So back to Mughal's post... my goodness .. I was causally checking web and I get "Mughal and yeezevee" all over..
that is from Mughal in one of his responses
old times nostalgia memories.... well yes,, we are all getting old... but that is OK., that is the way life supposed to go...So back to Mughal's question..
Do humans have needed knowledge to discuss God, revelation and creation?
well for that we need to define those words first ..1).. God, 2). revelation 3). creation
.. any way Mughal says in that unimportant part of his post ..
I think we humans need to go through three stages of learning before we could talk about God in a sensible way.
well as I said we can have infinite number of stages of learning ... but that is ok ,, we can have three major stages and then many sub-stages under those three
Our first stage of learning is all about things we can detect directly with our senses after our birth. All we need to do is observe what things are and what they do and how they do what they do or why they do what they do. This is how we start rationalising things or this is how we start developing our logical thinking about things from the most simple to the most complex. If we do not learn things to this stage we cannot move on to the next stage. The better we are at reasoning the better is our understanding or comprehension of things. In the beginning we can only perform most simple tasks but as we get busy with our learning in time we come to the stage whereby we can perform most complex tasks.
that is fine as a first basic step in the life of a child I agree with that Mughal..
Compare mechanism involved in a bike to the mechanisms involved in a car or an aeroplane etc. If we do not understand bike mechanism then we surely cannot understand aeroplane mechanisms
that is OK .. both are different transport devices that use mechanical assembly and they can use biological/chemical/electrical/ or atomic energy to propel the device forward against some friction..
Moreover if we do not understand visible mechanism then we cannot understand invisible mechanisms because for that we need to develop higher level of thinking ability.
In this 21st century with internet on finger tips., we understand the visible mechanisms of many mechanical/electrical/biological devices of the planet we live in far far better than what cave dwellers/story tellers/song sonnet writers of the past that lived some 1000s of years ago..
Once we have reach first stage of thinking level then comes our second stage of learning which is about things that are not all directly reachable by our senses.
that is OK.. I agree with that ... we can have some more sub-stages under that 2nd stage ..
Now we try our best to come up with tools or instruments whereby we extend our power of observations or detection. By this stage of knowledge we come to realise the fact that not all that exists is detectable by our senses directly. Here we start calling things visible as well as invisible or detectable as well as undeotectable. In other words we come to know by this stage that some things are accessible by us and others not. Now stage one of our learning comes to our help if had trained ourselves well in logical thinking. In case of first stage if one was using a bike for riding and it broke, it will only need a visible inspection to find fault in it eg if a person was riding a bike and was going along then suddenly the turning of pedals became ineffective then one will try to look at the bike to see what may have gone wrong. As the rider inspects the bike he sees the chain has broken down, one was able to find this fault very easy for two main reasons a)the mechanism was simple and b)the whole mechanism was visible directly. Had it been a tv set which had broken down then the fault finding process will not be that simple. It is because the tv set will have much more complex circuitry and will be involving many more components as well as some totally invisible things as well. So now we will have to be able to reason things out at a much higher level to figure out the fault. We will have to know functions of components and the involved circuitry as to how exactly these components etc make a tv set work the way it works so what could cause the fault that has developed in the tv set. Once we have reached this stage of learning then we need to go to yet higher stage of learning when we have to deal with things that are totally undetectable with our senses or even with any tool or instrument.
dear Mughal I fully understand your point of the existence of invisible world to our senses ., I worked with Synchrotron light sources where one uses invisible waves to probe structures of biological molecules at atomic lengths........ and I fully agree with you on the basic premises of your post that ., we must keep options open to explore the vast invisible world that lives around us and far way from us in this universe
Unless one has reached stage one of thinking level one cannot go to stage two of learning and likewise if one has not mastered stage two of thinking level then one cannot go for stage three of thinking level. Stage one is about directly detectable or sensible things but stage two involves some detectable as well as some undetectable things. Stage three however involves things that are not detectable at all by us directly but there effects or affects are made obvious to us through explanation alone
. that is fine ... I agree with you there and we can have more sub-stages under that stage 3., but what you wrote below is a problem
No explanation is a visible object because it is only and only our mental process.
yes ....indeed it is mental......... mental process .. so let us keep that mental process open for all times for those people who can explore using their individual mental abilities .. let us not lock it out to a book by using physical, emotional, political forces....
This is why to know whether there is a God or not or that the quran is a book from God or not we need to be able to reason things out at stage three level. Unless one is really good at this one cannot know the truth with needed reasonable certainty.
And I fully agree with you on that "to reason, to debate, to discuss" ...... things... and also we must lean to differentiate .. god. or inquiring about god from book/s written by some guys as word of god...
and let us continue on the subject and those links and many many of your posts tells me the level of patience you have in life dear Mughal