ForumGarden

Vrindavana Das

Savage;1393145 wrote: What about unicorns, vampires, leprechauns,...? By his reasoning they would exist as well then, no?

Yes. Spirits in subtle bodies like ghosts exist. Have you not heard of Paranormal Science?

Vrindavana Das

Savage;1393143 wrote: Erm.

What?

I think it means that what does not exist, would not be in our consciousness. We would not be aware of it's existence at any conscious level.

Vrindavana Das

<r>rajakrsna;1392353 wrote: Krishna can eat with his eyes & can see with his hands. It should have been " the proof of the pudding is in the seeing ( smiling )". Which means the proof of the pudding is in the handling, so to speak. 
 
 
hehehe...yes! 
 
...<EMOJI seq="1f914 ...

Vrindavana Das

<t>Mickiel;1392488 wrote: Is God real? Well power is proof of that. Awesome power by itself without intelligence, will eventually destroy itself. Power needs direction, and direction is a sure sign of determination, which is a sure sign of intent and planning. 
 
 
Absolutely right!<br ...

Vrindavana Das

<t>rajakrsna;1391862 wrote: As I said let`s put this thing to an end by votation. Those who believe in the existence of God & those who do not. Whoever gets the most number of votes wins. Deal or no deal? You can even let the People`s Republic of China vote. Hahaha 
 
 
Hahaha :yh ...

Vrindavana Das

<t>Townes;1391765 wrote: Umm, the holy book is the word of god > because it says so > because it is infalliable > because it is the word of god. Circular reasoning. Please provide testable proof, it is ALL us atheists are asking about, really. Not assertions and circular reasoning. 
 
<br ...

Vrindavana Das

<r>Townes;1391747 wrote: Hi, here are the two sentences I have absolute objections about. 
 
Please look up the term "scientific theory". There are no facts in science outside of mathematics. A theory is not what you see as a layman's term theory which means a hunch or an assertion.<br ...

Vrindavana Das

<r>Hi, 
 
My apologies for the delayed response. 
 
I have gone through your various interesting explanations. Although I think we are discussing God and not science, still I will respond to your points. As the post will become very long if I respond to all points here, I will take ...

Vrindavana Das

<t>littleCJelkton;1391294 wrote: But I hate tapioca another person might love it but hate chocolate or butterscotch or banana, some people don't like pudding at all and eat Jell-O it doesn't mean does that eat pudding treat people better than does who eat jell-O or ice cream or prefer any other kind ...

Vrindavana Das

<t>Savage;1391162 wrote: So, what's your point? You believe every text that claims to be holy? 
 
It's the beauty of science that it realises that not everything is known yet and that their is still a long way to go. This in contrast with religion. 
 
I don't see the logic in going ...

Vrindavana Das

littleCJelkton;1391222 wrote: Since GOD can not be proven or dis-proven, then it cannot be proven or dis-proven that believing in GOD or not changes how bad, good, mean, nice, selfless, selfish,...... of a person you are.

“The proof of the pudding is in the eating”

Vrindavana Das

<t>littleCJelkton;1391221 wrote: No it doesnt matter at all, if I don't believe in him, it matters to you if I do, but because GOD can not be disproven or proven then it doesn't matter and it is fuel to force people to seperate hate and even kill each other, because unfortunately those like you take ...

Vrindavana Das

<t>Savage;1391157 wrote: I never said something came from 'nothing'. I said that the origin of the small point in the big bang theory is as of yet still unknown. Just like a whole lot of things were once unknown. That just doesn't mean there has to be a creator behind it. 
 
Still, what you ...

Vrindavana Das

<t>Savage;1391154 wrote: Just to be clear: do you deny evolution or are you saying that evolution could co-exist with a creator? 
 
edit: If you are familiar with evolution, you should know that the existence of a creator is not needed for the all the things we see in nature. 
<br ...

Vrindavana Das

<t>Savage;1391151 wrote: Wrong. 
 
Very flawed logic there. There is absolutely no reason why there has to be creator or an 'engineer' behind things we see. Why should there? Because cars are made by engineers and buildings require architects? That's just flawed analogy. 
<br ...

Vrindavana Das

<t>Savage;1391140 wrote: I don't believe in any supreme being, no matter how I would define it. 
 
About the proof: Yes, both direct and indirect proof exist. 
 
Still, how will you proof the existence of a supreme being? 
 
 
You insisted on an object proof. You ...

Vrindavana Das

<t>Savage;1391135 wrote: God: When I read your post, it seemed to me you were talking about a Creator-God. I assumed you were talking about the Christian god. Perhaps I assumed too quickly. What God do you believe in? 
 
Proof: 'confirmation of a fact by evidence'. Ie: not what I have read ...

Vrindavana Das

<t>Savage;1391087 wrote: The burden of evidence lies with the person making the claim. 
 
All that proof for the existence of your god isn't proof at all. Not by a long shot. 
 
 
Two requests: 
 
1. Please define God. 
 
2. As you say - 'All that proof ...

Vrindavana Das

<t>littleCJelkton;1391128 wrote: Than it really doesn't matter if I, he, she, us, them or they do or don't believe in your form of god or not does it. 
 
 
It does not matter from God's position. From among countless universes, if in one mustard-seed-like universe, in one remote galaxy ...

Vrindavana Das

<t>littleCJelkton;1391037 wrote: No and what point will it prove if he is or isn't real? 
 
Why does the possibility of an entity being real or not that can't be proven to be real or not dictate the actions others take and the way in which they treat others? 
 
If you want to ...

