Honesty Rocks! truth rules.

Does God Exist?

HOME      >>       Science and Technology

CaptainRon

I have only disagreed with you and Eternal-Bliss (if you are in fact two different people). What name have I called either of you?

:) Your expression of such comical doubt about me and Eternal_Bliss sure puts you in a weirdo category. For your information, there are 1 Billion Hindus on this planet, and is it not possible for two of them to be on this board? Matter of factly the owner is also one. There are a dozen others who do not want to enter this religious feud.

I have no problem with other religions. I greatly enjoy them. I love and defend the diversity of mankind. I only have contempt for those who force their religion onto other people, deny religious freedom, or show intolerance of the diversity of mankind.

No one's forcing anyone to any religion. If you feel so, report it to the moderator.

No, but it does help me decide whether I want to understand him or his preachings. Why should I be an expert on this guy who lived 3000 BC? You consider him significant and I do not. Why should I?

There is difference in understanding the preachings and challenging them. You were challenging them, by saying things about Krishna. You are not allowed to say anything false about Krishna OR ANY OTHER HOLY FIGURE over here. Be it Christ, or Prophet or Buddha. I don't challenge the holiness of Christ and neither of Prophet and neither shall I ever. There are billions who believe them, and even if I ever have doubt, I will keep it to myself instead of saying on a public bulletin board.

So the fact that I speak sense offends you? What can I say? Why should I fully understand Hinduism or Islam?

urgh...! There is a difference in "I speak sense" and "I speak sense attitude" !!! and with the above line, you just reinforced my statement.

You and/or Eternal_Bliss are the representative(s) of the Hari Krishnas so you can share your sense of them all you want.

So are grouping me and Eternal_Bliss throughout, just because we belong to the same ethnic group?

Chesso

What's wrong with challenging it lol, they mostly challenge the opposite from my experience (generally) so why not the other way around, fair is fair right :).


mitchellmckain

So are grouping me and Eternal_Bliss throughout, just because we belong to the same ethnic group?

How should I have known what ethnic group you belong to? I thought you two were the same person because you reacted so similarly. But that you are of the same culture makes sense of this too. It also explains some of the reactions we have to each other's posts as some kind of cultural dissonance. Speaking sensibly is an ideal we of the west aim for, and your distaste for it triggers my own sense of you being wierd, and this is typical of a clash between cultures. So we live and begin to learn. Hmmmm....


There is difference in understanding the preachings and challenging them. You were challenging them, by saying things about Krishna. You are not allowed to say anything false about Krishna OR ANY OTHER HOLY FIGURE over here. Be it Christ, or Prophet or Buddha. I don't challenge the holiness of Christ and neither of Prophet and neither shall I ever. There are billions who believe them, and even if I ever have doubt, I will keep it to myself instead of saying on a public bulletin board.


What's wrong with challenging it lol, they mostly challenge the opposite from my experience (generally) so why not the other way around, fair is fair right :).


No, CaptainRon has a point here, though it is difficult for us to see. I believe He is pointing to a different kind of religious peace than we have in the west and such would certainly make sense in a place like India. At least, I begin to see some kind of self-consistency in it. In the west we respect the right of others to their belief and the freedom to speak these beliefs, but we have several difficulties. To deal with the potential disruption cause by inter-religious bickering we selectively ban this "freedom of speech" somewhat in the work place and in schools. And when it comes to people like Nazis, who have only a message of hate, we feel a bit conflicted in deciding how to handle them.

Certainly if you invite someone over to dinner then knowing their belief you would attempt not to give offense even if it meant being quiet about things that you believe. Otherwise what result could you expect, except that your guest would storm out of your house offended. We do not concieve of the public arena in this manner. In the west, our highest ideal is truth rather than harmony, and we see the public arena as the place for debate not politeness. And by our rather difficult ideal, we defend the right of these Nazi extremists to speak their point of view in public even though many of us are strongly tempted to shoot them as well.

I have never been to India, so I can only guess, but the words of our friends here make me suspect that India is somewhat different. I guess it is possible that the public arena in India is the same as welcoming a guest at your home. I am not agreeing with it, for I think it has problems of its own. I wonder if this supression of feelings in this manner does not lead to the kind of explosive violence that we have seen in India. And what if a man believes himself to be God? In the west, we can respect his right to believe so as long as he respects our right to disagree. Inviting such a person over to your house and trying to avoid giving offense may be too much of a burden for most people of the west to bear.

urgh...! There is a difference in "I speak sense" and "I speak sense attitude" !!! and with the above line, you just reinforced my statement.

