Proof there is a God

[Write4U]

It is complete. Lacking nothing.

Complete? Lacking nothing? You mean the Universe is already perfect?
Then why is it in a state of constant change?

Doesn't matter. If it never occurred, we would not be in this situation. Hence it is necessary to our current existence.

False equivalence. It is true that without this universe man would not exist, but make no mistake, man is not necessary to the universe. We, like all things are result of probabilistic mathematical functions. And a clear case can be made that man is not perfect and acting in the "image of God".

That is your opinion. In reality it isn't garbage, and it is the source of meaning.

Oh, I agree to some it gives meaning, to others the very concept of an intelligent motivated being existing before anything existed, is garbage.

But now you enter the field of psychology and are leaving the field of physics. And I think you will agree there are a lot of religious crazies out there, which proves that scripture, even on a psychological level is not consistent and as very mixed moral results.

And it's source being complete, along with its separate units (visible world).

The source is latent Potential which may become complete (expressed) in our reality.

Firstly, I ain't concerned with religion

Then why dwell on scripture as the revealed word of God?

secondly if Brahman lacks nothing, then that includes intelligence, desire, ect... Too bad if you don't like the def.

Where is it different between Brahman and he concept of Potential becoming expressed in reality?

"It may become reality" from what? Reality. It is dependent upon reality.
Brahman may be described as potential, but is dependent on it, due to it being "complete, whole, and unchangeable.
From the definition, Brahman is both the beginning and end of all things. It is is the totality of all existence.

*I am the Alpha and the Omega*, very poetic, but that's where it stops because not all things that will exist are explicated our reality, yet.

Okay... let' see it.

The BB (inflation). If our current science is correct, then singularity from which the BB became explicate, by your definition, is intelligent, motivated and emotional. Brahman IS the singularity? Or was universal Potential contained in the singularity expressed as our universe? I must admit that the (incorrect) term of the BB could be interpreted by some as the birth of Baby Brahman, but that argues against perfection.

How can you set up a scientific test for Brahman? You would have to separate yourself from it's complete, whole, totality. Nothing, not any one can do that.

Correct, and yet you venture to present a sentient being which is separate from the incomplete universe, which renders the proposition that Brahman is perfection incorrect.

We have no choice but to accept that you are a unit of the totality. That totality is Brahman, whether you like it or not. You can call it different names, and imagine what it is or isn't as much as you like. But it doesn't chance what it is. Sorry!

Precisely, you can call it anything you want and be wrong. If I used FSM as the model for all inclusive perfection, you would call me wrong, and be correct, because we can imagine a flying spaghetti Monster and laugh at the image. But the word Brahman sounds so impressive, it must be true!!!?

However the word Potential is well defined and does not answer to any other definition or interpretation other than that which has been scientifically defined as Potential. Moreover we are able to USE KNOWLEDE of potential for practical purposes.

Show me where Brahman is a practical tool for making something explicate. But then we cannot ignore that Divine commands also produced war, disease and suffering in the name of Brahman or some other name.

The argument for a willful universal sentience (BY ANY OTHER NAME) has no meaning in the physical world. It is lazy wishful thinking, ignoring the actual mathematical probabilistic functions of the universe.

I can pretend with you if you like, but ultimately it is a waste of time.

I agree on that.

They're not unnecessary qualities. You just don't like the idea of God having those qualities. Maybe it's because it is more appealing to you or, or something. Jan.

Correct, using the term Potential is infinitely more appealing, because it makes no claim other than that it is a latent ability to perform work in accordance with applicable mathematical constants and prove it.

Prove Brahman must be necessary quality, without resorting to circular reasoning.

