All the religions in the world are the feathers of the same bird

[geauxtohell]

I can disprove the existence of god:

If god did exist, would we be arguing over its existence?

Ah, but if God is all powerful, perhaps he wants us to argue over his existence to test our faith.

That is the logical circle that this arguement always ends in. Once you have an all powerful entity anything is possible and who are we to question his/her/its logic?

I am not an athiest, but this is why I oppose the attempts by the creationists to stick God in the scientific method. Once you allow that to happen, it essentially destroys the process and point.

 

[Willing Sniper]

No one can prove the existence of god.

 

[JBeukema]

And God will make His presence known to those who actually use the methods He has given us to know.

When his armies will be granted victory and they kill all the males and any woman who is not a virgin and the virgin girls are talken as sex slaves to reward the righteous?

Of course, if your statement is true, then you must believe in Paul's conversion as revealed in his personal letters and epistles and reject the tale from Acts...

 

[mattskramer]

Athiest can never disprove the existence of God

The atheists can never disprove the existence of unimaginable God due to several unimaginable events (miracles) exhibited by several Godly people and due to several practical experiences of the existence of unimaginable power of God during the lives of several people in this world.

The miracles are exhibited not only by Godly people and human incarnations but also by evil people having very bad character and conduct, cheating the public in many ways. The development of atheism is mainly due to the existence of such evil people only. But, the atheists are also not analyzing the miracle performed by an evil person. The concept of the miracle is completely different and has nothing to do with the character of the person performing that miracle. A petty fellow, who has worst character due to bad habits like drinking etc., is announcing a rule of Municipality in a town to the public. The message of the announcement has nothing to do with the character of the announcer. Since, the announcer is a bad fellow, you cannot ignore the message of the Municipality and behave as you like. The announcer will be separately punished for his bad character. You will be also punished if you ignore his announcement based on the point that the announcer is not a good fellow.

Similarly, you have to take the point conveyed by the miracle and ignore the character of the evil person performing that miracle. God will punish him separately for his evil nature. From the unimaginable event (miracle), you should conclude the existence of unimaginable God. This is the message of any miracle to create the fundamental belief in God. Some people having jealousy on great devotees of God or the human incarnation of God, reject the greatness of devotees or incarnation based on miracles by saying “even dirty people perform these miracles. What is the greatness by such miracles?”.

They pass such comments due to two reasons:

1) they are jealous of the greatness of devotees or incarnation and
2) they have not understood the message conveyed by a miracle.

If a good fellow is announcing a message and if you say that the same message was also announced by a bad fellow previously and hence the message should be neglected, is it correct? A miracle is necessary for majority of human beings to have real belief in the existence of God. Several people are standing on the ground and require this to climb the first step. After having the full belief in the existence of God, miracles are not necessary because the second step is to attain the grace of God through practical sacrifice. But, several theists also need the observation of miracles, because their belief is not perfect and hence to strengthen their belief, miracles are necessary. Even a person having full faith in the existence of God should not criticize the miracles, because you cannot ignore the first step after climbing the second step.

I don’t understand what you mean by a "miracle". Please clearly define the term and/or give an example.

I do know that there is a difference between a message (right or wrong – good or bad) and the messenger (right or wrong – good or bad). Don’t judge a message by the messenger. Please explain your points in a simpler manner.

Aside from that, it is clear that atheists can’t disprove the existence of God. You can’t prove that unicorns do not exist (except in one’s imagination) can you. You can’t prove that 3-legged, plaid elephants with pink and purple color designs, having webbed feet, 2 trunks, 5-foot-long tails, and scales exist. Therefore, such creatures must exist.

You seem to be resorting to the fallacy of “appealing to ignorance”.

Argument from ignorance - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It is not really the atheist’s responsibility to prove that God does not exist. It would be a logical fallacy to try. The theist has the bourdon of proving that God exists.

 

[Luissa]

Do you understand how the burden of PROOF works......We don't have to prove God doesn't exist you have the burden to prove it DOES!

You can't prove that Unicorns don't exist.....

You can't prove that Elves don't exist.....

You can't prove the aliens don't exist.....

You can't prove that goblins don't exist....


I could go on forever!

There is only one unicorn left! Geez

 

[dattaswami]

The knowledge should give bliss to me. Is it not correct?

If you want bliss, try getting laid.

Do not fool Lord

Ravana (a demon) fooled Rama (God in human form) by sending the golden deer and stole away Sita (wife of Rama). But this fooling finally resulted in the end of Ravana only. This fooling is a mini drama in the big divine drama, which was designed by the Lord Himself. Krishna and Arjuna were taken away from the war by a part of the army. Abhimanyu was killed in their absence and Duryodhana (a demon) thought that he fooled Krishna.

