Originally posted by robbie carrobieYou assume he existed, when u say he never claimed. 🙂
piece of nonsense, Christ never claimed to be God incarnate, perhaps you have a reference where indeed this is the case, for having studied scripture for fifteen years i have yet to find one. This post betrays the folly of the materialist, when will you people realise that knowing how a cake was baked tells us nothing about why it was baked nor for ...[text shortened]... we ask him a simple question, why?, a question which demands reason and look, he remains silent!
May we have proof of the man existing first? 😀
-m.
Donald Duck lives on.
1 edit
Originally posted by mikelomI assume nothing, there is a historical record written in the Bible which mentions times, events, governorships, there are also non biblical references, although scant, either you can accept the idea that probably the most influential figure in world history was a figment of someone's imagination or you accept the reality that there was a personage who walked this earth.
You assume he existed, when u say he never claimed. 🙂
May we have proof of the man existing first? 😀
-m.
Donald Duck lives on.
Cornelius Tacitus, a respected first-century Roman historian, wrote: “The name [Christian] is derived from Christ, whom the procurator Pontius Pilate had executed in the reign of Tiberius.” Suetonius and Pliny the Younger, other Roman writers of the time, also referred to Christ. In addition, Flavius Josephus, a first-century Jewish historian, wrote of James, whom he identified as “the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ.”
The New Encyclopædia Britannica states: “These independent accounts prove that in ancient times even the opponents of Christianity never doubted the historicity of Jesus, which was disputed for the first time and on inadequate grounds at the end of the 18th, during the 19th, and at the beginning of the 20th centuries"
Indeed on what grounds are you stating that such a person never existed?
suffering succotash , its dithspicable!
Originally posted by vishvahetu“...Truth comes to us in four ways:
When an honest person hears truth, it resonates within their heart and they have their realization.
When they hear falsity, there is no realization.
Truth comes to us in four ways:
1. From the lips of the pure teacher. (the Guru)
2. From the pure bona-fide scripture given by the Personality of Godhead. (Vedanta Sutra)
3. From the commentari ...[text shortened]... a vast difference of teaching.........one is true without error, and the others have much error.
1. From the lips of the pure teacher. (the Guru)
2. From the pure bona-fide scripture given by the Personality of Godhead. (Vedanta Sutra)
3. From the commentaries of pure devotees.
4. From within the heart (knowledge from the super soul within) ...”
No, truth comes to us though LOGIC and EVIDENCE -specifically, rational analysis of empirical evidence and deductive logic. Blind faith in scriptures and the supernatural doesn't count as valid.
Originally posted by Andrew HamiltonI have just told you that there are four ways to know truth (about the spiritual life)....where not talking about anything else, just the spiritual life and God.
“...Truth comes to us in four ways:
1. From the lips of the pure teacher. (the Guru)
2. From the pure bona-fide scripture given by the Personality of Godhead. (Vedanta Sutra)
3. From the commentaries of pure devotees.
4. From within the heart (knowledge from the super soul within) ...”
No, truth comes to us though LOGIC and EVIDENC ...[text shortened]... nce and deductive logic. Blind faith in scriptures and the supernatural doesn't count as valid.
You cant know truth by the scripture alone, but you need the other three aspects to support it, or it just may be blind faith.
When all four ways are saying the exact same thing, then you have the truth, and you cannot just apply one way, but must engage yourself in the entire process, which culminates in actually living the spiritual life........and its the living the spiritual life that gets you the God realization.
So how could blind faith have anything to do with that entire process....it cant.
In other words, a person cannot just read the scripture and know truth, but they may at least come to the decision to follow the spiritual process of purification, which will put them on the path to know the truth...do you see that?
I am saying you can,t just blindly accept the scripture, because you will not get the realization that is the central factor in raising your consciousness.
You must have all four ways working for you, but even then you may not get any realization, because you may be envious of God.
