Who can give the best account of why there is a God?

[lightgigantic]

lg,

You were talking about water, but the topic was gods. You should try harder to stay on topic.

Your argument was basically that god has many names therefore he is false - I pointed out that general principle is fallacious because water also has many names

 

[lightgigantic]

Cris

Thanks for all your comments about your religion and the time spent putting that post together; some of the concepts are commendable and attractive but I believe all the benefits that are claimed can be achieved in this proven and only material world.

whatever made you think they were not provable in this world?

I am a TM-Sidhi having learnt TM in 1977 and became a Sidhi in 1987.

Really?
Well maybe you can tell us what a siddhi is and what is the nature of siddhi, and then we can see if such definitions correlate with vedic scriptures.

At the many training sessions I was exposed at length to a great deal of the type of prose you are using here via Maharishi Mahesh Yogi. Whether you have any respect for him or not I don’t know but his teachings were all grounded in the ‘Gita, as are yours I believe. I have read a lot of his translation and I also have separate copy (As It Is).

The teachings of maha rsi are not in line with the teachings presented in the BG, as it is.
I am sure this will be apparent the moment you discuss the nature of the philosophy of TM.
As for basing the teachings on the BG, that is only of value if the teachings actually line up with the gita (thats why there is a special emphasis on "As It Is")

My attraction to TM was not religious but one of a need to reduce stress.
I’ve since moved way past that and can now achieve levels of meditation that allow me to experience deep rest and freedom from stress that few people will ever experience.

The test is whether one can disengage from activities that cause stress, otherwise whatever one may be doing in the name of de-stressing, it is just like an elephant taking a bath (when an elephant takes bath it immediately throws dirt all over itself the moment it comes out of the water).
The very fact that you have to endeavour, never mind what the endeavour may be, to overcome stress indicates that you are not perfect, and that despite your claim of attaining a state that few people can achieve, there is evidence of people attaining states higher than what you are advocating

While many of the gurus you reference will also achieve similar experiences they may well mistake them for supernatural, but they are not. The mind and body are one and the same thing, tightly interwoven, and inextricably linked. What we do to the body affects the mind and stress to the mind has a physiological affect on the body. Through effective meditation these daily stresses can be eliminated and which in turn allows the mind to experience peace, bliss, and happiness otherwise not possible.

In medieval times they would punish a criminal by holding their head under water until they almost drowned and then lift their head out of the water - the happiness of having one's head lifted out of the water, only to have it redunked again, is of the same type of happiness you refer to - you advocate that the body is the ultimate self, which means that the sufferings of the body (old age, death and disease) are also our ultimate companions in whatever we do in the name of happiness or de-stressing.

There is only material; the supernatural and gods are pure fantasy dreamt up by gurus making fundamental mistakes about what they perceive combined with ignorance about how the real world functions.

How the real world functions?
And how do you know how the real world functions?


Cris

“
The point is that they were not independant from the process
”
The victims of the bomb are not the issue here. The entire point is that the results of science are proven by very obvious demonstrable effects and experienced by people who have not become expert scientists.

yes, they were part of the process

“
The point is that you were not independant from the process
”
Irrelevant. The point is that I did not have to study science to receive the results of scientific developments.

But you had to be agreeable to the process

“
Inductive reasoning/faith - whatever you want to call it
”
No, no, no. There is nothing inductive or anything that requires faith when an atomic bomb kills thousands of people because of scientific truths. These are pure facts. Neither do I have to study science to know this.

Actually you were talking about heart surgery and why you believe heart surgeons can achieve results with science - clearly this is inductive reasoning - ie 10 000 heart surgeons have done successful heart surgery therefore all similarly qualified heart surgeons can perform successful heart surgery - the reason that it is inductive as opposed to fact is that there is the chance that after the surgery you will be zipped up in a body bag

“
I am not contending that - I am contending whether such persons indepenadnt from the processes have the ability to verify or deny the soundness of the principles that establish the processes
”
Are you trying to imply conspiracy theories, that Hiroshima never occurred or that men didn’t land on the moon? Can there be any doubt that these things did occur as a result of applied science?

No.
I am stating that if a person set out to create a nuclear bomb in a lab they would stand better chances by receiving an education in science - If a person is bereft of such knowledge and wants to make a bomb they are 100% reliant on the authority of such skilled persons

Your argument is that the supernatural can’t be perceived unless one becomes a religious guru and you claim similarly that science can’t be understood unless one becomes an expert scientist. But that is not a valid comparison. Perception and understanding are separate and distinct. In my examples above there should be no doubt that we can perceive the truths of science at work in all the applications it has made possible without having to understand in detail all the principles

.
If you think that perception and understanding are distinct why do you say that there is no doubt one can perceive the truths of science at work. Are you suggetsing that a survivor of th e hiroshima blast, by dint of their experience, is capabale of manufacturing an atomic bomb?

In religion there is no equivalent since as you have stated an ordinary person cannot perceive the supernatural or garnish its fruits unless they take part in the religious process and become experts.

I added as an end note to this concept, a second alternative - namely that a person who has faith (or inductive knowledge, as you preferred to call it) in the said authorities gets the benefit of that understanding - for instance a person may not understand the intricacies of heart surgery that lead to treatment of the malady, but if they have faith (or inductive knowledge) in a heart surgeon (who is familiar with such intricate knowledge) they can the benefit of that knowledge - namely the treatment of their heart condition. A person who does not have that faith does not get the benefit.
My stance is that religion operates out of the same principle, in regard to saintly persons and scriptures

And that brings us right back to one of my original questions as to how you can prove that these gurus have indeed perceived something supernatural?

There are numerous indications - those given in the dilineation of the nature of pure devotional service is just the tip of the iceberg

Clearly from everything you have said you are unable to prove to non-religious gurus that the supernatural exists.