In light of the above, I think I begin to understand. I think what you object to is a western tradition that we have from ancient Greece called rhetoric. Where we try to convince the jury or bystanders that our point of view is the reasonable one. There is little relationship between this rhetoric and the kind of politeness which you seem to see as appropriate for the public arena. The funny thing is that the internet forum has become an even more exaggerated version of the western ideal of the public arena as the place for debate and rhetoric. In any case, it seems that although I am not consciously engaging in debate, my manner of expression still gives you the impression of rhetoric. You could also call it, delight in my own cleverness, which has become so inseperable from my effort to express myself and be understood that I am not sure it is even possible for me to do otherwise.

So perhaps what you wish to say is something like, "let's forget the rhetoric and cleverness, and try to understand each others religious point of view in the interest of communication." Communication is a respected ideal in the west even if its tradition is newer and weaker than that of debate. But I don't think this can work unless one is careful to include phrases like, "I think that" or "I believe" in ones statement of belief. It may seem redundant to you, but in the west, a statement of belief as if it were a matter of fact is generally taken as a challenge to a debate. No doubt we will still find each others way of expressing ourselves a bit grating but perhaps awareness of the reality will help us to achieve some degree of toleration.

I hope this helps.

Eternal_Bliss

Hii, Everyone .mitchellmckain just check out the post no. 50 and 51 of this topic .You will get to see that there was a question asked by CaptainRon which I dutifully replied. Don't you think that its kinda weird that the same guy can asks a question and then replies to it.Does it makes any sense ?? :) Not to me at least....I and CaptainRon may have a similarity in the point of veiw on some of the points in this topic but there may be differences on other things. And I dont know what ethinic group CaptainRon belongs to, so I cant really say if we are of the same ethinic group. AND regarding INDIA I want to make it clear that INDIA is the largest democratic country in the whole world and also that its a secular country and everyone can express his/her own veiw (unlike many of the countries of middle east)....


mitchellmckain

Hii, Everyone .mitchellmckain just check out the post no. 50 and 51 of this topic .You will get to see that there was a question asked by CaptainRon which I dutifully replied. Don't you think that its kinda weird that the same guy can asks a question and then replies to it.Does it makes any sense ?? :) Not to me at least....

 

I have been searching through the thread to find out where this impression of similarity came from.

 

And it was the following post, suddenly making irrational personal comments in the midst of a discussion.

 

IT seems to me U ARE too preocupied by ur own Ideas to understand others.......UR cup of the mind is already full so U cannot take any more( no wonder !!!!!) :D

 


CaptainRon did the same thing both before and after yours, although now that I compare them side by side I would have to admit that his/her are a bit more irrational than yours. Although yours was every bit as unjustified for the reasons I have already explained. My point was not that you were proselytizing but that taking offense at my having my own definite ideas makes it sound like you are, for this is exactly the kind of thing I have heard from visiting missionaries.

 

Hey mitchellmckain sorry but you sound so frustrated of life... you surely need a God to make you happy :D

 


mitchellmckain, you seem to believe your religion, and still name-call others... strange man... take a rest buddy.

...

I guess you are the only one who is on a thrash-match with just anyone here..

 


After calling CaptainRon on the first one, it turns out that his/her reason was even more irrational. He/her says "I called u frustrated because u were calling people extremists", since I was actually responding to someone else calling people extremists and refuting it, this reason is really bizzare. The second instance was even more absurd, since he/she is doing in this post what he accuses me of doing. He/she goes back to posts a month back in order to turn that discussion into a person attack derailing the current discussion and then he/she accuses me of engaging in a "thrash mash". As far as I can tell, with these outrageious personal comments, it is I who have been subjected to the closest thing to name-calling in this thread and it is he/she that insists on turning this discussion into a "thrash mash". I have sincerely been puzzled as to the reason for all this, which is why I attempted to explain this as a cultural thing in my last thread, while ignoring the continuing abuse coming from CaptainRon. Of course, it was just a shot in the dark, so any light you can shed on this (including confirmation or denial of my suggestions) would be appreciated.

