But is it a God who directs us? Or do we make a God to explain our direction?
The fact that separatists and sectarianists are present is a definite pointer towards many god partners or deifying heroes at birth who cause separation from the mainstream thought in a secular or a religious sense. The rational tools available to our consciousness such as logical thinking, observation based reasoning and scientific way of deducing evidence help us to groom our conscience which is primarily responsible in shaping human affairs. But irrational approach and lack of evidence to challenge status quo leads to differentiation from the common interest resulting in hypocrisy and breeds separatism. Then in such a case defaulting on a demi god entity would become necessary to cover up in an effort to explain our direction.
We do erect demi gods
The latter half makes prominent sense of why there exists disunity in religious and non-religious practices leading to evolution of ideological separatists from common consensus. If it was not for the many gods chosen by men to wrestle others out to superiority within a proclaimed domain of a functional context or a guardian text with regard to a religion, I wonder how important indeed is this question to have an understanding of how secular and religious gods are elected. Since ancient times civilizations have utilized techniques of reason and thoughtfulness to seek pertinent knowledge to function as governments and directing law into the societies. Traditionally knowledge has helped mankind build arguments to adjudicate social matters. The experts in the field of knowledge have always played a pinnacle role in building or destroying civilizations by their utilization of truly confirmed knowledge or by aiding biases respectively.
As one example, the most infamous decision that split from common consensus overriding United Nations referendum against invasion of Iraq was the coalition by Bush and Blair. Their respective deifying since operations in Afghanistan to counter extremists brought their re-election resulting in massacre of scores of innocent humans from many nations into a wider calamity claimed to have sanctioned by God in the words of Mr. Bush who instead of helping develop policies to institute Justice and to restore socio-personal rights in Afghanistan, he ventured too far. The extremists don’t seem to exhibit a variant psyche either when it comes to control and rule by dogmatism by self-professed ideals or interpretations thereby ravaging main-lands off its populations if they deferred; all in the name of God of-course. The fact of the matter is God has not granted any authority in the Quran to engage people into killing or invasion of other nations for any such reasons of propagating self-centred ideologies instead mutual consultations and exhortation toward common good is the premise in God’s recommendations. This entails as long as people adapt to accord by seeking reasonable discourse the possibility of a demi god ceases to exist.
Cognisance of the subject before us is necessary
When I’m unaware of my opinion in a matter due to lack of knowledge or thought process, my next step must be my acknowledgement of personal ignorance in that matter. When I’m shown that my knowledge is shortened and a referral towards another source of knowledge is made, it only takes my humble nature to comprehend the truth of the subject. This ability of self-cognisance to trace our own limitation to knowledge is appreciated as acting in sincerity toward self and the surrounding responders. Bypassing the question of God’s real existence, the question whether God has directed us stems its importance here which is the subject of this discussion. The status quo remains presumptive of God’s existence in a way to comprehensively deal with this subject of whether he really directs us in any verifiable capacity of His involvement in our affairs or not. God’s direction means it has prompted observation from a people to abide in congruence with His directives. Absence of God’s such direction won’t necessarily scrutinise any people neither does the absence of this argument annul His existence. It simply renders the status quo for any people to remain non-obliged to God in any of their directions except for belief in his existence due to its inseparable association with our conscience.
Clear consistent claims of His direction exists
Fundamental claims of His directions remain revered in the forms of many anonymous collections of directives well preserved even after part manipulations. Like we have the Gospel accounts of Christ which are narratives by his disciples and apostles alike who have scripted parts of unequivocal statements as coming from God through the mouth of Christ. These were often committed to memory by them and later penned in many accounts some considered as apocryphal (like accounts of disciple Barnabas) and others were inducted as canonical. The Vedas of the ancients Indus (greater Indian) civilization, Jewish legacy of the Old testament and the Psalms of David and other scriptures in anonymity have surfaced time and again amongst civilizations and tribes which weren’t authored by claimants of its divinity, but were alluded to God having communicated the primary message. It is a very unreasonable charge to say that this anonymity was a plot by the respective claimants of its divinity over a wide time-space construct by distinguished personalities in order to concoct a God figure. Quran in common knowledge is distinctly preserved in its original unadulterated script. One can easily verify its authenticity and examine the charges of its critics to find any reasonable solid premise to devalue its originality. As far as its interpretation is concerned in our spheres of understanding it is found to be very susceptible to easily be differed into many possible interpretations- an ill-judged concept indeed; with which I disagree. After many examinations of such charges I have by virtue of my dedication to learning from it found them as baseless charges which are resulting from our own inherent weaknesses in reasoning and development of pertinent thought in understanding the concepts that it propounds. Prophet Muhammad was entitled to pin a bunch of stars on his suit for producing what he managed to if it be true. But it could not be so, especially the prophecy asserted in the face of disbelievers at the loss of Romans by the Persians in one of their battles. The Quran emphatically foretold that God will give victory to Romans in the near future against their polytheist enemies such that the disbelieving polytheists in Makkah be made to realise their worthless reviling of the Muslim position that the God of Abraham can still aid the followers of Christ against disbelievers. No nothing of this makes any common sense to you. But this assertion was simply so critical to mark the truth of this message, that Prophet Muhammad did not randomly manage to be a foreteller in this case yet attributing this success to a God who in your opinion does not exist. This is what I mean that a message is so potent and clear in the form of a Book that is made available before you to rebut and prove your wit against it if your claims are but true! Alas! You choose to lose!
