Does God exist? [Archive] - Page 2

aravindhan

11th December 2004, 05:41 AM

And i can see that your poser "Who created Satan? and if God did create him - why didnt God knew that he would become evil? - is a pertinent and brilliant perspective!

The standard theological answer to that, of course, is that for the exercise of free will, there must be an alternative to choose from; hence free will is impossible without the existence of evil.

But the Ahunavaiti Gatha has a much subtler explanation for the existence of evil. Humans share with their Creator the ability to know and choose between truth and falsehood, அறம் and மறம்; and because of this, we have within us two mentalities: the one of life, and the one of unlivingness. These mentalities war in us, yet we all have the capacity to choose the better one, the one of life, "progressive thinking", which drives us to seek truth and live in truth. Choosing this mentality, we evolve to perfection in harmony with the universe.

The worst in us is that which drives us to the one of unlivingness, "retarding thinking", which puts us in disharmony with the order of the universe and is the direct cause of evil in the world. The solution to the problem of evil, therefore, lies within us alone.

This, of course, does not prove or disprove the existence of God, but that, to my mind, is an impossibility. Nor is it important - what is important is the goal towards which all ought to strive: the perfection of ourselves, and through that, of the world around us. And on that, I think, we can agree, whether or not we believe in God.

r_kk

11th December 2004, 05:59 AM

Lovely post Aravind.... I was eagerly waiting for such posts instead of creating a separate entity called Satan... Let me wait for some more time... and see how many of us have developed or have better understanding of the concept of Satan instead of literal meanings of their holy books... Keep writing when you get some time ...

Dear Badboy,
your concept of prayer also correct.... Just look inside your self... If it is called prayer... then let me also accept.... I also do...

hehehewalrus

11th December 2004, 07:24 AM

r_kk
I will post more later. But take a look at this site - It has all the answers to your doubts - check the links on the left:

http://www.creationscience.com/

About the author:
Walt Brown received a Ph.D. in mechanical engineering from Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) where he was a National Science Foundation Fellow. He has taught college courses in physics, mathematics, and computer science. Brown is a retired full colonel (Air Force), West Point graduate, and former Army ranger and paratrooper. Assignments during his 21 years in the military included: Director of Benet Research, Development, and Engineering Laboratories in Albany, New York; tenured associate professor at the U.S. Air Force Academy; and Chief of Science and Technology Studies at the Air War College. For much of his life, Walt Brown was an evolutionist, but after many years of study, he became convinced of the scientific validity of creation and a global flood. Since retiring from the military in 1980, Dr. Brown has been the Director of the Center for Scientific Creation and has worked full time in research, writing, and speaking on origins.

hehehewalrus

11th December 2004, 07:27 AM

Dr.Walt Brown has been researching the subject for over 25 years. His advice to readers has been to ask anyone who wants to debate this subject can call up 602 955-7663 to set up a discussion :D

r_kk

11th December 2004, 08:08 AM

Dear he3...
Why can't you propose the opposite views also.... Skeptics made many many direct challange to him... He is yet to respond.... He is looking for only average readers who do not have much indepth knowledge about both. Ask him to accept the already existing challanges in fornt of him...
read the following...
http://gondwanaresearch.com/hp/walt_brown.htm
I will post more on this subject. Also read..(if you have time)
the following
http://home.austarnet.com.au/stear/creationist_frauds.htm
so... we can have long discussion... I don't know my boss is going to dismiss me.. :lol: (not able to control in replying...to so many thoughts...)

r_kk

11th December 2004, 08:23 AM

God does exist, God should Exist and God will Exists.

Read the Gita, it explains it all, the meaning of Karma(activity), Isvara(the supreme lord, Maheshwar,shakthi, Ganesh, Muruga), kala(eternal time), prakrti(nature)
Dear Raghu,
It is nice to see views from other religious groups also… Post more
I have also read Gita… I had so many doubts about history of Mahabharata … Even though there are little evidence in historical presence of so many characters, still there are so many exaggerated stories built in.. Why Gita should be revealed at war.. If it is book of war, why very good Indian leaders like Vinobaji and all followed it and lived based on it so kind heartedly..

I had heard from one of my close elder who lives as per Gita (not even speak lie and lost his government job because of that...)

He said. Don’t think Gita as external preach… Mahabharta is a war within you… very few good characters of you which itself has little bad thing fight against large bad characters of yours which also have few very good things... Why God character didn’t fight why only preach... because you have to fight yourself… His explanations about Gita was fantastic and gave a good understanding why so many of Indian freedom fighters used it as their guidance…

I hope the above will assist you to understand your book more Keep writing in detail

r_kk

11th December 2004, 10:11 AM

Dear he3, alisha, roshan, raghu, aravind, geno, badboy and all,
I have to leave this discussion now and I will try to come later after one or two weeks.... So many other real things to do and I should leave other people to think, read and then write. Only one request, don't allow the fanatics and cheets to enter in to discussion... C U soon... (Last piece.... Have you ever read the one of the greatest freedom fighter Bhat speech about God and religion and how he believed his thought till his death... For believers also it will help why people need not praise for selfish thoughts.... very interesteing...
http://bhagat.punjabilit.com/atheism.htm)

hehehewalrus

11th December 2004, 11:07 AM

dear rkk
i wont be comig much too. whats ur email
mine is hehehewalrus@yahoo.com
dont forget

just_hubber

13th December 2004, 08:50 AM

DELETED

Roshan

13th December 2004, 10:54 AM

NOV the Moderator,

Please stop this kind of nonsense being posted in this thread. It's nothing other than religious propoganda and it's going to create un wanted problems here. I too can post hundreds of stories with appropriate references to show as to how the so called "BORN AGAIN CHRISTIANS" had converted to other religions. OK? But that's not my idea.

It has become obvious now - that no one except a particular Religious sect is the one that involves itself - in this kind of Relgious propaganda with the sole idea of 'conversion' in mind. Therefore please take necessary action to prevent this thread being 'CONVERTED'

PLEASE DONT MAKE THIS THREAD ANOTHER FIGHTING BULL RING !

blahblah

13th December 2004, 11:32 AM

NOV,Unless you ban this guy called just hubber you are setting a very bad example for all hubbers.Kindly wake up.I as a Christian feel offended as this fellow is spoiling the name of all Christians.

And all hubbers,your inability to respond to such propaganda is disgusting. :o Please read my signature line.

just_hubber

13th December 2004, 12:33 PM

Ok i wont post anymore of testimonies here but it is upto you how you are viewing,
FOr me THis guy is sharing his realisation by telling his experience.Sadhu selvaraj also experienced "a supernatural experience with God" , After your comments i wont post here anymore testimonies anyone can read it from web

For that person , no need to feel "disguisting" i can understand how hard for you to take this in your mind.
Thank guys for the hatred feelings you expressed ,

I can also demand the moderator to delete my above posting

blahblah

13th December 2004, 03:58 PM

Roshan

13th December 2004, 04:10 PM

just_hubber

13th December 2004, 04:30 PM

geno

13th December 2004, 06:42 PM

blahblah :)

I appreciate your initiative in denouncing the "propagandist" nature of Just_hubbers posts.

I have already made some requests to concentrate on the "concept of god" rather than "religiosity" to the friends who post here, so has people like hehehewalrus, roshan, you et al.

But this guy seems to revel in "preaching" his notion of god rather than sharing his views on the "thesis about divinity"(or the lack of it!).

I hope propagandist posts of any hue or nature would be avoided - atleast henceforth by these people! :)

I appreciate r_kk's work in articulating the skeptic's view on these issues! :D

geno

13th December 2004, 06:49 PM

I would now like to reproduce a post made by "Rohit" - the "original one" (thanks cygnus! :D) - which is very much relevant and thought-provoking.

Rohit - was the one alleged by Sandeep - as "Equation Master" - but that's an undeserving comment on the genius of Rohit - which is my personal opinion! :D :D

This post was made by Rohit - during march, 2004 in another thread - in the old hub :

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Rohit (@ cache1-nott.server.ntli.net) on: Tue Mar 30 15:16:51 EST 2004

Theist (T): Where did the universe come from?
antitheist (A): Why did it have to come from anything?

T: Everything has to come from something.
A: Then, you tell me. Where did the universe came from?

T: The universe came from God.
A: Where did God come from?

T: God did not have to come from anything. He always was.
A: Then everything does not have to come from something after all. Perhaps the universe always was.

T: Philosopher William Lane Craig has argued that the universe had a beginning, therefore it must have had a cause. That cause is God.
A: Quantum events can happen without cause. Perhaps our universe was a quantum event in a larger universe that always was.

T: You have no evidence for this.
A: You have no evidence against it. Current physics and cosmology allow for such a scenario.

T: How could this happen? Where did the matter and energy of the universe come from?
A: Matter was created from energy in the early universe. Observations indicate that the positive energy of matter is exactly balanced by negative gravitational potential energy. Thus, the total energy of the universe is zero and no energy (or very little--just the amount allowed by quantum mechanics) was required to produce the universe.

T: Where did the order of the universe come from?
A: It could have been produced spontaneously by natural processes of a type that are now beginning to be understood in physics. One such process is called "spontaneous symmetry breaking." It's like the formation of a snowflake.

T: Still, the second law of thermodynamics says that disorder, or entropy, must increase with time. It must have started out more orderly than it is now, as created by God.
A: An expanding universe allows increasing room for order to form. The universe could have started as a tiny black hole with maximum entropy, produced by a quantum fluctuation, and then exploded in the big bang.

T: You can't prove that. No one was there to see it.
A: You can't disprove it. Such a scenario is allowed by current scientific knowledge.

T: Many prominent scientists don't think the big bang happened. What does that do to your scenario?
A: The data from cosmological observ ations, which has improved enormously in just the last few years, has left no doubt among current working cosmologists that the big bang happened. The remaining holdouts are a few older astronomers who are gradually dying out. They are like some nineteenth century chemists and physicists who refused to accept the atomic theory to their dying days. Furthermore, the big bang is used by theists such as Craig and Hugh Ross to support their theologies. It does not, but I caution atheists not to argue against theism by saying the big bang did not occur. It very definitely did.

T: But isn't the universe fine tuned for life? Isn't it true that the slightest change of any one of a number of physics constants would make life impossible? Is this not evidence for a universe intelligently designed for life?
A: The universe is not fine tuned for life. Life is fine tuned for the universe. If we had a universe with different constants, we might have a different kind of life.

T : Doesn't life require carbon, which would not exist without a delicate balance of nuclear parameters?
A: Our kind of life, yes. We do not know about other kinds of life.

T: You can't prove that life is possible without carbon.
A: I do not have the burden of proof here. You are making the claim that only one kind of life is possible, carbon-based life. You have to prove that. I am simply saying that we do not know and so cannot say the universe is designed for life as we know it. It could have been an accident. Nothing in current science says that is impossible,

T: So, even if everything that happens is natural, as you claim, where did the laws of nature come from?
A: The laws of nature are misnamed. They are not necessarily rules that govern the universe, that sit out there in some kind of Platonic reality. They could just as well simply be human inventions, descriptions we have made of observations.

T: Then they are subjective. We can all make our own laws.
A: Not quite. We can make up different laws if we want, but they are not scientific unless they agree with observations. The laws of physics can be written in many different ways, but they agree so well with the data that we are confident they describe aspects of reality.

T: Well, then where did those aspects of reality come from, if not from God?
A: Why did they have to come from anything? But, that's how we started this discussion.

T: Still, you have to explain why there is something rather than nothing.
A: Define nothing.

T: Nothing. No thing. No matter, no energy, no space, no time, no laws of physics.
A: No God?

T: God is a separate entity who created matter, energy, space, time and the laws of physics from nothing.
A: I won't ask you again who created God. Rather, why was it necessary for the universe to have come from nothing?

T: It had to come from something.
A: But you just said it came from nothing!

Source:

http://www.mukto-mona.com/Articles/vstenger/seminar_freethinkers.htm

!! , ?? :wink:

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Rohit - the "Genuine one"!! :)

Where are you?!! we miss you here! :(

Raghu

13th December 2004, 07:54 PM

Dear rkk ,

Thanks for the responce, this topic has always fascinated me to the limits!, I would love to discuss anything regarding GOD, but unable to do so, due to work. but once I am free, I will be here most of the time :)

I too have few doubts about the great epic, maha bharath, I don't think the characters of maha bharath were Exaggerated in any versions what so ever.

Geno ji,

Ingayum vanthuteenghala :))

Rosh,

Hello

Sandeep

13th December 2004, 08:05 PM

I know everything, the remaining 99% are fanatics, ignorant, irrational, or simply fools.

They are the 5 blind people trying to understand the elephant. But see I am the only one who has the vision to see understand the elephant. Because I am great. I am Special. I am one and all.

Raghu

13th December 2004, 08:07 PM

Dear RKK,

I have found out that some negative characteristics of Karnan were not shown in the tamil film 'Karnan'!

You said, ' Why was the Gita preached in the battlefield of Gurushetram, it's simple, Arjuna was not able to stand against to his loved ones like Bhishmar, Dronar, Kirubacahriya,..etc. Here Lord krishna had to explain, that Arjuna is fighting for dharma, and that all he sees in front of his is mayai

Bad Boy

13th December 2004, 08:18 PM

Hi just hubber,Good that you have realised some facts atleast now.I am glad that you won't be posting anymore.The hub would be better off with out you.Atleast in the future try to understand others' views as well.It is a great quality to accept different views. Fanatics are remembered only for a short time. :wink:

i did nt say i wont post anymore here
I will post my arguments in support of the existence of True God.
I will try to post logical arguments and true facts.

As a intelligent design of God , i will post the core evidences of creation and God.

come back soon...

But we would prefer if you don't post your stuff here. Post it to Vatican. May be they are the ones you should adress in the name of your True God first.

Just_Blubber, we are sitll discussing and finding arguments against or for the existence of God and NOT of The TRUE GOD. As it seems you already have accepted the existence of the True God you are too advanced for this thread here in this matter. Just stay off!

For your logical arguments and true facts what ever they may be you can post them in the "tales of the unexpected, anyone" thread. They deserve to be in there only.

As the most creative creation of the creator in this created creator's globe I'll for ever oppose the core evidences of creation and the created intelligence of designed creator's creations even if they claim to be the created incarnation of The True Creating Creation.