 

I and CaptainRon may have a similarity in the point of veiw on some of the points in this topic but there may be differences on other things. And I dont know what ethinic group CaptainRon belongs to, so I cant really say if we are of the same ethinic group. AND regarding INDIA I want to make it clear that INDIA is the largest democratic country in the whole world and also that its a secular country and everyone can express his/her own veiw (unlike many of the countries of middle east)....

 

Well him/her pulling the race card for no reason could be considered typical of him/her. I am not ignorant of modern history, but government and the cultural attitudes of society are two different things. But since as I said, I have not been to India, my guesses are a shot in the dark.

 

All in all, since we really do not know that much about each other personally, would you not agree that personal comments are, at least, not helpful and quite likely to be abrasive and insulting? I would suggest that if we are inclined to wonder about the personal character of another poster, we could simply send them a PM asking them. For speaking of rhetoric, as I have, making personal comments like this is worst sort of tactic of rhetoric there is.


Chesso

What's wrong with using the word extremist anyway lol, it's what they are (people that are actually labeled that).It just means they take thins a little too far too heated, hence the word extreme(ist).


CaptainRon

mitchellmckain, I do understand the point now, and I must tell you the reason for it. Here in India, I have all sorts of people from all sorts of religions neighbouring me. Hindu, Sikh, Christian, Muslim and Jain mostly. No doubt Hinduism is the predominant religion but still having a look at recent as well as past clashes between Hindus and Muslims, which all usually started as verbal feuds, we all find it safer to respect each others religion regardless of the kind of practices.The "rhetoric" you say to have inherited from your Western background, will make me change the subject a bit and ask you to look truly into the history of West and India. The history talks of something called Proto-Indo-Europeans, who were a society prior to European and Indian civilizations, and later split to form todays West and India. The whole theory and concept is highly debated, but still what is surely evident is the common source of origin of these two societies. Here a word "Arya" is introduced, that the ancient Indians used to describe themselves in the Vedas. It is wittily derived that there was an Aryan race from which the two societies were derived. This is what lead to the tainted racial supremacy factor in Hitler's Germany, where they thought that they were the source of Aryan race. However, the two immediate derivatives of the Proto-Indo-European society were the Indians and the Greeks. The reason why I brought this out was to point to the common origin source of me and you, and hence your "probably" false derivation of "rhetoric" as an ancestral attribute. It is more of a present social derivation...


mitchellmckain

What's wrong with using the word extremist anyway lol, it's what they are (people that are actually labeled that).
It just means they take thins a little too far too heated, hence the word extreme(ist).


Well extremists like Eternal_Bliss, CaptainRon and myself are going to object to this. I consider myself a moderate, but I can take things pretty seriously in support of my moderate point of view, which makes me an extremist by your definition. Suffice to say that the term "extremist" is a very relative term, and most people feel strongly about something which they take very seriously relative to other people.

mitchellmckain

The "rhetoric" you say to have inherited from your Western background, will make me change the subject a bit and ask you to look truly into the history of West and India. The history talks of something called Proto-Indo-Europeans, who were a society prior to European and Indian civilizations, and later split to form todays West and India. The whole theory and concept is highly debated, but still what is surely evident is the common source of origin of these two societies. Here a word "Arya" is introduced, that the ancient Indians used to describe themselves in the Vedas. It is wittily derived that there was an Aryan race from which the two societies were derived. This is what lead to the tainted racial supremacy factor in Hitler's Germany, where they thought that they were the source of Aryan race. However, the two immediate derivatives of the Proto-Indo-European society were the Indians and the Greeks. The reason why I brought this out was to point to the common origin source of me and you, and hence your "probably" false derivation of "rhetoric" as an ancestral attribute. It is more of a present social derivation...


I am familiar with the linguistic/genetic connections and Hitler's crazy ideas, as well as the pretext used by the British to support their racist attitudes in India. The connection is very old and there is no reason to see any substantial link to culture and I certainly will not support the racist ideas, fostered by the British, that tries to make the lighter skinned Indians out to be superior to the darker skinned. In any case, there is no denying, that rhetoric is an invention of ancient Greek culture deriving largely from their practice of democracy.

