Posted by R.Rangan on December 22, 19103 at 16:33:25:

In Reply to: Re: Show me GOD..... posted by Tucker Lieberman on November 09, 19103 at 00:56:57:

The idea highlighted in the crude example is just to highlight how words and description prove to be greatly inadequate in trying to capture which is all-inclusive and dynamic in nature.
In the given example, the majority of the world living in the interiors of far away land and who are never ever going have access to the city mentioned, can either accept the vague pointers from others like maps,photos,memory/audio/video clips with good faith and accept. THey may well reject it on the ground that such pointers can never deal with the dynamic reality of its existence. Thus even if the majority might reject will the city cease to exist?
The rejection or insistence of solid proof as demanded by scientists when it comes to existence of GOD is also somewhat like this.
Trees,birds,flowers and the sky,etc.. may be considered to be three-dimensional video clips, for example and why not? Prophets, though only a very few, here and there now and then affirming it does prove its validity as the central theme of what they all say is essentially the same, though different aspects might be highlighted due to the dynamic nature of what is being described.
Objective knowledge is fragmental and infinite in trying to decipher the whole from its fragments. On the otherhand, subjective tasting of the truth is total and dynamic.

Follow Ups:

• Re: Show me GOD..... Tucker Lieberman 21:25:19 12/28/103 (5)
  • Re: Show me GOD..... R.Rangan 11:41:35 12/30/103 (4)
    • Re: Show me GOD..... Tucker Lieberman 00:49:08 1/02/104 (3)
      • Re: Show me GOD..... R.Rangan 03:19:16 1/02/104 (2)
        • Re: Show me GOD..... Tucker Lieberman 17:36:45 1/12/104 (0)
        • Re: Show me GOD..... R.Rangan 11:03:49 1/02/104 (0)

Post a Followup