And I am not talking about substitute religion which has much error either.........but I am talking about the only true bona fide spiritual teaching (Vedanta Sutra) so dont equate Vedanta Sutra with Christianity and Islam and Judaism, which you are doing.
You have looked at these substitute religions in the past, and have seen the folly in their teachings.......but you know nothing of the real bona fide spiritual teachings of Vedanta Sutra, and you are just putting them all together as one thing, and this is a mistake, because Vedanta Sutra has no error and is coming from the Personality of God head.
Mostly everything you know is not coming from the empirical and deductive method of inquiring knowledge, but it is coming from the descending method, which is the most reliable.
The Vedanta Sutra is giving us higher knowledge which would be unknowable by the empirical way, so why do you want to reject the descending method.....its illogical.
Your so called quote "LOGIC and EVIDENCE" that you have embraced is faulty, because you are saying that life is a random accident, and that our bodies are animating themselves, and the cosmos has no intelligent cause....but just happened without design.
You incorrectly say that awareness, cognition, free will, consciousness, life, thinking, willing are material products, but you cannot prove that, and are just speculating because of dishonesty, or you are saying it because of envy of God.
1 edit
Originally posted by vishvahetu“...I have just told you that there are four ways to know truth (about the spiritual life)....where not talking about anything else ...”
I have just told you that there are four ways to know truth (about the spiritual life)....where not talking about anything else, just the spiritual life and God.
You cant know truth by the scripture alone, but you need the other three aspects to support it, or it just may be blind faith.
When all four ways are saying the exact same thing, then you h , and are just speculating because of dishonesty, or you are saying it because of envy of God.
then where ….sorry, we're, not talking about anything that we can rationally know exists.
“....You cant know truth by the scripture alone, but you need the other three aspects to support it, or it just may be blind faith. ….”
there is no “may be” about it; it IS blind faith.
“...I am saying you can,t just blindly accept the scripture ...”
you are living proof that you can.
“...Your so called quote "LOGIC and EVIDENCE" that you have embraced is faulty, because you are saying that life is a random accident, ...”
firstly, one does not logically imply the other.
Secondly neither natural selection nor abiogenesis is purely random but are constrained by physics and what is least probable etc.
“....and that our bodies are animating themselves, ...”
what do you mean by “animating themselves”?
“...and the cosmos has no intelligent cause ...”
on the bases of Occam’s razor, probably. Although I would not totally rule the possibility out but that would require there being a 'before' the big bang -quite an assumption given that the equations imply otherwise.
“.....but just happened ...”
no. to say it “just happened” implies it was a pure-chance event but that would be baseless because I cannot see any contradiction in the notions that it had to be or was inevitable but our current understanding is just not good enough yet to understand how so.
“...without design. ...”
Without intelligent design, yes.
Without nature's design, no.
“...You incorrectly say that awareness, cognition, free will, consciousness, life, thinking, willing are material products, but you cannot prove that, and are just speculating ...”
not purely speculating but basing it on Occam’s razor logic.
What kind of 'logic' are you basing your beliefs on; answer, blind faith.
“....you are saying it because of envy of God. ...”
how can I envy somebody that I don't believe exists?
Can you envy the tooth fairy?
Originally posted by Andrew HamiltonBy using your Occam's razor model, the cause of everything is certainly God, because it offers the simplest explanation for all that exists.
“...I have just told you that there are four ways to know truth (about the spiritual life)....where not talking about anything else ...”
then where ….sorry, we're, not talking about anything that we can rationally know exists.
“....You cant know truth by the scripture alone, but you need the other three aspects to support it, or it just may be ...[text shortened]...
how can I envy somebody that I don't believe exists?
Can you envy the tooth fairy?
But you have zero to put forward, except for your favorite word: NO, NO, NO. and if you attempt to explain, then you have a mish-mash of complicated speculative assumptions.
Your Occam,s razor supports Vedanta Sutra.
Why dont you sit down and get honest, and contemplate how everything has come to exist......and stop speculating.