 

[Xelasnave.1947]

If you make something up and present that story as fact is that story not a lie.
The war of words taking place here overlooks the simple fact that the discussion is about the fine points of a story and all forget that the story is one of fiction started in times when authors used myth and superstition to explain, what was to them unexplainable, to others happy to rely on myth and superstition as placeholders for fact.
Discussing something that is not real does not make it real but involement in discussion lends an unwarranted credibility to myth.
Discussion of the scriptures lends them a credibility that forgets their ordinary beginings as recordings of make believe stories.
All enjoy the stimulation of their intelect but are then drawn to giving "nothing" the semblance of something.
The discussions of definition, the wrestling with concepts, cloud the issue. The issue is the original story is a lie. Is not a made up story presented as fact a lie. If not what do you call a fictional story presented as fact.

The discussion is about "nothing" the discussion is about non fact, the discussion is upon the merit of an ancient fiction or to be blunt the merit of a lie...

Alex

 

[Jan Ardena]

Complete? Lacking nothing? You mean the Universe is already perfect?
Then why is it in a state of constant change?

"The Personality of Godhead is perfect and complete, and because He is completely perfect, all emanations from Him, such as this phenomenal world, are perfectly equipped as complete wholes. Whatever is produced of the Complete Whole is also complete in itself. Because He is the Complete Whole, even though so many complete units emanate from Him, He remains the complete balance."

It is in a state of constant change, because that is it's nature. It works perfectly how it is supposed to.

False equivalence. It is true that without this universe man would not exist,...

...therefore we need the universe, material world, to exist in the way we exist now. Isn't that necessary to our existence? Yes, I would say it is.

Oh, I agree to some it gives meaning, to others the very concept of an intelligent motivated being existing before anything existed, is garbage.

Like I said, it's your opinion, based on nothing but your personal, preferential comprehension.

But now you enter the field of psychology and are leaving the field of physics. And I think you will agree there are a lot of religious crazies out there, which proves that scripture, even on a psychological level is not consistent and as very mixed moral results.

Firstly, we're not discussing religion, and secondly, there are a lot of crazies out there. Who are the greatest mass murderers of our time? People who wanted to rid the world of religion (natural to man), that's like wanting to rid water of it's oxygen. How crazy are those fools?

The source is latent Potential which may become complete (expressed) in our reality.

If that's what you wish to call Brahman, that is your business.

Then why dwell on scripture as the revealed word of God?

I dwell on scripture because it has the most information about God.

Where is it different between Brahman and he concept of Potential becoming expressed in reality?

Potential is part and parcel of nature. Nature is constantly changing from one state to another. Potential is what nature can become under specific conditions.
Brahman is the source of the manifestation of the visible world. It uses the potential within matter to build these worlds.

*I am the Alpha and the Omega*, very poetic, but that's where it stops because not all things that will exist are explicated our reality, yet.

Who would think you could get an Oak Tree from such a tiny seed?
But once you know that, and you know how it works (science), it's no longer a mystery.
Evergreen trees will never have the potential to build Christmas decoration into their own nature, because material nature is limited.
However intelligence can manipulate nature into being something that it is not intended to be. Like building universes, and whatnot.

The BB (inflation). If our current science is correct, then singularity from which the BB became explicate, by your definition, is intelligent, motivated and emotional. Brahman IS the singularity? Or was universal Potential contained in the singularity expressed as our universe? I must admit that the (incorrect) term of the BB could be interpreted by some as the birth of Baby Brahman, but that argues against perfection.

You said... ", all reality was, is, and will be preceded by potential. THIS HAS BEEN TESTED AND VERIFIED, ".

Just show the verification.

Correct, and yet you venture to present a sentient being which is separate from the incomplete universe, which renders the proposition that Brahman is perfection incorrect.

You're separate from the words you write, are you not?
Yet the words you write convey aspects of who and what you are.

You seem to have a problem with God being sentient.

Precisely, you can call it anything you want and be wrong. If I used FSM as the model for all inclusive perfection, you would call me wrong, and be correct, because we can imagine a flying spaghetti Monster and laugh at the image. But the word Brahman sounds so impressive, it must be true!!!?