Organized thought about rhetoric began in ancient Greece. Possibly, the first study about the power of language may be attributed to the philosopher Empedocles (d. ca. 444 BC), whose theories on human knowledge would provide a basis for many future rhetoricians. The first written manual is attributed to Corax and his pupil Tisias. Their work, as well as that of many of the early rhetoricians, grew out of the courts of law; Tisias, for example, is believed to have written judicial speeches that others delivered in the courts. Rhetoric was popularized in the 5th century BC by itinerant teachers known as sophists, the best known of whom were Protagoras (c.481-420 BC), Gorgias (c.483-376 BC), and Isocrates (436-338 BC).

Aristotle made a detailed analysis of rhetoric and contrasted as the antithesis of scientific thinking. The adoption of democracy and Western legal practices in India has no doubt made rhetoric a part of modern Indian life in the form of politics and courtroom dialogue, but there is no doubting that the practice of rhetoric has deeper roots in the West, especially in the US whose society was built from its practice nearly from scratch. This is not a matter of pride (let alone racial pride since I doubt I have any Greek ancestors). Rhetoric has often been considered a plague of Western society starting with the criticisms of Plato, for the distortions of truth and justice which it often fosters. There is no need to be defensive for I make no assumption that western culture is the be all and end all of modern society. I point out the cultural differences only to understand what we find so annoying about the way we express ourselves so that in understanding this we can communicate better.

talktime

Scientifically God doesn't exist. Science needs proof and there is no way you can prove his existence.God in an unknown entity to every human being but every one is looking to find him. To say that god exists because no one can prove he doesn't exist is not logical. By that logic anything can be bought to existence in this world. But to belief and faith in God is also natural. Belief and faith don't need logic. There are many advantages and disadvantages of concept of god. Fear of God make people act lawfully while we know many people used God for getting power and maintaining it.


Chesso

I never said being an extremist was bad......But my personal definition or part of it would be forcing your "w/e" over what anyone else has to say, i'd consider that part of extremism.In other words, not taking in what other people say but expecting them to take in what you say. "Could also be considered a hypocrit".Not accusing anyone in this discussion of it though.


mitchellmckain

Scientifically God doesn't exist. Science needs proof and there is no way you can prove his existence.God in an unknown entity to every human being but every one is looking to find him.


This is not quite accurate. God is not a meaningful object in any scientific statement, for science restricts itself to that which is objectively observable or measurable. God is clearly not objectively observable or measurable. Therefore Science cannot say that God does not exist any more than it can say that God does exist. Science cannot say anything about God at all. God would not be a legitimate part of any scientific hypothesis and therefore God could not be a part of any scientific conclusion.

Mathematics rests on proof not science. Science rests on observational data, by accepting or rejecting hypotheses as result of experimental observation.

Yes God is an big unknown to science because nothing which is known about him is the result of any objective observation or measurement. As a result, God is useless as a scientific explanation. As an explanation for things God is a black box into which questions disappear without a trace with words like "because God made it that way" and "that is how God obviously wanted it to be".

Chesso

But then how can religious people say it's real, belief isn't enough to make something real now is it.....Ahh well.It'd be nice if it was eh heh heh.


mitchellmckain

But then how can religious people say it's real, belief isn't enough to make something real now is it.....


Well the question is whether everything real is necessarily objectively observable, and many people, famous physicists included, find reason to answer this question with an emphatic, NO! Instead such people see this restriction of science to what is objectively observable as a rather limiting kind of filter, which produces a very narrow view of the world. Most people in fact would find the idea of limiting reality to measurable quantities and the mathematical relationships between them as rather absurd, but that is exactly what physics does.

talktime

Mathematics rests on proof not science. Science rests on observational data, by accepting or rejecting hypotheses as result of experimental observation.

Wrong! Science need proof and mathematics is also a science. Mathematics is "science (or group of related sciences) dealing with the logic of quantity and shape and arrangement " . Using observational data is how one can get proof of something. Just using different verbiage doesnât alter the meaning.
For science hypothesis is not based on some imaginary idea. Hypothesis is continuation of current scientific knowledge propagated to next generation knowledge. God's concept is just a wild imagination according to current science , its just a fiction.

Yes God is an big unknown to science

He is known To whom? Can some one come forward and prove that he is known to them? That will lead to proving his existence. But there is no one who can do that. Those who claimed to know god fall flat on their face. They also said they knew earth is flat and evolution is wrong. The baseless imagination is expoesed from time to time. Burden of proof lies on them who claim his existence.