Vrindavana Das

<t>littleCJelkton;1390981 wrote: It is also childish to think that something spiritual witch is not material can be material without the science being there to prove it to be so. 
 
 
Even if we agree that God is not spiritual but material and there is no science to prove it to be so ...

Vrindavana Das

<t>littleCJelkton;1390976 wrote: We can experience "see" atoms 
 
with an electron microscope 
 
 
The point, CJ, is that atoms existed even before the invention of electron microscope. Science could not prove it, but atoms were a reality even then. 
 
Science itself ...

Vrindavana Das

<t>Pappy;1389813 wrote: 
 
There are no facts that prove a god exists. The whole basis for it is based on religious text written by desert dwellers who apparently were in the sun to long. The entire statement is nothing more than assumption based on belief and what the religious brain ...

Vrindavana Das

rajakrsna;1390717 wrote: dear vrndavan das,

ahso knows. He knows there`s a god. He is just, like me, enjoying himself here.

Rajakrsna

...

Vrindavana Das

rajakrsna;1390717 wrote: dear vrndavan das,

ahso knows. He knows there`s a god. He is just, like me, enjoying himself here.

Rajakrsna

lol

Vrindavana Das

<t>Ahso!;1390098 wrote: Yes it does, nonexistence is never challenged or shown to be incorrect. 
 
 
'Inability-to-experience' is no proof of 'non-existence'. 
 
Because I cannot see an atom, does that mean atoms do not exist! It is imperfection of the human senses, thus we ...

Vrindavana Das

<r>Pappy;1390088 wrote: Myths and legends do not make a god nor do they make him real. Hinduism is no different, based on myths and legends. 
 
 
Denying God's existence does not make him un-real as well <E>:)</E> 
 
Like I had said - what proof do you have that He does not ...

Vrindavana Das

<t>Pappy;1390081 wrote: What proof do you have that he does? None. Define god? Without moving goalpost please. If no one here can define god then whats the use in trying to prove an infinite number of negatives. 
 
 
God is defined as follows: 
 
The Supreme Personality of ...

Vrindavana Das

<t>Infinite Stop;1389950 wrote: I can only guess. For one, I was desperate and in need of a miracle; not everyone needs a miracle. It wasn't because I was so holy or anything like that. On the contrary, I was freakin' mess. I will add, I think by not answering prayer, God is in a way indeed ...

Vrindavana Das

<t>Pappy;1389974 wrote: So other than what you say what external proof do you have some god did this? 
 
 
The external proof is in the scriptures revealed for us to understand the 'attributes of God.' 
 
 
 
Another assumption...man this forum is full of them.<br ...

Vrindavana Das

<t>Mickiel;1389322 wrote: To avoid infinite regression, I believe there has to be at least one being of power and mystery that had no beginning, but it began everythingelse. And that is God. There must be one that always existed in order to bring all that we know into existence. I don't buy the ...

Vrindavana Das

<t>Infinite Stop;1389122 wrote: I can't buy into this at all. First, I might object to the notion that simply because a judge or anyone else orders me to kill that I am above the law. Morally it's questionable. 
 
It's true that violence may at times be justified. However, in the New ...

Vrindavana Das

Yes ...

Chant and be happy

Hare Krsna Hare Krsna Krsna Krsna Hare Hare!

Hare Rama Hare Rama Rama Rama Hare Hare!!

:)

Vrindavana Das

<r>Mickiel;1388940 wrote: Is God real? There is absolutely no proof that he is not! Yet the laws of Entrophy, Biogenesis, The Anthropic Principles, The Cosmological Arguement, The Ontological Arguement, Paleontology, and the Laws of Conservation are all proof of God being real. 
 
 
I ...

Vrindavana Das

<t>Infinite Stop;1388916 wrote: . 
 
No, you are 180 degrees wrong here. My position is that God will never, NEVER, be proven scientifically. Further I DO believe that God can be known via revelation; not only that, revelation is the ONLY way God may be known. Though I wholeheartedly agree ...

Vrindavana Das

<t>Mickiel;1388869 wrote: You understand that God is real by testing him. Proving him to yourself. Try him; think of personal ways to try him. 
 
 
I sense sincerity here in wanting to love and embrace God. How would it be if we understand God from what He tells us as to how He is ...

Vrindavana Das

<t>rajakrsna;1387652 wrote: "Anyone who is thinking of Krishna always within himself, is a first-class yogi." If you want perfection don't be satisfied only by practicing a course of asana. You have to go further. The perfection of the yoga system means when you are in samadhi (oblivious), always ...

Vrindavana Das

<r>Infinite Stop;1388618 wrote: 
 
Much of what you have in this post is little more than mish mash. I won't attempt it. 
 
In regard to your last paragraph: Well, I'll agree with you there. How CAN we understand the absolute truth of God's existence without the requisite ...

Vrindavana Das

<r>Friend, in the Gospel of Matthew, Pilate washes his hands to show that he was not responsible for the execution of Jesus and reluctantly sends him to his death. The Gospel of Mark, depicts Jesus as innocent of plotting against the Roman Empire, portrays Pilate as reluctant to execute Jesus. In ...

Vrindavana Das

<t>You say 'Christ's death had nothing to do with sense gratification.' Well, is it not that the rise in popularity of Christ was interfering with the ambitions of some leaders that ultimately lead to Christ's crucifixion? Sense gratification, on a gross level is physical, and at a subtle level on ...

Vrindavana Das

<t>We chose to kill God because sadly we think happiness can be derived only from our senses...through sense gratification. Accepting God's existence would interfere in our efforts for unlimited sense gratification. But God has designed this world as a temporary and miserable place. There is no ...

Search found 41 matches