AMEN!

chinitacc

14th December 2004, 04:29 AM

I think psichiatrists are all impostors. Who told them that a person feeling sad is depressed ? they invented the concept...there were NOT such a thing as psichiatrists...they take advantage of a person when they are feeling down and they say they are ill...they wrote the books...maybe one of them was the many crazy psichiatrist of hitler...why do people believe they know what they are doing ? they give drugs (that are illegal)to the people and now to little children...where is this going to ?
Do they think it was god who ditacted the books ?
they experiment on human beeings as they are rats...they put them to sleep, for people not to feel...they don't solve their problems...people get worse and with sense of not having confidence on themselves. they say: you are ill, mentally ill and the people believes in them...
Why do people do that? why don't people say...i am not ill, i am just sad...they don't need drugs, at least that is what i think.
Please remember that it was a few men who invented the mental diseases...there was a time when there were no mentally ill people...
please remember that people were supposed to be witches and burned in the fire because a few wanted to get rid of them...
now people are driven to believe for some others that they are mentally ill...and i ask why? Many times because we don't have a friend to guide us and to offer us support...not even a friend who would like to listen to our problems and that can help us to solve them...
and i ask ...for how long are we going to tolerate that happening in our society ?
nowadays when people don't behave like robots and have feelings are said to be mentally ill...by whom?
psichiatrists...men or women like us all...
Many times people say bad about the behaviour of other people...what is normal ? i think nowadays people get the people they dislike in the psichiatrists because they are bad and take disadvantage of sensible people...should psichiatrists be above the law ? they have power to put people to sleep against their will...they are even above the judges...because they are trusted to be professionals even by judges...are they ? or should be a judge to determine if a person is or is not well...?
In my modest opinion a judge should talk to the person to see if they are coherent and is only with sadness, with rage, or with another very human feeling...
If i could i would end with that profession and they would have to search another means to earn money !
be affraid, be very affraid , because they can put you to sleep or even hipnotise you and deprive you of your humain ritghs !!!

chinitacc

14th December 2004, 05:12 AM

I believe in God.
I am not baptized but i am roman chatholic apostolic, but i believe in all the profets...
I think we must be aware that there are many people who are waiting for the arrival of the new coming of the son of God , some for other profet, some for satan, some for the anti-christ...
I think we must be very careful in who we believe and in who we trust...
Some believe in the new coming...His (the son of God, Christ's ) new coming !!!
But how are they preparing ?
Are they waiting for another profet to be slaughtered like jesus christ was ?
Are they waiting for miracles ?
Are they waiting to put him(or her)in a cage for public exhibition ?
Are they waiting to test the DNA of God Almighty?
Are they waiting for someone to be put to tests and to cut their skin to see what the chosen one is made of ? will they want to cut off His(or Hers) heart to find out how is it possible to love so much ?
I think God should be mersiful of His Son( or Daughter )and should protect Him of such a faith...
I think we should be most careful with those who say that they are the chosen ones...
There are some that say that they are preparing the arrival of maytreia...have you heard of it ? some day, some one will say he(or she) is maytreia and people will never know if it is true...some day , someone will claim this title...and we must be very careful because they are using hipnotism and regressions to the past lives and i must say that i don't believe in the power of conciouness when it is hipnotised and in the realm of suggestion and in the field of the subconscient or inconscient.i don't believe that the person who is hipnotised is talking with full knowledge and full use of his reason. i believe people let themselves be suggestioned by those persons (hipnotists).
some day, some one, will say that he (or she ) is the son (or Daughter)of God . will we believe ? and can we trust in the statements of someone under hipnosis making regressions to their supposed past lives ? it is my strong belief that all this is an invention of some who discovered to control the mind and body of others. the hipnotist has the control of the mind and body of the one that is hipnotized.(unfortunatly, here in portugal in a reality show on the television on prime time a hipnotist made an experiment to hipnotise millions that became suggestible to his voice and his words...how can we let that happen? i saw it and i remember nothing of the experience...what if he said for us all not to remember until someday he comes again on the television and he suggests something evil for us to belive?that person can control millions , that were watching the tv show...i started to believe in hipnotism when i saw a rabbit and a chicken smoking a cigaret. i think this is insane, who authorized this and with what purpose ?
shall those profets (or in case of the anti-christ those encarnations of evil have support of the entire masses? or shall they be considered mentally ill by the psichiatrists?
i think we must fear the power that such a person can achieve...
on the entire world...
would we believe if someone said to be THE Son of God ? Catholics and jews say that we are all Gods...a priet said to me: my child you are daughter of God, we all are...and he told me: you are a Goddess...and i asked if that is not a blasphemy...and he said that those are the words of God...and i saw on tv a jewish rabi saying that we are all sons and daughters of God...
I think i am not a God. In fact, i am sure i am not a Goddess...if i was a Goddess (or others that have much more merith than i and that study religion deeply) i would eradicate hunger, there would be no diseases, there would be eternal life of our body, there would be a world without evil , a world of no lies and no need to steal or kill, everyone would have food, shelter, education, health happiness and love.
unfortunatly, i don't have that miracle sublime power...
I am not of those fortunate ones that can see God or hear God...but i would like to be...
I need no proofs of the existence of God.
I belive in God, all good, all mersifull, all love, all charity, all kindness, all knowledge, Father of us all and in all His good and most admirable and sublime qualities you can imagine!!!
We must also be careful with psichiatrists that are telling us that we are mentally ill, when we only have feelings and emotions and problems...they don't solve problems, they just postpone the solution of the problems putting people to sleep and letting them , sometimes with inreparable damages in the brain, our most precious gift...our mind, our thoughts, our reality, our human rights, our identity...
some day, some psichiatrist says that someone is the Son (or Daughter ) of the Almighty God and people will believe in them...because they think they are like Gods because they studied and read some books and that invented the terms depression, bi-polar, esquisofrenia...those words didn't exist in the dictionary...but were those books that they wrote and from where they invented eveything and that they teach like laws, were those books from the inspirration of God ? i think, on the contrary, they must have been writen directly by the devil...who are they to tell persons who have nothing in the tac, nothing in the blood tests, who are just feeling down, who are they to tell them they are mentally ill...let me remind you that there were no such thing as doctors...medicine was invented by men...and was forbidden for example to practise on corpses...now they have free access to the john does that exist in the thousands...and they experiment in the human beeings even when they are alive, don't we have the right to know that we are as rats in a laboratory that is called the world ?...is there no respect for the dead ? they digg graves and they display the mummys of the pharaos...those who said that were Gods and that ruled the earth...is there no respect for the body that WAS and still IS a person, but dead? here in portugal the deceased are considered things...how can that be ?
I believe in God.
Recently someone told me that what is below is up and what is up is below(refering to heaven and earth)...if that is true i must say that there is corruption and evil spreading in the Heavens...as it is here on the earth...
I believe in God.
I believe that Good will always and eternally win to the Evil.
And i also believe that we must contribute, each and every one of us, to the triumph of the Good, and of God.
I believe in God but my grand-mother told me: if you are in a field with a bull dressing red...start praying and don't run...(maybe there is a miracle...but most likely the bull will kill you).
We must have faith, but we must also believe in our reason.
I believe in God and i ask of Him no proofs.

mutharasan

14th December 2004, 05:45 AM

NEW YORK Dec 9, 2004 — A British philosophy professor who has been a leading champion of atheism for more than a half-century has changed his mind. He now believes in God more or less based on scientific evidence, and says so on a video released Thursday.

At age 81, after decades of insisting belief is a mistake, Antony Flew has concluded that some sort of intelligence or first cause must have created the universe. A super-intelligence is the only good explanation for the origin of life and the complexity of nature, Flew said in a telephone interview from England.

Flew said he's best labeled a deist like Thomas Jefferson, whose God was not actively involved in people's lives.

"I'm thinking of a God very different from the God of the Christian and far and away from the God of Islam, because both are depicted as omnipotent Oriental despots, cosmic Saddam Husseins," he said. "It could be a person in the sense of a being that has intelligence and a purpose, I suppose."

Flew first made his mark with the 1950 article "Theology and Falsification," based on a paper for the Socratic Club, a weekly Oxford religious forum led by writer and Christian thinker C.S. Lewis.

Over the years, Flew proclaimed the lack of evidence for God while teaching at Oxford, Aberdeen, Keele, and Reading universities in Britain, in visits to numerous U.S. and Canadian campuses and in books, articles, lectures and debates.

There was no one moment of change but a gradual conclusion over recent months for Flew, a spry man who still does not believe in an afterlife.

Yet biologists' investigation of DNA "has shown, by the almost unbelievable complexity of the arrangements which are needed to produce (life), that intelligence must have been involved," Flew says in the new video, "Has Science Discovered God?"

The video draws from a New York discussion last May organized by author Roy Abraham Varghese's Institute for Metascientific Research in Garland, Texas. Participants were Flew; Varghese; Israeli physicist Gerald Schroeder, an Orthodox Jew; and Roman Catholic philosopher John Haldane of Scotland's University of St. Andrews.

The first hint of Flew's turn was a letter to the August-September issue of Britain's Philosophy Now magazine. "It has become inordinately difficult even to begin to think about constructing a naturalistic theory of the evolution of that first reproducing organism," he wrote.

The letter commended arguments in Schroeder's "The Hidden Face of God" and "The Wonder of the World" by Varghese, an Eastern Rite Catholic layman.

This week, Flew finished writing the first formal account of his new outlook for the introduction to a new edition of his "God and Philosophy," scheduled for release next year by Prometheus Press.

Prometheus specializes in skeptical thought, but if his belief upsets people, well "that's too bad," Flew said. "My whole life has been guided by the principle of Plato's Socrates: Follow the evidence, wherever it leads."

Last week, Richard Carrier, a writer and Columbia University graduate student, posted new material based on correspondence with Flew on the atheistic www.infidels.org Web page. Carrier assured atheists that Flew accepts only a "minimal God" and believes in no afterlife.

Flew's "name and stature are big. Whenever you hear people talk about atheists, Flew always comes up," Carrier said. Still, when it comes to Flew's reversal, "apart from curiosity, I don't think it's like a big deal."

Flew told The Associated Press his current ideas have some similarity with American "intelligent design" theorists, who see evidence for a guiding force in the construction of the universe. He accepts Darwinian evolution but doubts it can explain the ultimate origins of life.

A Methodist minister's son, Flew became an atheist at 15.

Early in his career, he argued that no conceivable events could constitute proof against God for believers, so skeptics were right to wonder whether the concept of God meant anything at all.

Another landmark was his 1984 "The Presumption of Atheism," playing off the presumption of innocence in criminal law. Flew said the debate over God must begin by presuming atheism, putting the burden of proof on those arguing that God exists.

chinitacc

14th December 2004, 06:27 AM

If Adam and Eve are our ascendants...
If Jesus Christ was THE Son of God...
If Jesus Christ was conceived, generated and not created...
If Jesus Christ is (consubstancial in portuguese) made of the same matter as is His Father(God)...
If we are all sons and daughters of God...
If we are all made of the same substance as Our Father that is in heaven...
If God, Our Father, is made of the same substance(at least parcially) as we are...
Then ... God, Our Father, exists in a substancial and real way similar to ours...somewhere...

NOV

14th December 2004, 03:30 PM

Querida

14th December 2004, 11:13 PM

whoa where has this topic gone off to??? I don't even recognize it anymore :?

Alisha

15th December 2004, 06:29 AM

NEW YORK Dec 9, 2004 — A British philosophy professor who has been a leading champion of atheism for more than a half-century has changed his mind. He now believes in God more or less based on scientific evidence, and says so on a video released Thursday.

So to those guys who still saying that GOD does not exist , what have you got to say to the post above. I have not come across any posts that clearly says that GOD does not exist.

I feel that many people post here saying that GOD exist and then refer to thier own belief and give their testimonies and that's nothing wrong in that.

I have not come accross any posts that says that a particular religion is bad or good which means this discussion thread is a healthy place.

r_kk

15th December 2004, 08:16 AM

Dear sister Alisha,
I thought of writing any thing in this forum only in next week end…. But I felt I should reply to your question immediately…

Thanks lot Muthu….

You had brought an interesting post which challenges the atheist face to face. Good. Changes in any rigid (including atheistic mind) also a good sign…. Yah… rigidness in anything is not good…. BUT …

You had posted only part of the story, projecting as if he found God in a particular religion (if the avathar might have been different, I should not have written this)…. Sorry Boss…. Not so…

Instead from the explanation he had given, he is accepting concept of Aristotelian God. Which religions have Aristotelian God concept or what it means? … (let me try to explain more later… it is too early to write what Flew (aged 81) want to conclude at his end of the long career as atheist…without reading his forthcoming book)

Please note that he is neither converted to “C” or “I” religion yet or he got the answers for the first life form (which can multiply its own) or the reason for Universe creation or existing. What he says is the present stage of DNA research takes him to the possibility of existence of an another knowledge or being or …sorry I have to wait till 2005 to find what he says in complete…. But based on his latest explanations… his understandings are given below…

Read what the interviewer said….
While this is big, Christians ought not to get too excited. He says he wishes more than ever that he could prove the Christian, Jewish and Muslim conceptions of God as wrong. He accepts the existence of a creator god, but nothing more, somewhat like the deists, Jefferson and Franklin. He says he doubts evolution can explain the complexities and intricacies of life, and only some sort of intelligent designer could be capable of that. He has not said too much, he has a book coming out in 2005 entitled God and Philosophy in which we expect to hear more.
http://www.secweb.org/asset.asp?AssetID=369

What else he says….
http://dinnertabledonts.blogspot.com/

"I'm thinking of a God very different from the God of the Christian and far and away from the God of Islam, because both are depicted as omnipotent Oriental despots, cosmic Saddam Husseins," he said.

Since he said it is not “C” or “I”, what else can fit? (Is there any one in this forum with good background in Indian philosophies or write about metaphysics by FRITJOF CAPRA... this subject we need badly here to explain the alternative views)

… Flew accepts only a "minimal God" and believes in no afterlife.

He accepts Darwinian evolution but doubts it can explain the ultimate origins of life (yah I had written in many of my previous articles about this)

These all doubt most of the skeptics/atheist skeptics have…. I don’t think he will unlock the door to eternal world…

The fact of the matter is: Flew hasn't really decided what to believe. He affirms that he is not a Christian--he is still quite certain that the Gods of Christianity or Islam do not exist, that there is no revealed religion, and definitely no afterlife of any kind…
Some Islamic people say that his change might be due to their cosmological explanations…
See the following explanations…
….a rumor that Flew claimed in a private letter that the kalam cosmological argument proved the existence of God (see relevant entries in Cosmological Arguments). But he assures me that is not what he believes. He said that, at best, the kalam is an argument for a first cause in the Aristotelian sense, and nothing more--and he maintains that, kalam or not, it is still not logically necessary that the universe had a cause at all, much less a "personal" cause.
…..he ever asserted that "probably God exists," to which he responded (in a letter in his own hand, dated 19 October 2004):
“I do not think I will ever make that assertion, precisely because any assertion which I am prepared to make about God would not be about a God in that sense ... I think we need here a fundamental distinction between the God of Aristotle or Spinoza and the Gods of the Christian and the Islamic Revelations”
“My one and only piece of relevant evidence [for an Aristotelian God] is the apparent impossibility of providing a naturalistic theory of the origin from DNA of the first reproducing species ... [In fact] the only reason which I have for beginning to think of believing in a First Cause god is the impossibility of providing a naturalistic account of the origin of the first reproducing organisms.
What is Aristotelian God? Is there any existing philosophy or religion can fit such rational concept…? Is it means non believers as wrong? There is a veteran naxalbari leader had become devotee at his end of life…even our Kannadasan was also become a god believer from atheist. There are similar numbers of proofs atheist also can give… Read again all skeptical/ atheistic views… They definitely reject the day to day interactive… emotional… GOD….

But the basic questions was, is remain unanswered… Please try to understand yourselves…

Alisha

15th December 2004, 08:41 AM

Dear sister Alisha,
I thought of writing any thing in this forum only in next week end…. But I felt I should reply to your question immediately…

Dear Brother r_kk,

It was very interesting to read the above but there is no conclusion isn't it.

I have experienced and living in a world of existance of GOD so I have no valid reason to look for facts that GOD does not exist.

For your information, I have read other religion "word of god" and I see no reason why I should go in depth to understand further other than my own belief.

I accept on what you believe and how you worship but I don't see a reason why I should read in details about what the other religious books say, probably this will help those who are still searching for GOD or those who want to prove GOD does not exist.

You better concentrate on what you are doing as I remembered the last time you mentioned that your boss was questioning about your output.

Bye for now as this can never come to an end ....

davie

15th December 2004, 08:53 AM

let me find some time to prove all of u blubbers

hehehewalrus

15th December 2004, 10:02 AM

My humble views on this :

It is my personal opinion that no human being can find God of his own - rather it is God who finds him in his lost state. No human wisdom or force of someone else can do that. That is why it is important to wait for His timing.

Personally, this is my observation on the types of people who believe in God:

1) Taught by tradition - these people have got religion handed over to them by parents/school/elders/uncles etc. They will fall under the below 2 categories:

1a. Who enthusiastically follow it - they just remember whatever is taught to them and are convinced about it 100% with no reasoning or experiences of their own. They will try to convince others based on what they were taught.
(or)
1b. Who secretly dislike the teaching thrust on them - They are like a man with a headache - he cant cut off his head and throw it but at the same time it is painful. This group doesnt have the enthusiasm of its mentors - God exists somewhere and should be sought during the time of sickness, examinations, trouble, college admissions. They wish their family wouldnt force them so much and let them be independent.

2) Those who seek after Him eagerly with their own thoughts. For them religion is another accomplishment like getting first rank -
They will not smoke/drink/do wrong things. They write down a list of 'holy things' and try their best to follow them strictly. They think following these things are essential for their success. They look down on those who are 'less holy' (I was floating in this group for a long while). They have anger, pride, desire which can never be spotted outwardly but in certain cases will suddenly come out.

