When I had my complete loss of faith, I started from ground zero. I came up with the following litmus test: What is real and observable. I feel pain. I irritate people; they irritate me, therefore existentially we are not a dream. You are not my dream and I assure you that I am not yours. We are. We are someplace that exists. Our stuff is here. We have the expectation that it will continue to be there tomorrow. Therefore, we have an expectation of consistency of reality. That being the case we have but three possible choices existentially: 1) Atheism or no God (Zero) 2) Polytheism or many gods (Two) 3) One God (God) (One)
1) Atheism would be equal to random chance creating everything. A study of ninjitsu does not allow for this. We know that there is no random-ness in nature. It is all a pattern. Chaos becomes a fractal at the proper vantage point. If we expect a continuation or consistency in the outcome of our training then there must be a rule to which each outcome can be attached or measured. Random chance does not allow for an expectation of consistency. Why study a fighting style 2000 years old. It should have evolved past it’s relevance. But yet it is still here. Still relevant today.
2) Polytheism: This brings with it the concept of many gods with disparate goals and desires. Once again we are faced with the nagging problem of the expectation of continuity of reality. We do not wake up to find that one god has decided to make everything taste like liver because he/ she /it is in a foul mood.
3) One God. To me this is the most likely case. One God give us the expectation of continuity of reality. One God who made: Sex, Chocolate, Beauty, Art, Music, etc.. The absence of these things I would say would be “human free will”. We have the ability to destroy. The ability to build. Some people express control or “ownership” of a thing by destroying it. By destroying it they make the statement that “this was mine to destroy”. We see this plainly in Shiriah Law. Sharīʿah (Arabic: شريعة šarīʿah, IPA: [ʃaˈriːʕa], "way" or "path") is the code of conduct or religious law of Islam. Most Muslims believe Sharia is derived from two primary sources of Islamic law: the precepts set forth in the Qur'an, and the example set by the Islamic Prophet Muhammad in the Sunnah. Fiqh jurisprudence interprets and extends the application of Sharia to questions not directly addressed in the primary sources by including secondary sources. These secondary sources usually include the consensus of the religious scholars embodied in ijma, and analogy from the Qur'an and Sunnah through qiyas. Shia jurists prefer to apply reasoning ('aql) rather than analogy in order to address difficult questions.
Muslims believe Sharia is God's law, but they differ as to what exactly it entails. Modernists, traditionalists and fundamentalists all hold different views of Sharia, as do adherents to different schools of Islamic thought and scholarship. Different countries and cultures have varying interpretations of Sharia as well.
Sharia deals with many topics addressed by secular law, including crime, politics and economics, as well as personal matters such as sexuality, hygiene, diet, prayer, and fasting. Where it enjoys official status, Sharia is applied by Islamic judges, or qadis. The imam has varying responsibilities depending on the interpretation of Sharia; while the term is commonly used to refer to the leader of communal prayers, the imam may also be a scholar, religious leader, or political leader.
The reintroduction of Sharia is a longstanding goal for Islamist movements in Muslim countries. Some Muslim minorities in Asia (e.g. in India) have maintained institutional recognition of Sharia to adjudicate their personal and community affairs. In western countries, where Muslim immigration is more recent, Muslim minorities have introduced Sharia family law, for use in their own disputes, with varying degrees of success (e.g. Britain's Muslim Arbitration Tribunal). Attempts to impose Sharia have been accompanied by controversy, violence, and even warfare (cf. Second Sudanese Civil War).
Max Tegmark’s 1998 sole postulate is: All structures that exist mathematically also exist physically. That is, in the sense that "in those [worlds] complex enough to contain self-aware substructures [they] will subjectively perceive themselves as existing in a physically 'real' world”.The hypothesis suggests that worlds corresponding to different sets of initial conditions, physical constants, or altogether different equations should be considered real.
Tegmark claims that the hypothesis has no free parameters and is not observationally ruled out. Thus, he reasons, it is preferred over other theories-of-everything by Occam's Razor. He suggests conscious experience would take the form of mathematical "self-aware substructures" that exist in a physically "'real'" world.
The hypothesis is related to the anthropic principle and to Tegmark's categorization of theories of the multiverse.
Andreas Albrecht of Imperial College in London called it a "provocative" solution to one of the central problems facing physics. Although he "wouldn't dare" go so far as to say he believes it, he noted that "it's actually quite difficult to construct a theory where everything we see is all there is".
I would characterize it thus: X= reality Zero= no reality Two= confused realities co-existing simultaneously with no expectation of reliable observable consistency. One= stable reality.
My personal belief is in the Christian expression of God.
No comments:
Post a Comment