But finally it resulted in killing of Saindhava, the brother-in-law of Duryodhana and also it resulted in killing of Karna who was the main hope of Duryodhana. Krishna asked Arjuna to kill Karna even though Karna was without bow and arrows. Killing of Abhimanyu became the reason for Krishna to kill Karna. Somakasura stole away Vedas from Brahma, when Brahma was in meditation. He thought that he fooled Brahma. But finally it resulted in killing of that demon only. Hiranyakasipu asked Brahma for immortality by asking boons from all sides. He thought that he became immortal by his over intelligence. But God came as Narasimha and created the loopholes for all the boons and killed the demon.

Thus, the extra intelligence of the demon resulted in his killing only. Karthaverya’s sons killed Jamadagni when Parasurama was absent. They thought that they fooled Parasurama. But finally Parasurama killed all of them. Judas fooled Jesus in getting Him arrested. But finally Jesus went to God and Judas committed suicide. Jesus told about Judas to His devotees in the beginning itself. The soldiers insulted Jesus asking Him to save Himself if He is God. This does not mean that Jesus was impotent to save Himself. Rama was fooled by Ravana and this does not mean that Rama was ignorant. Neither Jesus was impotent nor Rama was ignorant.

All this was will of God and every thing was the divine play. Such incidents act as the tests of the faith of the devotees. If the devotee of Rama doubts Rama as ignorant, his faith is crumbled. If the devotee of the Jesus doubts Jesus as impotent, his faith is also crumbled. Rama wept for Sita without knowing that Ravana stole her. Jesus also cried on cross asking God that why God left Him. All these stand as tests of the faith of their devotees. Moreover, God who came down to the earth also enjoys in such ignorant roles and forgets Himself for some time to fully immerse in the role and enjoy. A producer and director of a film, acting in the role of servant in the film forgets his status and enjoys the role for some time.

 

[dattaswami]

I can disprove the existence of god:

If god did exist, would we be arguing over its existence?

God being the generator of space, is beyond space and therefore, can never be imagined

The unimaginable God is beyond the four-dimensional model of space and time. You can imagine the dissolution of matter converting into energy filling the space. Subsequently you can imagine the disappearance of energy in the space and the result is final vacuum. But, even if you try for your lifetime, you can never imagine the disappearance of vacuum.

God being the generator of space is beyond space and therefore, can never be imagined. If you have to imagine God, the pre-requisite is the imagination of disappearance of space or vacuum. Of course space is a form of very fine energy and in this context the word energy used by Me can be taken as crude form of energy. The only knowledge about God is that He is beyond the knowledge (Yasyaamatam… Veda).

 

[Avatar4321]

No one can prove the existence of god.

God can. Which of course is why the only way to know He exists is to talk to Him.

 

[dattaswami]

Awareness did not exist before creation

You can say ‘the awareness of God’ but you cannot say that God is awareness. The reason for this is that the awareness observed in living beings is a form of inert energy working in nervous system. Before the creation, space cannot exist, since space is the first item of creation, which is the first subtle form of inert energy. Therefore, before creation neither materialized nervous system nor inert energy can exist. In such case, the generation of awareness is unimaginable. Even if you assume that the awareness was generated from some unimaginable source, the awareness, which is a work form of inert energy, cannot exist before creation. Since space is the first form of inert energy, in the absence of space, there cannot be existence of inert energy. If the inert energy was absent before creation, how can you say that awareness, which is a form of inert energy existed before the creation? In such case, you have to conclude that both the source of awareness and awareness itself are unimaginable. Instead of two unimaginable items, it is always better to say that one unimaginable item existed. Then, the conclusion is that the unimaginable source (God) existed and His will, which is awareness, must be the first form of inert energy that was created even before the space. But, without space, inert energy can never exist. Since space is needed for the waves to propagate or for the fundamental particles of inert energy, which alone is transformed into awareness or will.

To avoid the two unimaginable items, even if you say that the unimaginable God Himself is the unimaginable will or awareness, then also, your purpose is not served, since the unimaginable awareness cannot be the imaginable awareness that is seen in the living beings. Moreover, when you say that something is unimaginable, how can you say that it is awareness or inert? Hence, there is no other way than to say that one unimaginable item, which cannot be qualified by terms like awareness or inert created the space directly. Therefore, Veda says that the unimaginable God created the space directly (Atmana Aakashah…).

But Veda says that God wished to create the world. Such statement can be taken in view of the general procedure seen in the world, which is adopted for the sake of convenience of understanding by human beings. Veda also says that the unimaginable item (God) created the space or energy directly (Tat tejo asrujata…). Once the space is created, which is the first form of inert energy, the procedure of the creation is a routine process as described by Veda regarding the creation of air etc. after space. In this procedure, the last item that was created was awareness from the food (Annat purushah). You cannot bring this awareness even before food and not to speak of bringing the awareness even before the generation of space.