3) This third group is very very few - For them no good thing exists in their flesh. They can be happy at all circumstances, all events, irrespective of their salary, possessions and have completely lost their ego, more like worms. Slow to anger, endless in patience (If you step on a worm, it will noiselessly struggle and die. If you step on a snake, you will be in hospital - thats the difference between Group 2 and Group 3)
They not only thank God for blessing received, but also for the prayers unanswered for He alone knows what is best. They dont feel bad when their opinions are rejected, when they are ill-treated, when they are the victim of prejudice...they give their best and dont bother about results.

r_kk

15th December 2004, 02:50 PM

Dear sister Alisha, the answers to your questions is. Yes… No answers or conclusion to prove or disprove but there is a very thin between both. You define your answers based on which side of line you stand….

Dear He3… Very nice conclusion acceptable to believers as well as non believers like me...

The basic answerless questions remain for both atheist and believers… I know we can not find the answers…

1.) How the first knowledgeable form came in to existence?
2.) Where the universe came from and why is it existing? (with very less mass-energy balance)?
3.) What all these atoms are made up off? Is there any reality
4.) How the first self dividing cell came?
5.) Where the universe is expanding and in to where? Is there any boundary?

Enlightenment for Buddhist, Salvation for Islamic/Christianity and Mukthi for Hindus… answers for the basic answerless questions for atheists all ending at the same place… Either religion or science can not going to answer to this. If we look inside we may get the answer (andaithil ullathu pindathil…). Calm and free mind may be better for this (all religions trying to achieve only this). All the religious books are just symbols and tools. No answers or God inside or at least we can not find it. Buddha might have found the answers but reading his preaches and remembering all the slogans will not provide the answers…

It is also certain intelligence alone will not provide the answers since atheist also bound look through the already developed rigid science rules. Those who are flexible and can think something beyond where present science can not reach and strong will and honesty to follow truth wherever it takes, they may find some thing new.

It can not be explained by words as Upanishad says… Enlightened atheist (for example Buddha hood) is nothing but the same of salvation of God believers. It is just like a spark… It comes to somebody without any reasons… No one say why or when. No one can give you or take it from you… No Guru or miracle healer will give you this. You are light for yourselves as Buddha said. Most of all without this also you can lead the life. But once you got the question, you can’t be peaceful … that’s why bible said knowledge as Satan’s apple…

What all religion does is it sets you practice… a defined easy path… suitable for various regions and for normal people to look inside without wasting too much of energy on thinking…Each religion may be comfortable to follow for the people of particular region or culture and help them to look inwards. One may not be fit to other and no one is superior or inferior. Whoever tries to prove other concept as wrong, will end up only in confusion. But some people like me… can’t stop such thinking… Some times it is burden too… I used to cherish my childhood… how simple my thoughts were…. That’s why people say that you can see God in the face of Kids below age 3. There is a real truth in it. But for you it is religious path… but I walk on own path alone to understand the answers to basic questions based on so called truth I believe… wherever truth takes me… I will follow it honestly…

After all humanity is the matter. As I repeated many times…any one can be honest and kind with as well as without the concept of God. It is all up to you…

What we can do… We have to accept the science as it develops and we can give up the bad part, which is harmful to others, since globalization makes world so small and the region based religions interferes one on another… It is just like asking an Eskimo to wear my dhoti and preaching him idli as the healthy food instead of his meat. He will die and his culture will die… Why all these religious conversion we need? Why every one has to look same… Different color people, different cultures, different language… different faith… see how much colorful is the world… Why one want to make every body as same? It makes only hatred.

Then why all these preachers do…? THEY are doing business…. Selling the GOD by threatening with Satan. There are lots of politics involved… Why people are divided? (India/Pak, South/North Korea)… Who is creating the hatred and what for? Who is getting the benefit?

There are some people they don’t want to see the world free from hatred (from big superpower to local political parties, including all hatred preachers, fatwa issuer, miracle healers, local godman/poojaris…etc) for their own interests.

Most of us fall as prey to them due to our lack of knowledge and just we consider the literal meaning of words as truth…

I request all to look beyond religions and science... Winning of any one will make the world worse… Science without moral ethics is dangerous than religions.

If any one says that they are the only truth, let them provide simple answer to the basic questions which can be accepted by all without questions, because real truth is certain and unquestionable.

I don’t think no one here will provide… The real enlightened/understood person may not come and explain.. even if he explain we may not be able to understand… The guys who do not understand any thing will come… sure… he will make lot of noise… Beware of such guys…. But please note that they are also like us few years back… It is all part of the process…

I can not go beyond this on this subject at this moment… I have few doubts on superficial things… I will write later if necessary… I am feeling a relief … so let me go back to real work….

Raghu

15th December 2004, 04:04 PM

Dear RKK,

Pls answer my question, many thanks

mutharasan

16th December 2004, 06:10 AM

Since the only debate in this thread is whether God exists or not, I would like to strictly restrict my discussion to the topic.

What I cannot do is to hide my identity as a Christian as sure as I am from India and love Tamil. There seems to be the most scurrillous attack on Christianity allowed on this thread by the moderator and even a feeble defense of its virtue is brutally suppressed. A simple sign of cross as an avatar somehow is considered offensive. I will speak of Christianity only when it is attacked. Otherwise I will keep to the topic.

RKK - God exists is the first step of any theistic faith. It is the hardest and most difficult step for an atheist to make. That was the reason for my post, not that Flew has become a propnent of Christianity.

The simple fact is you cannot even imagine a chain of probabilistic sequence that would produce the first replicating DNA. That was what forced Flew to the corner and admit the existence of Supreme Intelligence.

What you build over this fundamental acknowldgement is a set of faith. However we will depart this thread's discussion if we get on that track. So I will stop.

geno

16th December 2004, 03:42 PM

NOV,

As you would have noticed, there seems to be fundamentalism running amok in this thread instead of sharing of ideas, which this thread specifically asks for, since ther is no implicit or implied "conflict", nor any specific individual/theology is involved.

There seems to be an ulterior motive in some peoples post - and it looks like they want to spam this thread with propaganda till this thread is shut down.

This thread is a well-intended topic, which seeks secular and progressive looking debates, instead of ugly trading of charges against religions.

Fundamentalists of any hues, should not be allowed to destroy the ambience of this thread.

Please do the needful that makes sure this thread exists, and the propagandists and fundamentalists are banned from writing here atleast.

Thanks :)

NOV

16th December 2004, 03:53 PM

There seems to be the most scurrillous attack on Christianity allowed on this thread by the moderator and even a feeble defense of its virtue is brutally suppressed.

I may have missed this "attack." Please point it to me and I will do the needful.

Geno, as you can see, we have been more liberal in this thread compared with the rest of the Hub. We are also using this thread as an experiment on how people behave when given full liberty to discuss as they wish.
But some people just don't know where to draw the line. :(

Bad Boy

16th December 2004, 10:06 PM

Hello Mutharasan Templer,

can you please tell me to which christian believe you are adicted to?
RC, ev. luth., gr. orthodox, rus. orthodox, methodist, new apostolic, amenian, protestant, alglican, .....? Or even scientologie or the Moon group or Yehova's witnesses.

Come on, out you self and you'll get you blessing. Why are you refering to any wonders and holy men. If you can do wonders then preach them here else find your piece of peace somewhere else. You know about a Grahem Staines, don't you? Pray for the lost souls that burn, loot and kill other people of different confessions in the name of God!

PS
Your burning cross reminded me of Ku Klux Klan. Why don't you chose the Holy Ghost as the holy Bird or a rosary. A burning cross was not neutral.

hehehewalrus

16th December 2004, 11:47 PM

let us ignore questions that are just provocative flame baits and have no sincere intention

hehehewalrus

16th December 2004, 11:52 PM

One of my friends shared this nice personal life story like this:

Thought of sharing a small personal story here...on my hypocrisy

In school I was shy, timid, asthamatic, an introvert, my thick glasses, books and careless dressing sense made me the favourite target of every bully.

The butt of all jokes....I endured much bullying, patiently hoping for better days....I often wondered at that time as to "Why me? "

I never harmed anyone...i was always by myself...non-interfering...but yet it seemed that these guys hated me. why?

Many a time, though I did not know the God of the Bible personally...I would pray for my tormentors that they would stop [u may attribute this behaviour partly to my religious parents and partly to Sunday school...and of course it was the most convenient thing to do for a weakling who couldn't fight back]

One day...I decided enough was enough...perhaps the communist influence was playing a part [I had started getting under this influence when I was in the sixth standard]...by the tenth standard, thanks to my Dad, I was into excercising...building my biceps...

Then the day came, when I used them

I bashed the bully up....

I was the new hero for everyone...I decided firmly that now onwards a new reign of justice would begin...

I would protect the weak from the strong...I would bring in justice.

I went about my tasks and everyone was impressed...I became famous, powerful...

More fights, more victories...no more challengers....

And then one day I bashed a kid...a shy, timid, introvert, with thick
glasses...because he had refused to obey the orders of one of my friends.

I was again the hero.

Yet that night...that kid's face continued to haunt me....how easily he had crumpled when I hit him....I could see it in slow motion...he had protested, but I was stronger...a kick here, a punch there...and his spectacles were down...His words haunted my heart, he told me that "My bullying was not right"

" My bullying"

I looked into the mirror....I had changed....that shy, timid, asthamatic, introvert, with thick glasses had changed...changed so much...so evil

I had become the very bully that I had hated in school....I was not the JUST & FAIR guy I thought i was....I was the New Bully.

That in a Microcosm...is the Communist movement.

It was God's intervention that brought me back to my senses....Today more than ever I admit that all human solutions are failures...only HIS WAY is the right way.

After trying out everything that was possible to do without God...I only ended in Failure...

That is when i humbly sought God and was found by HIM...the very person I rejected, I suddenly found actually had the solution.

mellon

17th December 2004, 02:28 AM

It was God's intervention that brought me back to my senses....Today more than ever I admit that all human solutions are failures...only HIS WAY is the right way.

After trying out everything that was possible to do without God...I only ended in Failure...

That is when i humbly sought God and was found by HIM...the very person I rejected, I suddenly found actually had the solution.

Your friend's story tells only one thing to me Walrus, which is,

God must be a lucky sob to get all the creidts for all the man-solved problems and, He never ever shares the credit for the unsolved mysteries and unfair justices served to the innocent human beings and to the "mouth-less" "only-5-sensed" innocent animals-who have always been abused by the humans, in the name of serving God..

All I see is, being Devine means being so unfair especially to innocent humans and animals.

:roll: Sure, you are a good story-teller, Walrus, please come up with more friends' stories to show us the God's devinity, Thank you, Walrus! :roll:

geno

17th December 2004, 03:16 AM

>> I looked into the mirror....I had changed....that shy, timid, asthamatic, introvert, with thick glasses had changed...changed so much...so evil

I had become the very bully that I had hated in school....I was not the JUST & FAIR guy I thought i was....I was the New Bully.

That in a Microcosm...>>

Walrus!!

dude! I'm wondering!!

The above description of yours suits "perfectly" to the "capitalist" "pro-active" "freedom whole sale merchants" - Americans too!

IS this of "God"s making too?!! ;) :D :))

hehehewalrus

17th December 2004, 03:30 AM

geno,
thanks a lot for that detailed pm - appreciate it heaps :D :D

>> I looked into the mirror....I had changed....that shy, timid, asthamatic, introvert, with thick glasses had changed...changed so much...so evil

I had become the very bully that I had hated in school....I was not the JUST & FAIR guy I thought i was....I was the New Bully.

That in a Microcosm...>>

The above description of yours suits "perfectly" to the "capitalist" "pro-active" "freedom whole sale merchants" - Americans too!

IS this of "God"s making too?!! ;) :D :))

:lol: :lol:

Sorry for not explaining that tiny snippet which has high potential to be taken out of perspective :)

My friend's post was a small nugget during a titanic discussion between communists - capitalists in another bulletin board. The originator of the debate brought out striking similarities between religious leaders policies and socialism(collective good, bourgeoise-elitist divisions, proletarianism, all things in common etc). Thats when my friend pointed out where several movements based on human will and paved with good intentions end up.

capitalism is another story :) Once had a debate with an elderly "Amroo" who vehemently defended the movement of his country's jobs to India quoting demands of free market systems :D

geno

17th December 2004, 04:14 AM

Hi walrus! :D

yeah! i noticed that - the post you quoted here from your friends' - could be taken out of context - and on the other hand twisted and "fit" into various different - even "contradicting" contexts! ;) :lol:

And yeah! "free market evangelists" are no less hypocrites!

They use WTO mumbo-jumbo to protect and heavily subsidise the farmers of the "free societies" and also erect walls - so that "competitive MNCs" from other "Alien" nations do not get any firm foothold in their soil.

They'd be happy to "out source" some crumbs as long as and as far as it fits their "geo-political" interests - guided by "divinity" and the "word of god"!!! :lol:

geno

17th December 2004, 04:19 AM

Hi Mellon! :D

>> He never ever shares the credit for the unsolved mysteries and unfair justices served to the innocent human beings and to the "mouth-less" "only-5-sensed" innocent animals-who have always been abused by the humans, in the name of serving God..

All I see is, being Devine means being so unfair especially to innocent humans and animals >>

hahhaa!! well said!! :lol: :D

If there is justice then it surely is the "hand of god", and if you point out the sickening and disgusting injustices that abound in the "supposedly" divine realms of belief systems and societies then it's the "hand of devil" surely!!!

I'm reminded of Maradona's "hand of god" goal!!! :lol:

And im also reminded of some other person's "Act of God" speech recently given - about a despicable act! ;) :lol:

r_kk

17th December 2004, 07:34 AM

Dear Muthu,
Why do you feel “C” is getting offended? Reason is simple… Others such as “H” or ‘I” are not participating in this discussion as “C”. Most of the “H” do not know their holy books and they are not eager to know even their names also. I had seen in my village that many “H” go to Tanjore temple, next to Velankanni and then go to Nagoor and come back and then they go to the local God and pray for making the trip success. Their local ancestral god is more interactive and they treat GOD as friend, part of the family member. Most of them ignore this thread since they consider this thread as place where some blind people are talking about elephant. They know what matters to them and which brings interest in the day to day life.

Another “I” people, they feel that they have every thing in their book and don’t want to make any question on the basic faith. They feel discussing any thing about certainity of GOD is itself an insult. They are just happy in the way they had been brought up. In general... the prefer No questions or no discussions… for them we are just ignorant guys wasting the time…

Another people are “B”, they are basically rational and can’t distinguish themselves with skeptics in many issues. But they are also use the religion to suppress human will and cultural change (earlier Japanese oppression in Korea, present Sri Lanka)

So we now left with “C”. There are various types of people. One sort of peoples is matured and understood much beyond the literal meaning. The other sort of people are just converted or with little knowledge in theology, they want to prove their stand and the project others are wrong. They make indirect challenges. They threaten the non-believers and others with sweet coated fear (peaceful terrorism … Sorry I couldn’t find other word and hence I had taken this word from the old thread of this hub) saying that this is the only way and this is the only truth. Even though they say that they are preaching LOVE on the name of “J” indirectly they threat others that they will go to Hell, who ever they are, how good they are, how honest they are… This is where contradictions come… Any forceful rejection by a non-believer or believers of other religion is considered as insult or suppression… and then they change the entire story as if they had been suppressed… humiliated… Sorry to tell all these… I accept you have the full right to defend your faith but at the same time please note that the other one also have the equal right….

In your statement you had mentioned that what is wrong in showing the sign of your faith. It is not wrong but is it possible for you to accept if a non believer comes with broken symbols of yours or others religious signs? I am sure you or most of us here will not… because symbol means much beyond….

Then, the question about initial stage of life will remain till science could able to create a single self dividing cell from organic matter… As every one knows, science has reached very close this starting point (genetics, stem cell research) but the first entirely own cell is still unachievable. Human had already proved that cloning is possible by creating one life without the contribution of two genders. This it self is a major challenge to our previous understanding of life. Since scientist can’t make an own life form today, doesn’t mean they are defeated. Similarly Believers are also can’t show any thing created from nothing. It doesn’t means they are also defeated. And both are arguing that the other has more responsibility to prove… So, there is no end to these discussions….