3 edits
Originally posted by vishvahetu“....By using your Occam's razor model, the cause of everything is certainly God, because it offers the simplest explanation for all that exists. ...”
By using your Occam's razor model, the cause of everything is certainly God, because it offers the simplest explanation for all that exists.
But you have zero to put forward, except for your favorite word: NO, NO, NO. and if you attempt to explain, then you have a mish-mash of complicated speculative assumptions.
Your Occam,s razor supports Vedant ...[text shortened]... own and get honest, and contemplate how everything has come to exist......and stop speculating.
firstly, “god” is not an “explanation” just as anything supernatural is not an “explanation” at least not in a truly meaningful way. Suppose you hear thunder and you say that the “explanation” it that “god is angry” and so “god” is the “explanation” of thunder. But the problem with that is that it explains nothing because I could say that the natural forces we observe causes thunder and this explains thunder without any divine intervention. The same applies to the universe.
Secondly, Occam's razor does not actually state that the “simplest” explanation is the most likely! (a common misunderstanding)
it actually says the theory that makes the least unnecessary assumptions is the most likely.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam%27s_razor
“...The principle is often incorrectly summarized as "the simplest explanation is more likely the correct one". This summary is misleading, however, since the principle is actually focused on shifting the burden of proof in discussions [3]. That is, the Razor is a principle that suggests we should tend towards simpler theories (see justifications section below) until we can trade some simplicity for increased explanatory power. Contrary to the popular summary, the simplest available theory is often a less accurate explanation (e.g. metaphysical Solipsism). Philosophers also add that the exact meaning of "simplest" can be nuanced in the first place[4]. ...”
Thirdly, to assume the existence of a “god” is to assume all the attributes that you believe “god” has such as immortality, being all-knowing etc.
therefore, to assume there is a “god” is not to assume just one thing but many; one assumption for each of the assumed attributes plus the assumption that they are all packaged into the same entity.
That makes “god” a huge assumption!
Obviously, applying Occam's razor, as assuming such a complex set of assumption does not explain anything, we should “shave” it off.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam%27s_razor
“...The Razor generally recommends selecting the competing hypothesis that makes the fewest new assumptions (also known as postulates, entities) when the hypotheses be equal in other respects. ...”
“...Why dont you sit down and get honest, and contemplate how everything has COME to exist. ...”(my emphasis)
just for starters, if time began at the big bang, everything we know did not “COME” (to “come” would require a “before” for it to “come” from).
Secondly, if time did NOT began at the big bang, then to assume divine intervention would be a more assumptive (because it assumes many things) assumption to just assume natural forces with no need to assume divine intervention. So using Occam's razor, we should just assume natural forces and nothing more.
Originally posted by Andrew HamiltonWhat is this natural force you talk of........it must have power and intelligence to do what it has done, correct?
“....By using your Occam's razor model, the cause of everything is certainly God, because it offers the simplest explanation for all that exists. ...”
firstly, “god” is not an “explanation” just as anything supernatural is not an “explanation” at least not in a truly meaningful way. Suppose you hear thunder and you say that the “explanation” it th ...[text shortened]... rvention. So using Occam's razor, we should just assume natural forces and nothing more.
If it has power and intelligence then it is God.......and if it doesn't have power and intelligence, then its something you have made up and it is nothing at all.
Originally posted by vishvahetuPersonally I think it much more rapturous to think the universe could have generated life all by its lonesome with no supernatural breath of life needed. I think it would be a letdown to find out finally after a hundred thousand years of human science to find out it was a god did it after all.
What is this natural force you talk of........it must have power and intelligence to do what it has done, correct?
If it has power and intelligence then it is God.......and if it doesn't have power and intelligence, then its something you have made up and it is nothing at all.
That would be such a big bummer I don't think I could get over it. I like to think of the universe as self starting, budding from previous universes where laws of physics get slightly bent from one universe to another and ours has been fine tuned to allow life, maybe the ones budding from ours won't or maybe they will have laws of physics even MORE attuned to advanced life, since on a universal scale our civilization is more than a little bit pathetic.