"No one can prove an unrestricted negative" is the reply usually given to those who claim that science can prove that God does not exist. An unrestricted negative is a claim to the effect that something doesn't exist anywhere. Since no one can exhaustively examine every place in the universe, the reply goes, no one can conclusively establish the non-existence of anything.
The principle that no one can prove an unrestricted negative, however, is itself an unrestricted negative. It says, in effect, that there are no proofs of unrestricted negatives. But, if there are no proofs of unrestricted negatives, then no one can prove that no one can prove an unrestricted negative. And if no one can prove that no one can prove an unrestricted negative, then it must be logically possible to prove an unrestricted negative. So the claim that no one can prove a universal negative is self-refuting-if it's true, it's false. Not only that unrestricted negatives can be proven, but that a number of them have been proven.

Parmenides realized over 2,500 years ago that anything that involves a logical contradiction cannot exist. We know that there are no married bachelors, no square circles, and no largest number because these notions are self-contradictory. They violate the most fundamental law of logic-the law of noncontradiction-which says that nothing can both have a property and lack it at the same time. So one way to prove a universal negative is to show that the notion of a thing is inconsistent. Ref: Free Inquiry magazine, Volume 21, Number 1.

Levis

Everything can be explained by science, if not now then in the future. The bible is said to be the ideas of god. Religion used to teach that the everything revolved around the earth, this was disproven by Copernicus. What about the theory that the earth was created in seven days, what happened to the dinosaurs? Did they vanish in 3 hours and 47 minutes? I myself am agnostic not because i believe that god might exist but because i can not prove that he does not. Who knows maybe he is trying to trick us.


If the universe did start from a spec of dust, maybe even smaller, then where did it come from? If all living things did evolve from simple single-celled organisms, then how come there still are single-celled organisms lying around?

Single celled organisms still exist because they did not need to evolve. These organisms are content with their enviroment and do not need additional energy.

God's thoughts cannot be read by anyone, not because he doesn't exist but because his "mind" if i may call it that is way too big for us to understand with our little brains. It's just like a man trying to communicate with an ant--it's impossible.

Umm, as of right now we are able to communicate with dolphins in very broad terms.. Communications with ants is impossible because they do not have a language system. Instead they communicate using chemicals. These chemicals can easily be decrypted with modern tools.

Chesso

Those are some very good points.But i'd also like to add that, even if some form of "God" exists or existed, I highly doubt it is even anywhere near close to what we'd percieve it to be, much like aliens I suppose, too many movies eh heh heh.


Levis

No single person can ever convince another to change their beliefs, even if they do sound logical. God - Religion its a form of tradition and a form of rule. It keeps people organized and it can keep society rolling, yet it does nto allow people to progress. Religion creates a sociological barrier that limits man's dream. Sure their might be a god, but does god want man to be stupid. Its funny, God gives man instintics but tells him not to use it. How HOw How can this be. Why does the bible force someone to one place, i dont understand. This topic is pretty hot and in a way needs to be closed. People's beliefs are really being stangled in this forum. Religion should never be debated because it never leads to a positive but a negative.


CaptainRon

Wrong! Science need proof and mathematics is also a science. Mathematics is "science (or group of related sciences) dealing with the logic of quantity and shape and arrangement " . Using observational data is how one can get proof of something. Just using different verbiage doesn't alter the meaning. For science hypothesis is not based on some imaginary idea. Hypothesis is continuation of current scientific knowledge propagated to next generation knowledge. God's concept is just a wild imagination according to current science , its just a fiction.


Need to disagree here. If science always needs proof, then I would like to ask you would led to the hypothesis of the 18th century that Sun was a giant ball of coal? What lead to the belief that earth had a giant magnet inside it? What lead to the hypothesis of "Hollow Earth Theory" in early 20th century? Einsteins theory of relativity got practically proved only after it was well accepted by the scientific community. Some of the theories of Stephen Hawkings are not close to practical understanding, let alone being proved! The reason is, these hypothesis's made sense in the context of the concerned era. As we came to know about Nuclear Fusion reactions, we could conclude that Sun has a similar chemical process. Similarly God is no wild imagination, but our term for the supreme creator. The day we understand him scientifically, our purpose of existence in this world will be over (atleast mine :) ).