Personally I would like to see more people from various understanding come here and discuss to clear the wrong /incomplete understanding of others.

a.ratchasi

17th December 2004, 08:34 AM

That is an excellent piece of work, r_kk.

You have summed it pretty well.

If only the intended party(s) comprehends....

Bad Boy

17th December 2004, 04:54 PM

I'm reminded of Maradona's "hand of god" goal!!!

And me too. I still remeber leaving the pub and going wild after germany was back 0:2 in Mexico soccer final. And indeed it was God's hand. God only did not understand that soccer is played only with feet. Yes the God seems to be a foul player. :lol:
Anyhow it was Harald "toni" Schuhmacher (Goalkeeper) who had a very bad day that day. But 4 years later we crushed them with 1:0 penalty goal.

And now you also know what this god's hand doing! His only business is using cocaine.

Hello mellon! :smile:

geno

17th December 2004, 04:59 PM

Hi friends, :)

I would like to say that the "M" above who has been "feigning" as a "C" might not be so! This is a Standard Modus operandi of some of the "S.P" operatives - in the old hub - faking as "C"s and "I"s and post some hatred stuff - and then start their own brand of right-wing "H" venomous propaganda!(which normal "H"s don't approve of!)

So, i urge you to ignore "M" and understand the true nature of these ugly evil elements and not to succumb to the designs of these bad elements - to "cook up" religious fight in this thread.

:) :) :)

geno

17th December 2004, 05:03 PM

>> God's hand. God only did not understand that soccer is played only with feet. Yes the God seems to be a foul player. >>

LOL LOL @ Bad boy!!

hey buds! :) howdya :D

We ought to have a system of warning cards for Gods to eh?!!!

yellow, orange, Red??? would do?? ;)

:lol: :lol: :lol:

Bad Boy

17th December 2004, 05:32 PM

does not matter if I believe in the existence of God or not, the most important thing is that I being a default christian ma God won't be annoyed judging me when the time comes. He will put me to the unknown. I am also happy about that because when I get to know of something or I gain the knowledge about something then I don't show interest anymore, I just lose the passion.
This leads me to say that the God is the Unknown.

What do you say "M" if you want to say something?
Isn't it that the God (atleast the christian) is the Alpha and Omega - The Beginning and The End. If God is infinite then it means there is no End. If ther is no end then there is no beginning either. "Everything is relative" it was said and Bdolf once said everybody is a relative!

Roshan

17th December 2004, 05:43 PM

LOL bb !!! :lol: :lol: :lol:

mutharasan

18th December 2004, 08:48 PM

Bad Boy:
"You know about a Grahem Staines, don't you?"
Are you threatening me Bad Boy that you will burn me like the thugs burned Graham Staines? Your sheep's cloak of lapsed christianity is slipping and shows your true nature as a wolfish RSS sainik. However you will be given free rein to attack christianity in this thread as the moderator is on your side.

Rkk,
The only thing I would like to discuss in this thread is whether God exists or not. It is easy to pull up all my posts in this new forum. You can pull it up and confirm it. However I can't help but notice the rampant anti-christian attack in this thread allowed by the moderator.

You make me laugh when you disingenuosly say that the cross is a religious symbol and should not be used as an avatar not because it is offensive but because as some body may use an offensive form of it. First of all I see Hindu god avatars all over the place and secondly the moderator is here to make sure none of the avatars are offensive. I am yet to see why two wooden beams tied together should provoke offense.

The only reason I chose the avatar was to make sure that during any discussion my true identity is open and above board. The reason is simple: any statement can be of either of two types, a fact or an opinion. Two plus two is four is a fact. Jesus saves is an opinion. It does not matter the identity of the person if the statement is a fact. However the identity of the person is important during discussion if it is an opinion. It is a normal courtesy to place your prejudices in full view so people can judge whether they would like to accept the opinion or not.

I hope my new avatar does not provoke visceral hatred as the cross. This was a symbol that was used by the early Christians when they were persecuted with death to identify secretly to each other. I suppose it is appropriate for this forum.

I would not even try to answer your thesis of why Christians are being scurrillously attacked in this forum as it would involve frank exposition of the other side of the coin which would not be palatable to the moderator. I suppose so long as you are anti-christian you are free to write any thing in this thread and you are muted to answer the false charges if you are a Christian. Secondly I would like to stick to the subject of this thread and not move it tangentialy further to another topic.

mutharasan

18th December 2004, 09:56 PM

Does God exist?

The only scientific way is to turn the question around and posit:

Ha: God does not exist (alternative hypothesis)

and prove that this premise is logically wrong.

If you are an atheist, you just sit back, realx and check whether any one can convincingly prove that God exists and poke holes in deist's arguments. If deist cannot prove the existence convincingly, you win the argument. Life is simple for the atheists.

When we struggle for an answer to this question, we are immediately confronted by two problems:
What is God?
How do I prove existence?

Taking the existence first, how do I prove that my car exists? I can see it and touch it and drive it but how can I convince you that it exists?
I suppose I can attach the proof of purchase and the picture of the car. Still both can be faked and you are not sure whether you have been taken for a ride.
Descartes started the existence proof by positing that the only thing you are sure of existence is yourself and you know you exist because you think.
(I think therefore I am; Cogito, ergo sum). However existence proof consists of two parts - one is to convince myself something exists and the other is to convince others it is so. The senses help me to decide something exists or not once I decide I exist. So for me the car exists.
The harder part is how do I convince others?

Suppose I am walking with a friend who is born blind. A gorgeous rainbow appears on the sky. How do I convince him that the rainbow exists?
That is the struggle most mystics, or those who have close brush with Higher Being or blessed with answered prayer or healing go through in convincing others.

To me it is clear transferring personal experiential inference to prove existence will quickly end up in a dead end. Even a group's shared experience cannot prove existence. Look at the number of UFO sightings reported by groups of people and are routinely discounted.

The only way to prove the existence is to use the teleological arguments on the best established evidence all around us.

I'll try expand further when I get some time later..

r_kk

19th December 2004, 04:37 AM

Does God exist?

That is the struggle most mystics, or those who have close brush with Higher Being or blessed with answered prayer or healing go through in convincing others.
I'll try expand further when I get some time later..

Thanks Muthu for taking everybody to subject. The avathars of other Gods, I haven't noticed in this thread. If it is there, then either it should be also banned or your's should be allowed.

Then the major question comes when believers say they had seen/felt God but most of the people are blind to see/feel the God.... They say first you believe in existence of God in your heart, then imagine it, then look... You will find God....That is the problem... What you are seeing is what you imagine... not something that is existing... Then concept of blessed...or healed are major questions for non-believers.... I will write in detail when I get time.

One request, is it possible for you to reply to my questions on the concept of Satan?

another Question on Partiality at birth:
Assume there are two babies born at same second. One is at a house of evangelist and another one is at African remote tribe with Woo do belief, where major religions have not reached yet. Both are brought at with their family belief, aged and died. Where the souls of each person will go? If one with Woo do belief goes to hell, it is by whose mistake? Why there was no opportunity given to the person with Woo do belief? If only one set of faith is true, then why God puts many of the babies in people with wrong faith?

Can any believers answer to this?

I will wait till how others are responding.

Shekhar

20th December 2004, 10:15 AM

Mutharasan,

Yours was very thought provoking post...

I have a very simple question.

Why should anybody want to prove existence or non existence of God to anybody else?!!
I am too busy living to bother about existence of God :?

just!hubber

20th December 2004, 10:51 AM

I have posted the concept of Satan in one of the previous post,
For the second question
What about those who died before hearing the Gospel?

scripture suggests that infants and little children who die can go to Heaven , even though they never put their faith in Christ or believed the Gospel while on earth. So those with the understanding of little children have hope of Heaven through Christ, while adults who reject the truth they have do not.

All Christians ought to agree though, that
a) Nobody has any salvation, except through Christ
b) Nothing in scripture proves that aborting or otherwise killing a baby automatically sends the baby to Hell, or to Heaven.
c) Nothing in scripture gives any hope of anybody having a "second chance" after they die.
d) No scripture says anyone would be more likely to accept the gospel they first heard after they die than if they heard it while they were alive on earth.
e) We have been given an urgent task, of preaching the gospel to the whole world.
f) A person’s salvation does not depend on their works of obedience, or our works of preaching, but ultimately on God.

how does a just God condemn someone for not having enough knowledge about Christ to save them, even though they have enough knowledge about God to condemn them?

God is just to do so based on five points.
a) People are responsible for the truth that they have,
b) All people have some truth, from nature and their own conscience.
c) God is just. He does not hold people responsible for the truth they do not have. (Sin is not counted where there is no law). God overlooks times of ignorance.
d) However, all ignorance is not necessarily innocent ignorance. people can suppress the knowledge that they have. While God is understanding of someone who only had very little light, people are still condemned if they are in darkness because they themselves "blew out the candle".
e) For people who reject the truth that they do have, God is not obligated to give them additional truth. In fact, for those who reject the way of truth, the less they know the better off they are.

An illustration might help. You are lost in a dark forest at night, full of wild animals, and you do not know how to get out. You see a light ahead, and it appears to be a parked car with a man outside. You choose not to go near the man. Would you be right to blame the man anyway for not giving you directions?

When you move toward the light, doesn't the light get brighter? In a similar way, if someone is searching for the truth about God but doesn’t know about Jesus, God desires to give them more light when they respond to the light that they have received. Ultimately God will do whatever it takes to try to reach us because He loves us so dearly and desires a relationship with us,

While the previous illustration is OK, for some there is a more appropriate illustration. A person is lost in a dark forest at night, full of wild animals. He sees a light ahead, which is a parked car with a man outside. He sneaks up on the man, kills him, burns the map, and then says he is doing the best he can because he knows no other way. He is telling the truth, since he burned the map. Today, about 2 billion people, and perhaps the majority of non-Christians, live in countries and cultures that have killed countless Christian witnesses. If someone approves of killing of Christians, how many more missionaries do you think God is obligated to send them?

But the good news for them is that God still keeps sending some missionaries, because He loves those lost people, even enough to sacrifice the lives of some of His missionaries.

just!hubber

20th December 2004, 11:03 AM

More Answers for the state of people who had never heard the truth and the children died without hearing the Truth

http://www.myfortress.org/NeverHeardGospel.html

http://www.myfortress.org/ChildrenGoToHeaven.html

r_kk

20th December 2004, 11:08 AM

Dear Muthu and other believers of similar faith,
I hope you might have understood by now (after reading the above replies) why did you feel people were writing against the wrong understanding of religions, particularly about yours. I can write a very logical and practical reply quoting your holy book itself. But if I write you will feel like offended and I don’t prefer to participate in a religious hatred discussion. So, let me leave it to the individuals and wait for other people from your faith to give some other better understanding of your faith.

Note: Please read Flew's statment mentioned in my previous postings.... How it is valid....

r_kk

20th December 2004, 12:11 PM

Sorry believers...
I thought I should give a reply... Even though I have been avioding reply to any of the post by a particular person, I felt my reply to his points are necessary...

Christianity as the "only truth"? Step back and look at it. There are SEVERAL religions which think they have the only truth. There are SEVERAL DOZEN brands of Christianity which teach "we have the only truth." Think about it- if you were born someplace else and raised in a different religious environment, you would think THAT religion was the "only truth". Therefore, looking from an objective standpoint outside of religion, no religion has THE truth or each has A truth. Teaching that truth as the only truth may have some temporary benefits such as group cohesion, but in the end it is a LIE. Assuming that there are currently about 50 religions on Earth, logic dictates that at least 49 of them must be invalid, so the probability is very high that all are false.

You believe because you were taught to believe. You believe because you mistakenly attribute to GOD anything positive that has happened in your life, and discount anything negative. You believe because it is comforting to believe, and because you are frightened of the consequences of GOD not existing. You believe because... you believe.

If Christians are Gods people, and God lives in them then ...
• Why are Christians statistically no different than the heathen in areas of adultery, teen pregnancy, divorce, suicide and materialism?
• Why do many Churches seem to have a past littered with sexual scandal, infighting, and disintegration?
• Why do so many prayers for healing go unanswered?
• Why do such things as the Blessing / Healing festivals create such polarization within the Church? Some say it’s of the devil, others of God. Surely if God can speak to us, then He would address such important issues and clearly tell us how to view them. But everyone claims God is saying something different. Is this ‘relationship’ we have with Him just fantasy?
• Why are we commanded to do things that God does not do? We are told to love our enemies; God sends His to Hell. We are commanded to forgive others even though they do not ask forgiveness; God extends forgiveness only if we come before Him and ask Him. We are told not to murder, yet God does plenty of murdering in the Bible. Does God require our morality to exceed His own?

If the Bible is Gods revelation to us, then ....
• Why does it contain so many errors, contradictions and absurdities?
• Why does a loving God get so involved with killing and cursing his children?
• Why does God appear to be un-just? (Visiting the sins of the fathers on the children to 4 generations; killing innocent people for someone else’s sin, as in the case of David taking a census and God being displeased such that 70,000 innocent people had to pay with their lives.)
• Why is it so confusing that it has given rise to thousands of Christian sects and denominations, each with its own ‘correct’ interpretation?
• Why do people need to resort to such things as numerology and ‘hidden messages’ in order to prove the Bible as valid? This looks like an admission that the text as it stands is inadequate.
• Why is there a necessity for a multitude of books on Biblical problems, apologetics, and explanations of what the Bible really means? Is the Bible unable to be understood by simply reading it?

just!hubber

20th December 2004, 12:11 PM

Antony Flew, also said that he credits his newfound belief in God to arguments from design such as those espoused by the "intelligent design" (ID) movement. ID argues that the universe operates in such a way that it points to the existence of an intelligent creator.

"I think that the most impressive arguments for God's existence are those that are supported by recent scientific discoveries," Flew said. "... I think the argument to Intelligent Design is enormously stronger than it was when I first met it."

Although many atheists appeal to naturalistic evolution as a method by which the world could have come into existence apart from God, Charles Darwin himself acknowledged that the process of evolution requires a creator to start the process, Flew said.
Darwin himself, in the fourteenth chapter of The Origin of Species, pointed out that his whole argument began with a being which already possessed reproductive powers," Flew said. "This is the creature the evolution of which a truly comprehensive theory of evolution must give some account. Darwin himself was well aware that he had not produced such an account."

While Flew said he is "open to" the possibility of divine revelation. He also believes that Christians are intellectually justified in holding to their religion and that the resurrection of Jesus has more evidential support than any other reported miracle in history.

"The evidence for the resurrection is better than for claimed miracles in any other religion," Flew said. "It's outstandingly different in quality and quantity, I think, from the evidence offered for the occurrence of most other supposedly miraculous events"

just!hubber

20th December 2004, 01:30 PM

Most of the basic Skeptic questions are already answered from the verses.

And most of the questions from skeptics are starting with false assumptions and wrongly interrupted contexts are also pointed out and answered.

The Bible can be understood... By truth seekers
-- Though parts of it will always challenge even the mature Christian

The question is not whether God's word can be understood, but whether we will make an honest and sincere effort to understand and obey it!

Quote : But indeed, O man, who are you to reply against God? Will the thing formed say to him who formed it, "Why have you made me like this?" Does not the potter have power over the clay, from the same lump to make one vessel for honor and another for dishonor?

Bad Boy

20th December 2004, 08:28 PM

mutharasan

20th December 2004, 09:27 PM

Shekhar:

Your question is a valid one. There are two reasons you may like to sort out whether God exists or not. First is the innate curiosity every human being has. Your curiosity made you look up this thread. That is a search that distinguishes a man from the beasts.

The second reason would be to understand what drives you. The world view unique to each individual is formed by one's understanding of one's God. It shapes the way you think and rationalizes your behavior towards others. The ethical frame work of your actions is acutely dependent on the fact whether you think God exists or not and what type of God you believe in.

Rkk:

You asked two questions. Whether Satan exists and whether babies born without Christian faith will reach heaven. Both of them are outside the purview of this thread. If you start a thread on your questions I will be more than willing in contributing to the discussion. At this point to raise any topic other than existence of God is doing injustice to the readers in this forum.