Now there are two items. One is the unimaginable God and the other is imaginable world which includes awareness as the final product. The generation of the world from God is also unimaginable, since there is no similar example of unimaginable generating imaginable in the world. From space onwards, we have only the imaginable generating another imaginable and any link between two imaginable items is imaginable. Therefore, Veda says that the link between space (Mahat) and God (Purusha) is unimaginable (Avyaktam) as seen in the statement “Mahatah paramavyaktam, avyaktaat purushah paraha”.

 

[dattaswami]

Creation is imaginable to us? If God is unimaginable how it is possible?


Question: The nature of the cause must enter the product. The Gold from the lump enters the golden ring. By this, the unimaginable nature of God must enter the creation also and the creation must be unimaginable. But creation is imaginable as you yourself say.

Answer: The shape of the lump of the gold did not enter the ring. The gold only entered the effect from cause. Therefore, the shape component of the cause does not enter the effect and the gold component of the cause only enters the effect. This means that a part of the nature of the cause enters and another part of the nature of the cause does not enter the effect. Therefore, the unimaginable nature of God entered the world through unimaginable miracles and unimaginable boundary of Universe. The deepest nature of the creation is also unimaginable according to scientists. All this is like the gold component entering the effect from cause.

The shape of the ring, which is the new component that is different from the shape of the lump, can be also seen as the new component appearing in the ring here. This point is that the imaginable nature of the universe, which is quite different from the unimaginable nature of the God appeared in the Universe as a new component of the effect. All this proves that the creation need not be completely unimaginable since its cause (God) is completely unimaginable.

In fact, God created this imaginable nature in the Universe so that the existence of unimaginable nature can be relatively established. In the absence of unimaginable nature, the imaginable nature cannot have existence because both the unimaginable and imaginable natures are relative terms. Moreover, when the cause is unimaginable the process of generation of an imaginable product from the unimaginable cause must be also unimaginable. In the world we are seeing the generation of imaginable effect from another imaginable cause. Therefore, the process of generation here is also imaginable. There is no example in the world for the generation of imaginable product from unimaginable cause. This world consists of all imaginable examples and the study of their relationships is the logic. Such logic fails because the generation of the Universe from its cause (God) is unimaginable. Hence, you cannot demand the entry of the nature of God into the Universe by logic of worldly examples.

Brahma Sutras say that there is no example in the world for God. This is the reason for the Vedic statement saying that God is beyond logic. When we compare God with the electricity, the electricity is also not a complete example to God. Since the electricity is unseen, the unseen nature is temporarily assumed as unimaginable nature. In fact, the electricity is also imaginable because it is a stream of imaginable electrons. There is no other way than to bring unseen item, which can be assumed as unimaginable item. Veda also says that no item in this world is equivalent to God.

 

[dattaswami]

How can one establish the existence of unimaginable God?

Question: How can you establish the existence of the unimaginable item? You can say that something exists only if you come to know about it. When you do not know about it, how can you say that it exists?

Answer: In this world several miracles happen. The miracle is unimaginable but still it exists. The boundary of this Universe is also unimaginable, but it must exist. Therefore, the proof of the existence of unimaginable item exists in this world. In fact to give the proof of the existence of unimaginable nature, God created this unlimited Universe with unimaginable boundary. The same God shows various miracles in this world so that the existence of unimaginable nature is established; thereby the existence of unimaginable God is also established by the extension of the concept.
Universal-Spirituality

 

[dattaswami]

If God is unimaginable then why all these discussions about God?


Question: We are discussing about imaginable items only. We need not even speak about the unknown or unimaginable items. If God is unimaginable item, there is no need of speaking about God. The only statement that can be given about God is that we need not speak about God because He is unknown. If that is the case, what is the necessity of this elaborate philosophy as a subject, which can be disposed with a single statement that God need not be discussed at all since He is unimaginable?

Answer: The philosophy deals with the discussion of the existence of unimaginable item. When you say that God is unknown, there is a danger of establishment of the non-existence of God. Philosophy says that God is unimaginable and is existing. The Philosophy further says that the unimaginable God enters and pervades a specific known medium, so that you can experience the mediated God. It is just like the unseen electricity entering a seen metallic wire giving you the experience of its existence through the shock.

The philosophy deals with the investigation of the real path to please God etc., Therefore, Philosophy cannot be limited to one single statement, which states that we need not speak about God since God is unimaginable. Some say that the awareness is God and several others say that other imaginable items are God. We have to negate all these proposals by establishing that all these are imaginable items and hence cannot be the unimaginable God. All these aspects are to be dealt in detail and in depth and this makes philosophy a vast subject.
Universal-Spirituality

 

[gautama]

As I stated some time ago:

Replace all this religious bullshit with just one sentence:

"Do unto others as you would have them do unto you."