If so why don’t many perceive it the way claimers do?
It is really a matter of examining evidences after which one may conveniently make a choice that he or she desires. After examining this evidence some Atheists have taken strong objection as to why did God use the tactics of instilling fear to convince men for their faith. This according to them is bankruptcy of evidences that an entity supposedly all knowledgeable would never ever do. The classified tactics of Hell and its objective scenes of torture with its dwellers are so condescending of a God the omniscient to use in order to amass faith from men is an idea clearly contradicting methods of evidence seeking for them. For the above criticism I would suggest if this tactic is the predominant reason for your disbelief, then consider how you would blame God for having not disclosed this information to you while you feel like ambushed at your then precarious situation before Hell? It was courteous of a true God to inform us of this indiscriminate law which is at an unseen dimension but clearly comprehensible. Look at the law of consciousness how helpless we are before this that it forces us to dose in sleep. Yes, we do learn to intervene into these laws for example by sedating we learn to induce absence of consciousness (general anaesthesia) but we cannot change the nature of laws that are designed to regulate us. Some laws of nature are incomprehensible and others are well understood. Therefore, God covers our back by detailing how it would entail in the face of rejection of these evidences innumerable as they are dealing with the scientific observations that He has argued in His Books over time which if we chose to ignore will perhaps subject ourselves to this law of nature where the commotion of Solar system tearing apart will have an effect on people who refused to learn the laws of protection from such commotions and on course to Hell.
Case study- Preferential perception
In my exploration on this subject few individuals reasoned a dilemma between belief and choices. And they opted what was apparently reachable and as God’s dimension is not apparent they assigned to it a lesser priority. The case is of realisation between obedience to God and seeking desires were God is found proscribing it. Non-Muslim individuals who liked Islamic teachings on the subject of God, when prompted for their faith they admittedly said they cannot cope with prohibitions on eating and drinking like that of Pork and Alcohol. According to them this prevented them from becoming Muslims. This explains Proof seeking per se is not a desired prerequisite to change decisions concerning which faith to observe. Rather it is the sincerity with which individuals overcome their prejudices to change. The possibility of God showing up before you or any other dramatic fantasy is ruled-out in the face of the Quran. Prophet Muhammad was similarly demanded to show jaw dropping miracles like that of Jesus and Moses blessings of God on them, and God denied their requests informing that Quran will suffice for all claims on miracles for the times to come. And truly since then Quran is proving the point time and again. Convinced of its rational framework Islam seems promising to so many in the western society that it is only the tick of time that is awaited.
Clear difference between Want & Proof seeking
Popular charges of Atheists on Believers is the following phrase “they want to believe in a God” on contrary the Theists nag back on Atheists “they do not want to believe in a God”. So is our direction explained by beckoning around a God figure in the realm of certainty and uncertainty? I wish to see an empirical analogy that a person whose upbringing wasn’t around the teachings of learning about a God figure who would conveniently miss the understanding of this strange concept of God at his first debacle as a matured adult. His comprehending this subject is so ingrained in his consciousness that it is impossible to prove it was a mere evolutionary trait. The fallacy that if there is a God misfortune would not touch me in the first place; then such a prerogative of dictating what that God must do must rest with us makes us clearly a demi god.
Has the claim been substantiated for?
This is clearly the most important question worthy of clarification. If Quran is the claim of evidences of a God and His direction, then what is the ratification for its authentication. If God accordingly has determined Himself as the sole authority for truth who else earns the credibility to substantiate His messages as testified by the claimants or believers for it to be divine. The approach could never have been based on conciliation for any other person than Muhammad himself by virtue of his propagation of this message on the pretext that he concocted it in the name of God. If it is not true and he received it by any means upon his consciousness, then this proposition induces a critical approach by virtue of involuntary and inquisitive human mind of Muhammad and all others who became the recipients of this message. Then such a contradictory approach which is continuously scrutinising the text at its clearly circumstantial deciphering from the mouth of Muhammad would be susceptible to many failures before the disbelievers who stood criticising his position as the Prophet of God. Instead beating all the odds since his times the text of the Quran has successfully reigned and still is in the face of modern science highlighting its superiority in imparting knowledge by virtue of its antecedent 14 centuries back. The Quran itself provides a falsification criterion for disbelievers in it and it is to figure out an error in it which can be clearly proven not just claims of misunderstandings. By this way it stands self-substantiated before men not needing its proponents of the old or new to aid in defence. This is precisely the reason why the Muslim believers are not apologetic for their Islamic identity.
Observer’s cognisance is the only valid premise to identify demi gods
Reliance on humans supposedly charismatic, intelligent or majority consensus is not the correct premise to judge the existence of God or to analyse His message’s worth. God is prevalent in human conscience and His messages are clear as day. Let me strike an example to you; In case of me imitating a voice to you over the phone despite all the assistances from that person to mimic him to greatest possible degree with best of my talents your unique enquiries to me will prompt me to succumb from true imitation. Similarly the Quran will clarify to you in a convincing way that it is not Muhammad or any other human but God is conversing with you. It is perhaps your own cognisance that will truly help you identify demi gods otherwise you may prolong the wait anticipating expert opinions and finally lose the opportunity for belief. Get this Vib. Sync. & you’re there. Quran.com
Is God the creation of Man? or Did Man create God to explain his shortcomings