The existence of Satan however is peripherally linked to the topic. I will try to answer as briefly as possible without getting side tracked. If you believe in Free Will, that is a man can make a choice between right and wrong, the essence of all the wrongs is the idea of Satan. If God made a being with free will, god has to make sure both wrongs and rights exist so that being with the free will has a choice. It is a necessary corollary. An example may illustrate it - if you make a car with a steering wheel, you have a choice of taking turns on the road. Both wrong roads and the right roads exist ahead of you to choose from in reaching the desired destination. Taking of the correct road is upto you. A person driving the train has no choice in the direction of the train. If it leaves Thirunelveli, any body can predict train will reach Madhurai. So instead of asking why god made evil to exist, ask yourself should god have made a being with free will? If the answer is yes, then rights and wrongs will exist, and you have to continuously make a moral choice between the right and the wrong. If the answer is no, most would disagree with you; a life without choice as an automoton is not woth living as per Henry Paine (Give me Liberty, or give me Death).

I intend to strictly stay within the parameters of this thread. Sorry If I do not intend to answer other questions you raise about Christianity. I will be more than willing to particpate in discussion specifically set up for that. Even the above answer makes me uncomfortable as too close to the borderline.

Bad Boy

20th December 2004, 10:04 PM

1. Satan is an Arcangel who was banned by God because he wanted to become God himself.

2. No, anybody not baptaized will never reach the paradise. Not even the children. They remain somewhere between heaven and hell, in german they call it "Fegefeuer" - purgatory it is translated to english.

If even the very new born, a single second young baby is denied the heavenly peace if not baptadized, clearly tells you how good or wrong this religion is.

r_kk

21st December 2004, 03:31 AM

Muthu,
the topic of satan or blessed/healed/supernatural experience can not be avioded in any discussion about this subject. But any way I will try to keep the religion out of this discussion whenever a religious based voices are not loudly raised.
JH,
Since you have been responding to my post, I am responding to you again.
Why can’t you read the latest and final book from the super being which is followed by 22% of world population (fastest growing religion on earth http://www.islamherald.com/html/explore/fastest_growing.htm )?

Why you are taking verses from an old book which had been superseded by next and complete one?
Read the latest and final book from the Creator….and find out why Christianity should accept Islam. For your information Allah means GOD in Arabic. Please note it also talk about your faith in very detail… lot with respect. The following were taken from an authentic website. http://www.answering-islam.org

Surah 5:75
Christ the son of Mary was no more than a messenger; many were the messengers that passed away before him. His mother was a woman of truth. They had both to eat their (daily) food. See how Allah doth make His signs clear to them; yet see in what ways they are deluded away from the truth!
Surah 4:171
O People of the Book! Commit no excesses in your religion: Nor say of Allah aught but the truth. Christ Jesus the son of Mary was (no more than) a messenger of Allah, and His Word, which He bestowed on Mary, and a spirit proceeding from Him: so believe in Allah and His messengers. Say not "Trinity": desist: it will be better for you: for Allah is one Allah: Glory be to Him: (far exalted is He) above having a son. To Him belong all things in the heavens and on earth. And enough is Allah as a Disposer of affairs.
Surah 5:73
They do blaspheme who say: Allah is one of three in a Trinity: for there is no god except One Allah. If they desist not from their word (of blasphemy), verily a grievous penalty will befall the blasphemers among them.

The Quran is clear beyond a shadow of doubt that Isa was a great human messenger of Allah and the son of Mary, not of Allah as we check further into the following ayah.

For more detail, read the following
http://www.answering-islam.org/Authors/Farooq_Ibrahim/incarnate.htm
http://www.answering-islam.org/Intro/islamic_jesus.html

If you say you will believe only Bible, then read Bible in deep to understand how the beginning of Islam’s is mentioned.http://www.answering-islam.org/Silas/bible.htm

More over, as per the final version of God’s book, you are equating God to his messenger and insulting GOD by accepting the path shown by fake miracle healer who had attacked the broadcasting station to block his scandal video and obtained Court stay order to stop broadcasting a video on his personal life… The following will provide the details about your cult, whom you were saying did miracles in Dubai.
http://www.geocities.com/leejaerock/index.html
More details about him from various independent source…

May 12, 1999
Cult members storm TV station in South Korea to stop broadcast

http://www.factnet.org/NEWSLETTER/19990510.html
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/342414.stm

By Kim Min-hee Staff re porter A Seoul court yesterday sentenced three church officials to prison terms of up to three years for their roles...<National | 1999/08/28 >Church officials given prison sentences for raiding TV station
The organisation was thrown out of the Christian Council of Korea last month in a row over "heretical" claims. Wednesday, May 12, 1999
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/342414.stm

It has been considered as “counterfeit beliefs” and listed under “CULT” by Philippine Council of Evangelical Churcheshttp://www.thebereans.net/arm-pauljong.shtml

The sect had earlier reportedly obtained a court order preventing MBC from screening a story about Mr. Lee's sex life”

http://www.rickross.com/reference/general/general52.html

So, which one is the truth? Can you accept your faith is equal with others or going to say only yours is the only way?
If you tell that salvation is through only by your faith, then explain what others belief means and what others has to follow and why?
Are you going to speak against God’s word or preaching of fake miracle healer cult?
Do you understand why humanity suffered most due to religious hatred than any thing else? If it all a God, please explain the truth and save the world from this hatred disease.

Then your concept of “Pot doesn’t have right to argue with potter”… What a logic it is?
Since your parents are responsible for the creation of your body, doesn’t mean they can do anything and you can’t argue with them? What kind of logic this?

What you are expecting from fellow human beings…
SLAVES… GOD fearing Selfish SLAVES… to fall as a prey to fake healers and Gurus without raising any questions…?
What means SALVATION to you and Why do you need that?

What you are trying to create is hatred oriented, egoistic Super being expecting his creatures to respect and pray without questions… (as Flew said in his latest later “heavenly Sadam Husains”) and behave like a slave in order to avoid fire of hell?

PS: Sorry non-believers and sincere believers, for using one religious book to counter the religious hatred of another belief.

mellon

21st December 2004, 04:10 AM

The ethical frame work of your actions is acutely dependent on the fact whether you think God exists .

Are you sure about this? Could you kindly elaborate on this, Mutharasan AvargaLE ?

Let us pick few non-believers or one who does not believe in the existence of God from the forum itself e.g. Shekhar, *Rohit, and Cygnus.

Let us also pick some God-believers, or one who strongly believe in the existence of God from the forum itself, e.g. Mutharasan, Badboy, Indian-tamil, Nirosa Sen, Roshan, Pavalamani Pragasam, Mad Max, and Surya.

Now, Mr. Mutharasan, please tell me, what kind of ethics the Shekhar et al. will have?

And what kind of ethics Mutharasan et al., will have?

Thank you, Mr. Muthrasan, for your time and explanation about ethics of God-believers.

mutharasan

21st December 2004, 05:56 AM

The ethical frame work of your actions is acutely dependent on the fact whether you think God exists .

Are you sure about this? Could you kindly elaborate on this, Mutharasan AvargaLE ?

Mellon:

The model I construct about the world, guides my every day interaction with the world. It is my world view (weltenschauung). If I believe world is an unfriendly, and hateful place, my approach to the world would reflect that view. If I believe people are basically decent and friendly, my behavior will reflect that world view.

Every one operates with a world view. It is like an operating system of a computer. Now what forms that world view?
One is the every day experience base gathered from the time of childhood (some would say it goes back further to the womb)
Second critical factor is your view of existence of god and what type of god you believe in. If you don't believe in god, the only model you have before you is naturalistic order (survival of the fittest), and the rules and regulations of the region you live in. That is as an atheist you are free to do pretty much any thing the law of the land allows you to. The only purpose before you is to survive considering each one a competitor against your survival. If you believe in god, you have another set of constraints for you. Your neighbor's wife may be pretty and friendly, but thou shalt not covet if you follow the ten commandments. Survival is not the most important thing in living life, rather how you live becomes a priority. It is an in built feed back control loop that stabilizes your interaction with the world.

Every world view colors one's perspective. If you are wearing rose colored glasses, you are going to see rather pink world. Malligai flower if it looks pink, you know you have to discount for the pink glasses you are wearing and know it is actually white. Knowing what type of glasses you are wearing (pink, green or blue) will help you decide how to discount for the built in prejudice. If objective view of the world is your focus, you have to understand your biases and prejudices formed by the world view. That starts with the understanding of what is guiding your ethical frame work - religious moral code derived from the understanding of your god or the lack of any constraints other than the law of the land by repudiating god's existence.

just!hubber

21st December 2004, 08:05 AM

Why can’t you read the latest and final book from the super being which is followed by 22% of world population (fastest growing religion on earth http://www.islamherald.com/html/explore/fastest_growing.htm )?

This person intentions are very clear , Finally he came into a stage to make fight between christians and muslims here.
That is what he expect ,

And lot of vomiting he has done to tamper the christian religion here,
Hope the moderator will do something As it is clearly deviating from the Topic.

Hope that person can have it in his head I never said i am follower of JRLee , and nor the christians say that they are follower of JRLee.
anyway the fact is he is healing people in the name of "Jesus"
if he is wrong personally he is accountable to God.

For Jews,Christians,Muslims Old Testament(Bible) is common and holy book for them.
For All of them the forefather
is Abraham Ibrahim

David Daewood
solomon Sulaimann
(son of David)
For Muslims Torah(Bible) is one of the Holy Book too.
For Every question raised it is addressed here from Bible
http://answering-islam.org.uk/

i stop here not to respond for this person's ill intentions so that not to deviate from the topic.

r_kk

21st December 2004, 10:29 AM

Dear Just_Hubber, the following are written by you… You had put so much religious hatred and determined to destroy other faiths. Now you are putting the blame on me and escape. As long as you spill hatred venom, I will reply not only support non-believers but also to support the sincere believers.
_______________________J_H Statements ____________________________

”a) Nobody has any salvation, except through Christ”

“Today, about 2 billion people, and perhaps the majority of non-Christians, live in countries and cultures that have killed countless Christian witnesses”

i myself was like a atheist for sometimes ,
And now i changed i saw in my own eyes many witness and miracles not a fake one.

“And read about the one happened in chennai in 2002(merina) - Pastor Jae rock Lee and Benny Hinn in Bombay , there are million people grouped there in a Hindu country , the majority are not christians.”

“We all know that it happens in jesus Name,
In Africa , India , Korea, Japan revival is hapening , No body can stop it.”

“And so many incidents of raising from Death happened in Africa so far (documented by even a muslim Mortuary guy)”

Anyway in india even though they put Anti conversion law , still there are huge people are listening to good message and their mind is changed.

And in Dubai pastor Jae rock Lee expecially prayed for the handicalled and so many people got healed with doctors verification.

Now God is changing the Nations including Muslim countries.
_______________________ over ______________________________________
Regarding the other miracle healer you had mentioned. I will try to write in detail later in a separate topic.

just!hubber

21st December 2004, 01:22 PM

HI rkk

i just want to tell you one last thing
If 10000000 persons can praise "Mahatma Gandhiji" There may be 100 people always there to talk bad about him
and can create website in geocites.com or angelfire.com against Him.
[You also can create website to write bad about aperson with ill imagination , even with manipulated graphics to support it ]

But following are the list of Media reports and huge crowd of people are witnessing
i am giving this only for you to see , If you dont believe it then it is upto you.

But still If you want to convince any people then why dont you convince one person who got healed from that crusade? or why dont you go and talk among the crown in the crusade and convince them?
Can you convince and gather people towards you ??why cant you try it, If you want to go against Jesus?

Why dont you prove yourself among that crusade people instead of writing here just by refering a nameless geosites.com websites.

http://www.assistnews.net/Stories/s04050049.htm
http://across.co.nz/2ndRussionRevolution.html

Media report Says .....
The invitation for Dr. Lee and his team from Manmin came from Hamad Bil Jafla, general manager of the Dubai Handicapped Club, which is a government organization.
Kim said Jafla "is physically challenged himself, and is in a wheelchair -- and he has invited us to come back next year and hold a 'huge healing' in Dubai. We would be honoured to come."

http://www.canadianchristianity.com/cgi-bin/bc.cgi?international/030410jesus

Media report Says .....

An extraordinary event in the Middle East was an April 2, 2003, Christian prayer and healing “festival” held at the Dubai Handicapped Club. Standing in front of 100 victims of various physical disabilities, Rev. Dr. Lee Jae-Rock—a pastor of the Manmin Joong-Ang Church in Seoul, Korea—cried, “God can heal your every disease if you will only believe in Him!” As Russian and Arabic television crews recorded the service, Dr. Jamal Wasef, an Egyptian physician and Christian, translated the Korean’s words into Arabic for the audience. Lee offered a short sermon and reports of previous faith-healing meetings, with video clips shown as evidence of the Lord’s work.

As Rev. Lee prayed for those who were disabled and sick, several healings took place, and were verified by doctors present for just that reason. One teenager, who was deaf and could not speak, began chanting “Hallelujah” and “Amen.” A local Arab woman in an abaya stood, threw down her crutches, and began walking.
Regardless of what one might think of the validity of the healing, the amazing aspect of the prayer meeting was that a representative of the government organization, Hamad Bil Jafla, arranged for Rev. Lee to come to the club.

http://www.faithnews.cc/articles.cfm?sid=3185

Media report Says .....

In 2003, a government official arranged for a Christian prayer and healing "festival" at the Dubai Handicapped Club. Lee Jae-Rock, a pastor of the Manmin Joong-Ang Church in Seoul, Korea, spoke and performed a healing ceremony for 100 persons, including nationals, with various disabilities. Arabic and Russian television crews recorded the service, and Jae-Rock's words were translated into Arabic.

Media report Says .....
Dr. Rock preached a series of Gospel and teaching messages each night on how people could only receive salvation and healing through Jesus Christ. He then asked those attending to loudly repent of their sins (in true Korean style) and then prayed for their healing. Hundreds each night came onto the stage to testify to the miracles they’d received. Russian Pastor Dmitri Poliakoff, who said that his mother was once a KGB officer and is now a believer, interpreted for Dr. Lee each night.
Rev. Igor Nikki Nikitin, the president of the Association of Christian Churches in Russia (ACCR), who helped to organize the festival, said, “I feel a great excitement because the Lord has manifested so many miracles in the last three nights. We were expecting to have wonderful meetings, but more of a cultural event than what we have been experiencing. The Lord has definitely moved here in a very mighty way. Before the festival, we had lots of challenges, but now we feel the breakthrough in the spiritual realm.”

Turning point
When asked what the future holds for the church in Russia, Pastor Igor said, “Something incredible has happened in Russia in 2003. This year we felt like it was a building up. This is the time that Russia will be changed. This year is going to be a very special year when our nation will turn to the Lord and we felt that this is a turning point when God is going to bring Russia as a great evangelical nation for the future from this point.”

Worldwide TV coverage
The St. Petersburg outreach was multiplied around the world with coverage via the Internet and by using the “EXPRESS 6A” satellite all over Russia.

In the United States, the Christian Television Network carried the meetings live on their stations while JAIN TV in India broadcast it live across the sub-continent as well as to Nepal, Pakistan and other surrounding countries. The outreach could also be seen in the Philippines, Honduras, Mexico, Costa Rica, Guatemala, Ecuador, Puerto Rico, Argentina and Venezuela. (ASSIST News Service)

http://www.libertymagazine.org/article/articleview/414/1/73/

http://www.inthefaith.com/archives/001267.php

Bad Boy

21st December 2004, 03:11 PM

If I need to witness a miracle for believing then I for sure do not need a religion. Are all these "healers" do the healings/ "wonders" for nothing? Why can't they cure first the whole Calcutta I am not talking about the whole India right now?
There is something more discriptive than supidity: Idiocy!

Bad Boy

21st December 2004, 03:13 PM

If I need to witness a miracle for believing or to get faith in God then I for sure do not need a religion. Are all these "healers" do the healings/ "wonders" for nothing? What about their accomodation? Why are they so damn rich? Don't they open their eyes? Why can't they cure first the whole Calcutta, I am not talking about the whole India right now?
There is something more discriptive than stupidity: Idiocy!

r_kk

21st December 2004, 03:59 PM

Hi Just_Hybber,
good to see you replying to posting and thanks lot for your valuable post!!! wait... You don't believe the Korea's one of the top 3 TV station... and Phillipine, Korean council of churches!!! after all what I can do.... I will write a article soon behind the miracle cure business and what one need to do it successfully (How to project only the lowest probabity of positive results).