If I decided to call you Stan, would it change who and what you are? No. You'd just think I'm ignorant.

However the word Potential is well defined and does not answer to any other definition or interpretation other than that which has been scientifically defined as Potential. Moreover we are able to USE KNOWLEDE of potential for practical purposes.

What does that have to do with anything?

Show me where Brahman is a practical tool for making something explicate. But then we cannot ignore that Divine commands also produced war, disease and suffering in the name of Brahman or some other name.

The ability to make something explicate?

The argument for a willful universal sentience (BY ANY OTHER NAME) has no meaning in the physical world. It is lazy wishful thinking, ignoring the actual mathematical probabilistic functions of the universe.

You're entitled to use your ability to form opinions. Compliments of the Boss.

Prove Brahman must be necessary quality, without resorting to circular reasoning.

By definition Brahman cannot not exist.
You work it out.

jan.[/QUOTE]

 

[Jan Ardena]

If you make something up and present that story as fact is that story not a lie.

Yes.

The war of words taking place here overlooks the simple fact that the discussion is about the fine points of a story and all forget that the story is one of fiction started in times when authors used myth and superstition to explain, what was to them unexplainable, to others happy to rely on myth and superstition as placeholders for fact.

Therefore you are correct, there is no God, let's just wrap this up and go home.
I'm afraid it's not as simple as that.
You are free to think that, even believe it (compliments of the Boss), if that is what you glean from your experience, but it makes no sense, and I think it's time you woke up and realized that.
You should stop kidding yourself that ancient people were devoid of knowledge, and only had superstition to guide them. It does nothing for the discussion.

Discussing something that is not real does not make it real but involement in discussion lends an unwarranted credibility to myth.

What does that have to do with the point of the thread?

Discussion of the scriptures lends them a credibility that forgets their ordinary beginings as recordings of make believe stories.

Are you aware of your elitist leanings.

The discussion is about "nothing" the discussion is about non fact, the discussion is upon the merit of an ancient fiction or to be blunt the merit of a lie...

I'd ask how you know, but there would be no point, because you don't know.
I wish you could see that your own position is what you are actually describing.

jan.

 

[Baldeee]

It is in a state of constant change, because that is it's nature. It works perfectly how it is supposed to.

Prove it, please?

One could also argue that everything works perfectly how it is supposed to from its own perspective, that Nothing can ever be that which it is not.
A broken watch is operating exactly how the gears, levers, mechanisms dictate it should work at that time.
It might not be how an outside reference might wish it to work, but that is irrelevant to the watch.
It does as the universal laws dictate, and it can do no more or less.
The same with humans, with stars, with ecosystems, with anything and everything.

Such an argument is valueless, though, as it is simply saying "it is what it is", a tautological truism with no actual value beyond it being true.

I dwell on scripture because it has the most information about God.

So you believe.

By definition Brahman cannot not exist.
You work it out.

Let us define Xygax as the impossible square circle that actually exists.
By definition Xygax cannot not exist.
You work it out.


If all you have to argue with is your definition that implies necessity, your argument is circular and valueless: it only has value if you believe that the definition actually exists, and if you believe it exists then you believe it necessarily exists.
But alas you are simply looking to define something into existence, or at least prove the existence through definition alone, despite your agreement previously that things don't actually work this way.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Prove it, please?

One could also argue that everything works perfectly how it is supposed to from its own perspective, that Nothing can ever be that which it is not.
A broken watch is operating exactly how the gears, levers, mechanisms dictate it should work at that time.
It might not be how an outside reference might wish it to work, but that is irrelevant to the watch.
It does as the universal laws dictate, and it can do no more or less.
The same with humans, with stars, with ecosystems, with anything and everything.

Such an argument is valueless, though, as it is simply saying "it is what it is", a tautological truism with no actual value beyond it being true.

