27 Jan 12
Originally posted by Dasa"...because the Vedas threatened the pathetic mundane....Christian false doctrine.
What is false religion?
It is a doctrine/teaching fabricated from the mind of mundane man in recent times and it is not eternal *meaning before it apperaed it did not exist.
True religion receives its doctrine/knowledge from the Supreme Personality of Godhead - and has existed for eternality meaning there was never a time it did not exist.
Because fals ...[text shortened]... th dismiss true religion in favour of false religion..............( rhetorical question )
The opposite is true Dasa.
2 Corinthians 10:5 - Casting down imaginations, and every high thing that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God, and bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ;
Do the Vedas acknowledge Christ? No? Then they are false as is your "religion".
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
27 Jan 12
You are all arguing about the number of angels that can dance on the head of a pin without
bothering to establish the existence let alone any properties of angels.
None of you can claim to have truth as none of you have evidence to back up your positions.
Many of which are in direct contradiction to all that we DO know about the reality we live in.
Until at least one of you has a shred of supporting evidence then none of you has any valid
truth claim.
27 Jan 12
Originally posted by googlefudgeI'm not arguing. By the way, all the angels can dance on the head of a pin.
You are all arguing about the number of angels that can dance on the head of a pin without
bothering to establish the existence let alone any properties of angels.
None of you can claim to have truth as none of you have evidence to back up your positions.
Many of which are in direct contradiction to all that we DO know about the reality we live in. ...[text shortened]... east one of you has a shred of supporting evidence then none of you has any valid
truth claim.
I have evidence.
All that exists is evidence for the existence of a creator.
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
27 Jan 12
Originally posted by josephwNo it is not.
I'm not arguing. By the way, [b]all the angels can dance on the head of a pin.
I have evidence.
All that exists is evidence for the existence of a creator.[/b]
"All that is" is NOT evidence for a creator because its perfectly possible to adequately explain
'All that is' without a divine creator.
That's what science does.
And unlike religion science plainly works.
Given I am typing this into a computer running on electricity in a centrally heated house while
also looking at satellite pictures and not having died in childhood from one of a plethora of now
treatable diseases I shouldn't have to argue that science works.
Science obviously, unequivocally, and undeniably works.
Science explains things, what we can't yet explain we are working on, and what we can now
explain we didn't used to be able to.
Religion doesn't cure disease, it doesn't generate electricity, it doesn't design telescopes or send
people to the moon, it doesn't explain anything.
Millions of people have dedicated their lives to discovering the nature of reality, by using the most
effective and robust, error correcting, bias eliminating methodology ever devised.
The mythologies of science and reason.
The conclusions of these people (many religious) is that there is no need for any supernatural explanation
for anything we have seen in nature.
For you, or anyone, to claim that "all you have to do is look around" to see evidence of god is both insulting
and obviously wrong.
Because the people who dedicate there lives to looking around, to science, disagree.
"The universe" "all that there is" is not evidence for god, any god or gods.
And even if it were, which it plainly absolutely is not, it is not evidence of or for YOUR particular brand of deity
whatever that is.
You can't even provide a detailed and rigourus definition or description of what god is.
There is no evidence for any god or gods.
(excepting the trivial example of where you define god to be 'the universe' but we already have a name for that.)
27 Jan 12
Originally posted by googlefudgeDon't get so worked up about it.
No it is not.
"All that is" is NOT evidence for a creator because its perfectly possible to adequately explain
'All that is' without a divine creator.
That's what science does.
And unlike religion science plainly works.
Given I am typing this into a computer running on electricity in a centrally heated house while
also looking at satellit ...[text shortened]... e you define god to be 'the universe' but we already have a name for that.)
It is insane to think that all that exists came into existence without a creator. All one needs to do to know there is a creator for all that exists is to think rationally.
All that exists can not have always existed.
Wrap you mind around that.
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
27 Jan 12
Originally posted by josephwThe fact that things haven't always existed does not mean that they need a creator.
Don't get so worked up about it.
It is insane to think that all that exists came into existence without a creator. All one needs to do to know there is a creator for all that exists is to think rationally.
[b]All that exists can not have always existed.
Wrap you mind around that.[/b]
Given the vast number of things in the universe that begin existing without any creator this
is obviously and trivially true.
Natural processes can explain the existence of everything (in nature), with no creator involved.
27 Jan 12
Originally posted by josephwthat's an irrational, self-defeating argument.
Don't get so worked up about it.
It is insane to think that all that exists came into existence without a creator. All one needs to do to know there is a creator for all that exists is to think rationally.
[b]All that exists can not have always existed.
Wrap you mind around that.[/b]
All that exists can not have always existed.
yet you make a special exception to this rule for your god.
27 Jan 12
Originally posted by googlefudgeSomething doesn't come from nothing unless it is created. How anyone can imagine that matter came into existence without a cause is beyond reason. One cannot say that matter has always existed. That would throw the theory of evolution on its head. To claim that at some point in time organic life sprang into existence from something that already existed without knowing when, where or how matter came into existence is pure mindless wishful thinking.
The fact that things haven't always existed does not mean that they need a creator.
Given the vast number of things in the universe that begin existing without any creator this
is obviously and trivially true.
Natural processes can explain the existence of everything (in nature), with no creator involved.
Natural processes don't occur without reason or a cause. Nor do they occur without matter. The material universe exists for a reason.
The only way to make the claim that matter was not created is to say it has always existed. The faith required for such an idea is mind numbing.