“...it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God.” Bible... Are these coat wearing family business conglomerates can fit in?

I came to know from one miracle healer’s self advertisement that he is taking photographs before and after his prayer to prove how his prayers are working on people… even nearby doctors are witnessing the proof . I couldn’t understand what these Guys intentions… Are they want to prove God with just cheep methods? If at all a God, is it necessary to prove God, who is considered as the creator of world with single word, by such cheap means? These messiahs calling themselves as God’s blessed people and they advertise in TVs, papers every where just like advertisement for cosmetic creams… quack medical practitioners.

They are selling God to poor and mentally/physically week people… They also claim lot of families are praying for them (poor chaps… they need millions of families to pray for them…) Just look at the wealth they had generated… the luxurious way of life they maintain, their business empire and the way they project their own family members as the leaders of blessed people, just like business… When I wrote about such people… one guy started writing that others are jealous about the new messiahs… oops…

Is there any one has jealous about the good people like Vinobaji, Baba Amte and those who had worked for down rotten people. Few of them were also God believers… but they don’t sell God… They don’t say God came to them in physical form and asked them to start colleges they don’t say false prophesies, they don’t shay that they have control on nature (with/without the help of God) … they don’t say that God will give you this and that through them….because the people who really felt God will not sell God…

Beware… If you raise any questions about them, they can not sit, they threaten you (indirectly in the form of blessing) because you are shaking their business empires… Not the God… Dear believers don’t sell your soul to these messiahs… so called spiritual Gurus… careful about all these coat/saffron wearing men/women who sells god and gained lot of wealth and fame… and putting their total generation in to the business… They are not selling God… What the sell is hatred among people, among religions, wrong beliefs .. self projections.…they sell “S” in your words… Be aware…

If you want the how the fakes were exposed, read history and BBC document on Rev. Moon. Still if you need more information read Randi's faith healer. I don't think you will do that... but hoping that let this be useful to some real believers.

Then you are asking to conduct a test? really... there is a simple test in Mark 16:17-18. You yourselves test it and tell me ....

I will try to give a detail reply soon (?!!!).

then one minute, what you say about Gandhi? Good to know that atleast you respect a person who didn't believe Jesus as only saviour? In your opinion where he will be at the last day?

Do you believe Sai Baba video is original or computer graphics!! let me understand you...

NOV

21st December 2004, 04:03 PM

I would like to reproduce a letter from a Muslim gentleman on Islam in Malaysia. While he does talk about Islam, you can replace Islam with Hinduism, Christianity or any of the religions of the world and it would fit perfectly.

He also gives a good explanation on faith and God.

Religious absolutism absolutely unacceptable
Dr Syed Alwi Ahmad

In view of the many problems facing the Muslim world today and Malaysia in particular, I am compelled to write this letter. Generally speaking, Muslims take religion very seriously. There is nothing wrong with that - provided you put religion in its proper context.

However some people go further and assert that religion is the ‘absolute truth’. In other words, religion need not be put in context and that it is literal with no burden of proof. They practise (and want others to practise) - a 10th century interpretation of Islam. I totally reject this.

To me the claim of ‘absolute truth’ is so strong that it requires concrete evidence before we take it seriously. Alas! The arena of religion is one where proofs are lacking - precisely because the domain of religion is ‘faith’. Not science.

The problem with absolutism is that it negates all other opinions - and this leads to bigotry and chauvinism. Nothing could be more dangerous than the fascist implications of absolutism. Absolutism rejects rational arguments because it is premised upon the supernatural with no rational proof needed.

As a scientist, I cannot simply accept beliefs without question. And there are many questions to be asked of religion. Indeed, true scientists have to be skeptical of many things and an honest scientist must ask all sorts of questions - and not simply take things on faith. But that is the heart of the matter.

The business of religion is not ‘truth’ - but it is in fact, ‘faith’. It’s not ‘absolute truth’ that religion seeks - but it is ‘absolute faith’ that religion wants to instil in its believers. Is ‘absolute faith’ good for humanity?

There are ample examples where the ‘absolute faith’ of religion has been twisted and warped by vested interests - and used to consolidate power for the few. I do not believe that ‘absolute faith’ is good ; it is far too dangerous.

‘Absolute faith’ is often used to obtain ‘absolute power’ and this leads to ‘absolute corruption’. In this day and age, I think that people should have a degree of skepticism in them.

At a superficial level, all religions are good. And things should be left at that. It is only when religion attempts to portray itself as the ‘absolute truth’ in order to get ‘absolute faith’ - that’s when trouble begins.

Because when rationality and reason is thrown out the door in favour of ‘unquestionable dogma’, absolutism, and then, fascism set in. That’s when alternative views and differences are no longer tolerated.

In the 21st century there should not be any more ‘unquestionable dogma’. All ideas should be rationally analysed in the free market of intellectual discourse. No stones should be left unturned. Indeed, the ‘unquestionable dogma’ of religion is a form of tyranny.

How many people have suffered because they dared to question religious dogma in favour of rational science? Remember Galileo? ... I believe that the situation in Islam is the same in that there should be a reformation in Islam to weed out those fundamentalists who subscribe to an absolutist picture of Islam for ‘absolute truth’ seeks ‘absolute faith’ - and ‘absolute faith’ corrupts absolutely.

All religions are good - provided we view them with some skepticism and adopt a ‘mature and enlightened attitude’ to the claims and beliefs of religion. Dogma must not be confused with fact. This is the predicament of the contemporary Muslim world.

Muslims - by and large - take Islam too seriously as representing the ‘absolute truth’. There is too little questioning of Islamic dogmas. What the Muslim world needs is a dose of skepticism. It is when Muslims can view Islam objectively with some skepticism, that is when the Muslim world will progress.

Otherwise it will just languish as some medieval, irrationality cloaked in ‘unquestionable dogma’. We need a mature and enlightened understanding of Islam in order to fit into the world of the 21st century. Malaysia must say no to absolutism - now.

Which brings me to the letter Apostasy: the Prophet has spoken ... by Mohd Elfie Nieshaem Juferi. I would categorically say that Elfie is most welcome to practise whatever religion he believes in.

However - and this is the punch line - he is not free to interfere in the religious matters of others. Yes, I am a liberal Muslim and have been accused of apostasy, heresy and what not by the likes of Elfie.

For people like Elfie - the world is in black and white. Either you are with them or you are against them. (And I thought only George W Bush had such ideas.)

I would like to tell Elfie that I live in the world of colour. All infinite shades of them. I enjoy diversity. Plurality is paradise to me. I never impose my values and world-view on others.

Hence I also demand that Elfie does not impose his beliefs and views on me. To each his own.

What I find so hypocritical about Elfie is his quote at the end of his letter - ‘God knows best’. Well, if God knows best then I think that people like Elfie should leave it to God to decide the fate of the apostates.

To me, a good person can be of any faith. Let me end my letter with a quote from Shakespeare:

‘What’s in a name ? That which we call a rose by any other name - would smell as sweet.'

C'est la vie ...

http://www2.malaysiakini.com/letters/32294

r_kk

21st December 2004, 04:07 PM

Thanks lot the Moderator.... I was eagerly spending days looking at this thread for this kind of reply.... Thanls lot...

just!hubber

21st December 2004, 04:27 PM

rkk
Thank for the reply, and Let the thread fully focus about the Topic.
And If you want to continue your tampering business , go ahead.

But the point is ,whoever is false(fraud) holy men will defintely be exposed one day.That is what happening !!!
So no point in spending time to talk about any of the Holy persons .

r_kk

21st December 2004, 04:41 PM

Dear Just_hubber,
Sorry... if any of my words hurt you...

If you stop writting about indirect hatred statements about other religion or mind/religion change of believers of other faith, I will not tamper :? you....

Please write about GOD based on your experience... I will surely appreciate... Don't restrict such a big concept with a singla name or don't try to prove from human godmans...

Bad Boy

21st December 2004, 06:17 PM

absolutism absolutely unacceptable

How right you are!

Good Deed NOV, I hope this helps all the blinded by the "Light"

mellon

21st December 2004, 10:53 PM

Now what forms that world view?

*Second critical factor is your view of existence of god and what type of god you believe in. If you don't believe in god, the only model you have before you is naturalistic order (survival of the fittest), and the rules and regulations of the region you live in.

Your view about my view is baseless and hypothetical. You yourself mentioned that billion people in the world has billion unique views. How the heck you would know what is my view?

BTW,

Almost all the rapists believe in God

Almost all the terrorsits believe in God

Almost alll the child molesters believe in God

Almost alll the self-centered ignorant morons believe in God too.

How come you did not know that, Mr. Mutharasan? :roll:

That is as an atheist you are free to do pretty much any thing the law of the land allows you to.

You are offending me pretty thick here, Mr. Mutharasan, just because I dont believe in what you believe in. I dont like anybody indicating me that they are better than me or they have a better vision than me just because they believe in the existence of their God, especially in the forum. Because they are ignorant morans as far as their knowledge about me or my morals and my ethics or my life is concerned. They may very well be much "lower-class" than me.

Just the belief in God would never make a human including mutharasan better or worse than any non-believers. You better know that.

The only purpose before you is to survive considering each one a competitor against your survival. If you believe in god, you have another set of constraints for you.

I see God-sons getting involved in all the cheap competitions all the time. But they often talk as if they are ready to sacrifice everything. Not everyone needs to USE "God" here to help out . All you need is a good conscience and a decent brain. If one is "handicapped" because of the lack of one or both of them then they may need an "imaginary God" to help them out.

Your neighbor's wife may be pretty and friendly, but thou shalt not covet if you follow the ten commandments.v

So all the Theists know how to respect their neighbors partner but nonbelievers dont???????

What kind of crap is this, Mr. Mutharasan??? :x :x :x

Because of your ignorance about morals of nonbelievers you do not understand what the heck you are talking about here. Open your eyes and see the world you are living unless you are blind. 99% of the crime and illegal affairs are committed by people who believes in the existence of God.

You did not know that !!!?

Survival is not the most important thing in living life, rather how you live becomes a priority.

What is most important thing in life?

Commit suicide and get to the God as early as one can?

BTW, Only God-believers use the GOd for their survival according to their convenience. They do every ill-act with the help of using their God.

Are you telling me people those who claim, " In God, we Trust" and do whatever they think or wish are good people? Because they believe and trust in their God and make the God happy!?

Malligai flower if it looks pink, you know you have to discount for the pink glasses you are wearing and know it is actually white.

It is a pity, you dont realize the glasses you are wearing NOW when you are looking at the non-believers of God. May your God open your eyes by stealing your "prejudiceous glasses" you are wearing right now.

Sandeep

21st December 2004, 11:44 PM

You can believe in him
You can disbelieve in him
But you cannt ignore him.

See even non believers are fighting in his name and they blame believers for that.

mutharasan

22nd December 2004, 03:40 AM

Just the belief in God would never make a human including mutharasan better or worse than any non-believers. You better know that.

Mellon:

I agree whole heartedly with your statement above. As a matter of fact my brother is a die-hard atheist and his ethical conduct is far superior to many believers I know.

The point I was trying to make is simple: if one doesn't believe in god then one's minimal set of constraints is "A" (rules of the land you live in); if one belives in god, the constrarints on that person becomes "A+B" (rules of the land+theological requirements). Does one always have to live by the minimal constraints? no! One can amplify the constraints as much as one desires. There are many atheists I know who are vegetarians even though they are not driven by the religious requirement. Does every one live within the the constraints on them? no! As you mention there are many law breakers among the believers.

The idea is to understand the kind of constraints one is under and how it shapes one's world view. That starts with exploration of one's belief system with respect to god.

mutharasan

22nd December 2004, 04:32 AM

Does God exist?
The harder part is how do I convince others?
Suppose I am walking with a friend who is born blind. A gorgeous rainbow appears on the sky. How do I convince him that the rainbow exists?
That is the struggle most mystics, or those who have close brush with Higher Being or blessed with answered prayer or healing go through in convincing others.
To me it is clear transferring personal experiential inference to prove existence will quickly end up in a dead end. Even a group's shared experience cannot prove existence. Look at the number of UFO sightings reported by groups of people and are routinely discounted.

Even though I know my car exists, I may not be able convince every one that "my" car exists on a universal basis. Some one in Beijing may not agree to my proofs unless that person has a direct verification.

However I may be able to convince every one "Cars exist" - every one has a personal experience with a car of some kind. Plato would say "the idea of cars" exist. It is more abstract than a specific car.

So that is the only way we can prove any existence, deducing from a common starting point of existence which we all agree. It is like "apple falls to the ground" and therefore "gravitation exists". If we can say " Sun exists" and therefore "god exists", I am sure we would have more than fulfilled our requirement.

A statistical existence proof however is slightly less stringent. If I can disprove the alternative hypothesis of "God does not exist" by showing its probability of being true is less than 5%, then I am 95% confident that god exists which is the usual passing grade for any practical scientific statistical test.

In business , the existence of the appropriate profits and loss are scrutinized by auditing firms and certified. We rely on the existence of the profits based on the statements and invest in the company's shares with our hard earned money. Here the existence of a fact is tied to the reliance on the fairness, impartiality of experts. In science, we have not seen quarks, we depend on the calculations of the physicists based on the interactions of the elementary particles, that those do exist.

The point is the existence proof does not have to start with shared experience. It may be based on the experiences of few people on whom we have full faith. The existence can be proved if we are willing to base our understanding on the knowledge of few experts. The problem often faced is who these experts are.

Based on these, I'll try to make the arguments for the existence of god when the time permits later..

r_kk

22nd December 2004, 04:34 AM

Hi Muthu,
You are putting your views very nicely. Proceed further.

I will try to give reply when I get some free time. In many place the rule "A" contracticts totally to "B". and among varoius religios belief "B" is different and some cases totally opposite....!!!

Go ahead...

mellon

22nd December 2004, 05:12 AM

Mellon:

I agree whole heartedly with your statement above.

Thanks, Mr. Muthu. If you wish to make this world as a better place for good human beings with the help of your belief in God, I will not stand in your way. Take care :)

Bad Boy

22nd December 2004, 10:50 PM

[tscii:22fadf3bc7]It is not the religion that is bad. It is not good either. It is the religious believers who make the religion bad, through their fanaticism.

My religion is a good religion. There all the Gods exist and inexist at the very same moment.

Is it wrong to say all good is God and all the bad is evil?

BTW, what do you get by \\\'mirroring\\\' (I don\\\'t know if this term exists! In German they would call it spiegeln ([‰À£(g)¦¸úý]) \\\"live\\\"? Ever came across this?[/tscii:22fadf3bc7]

hehehewalrus

23rd December 2004, 06:21 AM

r_kk,
this is related to your other thread on frauds.

I dont know about you but it is my personal policy NEVER TO COMMENT on any evil unless I SEE IT WITH MY OWN EYES !!

I dont care if a hundred links on the internet say it or even if BBC features it with 100s of videos. If they have done research, let THEM come out with it, but as for me, I wont comment since I am not the researcher - thats purely my policy. Thats one of the reasons why I have not got into a War of Links with you.

As someone who has taken leave on loss of pay and TRAVELLED SEVERAL HUNDRED KILOMETERS to VERIFY WITH MY OWN EYES certain happenings, I would surely lose my credibility if I start depending on second hand sources to justify my points.

Which is why I still reserve my judgement and have not made any incriminatory statement on Shankaracharya or Saibaba(in the thread I started).

r_kk

23rd December 2004, 06:34 AM

Thanks he3 for your opinion...
You are correct up to some extend... but is it possible for everyone to go there and see?
What I had placed is two different opinion and expecting others with first hand experience... I will add a Poll option... If people feel this kind of argument is not good... I will remove this thread...

Please note... I also go long way and spend lot of my time and energy for many upliftment activities....

r_kk

25th December 2004, 11:05 AM

It is better to have two kind of discussions… one is logical and the other one is practical. The following is just a practical one but helps to clear logical.