It's not an argument. It is a statement about the nature of things.
The watch is an intelligent construct, made of natural products, or the manipulation of such products.
If you drop the watch under the wheels of a moving train, it will break. Because that is the nature of the products that make it.

So you believe.

God is a subject in scriptures, and the most comprehensive details are to be found with scripture.
So it's not that I believe, it is that I know.

Let us define Xygax as the impossible square circle that actually exists.
By definition Xygax cannot not exist.
You work it out.

I don't give a toss about Xygax.

If all you have to argue with is your definition that implies necessity, your argument is circular and valueless: it only has value if you believe that the definition actually exists, and if you believe it exists then you believe it necessarily exists.

I'm not arguing with it. You are.
It's not my definition.

I don't have to believe it exists, to understand that Brahman exists.
If I pretend that it doesn't exist, it doesn't make it non existent.

But alas you are simply looking to define something into existence, or at least prove the existence through definition alone, despite your agreement previously that things don't actually work this way.

I'm simply giving a definition God.
The God theists believe in, and atheists don't.

That the acceptance of the definition means you would be foolish not the look at the notion of God in an intelligent way, instead of pretending God is of no consequence, or some stupid idea concocted by some goat herders , is not my problem

jan.

 

[Xelasnave.1947]

Therefore you are correct, there is no God, let's just wrap this up and go home.

No no no Jan we cant do that.... Well OK I am so happy that you say I am correct, there is no God.
Let me enjoy the moment. Thank you Jan.

You should stop kidding yourself that ancient people were devoid of knowledge, and only had superstition to guide them. It does nothing for the discussion.

Jan making stuff up and presenting it as fact is a lie, the fact they were almost certainly superstitious is cream for the cake, but to present made up stuff as fact is a lie. That point is hard to move past.

What does that have to do with the point of the thread?

Everything Jan. The more you drag folk into an intelectual chat the more it seems you have something to offer. The longer you argue the meanings the definitions the more it seems we are discussing something that has abasis in fact and yet we do not, we start with nothing and build on make believe.
If you keep it simple, as I do, it is clear we discuss a lie.

Are you aware of your elitist leanings.

Me.... elitist? Jan you must be joking. I am so not elitist I could take your claim as a compliment. But no one will ever believe me to be elitist... Oh wait you said leanings... Well its still funny Jan.

I'd ask how you know, but there would be no point, because you don't know.
I wish you could see that your own position is what you are actually describing.

That is a great attempt to address my statement Jan without actually doing so.
How do I know, firstly I dont say I know but I do present reasonable observations, in simple speak, that the authority for the propositions you wish we unthinkingly embrace, namely the scriptures or as I like to call them the made up personal opinions of ancient authors and presented as fact, or simply a lie following the earlier definition of a lie and the definition that you did agree upon,... these propositions on my observation although open to interpretation must lead to a single conclusion and that comesclose to... Knowing.. So loosley Jan I feel confident I know.
I like to keep things simple Jan.

I dont lie Jan I have no need to lie and I pride myself as being totally honest. I do not pretend or confuse a discussion by dwelling upon the meaning of meanings so you must forgive my simple approach and expectation that if we are asked to entertain myth and superstition we are informed of the origin and if that origin presents as seemingly dishonest that the presentor not be disappointed when they are accussed of working up a discussion on nothing.
We know nothing does not exist and it is pointless to claim it holdsmore than... well nothing.
Jan thank you again for I admit that I enjoy this... Its like talking to my first wife.. No matter how long we talked we never understood each other but each of us believed that the other would change and come around to see sence.
Alex

 

[Baldeee]

It's not an argument. It is a statement about the nature of things.

And that statement is the conclusion of an argument.
People do not merely pull statements out of the air without argument.
Statements or claims are the result of arguments, whether explicitly worded or not.
So it is fair to call any claim you make an argument given that the claim rests upon a layer of what you deem to be support.