What my religion tells me, earth goes through a cycle of four epochs. These are called "yuga". In the first Yuga, man is very very close to God, there is no vice, and he understands his purpose of existence very well. He dedicates himself to God, there is no evil anywhere. Evil is defined as hate, jealousy or greed. In the second Yuga, evil gets introduced for the first time. People are by far good but some evil exists. Then in the third Yuga, evil starts gaining predominance over good. In the fourth Yuga, evil becomes an inherent property of nearly every human. What it means is that every person has a certain quantity of hate, jealousy and greed. It is also said that every new Yuga is started with the extermination of the previous Yuga and a select few are chosen to lay the foundation of the next Yuga.

This is exactly what Noah in Old Testament, Manu in Hindu Mythology and Gilgamesh in the Epic of Gilgamesh did. These three are the oldest literature in relation to God by three different races i.e. Semetics, Indo-Europeans and Summerians. Manu derives the word "Man" in most european languages and "Manav" in most Indian languages. When three speak the same theory, despite their geographical location, we are forced to attribute atleast some amount of truth to these ancient literature.

Now to continue, currently it is the fourth Yuga running, where there is some part of evil in almost everyone. It is said that by the end of the fourth Yuga, man would have found God, evil would be nullified and Man will realise the reason of his existence and then civilization will go back to the first Yuga.

mitchellmckain

This topic is pretty hot and in a way needs to be closed. People's beliefs are really being stangled in this forum. Religion should never be debated because it never leads to a positive but a negative.

My disagreement with this is stronger than any disagreement I have ever had with anyone in the astohost forums (or any other forums for that matter). I strongly believe in religous freedom and a multicultural society. I rejoice in the diversity of human belief for I see in that diversity great beauty and strength. Threads like this are extremely valuable for it helps people of diverse beliefs like CaptainRon and myself learn to communicate more effectively. Through that communication peace becomes a more certain possiblity and mankind becomes a stronger whole. If people feel threatened by some thread they do not need to read it, post in it, or participate in any way. The internet is worldwide so if you participate you should be prepared to make your own decisions about how much you want to be exposed to the world.

But in that diversity there are those opposed to this point of view, atheists like Hitler and the communists who irrationally believe or hope that religion will fade into obscurity in the light of reason and science. I am a scientist myself and strongly defend the methods, validity, and value, but I find this atheistic point of view very foolish. I may not agree or find much merit in CaptainRon's belief in these "yuga" as a process of history, but I vigorously defend His point of view as no less valid than any scientific perspective. If he were claiming that two different parallel lines on a Euclidean plane meet somewhere at a point then I would have cause to challenge his understanding of the concepts involved. But scientific conclusions are not based on proof and only a non-scientist unfamiliar with the methods of science would think such a thing. This idea is in fact typical of an atheist who has made science into his religion. But this religion has nothing to do with real science.


God - Religion its a form of tradition and a form of rule. It keeps people organized and it can keep society rolling, yet it does nto allow people to progress. Religion creates a sociological barrier that limits man's dream. Sure their might be a god, but does god want man to be stupid. Its funny, God gives man instintics but tells him not to use it. How HOw How can this be. Why does the bible force someone to one place, i dont understand.

Well you are welcome to your opinion but I do not agree with your characterization of religion at all nor with your conclusions about its role in the progress and dreams of people.

The religious diversity of mankind forces us to deal with our essentially subjective nature, so that we do not become lost in the vanity that our abstractions of ojectivity inspire. To allow this God would indeed be encouraging stupidity in mankind, and our progress would come to a halt as our prejudices remained unchallenged by different points of view.

We human beings are more complex than you seem to think for within our bodies lives another lifeform of a completely different nature than the biological forms of life on this planet. This lifeform is commonly called the human mind, and it is so much more alive and aware than other lifeforms on this planet that its potentiality dwarfs all these others to near insignificance. God would encourage our minds to be stronger and assert greater control over our body as part of the process of maturity and assuming responsibility. The point is that we are to use our instincts and not be used by them, for that would diminish the life of the human mind. In this way we can become aware that our life is not simply a matter of providing for the needs of our body alone, but that all life on this planet is interconnected and part of a single whole, which we need to protect and care for. No other life form on the planet is capable of this.