Supernatural experience or blessing and or healing are few of the unavoidable points when we discuss about concept of God. When we come across Sri Ramakrishna Paramagasar, Sri Ramanar, many Muslim Sufis, many Sithars and many Christian evangelist to local god believers, they had been saying that they had experienced some thing super natural and some of them even said that they had seen the God in physical form. Even Swami Vivekananda had similar questions during his initial period of his meeting with Ramakrishna and then also he had lot of doubts about this kind of experience even after few years if initial meeting… but if we read his books we can find how he had gone much beyond the initial illusions and doubts…

It is very hard for a believer to digest, if some one saying that what they had seen as just illusion or hallucination or MAYA… But I know that most of the above mentioned people are much better people than many of us and this kind of discussion doesn’t demerit to them… and more over science couldn’t unlock the brain till yet… so what is truth…very difficult to explain… But now a days many people misunderstand that even some small different bodily experience as God’s touch… If we accept it as God touch, the main question arises from the cheap way they behave after the enlightenment and the hatred feeling they have towards other group of people, the very limited ignorant knowledge they have… the way they cheat others for their own self goals, ambitions and wealth… Some religious cult group leasers said that God came to them physically and asked them to start this and that… Is it reasonable to believe them? What science says? Let me try to summarize scientific background without touching any one’s belief…

Recent Study carried out by Dr Andrew Newberg providing the following insight about Godly experience…
• Our temporal lobe of brain (two in numbers and one can perform other work incase of damage) is the main place which create the visual hallucination.
• Newberg had proved by stimulating temporal lobe with very weak rotating magnetic field of between ten nanotesla and one microtesla over the temporal lobes of the brain on both on believer and on non-believer without telling that they had been tested for this purpose or without any suggestions... Both felt the some one is presence and God believers said they had felt the presence of God but the other one said they had seen some presence of some other. All of them interpreted based on their religious back ground. It highly depends on the basis they had grown up and what they had seen is based on their pre-conceived ideas.
• It seems the brain to be predisposed towards a belief in spiritual and religious matters.
• 10~70% of people with temporal lobe disorder have this kind of hallucination experience.

Then from my personal experience, I also had a light temporal lobe disorder after long years of sinciere search for God when I was a believer. I had seen blinking light around me even when my eyes were closed. It increases to very very bright light and totally takes me. The first two times, I thought it as a supernatural experience but third time after the effect I had lost conscious totally. After 45min, I had seen lying in hospital and my close relatives crying near by. The doctor said, I had severe fits and black-out and need to undergo detail medical test and then treatment…. It was a long story. I don’t want to write more here now. But the fact those who experienced, for them it is very difficult to accept as neural problem. More over science also can not answer to this phenomenon in very detail at this stage.

Then let me come to another kind of bodily experience… Losing of body...

Two years back I had lot of tensions due to work… so much of pressure… family issues… I was so tired mentally and physically. I slept very late… After 3 or 4 hours of sleep, I felt I couldn’t move my legs…The feeling started all around my body… I felt that I am losing my body… I was trying to get up… No use… After few minutes I felt little ok… I got up… That experience shocked me…. Next few weeks I was Ok. Again it started happening after few weeks… This time I thought some thing is happening… and started analyzing the situations… Both the case, I was in serious tension…. I went to a cardiologist to consult…. He measured and found my BP is gone much beyond the normal limits… so much of body fat(!!!)… He said… don’t worry just take this medicine… keep your mind cool, exercise and if possible do meditation…. Wow… I am getting some answers to the religious questions…

Is it reasonable to compare?

Why an ordinary man or women get such experience and they don’t look like blessed if you look the way they behave after few months? Why famous miracle healers (including fake) can easily create different experience in crowd? Why only human find such experience when they are week or in severe trouble or health problem?

Why week people get so excited in religious places and prayer halls even in cinema theatres? Particularly ladies get number of “saami attam” when they go to see even Rama Narayan movie, compared to strong guys who shows karpuram. Most of all the personal attitude ladies who got such experience don’t change the materialistic outlook even after the so called supreme experience. Instead most of them do the same nasty fight with neighbors… discuss more time about materialistic things?

Science has developed lot to explain these things… but some of the critical questions it can’t with the present available theories. That’s where question of uncertainty comes. There is a very thin line between an enlightened and mentally retarded. How to distinguish the real and fake? Is science capable? Is it means that since science can not explain fully based on theories/proofs available today…is it wrong? Or even other way round….
How to distinguish super natural experience?
- Is it the reason for the body with low oxygen content in blood or abnormal blood pressure?
- Is it due to temporal lobe disorder?
- Why human gets more emotional in crowd (people gets tears when they reach house of some ones death and when they see lot of people cry. Why big crowd turns violent or emotional (including crying) easily?
- What are scientific points behind these issues?
- Why people find God in some others faith easily not in their own faith? Is God different or the human need different?
- Why Muslim Sufis and Saiva Sithars do not talk about the day to day interactive helping or threatening God but something more or less same independent of religions (“Easanodu aynum assai arumin”)? What kind of understanding makes them to go beyond religions? (for example Muslims and Hindus say Kabir as theirs… including non-believers like me!!)

- Why enlightened Buddha didn’t talk about God? Why he didn’t do any miracle (asked the lady to bring mustard seed from a family without having any death, instead of giving life)?

Can we have an interactive discussion? I can write only if many of us participate and provide the alternative views and supportive views (if I speak only fron non-believer side, I can not continue alone for long due to my work load).

We can try to avoid religion and concentrate only on supernatural experience. My only concern is that this is a very delicate subject and explaining any of my view should not hurt any good people of any religion.

islamy

26th December 2004, 04:17 PM

salam.....

i saw the problem but i didn't read all of the replies ...

but i saw that some peaple want something to believe in god..

i have something..

i am a muslim..and i want to tell you that every thing scientests discover in the world they founded it already written in the quraan...

you can find some examples in this site
http://www.science4islam.com/
http://www.55a.net/

i hope you reply ufter reading it very well....

ok.. :roll:

see you..

sefroth

31st December 2004, 07:19 PM

Just read My Signature.

God is One,, No difference.

Bad Boy

31st December 2004, 09:57 PM

and i want to tell you that every thing scientests discover in the world they founded it already written in the quraan...

Every thing that was already written in the Quran it was written in all the other "holy Books" first.
Atleast we are living at the moment in 2004/5 After Christ and not after Mohammed.

Good attempt for you abilities but not good enough for any further commentries.

sefroth

31st December 2004, 10:55 PM

God is One, Be it Allah , Krishna or Buddha every Human-being has the right to call god in his own nature, Because there is Only One God.

Sudhaama

2nd January 2005, 02:02 AM

Yes... God is ONE ... then DOES IT END with such a Conclusion?

It is the GOD-REALISATION and APPLICATION ... the MOST IMPORTANT.

irfansong

5th January 2005, 01:00 AM

Hi Friends,

One more proof for the existence of God. Given below.

http://groups-beta.google.com/group/alt.religion.hindu/browse_thread/thread/17eb83285d19e236/9c08348739fe39d7?q=tiruchendur+%2B+tsunami+miracle&_done=%2Fgroups%3Fq%3Dtiruchendur+%2B+tsunami+mira cle%26hl%3Den%26lr%3D%26sa%3DN%26tab%3Dwg%26&_doneTitle=Back+to+Search&&d#9c08348739fe39d7

http://www.dailythanthi.com/images/news/20041228/nl.jpg

r_kk

6th January 2005, 06:31 PM

Reason is "Sri lanka" not God!!!

http://ushome.rediff.com/news/2005/jan/01tn1.htm

If it is protected by God, then the God should be cruel in killing ignorant kids and so many innocents just becaue they are calling it in different name

Kherkhaw

6th January 2005, 07:33 PM

I am new here, and perhaps not as well educated as many of you might be. But there are certian points I want to share:

We, humanbeings, often think of ourselves as if we knew a lot, even if we inside ourselves know that all our knowledege is perhaps no more than a drop of water in an ocean. Yet we want to be arrogant of what we know.

I don't think God is cruel, if it hadn't been for many of his "cruelties" we would not have advanced and achieved the goals and understanding of nature which we have today. It is perhaps because of his "cruelties" that we today are able to give medicine for many of those diseases which we for hundred years ago thought of as incureable.

But I do understand that it feels cruel at the moment, but it is because we are just a part of the picture, we are not the Painter who can see whole of the picture. And as most of us would know that in every picture there are some dark areas and and some light areas, if every thing had been light, we would have just a blank sheet - and no picture. So what makes a picture attractive is the contrast between the colors.

Just some thought I wanted to share!

r_kk

7th January 2005, 02:46 AM

Dear Kherkhaw,
Please proceed with your thoughts. Interesting. Don’t bother about the educational level of others. There is nothing great in the education we learn in school and colleges when it comes to individuals understanding about life and humanity.

I said the word “cruel” since the previous posting was praising the super being for protecting small area. If some one praise and feel God as kind, then there is some one who do the opposite for not being kind. That was the aim of my reply.

Then, as you said, human have limited knowledge and it is not possible for every one to understand everything. But human tries to understand everything and eager to have a full fledged knowledge and prefers to have others with exceptional qualities and kindness. Such practical impossibilities force the human to create “100% whole knowledge” and very kind, day-to-day interactive GOD.

Keep writing.

NOV

8th January 2005, 10:08 AM

Beyond belief: a human strategy for survival

Disasters help us to learn more about ourselves, and our responses

GUEST COLUMN By PAUL VALENT

For Humanist Network News
http://www.humaniststudies.org/enews/index.html?id=174&lid=1378#n5
<http://www.humaniststudies.org/enews/index.html?id=174&lid=1378#n5>

Where was God during the tsunami? Where is God in Darfur? Where was
God in Rwanda? Cambodia? The Holocaust? My own religious phase ended when my
father, the only one of nine siblings who survived the Holocaust,
died 12 years later of prolonged, painful cancer. I then joined the
majority
of Holocaust survivors who abandoned belief in God. No believer has been
able to convince me since then of the existence of a just, benevolent God.

It seems hard to accept the self-evident logic: there is no
benevolent God guiding human affairs. Some may fear a chaotic amoral
universe
without God.
I do not believe that the fear is justified. On the contrary, a
scientific view of disasters diminishes their chaos, and may even give
clues to
the origins of morality and religion.

Pursuing the more fruitful scientific path, akin to the way
geologists have observed tectonic shifts of the Earth, so
traumatologists in the past
20 to 30 years have observed tectonic shifts of the mind in disasters.
Looking scientifically into the eye of trauma, they saw how physical nature
and human nature interact in primordial conditions; how some core aspects
of human nature manifest and develop.

Briefly, what they saw was that in life-threatening situations people
mobilized certain basic survival options. Fight and flight are two
such well-known options. Others are rescuing and preserving others,
attaching to others who might save one, competing and struggling for scarce
resources, co-operating with others for mutual benefit, striving for
essential
goals, and surrendering previous goals while adapting to new circumstances.

Humans share the above survival strategies with other social animals.
Where they differ from them is in the possession of fine feedback
mechanisms on their chosen strategies in the form of judgments. Examples
are: "You
cannot run and leave your friends!"; "She gave you bread, now give her
something in return!"

Only when no survival strategy is available is God evoked in fantasy
as an omnipotent helper.
These judgments are themselves instinctive half-thoughts that arouse
emotions -- guilt, shame and a sense of justice -- that tend to
motivate action. Thus morality begins with juggling of survival needs of
self
and others. The result is the constant observation in disasters: that
survival strategies fluctuate according to circumstances, always finely
honed
for maximum survival in the community.

Religion and God play no part during survival activity. Only when no
survival strategy is available is God evoked in fantasy as an
omnipotent parental helper, who in exchange for being good will help.
"If you
get me out of this, I'll go to church." On the whole, though, people are
realistic enough to hope for Hercules planes, not angels.

The second appearance of religion is after disasters. Then religion
may offer comfort through belief that the dead are alive in another form
and not really lost; and that religious rituals and expunging non-believers
will prevent future disasters. But generally past beliefs crumble, such as
that the good are rewarded and the bad are punished. Understanding these
principles has enabled traumatologists to help prevent a second round
of psychological hurt common after disasters, and to promote healing.
They do this by clarifying for survivors how their biological,
psychological
and social post-disaster symptoms (pains, digestive disorders, emotional
outbursts, depression, alcohol consumption); harsh judgments ("How
could I have let him/her die?!", "Why did I survive, and others died?", "I
must have done something wrong, and now I am punished."); meanings ("I
am a bad
parent"); and shattered beliefs ("I should not be on this Earth.")
gelled from specific disaster experiences in which they could not promote
survival.

But it was the disaster's fault, not theirs.

In time, survivors' experiences and their consequences become part of
subjective and general human knowledge. Deepening wisdom can help
survivors in their subsequent lives, and all in future disasters.

A small example: we know from past disasters that the wave of
sympathy and generosity for the tsunami victims is likely to be
short-lived. Yet
survivors' needs require more than one flush of generosity. Knowledge
of our altruistic and selfish human nature can help us to fashion now an
appropriate giving plan for the long haul.

If we seek a redemptive silver lining in the tsunami, it is increased
knowledge and wisdom. Ultimately it is we who are the containers of
our evolution, our morality and our fantasies. It is our responsibility
to know ourselves, to iron out our distortions, and enhance our natures for
human benefit. And we have the potential to do so.

Dr. Paul Valent is a psychiatrist who founded and is past president
of the Australasian Society for Traumatic Stress Studies. This op-ed piece
first appeared in The Age on Jan. 4, 2005. It is republished by permission
of the author.

aravindhan

8th January 2005, 09:33 PM

Only when no survival strategy is available is God evoked in fantasy as an omnipotent helper.

But this seems to misjudge the reason people believe in God. Belief in God has a lot to do with the "religious feeling" or "religious experience". It is very difficult to explain this feeling to one who has not themselves experienced it. One is conscious of the glorious harmony of all that exists, and of the manner in which this harmony manifests itself in nature and in ourselves. When one is possessed by this feeling, a mundane, material existence which does not have this harmony at its centre comes to seem relatively meaningless.

This feeling does not necessarily mean that a personal God exists - philosophers like Spinoza describe this feeling, but disavow belief in a personal God. However, since most cultures have a tradition of a personal God, God becomes the most obvious explanation of the religious feeling. In my opinion, it is this, rather than the quest for a convenient fantasy, that is the main reason that belief in God persists.

Bad Boy

8th January 2005, 11:46 PM

Disasters help us to learn more about ourselves, and our responses

So you can easily guess what an idiocy someone owns when you remember his comments about the tsunami that the arrest of a murderer being the cause of this natural catastrophe.

Raghu

12th January 2005, 10:10 PM

NOV,

You said 'Disasters help our selves to learn more about our selves', sadly, :( :( 99.9% of the world population are too indulged in this material world, which exploit their ignorance from the ULTIMATE TRUTH (GOD), unless one sits done and think, say like
1) Who am I:?:
2) What I am doing here:?:
3) What is happening around me:?:

And try to seek the truth, the truth will never reveal in our clouded minds of material desires (Maya), but for our self fish reasons, like the natural disasters or some thing, then only many people try and explore spirituality! This is bad , but every one does this, though these disasters are a cruel way of preaching to the ignorant humans, it is the REALITY, all materials have a beginning and ending, it is only the PARAMATHMA, which is eternal. It is highly impossible to have the ultimate Knowledge (Raja Veda), when we are indulged in material pleasure,
When one realises, we are not these bodies, but it is the Athma (soul) that lives in these bodies, this world is not real, your Athma should Only indulge with the Paramathama (GOD), one becomes free from material world, all the happiness and sadness of this ‘Kali Yuga’.
Just like Newton’s law,’For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction’, for all your Karma (activities), depending on the nature of karma, you will get good things, if you do good things in life, and bad things if you do bad things, this spreads over all your 7 genmas (life), within these 7 genmas, your next birth or Mukthi (salvation) is decided by the Paramatha, so it is a test for human kinds.
So, there is no point in arguing whether GOD exists or not, the answer is clear ‘GOD DOES EXIST’, remember that, we are only discussing this according to our knowledge and intelligence, but there is something which is far more superior than us, that is GOD!
Pls do reply, so we can clear the black clouds going through our minds

NOV

13th January 2005, 06:20 AM

Raghu, those are not necessarily my views. I have posted another's thoughts.