Depends if they are qualified to perceive the evidence - just like you would also be in a quandry if you were required to prove to persons bereft of medical knowledge the methodologies of heart surgery (it would be beyond their ability to determine if you were presenting truthful info or not)

That means that ordinary people can only accept that the supernatural exists based on unsupported irrational belief.

its the same support people rely on for the truths of science - if there is an error in the calculations of th e kreb cycle, do you think they could pick it out?

In the end you are unable to show that the supernatural exists or prove that religious gurus are able to perceive the supernatural.

I never said it could come through logic - just like you cannot esatblish by logic the intricacies of heart surgery on an audience bereft of the theoretical foundation/elementary processes.
You can establish by logic however

• the means to acquire such a foundation
• the qualifications of a persons in that field whom one could deem credible

You are also unable to show that the claims of these gurus are any different to imaginary fantasy.

you are unable to show how your level of inquiry is sufficient to determine the level of their perception

I remain singularly unimpressed with all your failures to demonstrate that anything about religion can reveal a single truth.

i think i did that already with the qualities of the nature of pure devotional service to god, which you are free to offer a commentary on ....

 

[Cris]

Lg,

Your argument was basically that god has many names therefore he is false

No that wasn’t my argument since there is no logic to that. I was merely mocking your assertion that there can only be one god and that everyone else in history that has been responsible for creating the thousands of god definitions for THEIR particular gods, are somehow all referring to your god. So if you insist they all point to the same god and since it is certain they are all imaginary fantasies then that makes your god definition an equal fantasy.

I pointed out that general principle is fallacious because water also has many names

And of course the analogy has no merit. In the case of water we fully understand there is but a single basic molecule, but for god fantasies there is absolutely no implication that Zeus and Aphrodite for examples were definitions that referred to a single god – that extrapolation appears to be uniquely yours.

 

[Cris]

Lg,

Your perspectives are entirely alien to mine that I don't think we can ever bridge the gap with debate here. You appear to be heavily grounded in Eastern religion especially and general philosophy whereas I am grounded in Western science and especially technology (I manage an R&D research lab for a computer maker).

There are a couple of definitions you have introduced that I was not aware and those are interesting but on all the major aspects of your arguments I totally disagree and feel all your arguments are fundamentally flawed. That I can’t find a common point of reference with you where we might agree is incredibly frustrating. I also perceive that you feel compelled to disagree with anything I say whether you believe it true or not, on I suspect a misconception that that is the nature of debate.

I don’t see that I have convinced you of anything from my perspective and you have certainly not changed my perspective, except perhaps helped to reinforce my opposition to yours. While some of the posts were fun I now find that continuing to go over the same ground repeating the same arguments with slight variations is both pointless and tiresome.

I may chime in again in the threads occasionally. Thanks for the debate but for now I’m outta here. I hope perhaps SkinWalker might take over for me.

 

[lightgigantic]

Cris

“
Your argument was basically that god has many names therefore he is false
”
No that wasn’t my argument since there is no logic to that. I was merely mocking your assertion that there can only be one god and that everyone else in history that has been responsible for creating the thousands of god definitions for THEIR particular gods, are somehow all referring to your god. So if you insist they all point to the same god and since it is certain they are all imaginary fantasies then that makes your god definition an equal fantasy.

there is the example of head ache tablet companies - many of them have similar and even identical ingredients, yet they all claim they work in th erelief of head aches too. Is the obvious conclusion that they are all wrong?

“
I pointed out that general principle is fallacious because water also has many names
”
And of course the analogy has no merit. In the case of water we fully understand there is but a single basic molecule, but for god fantasies there is absolutely no implication that Zeus and Aphrodite for examples were definitions that referred to a single god – that extrapolation appears to be uniquely yours.

water also brings in other contingent truths according to time place and circumstance, like humidity and ice. What to speak of god - of course a person bereft of the elementary theoretical foundations could determine that water, humidity and ice are three totally independant and seperate phenomena

 

[lightgigantic]

Lg,

Your perspectives are entirely alien to mine that I don't think we can ever bridge the gap with debate here. You appear to be heavily grounded in Eastern religion especially and general philosophy whereas I am grounded in Western science and especially technology (I manage an R&D research lab for a computer maker).

There are a couple of definitions you have introduced that I was not aware and those are interesting but on all the major aspects of your arguments I totally disagree and feel all your arguments are fundamentally flawed. That I can’t find a common point of reference with you where we might agree is incredibly frustrating. I also perceive that you feel compelled to disagree with anything I say whether you believe it true or not, on I suspect a misconception that that is the nature of debate.

I don’t see that I have convinced you of anything from my perspective and you have certainly not changed my perspective, except perhaps helped to reinforce my opposition to yours. While some of the posts were fun I now find that continuing to go over the same ground repeating the same arguments with slight variations is both pointless and tiresome.

I may chime in again in the threads occasionally. Thanks for the debate but for now I’m outta here. I hope perhaps SkinWalker might take over for me.

Sorry to see you go.

The funeral ceremony of a sage who died in the forest, a fight between two goats, a thunder clap in the morning, a quarrel between husband and wife-all begin in grand style but the outcome is insignificant.
(Cänakya Pandita)

Actually knowledge is more valuable than proselytizing (either in the name of atheism or theism) and its application is more noble than for conquering the four directions


The ornament of the earth is the king, and the ornament of a woman is a good husband. The ornament of night is the moon, and knowledge is the ornament of everything.
(Cänakya Pandita)

If skinwalker takes over I will hardly respond to him - he is not a gentleman


When snakes drink milk, it only increases their venom. Similarly, good instructions offered to fools makes them angry, and does not give them peace of mind.
(Cänakya Pandita)