel or experience the most amazing things.

I basically tried to approach this with 2 minds – one of a theist and one of an atheist. And I found it to be very hard to prove one thing to the other – because I was honest with both the sides. That is important, many people think that their way of thinking is quite logical and obvious if explained – which is far from the truth.

]]> By: jdzik http://blog.somik.net/looking-over-and-under-the-fence/comment-page-1#comment-658 jdzik Fri, 01 Feb 2008 20:04:25 +0000 http://blog.somik.net/looking-over-and-under-the-fence#comment-658 I rather enjoy the paradoxical nature of atheism. The only way to really know the truth in these matters is by some form of divine revelation. But atheism denies the existence of divine revelation, so it's certainty is contradictory. (Though I'll admit that I'm drawn to that very paradox.) I have Dawkins's book sitting on my to-read pile - my son gave me an autographed copy for Xmas last year. Haven't reached it yet, but will before too long. I rather enjoy the paradoxical nature of atheism. The only way to really know the truth in these matters is by some form of divine revelation. But atheism denies the existence of divine revelation, so it’s certainty is contradictory. (Though I’ll admit that I’m drawn to that very paradox.)

I have Dawkins’s book sitting on my to-read pile – my son gave me an autographed copy for Xmas last year. Haven’t reached it yet, but will before too long.

]]>