The watch is an intelligent construct, made of natural products, or the manipulation of such products.
If you drop the watch under the wheels of a moving train, it will break. Because that is the nature of the products that make it.

As far as the watch is concerned it will continue to do what it does.
It is only when an external reference wishes it to do something other than what it does can that external reference deem it not to be perfect.
But from the watch's perspective it is continuing to do what it does, and it does so perfectly.

God is a subject in scriptures, and the most comprehensive details are to be found with scripture.
So it's not that I believe, it is that I know.

You certainly believe that you know,

I don't give a toss about Xygax.

You should.
It demonstrates that just because a definition suggests the existence (necessary or otherwise) of something does not mean that it actually does.
Your entire position starts from the a priori assumption that God does exist as you have defined, simply because of the definition.

I'm not arguing with it. You are.
It's not my definition.

That's rather dishonest of you, Jan.
You are putting it forth in this thread and thus it is the definition you are promoting, even if just within this thread.
It is thus your definition irrespective of whether it comes from scripture, your own imagination or whether someone merely handed it to you on the streets.
You have put it forth so please have the decency to take ownership of it within this thread.
Otherwise, if you truly don't consider it your definition, then please state your definition and we can perhaps move forward?

I don't have to believe it exists, to understand that Brahman exists.

And on what basis do you understand that Brahman exists?
Bear in mind that your belief informs the way you interpret things, and thus any understanding you have will be dependent upon your belief.

If I pretend that it doesn't exist, it doesn't make it non existent.

And you claiming to understand that it does exist does not make it existent.

I'm simply giving a definition God.

So are we now talking about merely "a" definition of God, or "the" definition of God?

The God theists believe in, and atheists don't.

There are many definitions of God that atheists don't believe in.

That the acceptance of the definition means you would be foolish not the look at the notion of God in an intelligent way, instead of pretending God is of no consequence, or some stupid idea concocted by some goat herders , is not my problem

If you don't think that people are looking at this in an intelligent manner, or are merely pretending that the notion of God is of no consequence to them, then that rather speaks of you, I'm afraid.

Now, numerous times in this thread people, myself included, have accepted the definition you have provided (and seem to subsequently want to disown) for purposes of furthering the discussion.
Are you now going to move forward, and provide proof that this God, that you have provided the definition for, actually exists?
Or are you simply going to shift the burden and require us to prove that this God does not exist?

 

[Jan Ardena]

And that statement is the conclusion of an argument.

Not any argument I put forward.

It is thus your definition irrespective of whether it comes from scripture, your own imagination or whether someone merely handed it to you on the streets.

It is A definition, not my definition. That is a fact.

You certainly believe that you know,

I don't need to believe. I know.

Your entire position starts from the a priori assumption that God does exist as you have defined, simply because of the definition.

My position starts from the definition. If you have a more comprehensive definition, my position will start from there.

That's rather dishonest of you, Jan.
You are putting it forth in this thread and thus it is the definition you are promoting, even if just within this thread.

I agree that I am putting forward this definition. But it's not my definition. I believed in God without knowledge of this particular definition. So I'm not being dishonest.

Otherwise, if you truly don't consider it your definition, then please state your definition and we can perhaps move forward?

I accept this definition even more so that my own attempts at wording a definition.
We can move forward with this one.

And on what basis do you understand that Brahman exists?

On the basis that there must be a source for the totality.

Bear in mind that your belief informs the way you interpret things, and thus any understanding you have will be dependent upon your belief.

I believe we had an origin.

And you claiming to understand that it does exist does not make it existent.

Never said it did.

So are we now talking about merely "a" definition of God, or "the" definition of God?

I am simply giving a definition of God.
I can't break it down any more than that.

There are many definitions of God that atheists don't believe in.

The definition I gave incorporates all definitions of God.

Now, numerous times in this thread people, myself included, have accepted the definition you have provided (and seem to subsequently want to disown) for purposes of furthering the discussion.