And, if y'all are not fucking masochists then everything will be honky-dory.

But no......you religious freaks want the Heaven, Hell, and Divinityy crap.

And then, as History shows from the begining of Mankind, you fucks slaugter each other in the name of your wonderful "religions"

 

[gautama]

It's really very simple:

Replace all your fucking religions with their Heaven, Hell, and Divinity CRAP with one sentence:

Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.

And, unless you're a gaggle of masochist freaks everything will be okey-dokey

Instead you fucks prefer to slaughter each other since the begining of recorded history for your wondrous religions..

 

[dattaswami]

As I stated some time ago:

Replace all this religious bullshit with just one sentence:

"Do unto as you would have them do unto you."

And, if y'all are not fucking masochists then everything will be honky-dory.

But no......you religious freaks want the Heaven, Hell, and Divinityy crap.

And then, as History shows from the begining of Mankind, you fucks slaugter each other in the name of your wonderful "religions"

God doesn’t mind even atheism provided the justice is maintained in the society
If God and hell are not accepted, the sin will grow to climax

Miracles only prove the existence of unimaginable God. Anybody including the demon demonstrating the miracles is in the service of God to establish the existence of God to an atheist. Miracles exist widely with God in human form, devotees and even evil demons. Establishment of existence of original unimaginable God is the fundamental subject that needs wide publicity and hence God has spread miracles in wide range. Once the existence of God is accepted, the atheist becomes theist. This is the foundation step.

Even Shankara spent all His life in the first step only to convert atheistic Purvamimamsakas and Buddhists. Existence of God is needed even to establish Pravrutti through creating fear for hell. If God and hell are not accepted, the sin will grow to climax in a slow and steady way. Atheists promise to follow justice even without faith in God, but such promise is not having strong basis and it can be violated at any time. God doesn’t mind even atheism provided the justice is maintained in the society. But there is always a possibility of violation of justice if the hell disappears from the mind. When you are provoked to do injustice, at least the concept of hell and God will control you to certain extent. At least the percentage of people committing sins will be reduced. Of course, the concept of God and hell is not bringing the percentage to Zero, but if that concept is totally absent, by one day or other the percentage will be hundred.

For this point only, God comes down to establish His existence and there by create the fear for hell so that at least the percentage of sin and injustice comes to a minimum level, though complete eradication is impossible. God is not at all bothered to establish Himself for the sake of Nivrutti. If the society runs completely on justice, He will not mind even if all the human beings are atheists.

 

[Mr Mustard]

God being the generator of space prove it. Plus, if there is a god that is all powerful, it can make a vaccum disappear.

Ah, but if God is all powerful, perhaps he wants us to argue over his existence to test our faith.
don't be such an idiot or you'll end up being a mormon.

 

[Mr Mustard]

The only thing unimaginable is you shutting the fuck up.

 

[ABikerSailor]

Do unto others as you would have them do unto you?

Nope.

Everyone has the right to do whatever they want to do.

 

[editec]

Understanding existence is beyond our paygrade.

Believing that your religion gives you perspective into existence is rather like thinking that by climbing the highest mountains in one region one can see the whole world.

I ascribe to a set of moral and ethical principles.

They are the result of my experiences, and the values I was given as a child. I don't even know if they're good moral and values, to be perfectly honest with you.

I only know that they are the best morals and ethical codes I have, as yet, been able to understand.

But I do not impose those values upon God and say that my understanding of the good and the bad, and God's understanding of them are one and the same.

What the deeply religious usually need and typically lack, thanks to their blinding religious dogma, is a little humility.

The greek philosohers understood that well enough.

They called our petty conciets hubris.

The Lord is universal but the human beings in the universe differ in their attitudes. The same single Lord adopts a different procedure in a different region and such different procedure appears as a different religion. A few criticize the Lord of other religion. You are criticizing your own Lord of your own religion. The external behavior of the Lord differs due to different internal and external behaviors of the human beings in this universe.

The external form, dress, language, food habits and culture of human beings differ from one region to the other. Accordingly the external form, dress, food habits, language and culture of the Lord also differ to suit that particular region. The internal Lord and the internal essence of the same Lord is one and the same in His different human incarnations which have come in different regions or religions.

Different cultures spawned different religions, but GOD doesn't mind?

Yeah, I'll say.

 

[gautama]

Do unto others as you would have them do unto you?

Nope.

Everyone has the right to do whatever they want to do.

Hey, that works fer me.

I'm going to screw your wife whether she likes it or not.

And, I'm just one of the good guys.

Mebbe Charley Manson will change your mind when he does what he wants to do to you and yours.