1 edit
Originally posted by vishvahetu“...What is this natural force you talk of ...”
What is this natural force you talk of........it must have power and intelligence to do what it has done, correct?
If it has power and intelligence then it is God.......and if it doesn't have power and intelligence, then its something you have made up and it is nothing at all.
physical forces; chemistry; evolution; weather erosion; the known laws of physics; mental brain processes;
plus any physical forces/processes/laws that are either as yet unknown to us or I have neglected to put on the above list.
“...it must have power and intelligence to do what it has done, correct? ...”
yes; and the required level of “intelligence” here is “none”. Does the wind require intelligence to sculpt the sand dunes?
“...if it doesn't have power and intelligence, then its something you have made up and it is nothing at all. ….”
no; why cannot a physical force have power but no intelligence? The wind has no intelligence but it has power to move sand etc.
Originally posted by Andrew HamiltonIf you are saying that everything in the cosmos is happening without intelligence, then you are being totally dishonest and it will be impossible to discuss with you any further.
“...What is this natural force you talk of ...”
physical forces; chemistry; evolution; weather erosion; the known laws of physics; mental brain processes;
plus any physical forces/processes/laws that are either as yet unknown to us or I have neglected to put on the above list.
“...it must have power and intelligence to do what it has done, cor ...[text shortened]... have power but no intelligence? The wind has no intelligence but it has power to move sand etc.
That assumption, is the assumption of a person with the madness disease, and you will just keep being dishonest from this point onwards, for to make such a statement is absurd.
Originally posted by vishvahetuYou call this a discussion? I don't!
If you are saying that everything in the cosmos is happening without intelligence, then you are being totally dishonest and it will be impossible to discuss with you any further.
A discussion is two or more, exchanging ideas. Not one talking about his opinions and thinking that everyone not sharing his opinions by the letter is dishonest. That's not a discussion.
A discussion is give and take. On equal basis. You have much to learn there, my dear vishva.
Originally posted by sonhouseI dont get why you would think its a big bummer.Remember, even a god has to follow universal priciples to make humans evolve properly. This means playing a largely un-supernatural role.
Personally I think it much more rapturous to think the universe could have generated life all by its lonesome with no supernatural breath of life needed. I think it would be a letdown to find out finally after a hundred thousand years of human science to find out it was a god did it after all.
That would be such a big bummer I don't think I could get ov ...[text shortened]... advanced life, since on a universal scale our civilization is more than a little bit pathetic.
When this god has to perform a "miracle" , it is only because the people are lacking faith.
🙂
1 edit
Originally posted by FabianFnasI dont have ideas or opinions, but only the truth of Vedanta Sutra.
You call this a discussion? I don't!
A discussion is two or more, exchanging ideas. Not one talking about his opinions and thinking that everyone not sharing his opinions by the letter is dishonest. That's not a discussion.
A discussion is give and take. On equal basis. You have much to learn there, my dear vishva.
If honesty is disregarded, then there is no basis for a discussion.
Atheists have no honesty, because they present absurd comments that are baseless and without merit.....how can one discuss in those circumstances.
And if you look at your comments for the last few weeks, there just rants and raves of a madman.
1 edit
Originally posted by vishvahetuI am curious as to what you hope to achieve through communication with us dishonest atheists as well as those 'wrong religion' followers like Christians etc..
I dont have ideas or opinions, but only the truth of Vedanta Sutra.
If honesty is disregarded, then there is no basis for a discussion.
Atheists have no honesty, because they present absurd comments that are baseless and without merit.....how can one discuss in those circumstances.
And if you look at your comments for the last few weeks, there just rants and raves of a madman.
Really, do you think there exists even one atheist who has read your posts and been moved to consider their position with a more critical view??? 😕
By the same token, do you really think a Christian who believes they have found the one and only 'right religion' is going to be swayed by a decree on your part, that *your* religion is the one and only 'right religion'?