How is it possible that Brahman can not exist?

Or are you simply going to shift the burden and require us to prove that this God does not exist?

If you claim that God does not exist, then put forward your reasoning, based on the definition you and I both agree upon.

If I claim God exist, you expect me to back it up. No?

Jan.

 

[Billy T]

Here is Jan's logic:
God is Brahman.
God is defined.
Ergo God exists.

I'll use Jan's logic form:
A unicorn is: A creature like a horse, except for a pointed horn protruding from the forehead.
A unicorn is defined.
Ergo, Unicorns exist.

 

[Baldeee]

Not any argument I put forward.

Well, let's leave it at me asking that every time you make such a statement of fact that you provide your reasoning / rationale/ argument for that statement, okay.

It is A definition, not my definition. That is a fact.

Yet it is the one you put forward in this thread.
Please take responsibility for that, and accept it as yours for the purposes of this thread.

I don't need to believe. I know.

You believe you know.

My position starts from the definition. If you have a more comprehensive definition, my position will start from there.

As stated previously, your definition will be fine, so let's move on with you proving it exists in actuality, please.

I agree that I am putting forward this definition. But it's not my definition. I believed in God without knowledge of this particular definition. So I'm not being dishonest.

The dishonesty is in disowning the definition you put forward, whether you believe in God or not, whether that belief was prior to the definition you have posted or not.
It is yours, as explained.
So forward we go.
Please provide the proof that this God exists in actuality.

I accept this definition even more so that my own attempts at wording a definition.
We can move forward with this one.

Good.
Please do so.

On the basis that there must be a source for the totality.

Why must there be?

I believe we had an origin.

Why do you believe that?

Never said it did.

Nor did I say you did say it.

How is it possible that Brahman can not exist?

That's not for me to answer.
The burden of proof is upon you.

If you claim that God does not exist, then put forward your reasoning, based on the definition you and I both agree upon.

If ever I claim that God does not exist you can be assured that I will.

If I claim God exist, you expect me to back it up. No?

I do expect it.
And I'm still waiting.
So far it seems it is because you believe we had an origin.
Anything else?
Or is it simply that you believe we had an origin, therefore you believe God exists?[/QUOTE]

 

[Jan Ardena]

That is a great attempt to address my statement Jan without actually doing so.
How do I know, firstly I dont say I know but I do present reasonable observations, in simple speak, that the authority for the propositions you wish we unthinkingly embrace, namely the scriptures or as I like to call them the made up personal opinions of ancient authors and presented as fact, or simply a lie following the earlier definition of a lie and the definition that you did agree upon,... these propositions on my observation although open to interpretation must lead to a single conclusion and that comesclose to... Knowing.. So loosley Jan I feel confident I know.
I like to keep things simple Jan.

This is explains nothing. You are, in effect, saying ''I know, because I know''.

How do you know that the ancient scribes used personal opinions as facts, presenting them to the public as such, knowing it to be a lie?

Also, I don't expect you to embrace anything I say unthinkingly.

I dont lie Jan I have no need to lie and I pride myself as being totally honest. I do not pretend or confuse a discussion by dwelling upon the meaning of meanings so you must forgive my simple approach and expectation that if we are asked to entertain myth and superstition we are informed of the origin and if that origin presents as seemingly dishonest that the presentor not be disappointed when they are accussed of working up a discussion on nothing.
We know nothing does not exist and it is pointless to claim it holdsmore than... well nothing.
Jan thank you again for I admit that I enjoy this... Its like talking to my first wife.. No matter how long we talked we never understood each other but each of us believed that the other would change and come around to see sence.
Alex

Whatever.
At this point I would just like you to explain the claims you make. Simply, if you like. I don't mind.

jan.

 

[Baldeee]

Here is Jan's logic:
God is Brahman.
God is defined.
Ergo God exists.

I'm not sure that's fair, to be honest.
Jan doesn't believe simply because it is defined.

It seems like it is more that it is defined in a way that Jan considers that it has to exist.
If I define a X as the cause of my existence then, since I exist, X must exist as defined.
The problem with this is that it doesn't actually say anything other than assumes that I was caused, and that X was that cause.
If one agrees with that assumption then X must exist, even if we have not yet adequately defined the properties of X.
It is much like saying that if I had a cause for my existence then I had a cause: a tautological truism.

Unfortunately the accuracy / veracity of such an argument is only as good as the accuracy of the definition applying to actuality.
If I in fact did not have a cause then X, while defined as my cause, doesn't actually refer to anything in actuality, and is merely the definition of an imaginary concept.


When it comes to Jan's definition of God (or at least the one he has put forward, given his penchant for disowning it as merely being a definition), God is defined as the source of all.
But this assumes that everything has a source.
Jan has admitted that he believes we had an origin.
But can he prove it?
Can he show that his definition relate to something in actuality?
Further, once he has shown the core notion of an original cause to be an actuality, can he show how it exhibits all the attributes that are grants to God, rather than being the dumb, blind, Potential, for example, that Write4U espouses?

But I don't think it's fair to say that Jan's position is simply: "it is defined therefore it exists".

 

[spidergoat]

To acquire it requires change.
By definition Brahman is complete, meaning not lacking anything. Which must include knowledge.

Do you think that there is some portion of knowledge that is absolutely unknown?

Jan.

You said Brahman was unchanging, then you said acquiring knowledge requires change. So you are adding to your definition by saying Brahman is also omniscient. Which means he knows the future. So what does he actually do?

This also means that Brahman could only have inspired one sacred text, and only one version of that text.

 

[spidergoat]

It's not my definition, and it is anything but vague if utilize basic human intelligence.

It's extremely vague, and you keep adding things to it.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Well, let's leave it at me asking that every time you make such a statement of fact that you provide your reasoning / rationale/ argument for that statement, okay.

It's a definition, not a statement of fact.

Yet it is the one you put forward in this thread.
Please take responsibility for that, and accept it as yours for the purposes of this thread.

I'm good with it.
I don't know what you mean by take responsibility for it.

You believe you know.

No. I know.

The dishonesty is in disowning the definition you put forward, whether you believe in God or not, whether that belief was prior to the definition you have posted or not.
It is yours, as explained.
So forward we go.
Please provide the proof that this God exists in actuality.

Why do you always get bogged down is stupid details.
I don't own this definition, so I cannot disown it.
I did put it forward, but it's not mine.
Is Darwinian evolution Billy T's, because he put it forward in this thread?

Regarding proof. Don't fret yourself. It is my claim, and I present it as I see fit.

Why must there be?

Because everything that comes into existence does.

Why do you believe that?

Because it's natural.

That's not for me to answer.
The burden of proof is upon you.

Doesn't matter. I'm asking you.
Are you refusing to answer?

jan.

 

[Jan Ardena]

You said Brahman was unchanging, then you said acquiring knowledge requires change. So you are adding to your definition by saying Brahman is also omniscient. Which means he knows the future. So what does he actually do?

This also means that Brahman could only have inspired one sacred text, and only one version of that text.[/QUOTE]

Here's a link to get you started on your questions: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brahman

Let me know when you have enough information to carry on the discussion.

jan.

 

[Jan Ardena]

It's extremely vague, and you keep adding things to it.

No it's not.

Things like what.

jan.

 

[spidergoat]

Here's a link to get you started on your questions: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brahman

Let me know when you have enough information to carry on the discussion.

jan.

I want justification for your idea of God. I don't need more definitions. The Kalam Cosmological argument (the one you are using) needs no further refutation, since I believe it's already been destroyed.

 

[spidergoat]

Because everything that comes into existence does.

Except that which is uncaused. Like your God. So you have refuted your own principle.