Regarding beliefs, don't you think calamities such as the recent tsunami actually makes one wonder of the existence of God? People of all faiths have died and suffered because of this disaster and good/bad, hell/heaven, right/wrong, all have become meaningless.

Will write more later.

kannuma

13th January 2005, 08:39 AM

i believe wholeheartedly in god. life is tough. sadly i think quite a few of us can vouch for this. but we also experiance great euphoria, and happiness. no one, and i mean NO ONE, not even krishna, rama, buddha etc experianced a life devoid of pain, as i do believe the saying that to live is to suffer. emotions cause suffering as happiness makes greif and dispair even more unbearable(imo, dont shoot me for it). throughout times hwere i have felt life would be better off not living, my dad always told me the story of lord buddha, when he wa smeditating, a woman came to him and asked him to revive her son fomr the dead, since he, buddha, was so gr8 and all. and he asked her to bring a single grain of rice fomr a house that had never experianced death, disease or pain and suffering. she could not find such a house. i think the same applies to life. yes the tsunami was devastating. killed millions and traumatised the survivours. but i have a strong belief that ;ife is not always good, and never always bad. i look at it this way:
i believe that some of the people who died, their task on this earth was over, and they can be whole with brahman. they do not have to be reborn, as i feel life, while it is ones karma, is a drudge. others, i don't mean to sound insensitive, can be reborn in a better life. whatever it is, their bodies were always destructable. we presume immortality in daily life, but who knows if we will wake up tomorrow. sometime we all have to go.
i don't think that believing in god means getting everything u wish for, or ask for. i believe that the phrase 'aham bramhasmi' is the cornerstone of it all. god, imo is we ourselves, and the whole superbeing. no one knows the future, only god. and i believe god helps us more in dealing with our present and life, rather than giving us everything we wish and spoiling us. i mean do we really know whats good for us? without knowing what everybody else is feeling? if we claim we do, i think that would be arrogane, since none truely know th others feelings, and neither do we know the future.
so putting my long post(im sorry bout that) in a nutshell, ye si do believe in god. not in the god that does what iwant, but that while god guides me, and gives me strength to face the rest of the world. imo even rama was cursed to be rebornn for killing vali, and died at his hands(reincarnated) as krishna. so if even god doesn't life a smooth life, i dont think i can expect one without hassels, just one where he helps me, always

Bad Boy

13th January 2005, 09:40 PM

kannuma

13th January 2005, 10:18 PM

no one, and i mean NO ONE, not even krishna, rama, buddha etc experianced a life devoid of pain, as i do believe the saying that to live is to suffer.
But all of them were high borns except Jesus Christ! None of them were Paraiahs!

..., but who knows if we will wake up tomorrow. sometime we all have to go.
I know that I am going to post here tomorrow. This means that I am going to wake up, turn on the computer and post here. But day after tomorrow I don't know.

...
imo even rama was cursed to be rebornn for killing vali, and died at his hands(reincarnated) as krishna. so if even god doesn't life a smooth life, i dont think i can expect one without hassels, just one where he helps me, always
God kills? God a Killer?
Regarding rebirth: What about the clones? What are these clones then in religious sense?
one of my friends got a fever/headache etc etc. was supposed to go to the doctor the next day, then go to class after that. turns out
it was meningitis. she never cam back to class after that.
another examply. my aunt was at her mil's place. lots of family was there. the next day they were supposed t go out on some family outing. she die(she had cancer for 22 years). im sorry but i strongly disagree with what u say abt get up and go switch on the pc etc. by the grace of god ull wake up and do that. but always imo its uncertain if we will survive the next day. we presume we'll wke up, but i doubt we always do.

im sorry, but wasn't krishna usually treated as a cowherder's son. not the son of a king. and look at it this way. i see it as he decided that yasoda was the perfect mother. not another princess. but yasoda.

well if god doesn't end things that started once, the world would be overpopulated and we'd all be animals starving etc etc. the earth can only hold so much. i doubt anyone u know is immortal, or has lived for at least 7000 years. course we die. but its only the body. the atman never does. and each birth has to end. u know anyone who has lives since the dawn of time? i dont

Raghu

13th January 2005, 10:37 PM

sadly, 99.9% of the world population are too indulged in this material world, which exploit their ignorance from the ULTIMATE TRUTH (GOD), unless one sits done and think, say like
1) Who am I
2) What I am doing here:?:
3) What is happening around me:?:

And try to seek the truth, the truth will never reveal in our clouded minds of material desires (Maya), but for our self fish reasons, like the natural disasters or some thing, then only many people try and explore spirituality! This is bad , but every one does this, though these disasters are a cruel way of preaching to the ignorant humans, it is the REALITY, all materials have a beginning and ending, it is only the PARAMATHMA, which is eternal. It is highly impossible to have the ultimate Knowledge (Raja Veda), when we are indulged in material pleasure,
When one realises, we are not these bodies, but it is the Athma (soul) that lives in these bodies, this world is not real, your Athma should Only indulge with the Paramathama (GOD), one becomes free from material world, all the happiness and sadness of this ‘Kali Yuga’.
Just like Newton’s law,’For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction’, for all your Karma (activities), depending on the nature of karma, you will get good things, if you do good things in life, and bad things if you do bad things, this spreads over all your 7 genmas (life), within these 7 genmas, your next birth or Mukthi (salvation) is decided by the Paramatha, so it is a test for human kinds.
So, there is no point in arguing whether GOD exists or not, the answer is clear ‘GOD DOES EXIST’, remember that, we are only discussing this according to our knowledge and intelligence, but there is something which is far more superior than us, that is GOD!
Pls do reply, so we can clear the black clouds going through our minds
_________________
Ippadiku,
Raghuvaran

Bad Boy

13th January 2005, 10:44 PM

well if god doesn't end things that started once, the world would be overpopulated and we'd all be animals starving etc etc. the earth can only hold so much. i doubt anyone u know is immortal, or has lived for at least 7000 years. course we die. but its only the body. the atman never does. and each birth has to end. u know anyone who has lives since the dawn of time? i dont

Kannuma, ennum kaaNaatha? You talk nonsense, don't you? If god does not start things then he does not need to put an end to the same! Very easy to understand this.
If the earth holds too much then please ease this earth from your being. If there are still too much then take your family and relatives with you while you leave this place. Is this the line you want me to edit alter or delete, Kannuma?
How do you know that I am not 8000 years old? I am quite sure my ancestorial tree can be traced to atleast 200 000 years BC. Even far beyond that time my forefathers were not capable of making fire.

From my point of view all constructions will be destructed once and all desructions are constructed anyhow.
It may be all these things are little bit hard to digest but go on with your thoughts.

Raghu

14th January 2005, 05:16 PM

Dear Bad boy,

You said
'
I know that I am going to post here tomorrow. This means that I am going to wake up, turn on the computer and post here. But day after tomorrow I don't know.'

I am sorry to say this :( this shows yours (and 99% of other humans) arrogance (I am Great, I KNOW everything.) and your ignorance towards the 'PARAMATHMA'. :cry:

I agree with you about all the sufferings of humans :cry: , but what about the Animals, don't they suffer too? any living bodies suffers & enjoys the material pleasure of life, there is nothing that can be done about that, unfortunately, this is due to our poorva genma karmas (Our last birth activities), if you have committed lots of sin in your last life, you suffer for your actions in this life (I know it is Cruel :cry: :cry: , but what to do), where else if you have done, lot of 'Puniyum' in your last life, you will enjoy the Pleasure of life. But there is ‘Kala (time)', which means you will only suffer or enjoy for a while, then the Life cycle starts again, many people are under the influence that, if you do lots of 'Puniyum' you will go to heaven else to hell, that's true, that's true. But once your time ends up in heaven or hell, you will still enter the life Cycle; you will not gain Mukthi (salvation). This is what Lord Krishna says to Arjuna in Gurushestram, Just before the battle commences. The Lord also says, the only way to attain Mukthi is to show devotion towards him, you will be attain the Mukthi Nilai, no matter, how much paavam or Puniyum you do, as long as you show TRUE devotion to the lord.

The lord also says,' at this soul leaves this body, ' if one only concentrate on the lord, he will gain salvation, but if a soul's mind has some other desires like Money, Status, Women, etc. The soul will have to take another to fulfil its desires'. The best way to come out of this loop is pure devotion to the Lord.

If I Imagine a ShivLingam in my mind, the harmony I feel in my mind is so immense, I can hardly describe it, you will have to feel it, brother!

just_hubber

14th January 2005, 07:42 PM

If I Imagine a ShivLingam in my mind, the harmony I feel in my mind is so immense, I can hardly describe it, you will have to feel it, brother!

I have a question just as a clarification to know the original representation or meaning of Shivalingam.

What exactly the shape of shivalingam represents or what is the original meaning of Lingam?

because i read it in one website like describing representing something which i cant tell here :?:

What is the theory or concept behind worshiping a shape? I am ignorant in the theory behind this(may be from vedas ?)

Raghu

14th January 2005, 10:08 PM

Dear Just_hubber,

Do you seriously do not know the shape of the shivlingam, or was that meant to be funny :( .

ShivLingham, has three aspects, the head, upper part of Body & the lower part.

The non antrhropomorphic Lingam form of Shiva is what is held in reverence in temples all over the sub continent. The Lingam is a symbol. It is a symbol of that which is invisible yet omnipresent. It is hence a a visible symbol of the Ultimate Reality which is present in us (and in all objects of creation ).

The Shivalingam denotes the primeval energy of the Creator.It is believed that at the end of all creation, during the great deluge, all of the different aspects of God find a resting place in the Lingam; Bhrama is absorbed into the right, Vishnu to the left and Gayatri into the heart. The Shivalingam is also a representation of the infinite Cosmic Column of fire, whose origins, Vishnu and Bhrama were unable to trace. (see Lingodbhavar).

Legend has it that Parvati fashioned a Shivalingam with a fistful of sand at Kanchipuram and worshipped Shiva; this lingam is known as the Prithvilingam, denoting the primordial element earth. Shivalingams in several temples are swayambus, or that which appeared on their own, or that which is untouched by a chisel. On the other hand, there are temples where the Shivalingam is carved out of stone and installed. The highly polished Shivalingams of the Pallava period bear several stripes, as in the Kailasanatha temple at Kanchipuram.

The Shivalingam is generally mounted on a circular or quadrangular receptacle called the Avudaiyar. This pedestal is designed so as to drain off the water offered during ablution ceremonies. In temples such as Kanchipuram, abhishekam is offered only to the pedestal and not to the Shivalingam made of sand. The bottom of the pedestal represents Bhrama, the octogonal middle represents Vishnu and the upper circular portion represents Shiva. The upper portion of the Shivalingam may be of various shapes, cylindrical, elliptical, umbrella shaped. Images may also be (rarely) carved on a Shivalingam.

Nandi, the bull is depicted facing the sanctum in all Saivite temples, symbolizing the human soul Jeevatma yearning for realizing its oneness with Paramatma, the ultimate reality.

Typically, the processional bronze images of Shiva are those of Somaskanda, Chandrasekhara, Bhikshatana and Nataraja. Although in most Shiva temples, the central shrine enshrining the Shivalingam is of the greatest importance, the Nataraja shrine is of greater importance at Chidambaram, the Somaskandar - Tyagarajar shrine is of greater significance at Tiruvarur.

Bad Boy

14th January 2005, 10:55 PM

Hello Kannuma,

as you may perhaps able to remember me predicting yesterday about me posting today - I am still alive, believe me tomorrow too. Do you want me posting daily?

kannuma

14th January 2005, 11:12 PM

Bad Boy

14th January 2005, 11:43 PM

Post deleted....

WHY DELETED?
Because of my Lingam or because of the arrogance and ignorance nippels? There are still some women fond of worshiping my Lingam and if I am honest I know how Shiva feels if his Lingam is worshiped. If I ever become God then ther will be only one commandment: Lingam worshiping

Bad Boy

14th January 2005, 11:56 PM

kannuma

15th January 2005, 02:49 AM

Hello Kannuma,

as you may perhaps able to remember me predicting yesterday about me posting today - I am still alive, believe me tomorrow too. Do you want me posting daily?
so to make this point, you had to tell me you weren 8000 years and and to kill myself and my family. im glad im the one who talks nonsens ein your world. i couldnt stand to be spouting your kind of logic and arguments. and honestly if you feel the need to make a point against me, please use a valid arguent, not that you are 8000 years etc. i feel like im talking to a child.
Why are you afraid of 8000? If you are not good in counting numbers we can also use an abacus.
Can you give me a valid argument for the existence of God and not a void one instead? Will you please also accept that your God also created all the bacterias, viruses, vermins, RSS Fanaticos, ... AND also me? So if you can't accept me then why do you run for GOD? Look at you front door first to see the Lord! Go and donate every thing you own and then we shall continue about Gods and Dogs!
That you believe it is your take or mis-take. I only give you! ( I am quite sure you don't get the point here)
yes of course god created all that was bad too. there is a yin for every yang. i would say someone who told me to kill myself/ask my family to kill themselves falls in the bad of the world. as for fanatics, yes i definately dispise them. and although i believe all our atmans stem from brahman, i have enough self control to not react to your taunts anymore. since i do not feel that i can have a logical debate with you, where you wont be telling me im afraid of 8000, instead of you understanding that i was pointing out the mere impossibility of your being 8000 years old. i am not running from you to god, as i believe everything is god. but i also believe when i see idiotic behavious, i can either engage in it myself, and fall to your level, or keep away form soomeone who tels me to go commit suicide, for your post on me killing myself/my family is still there. make not: im not running away. there's a difference: when there's a riot and ppl are killing each other i can either join the madness(i.e. talk like you and tell you im not afraid of 8000) or keep my self respect and refrain from idiotic behaviour(which i shall do from now on). i shall not longer post in this topic.

NOV

15th January 2005, 08:08 AM

This thread is going haywire.

Please DO NOT bring specific religions into the discussion. ABSOLUTELY NO RELIGIOUS PROPOGATION of any kind is allowed.

If the discussions dont take a turn into what it was originally intended for, we will have no choice but to terminate this thread.

r_kk

15th January 2005, 10:27 AM

1) Who am I
2) What I am doing here:?:
3) What is happening around me:?:

The post I made for R_KK, I was expecting a Reply from R_KK, who replied to my post before. It is my mistake I did not clearly address the post to R_KK.:

Hi Raghu,
Since Raghu asked me repetitively to reply, I am writing here.

The following are just personal understanding of mine as on today based on the life I had traveled and I don’t say that this is correct or perfect. It may be totally wrong in your point of view and it may not be fit to you. As I understand life better, it may also change.

Who am I:
I am just a human neither lesser or superior to any one. I don’t believe in Athma or something thing extra conscious outside of brain. I think that I have been formed from the combination of ovem and a successful sperm out of millions of sperm. Can any one say here that the each moving sperm had an athma? I born as a plane slate but with the minimum previous links of knowledge/instincts transferred through genes and my present knowledge is just what I understood from the world. I consider my knowledge as just a connection of interlinks created in my brain. When I die or when I brain links gets broken, I loose the knowledge and the conscious of self. I don’t think that I born as a sinner or responsible for any my forefather’s fault and I don’t believe/want any one to take responsibility of my mistakes. It is not always necessary that if I do good then I will get good and vice verse. In nature it doesn’t happen. Nature doesn’t bother who is doing good and who is doing sin (for example Tusnami’s destruction, you can this). I don’t blame or praise any super-being or nature for that.

Believing in Athma gives a temporary comfort that one will remain in some form after the death in a painful or happiest world or mixed with the super being. In my opinion this is a mental comfort, virtual and not actual. The concept of sin and good also a relative statement and varies much between various societies and various situation. I don’t believe in sin or some one can take responsibility of your sin. But I have a set of social norms and personal principles defined based on the knowledge I gained from the world. As I expect for my own, I don’t want to create pain to others. That is the basic law defined for my self based on the society I live. My food habits, life, belief every thing I develop based on this principles (lot of pages need to explain). I don’t say either I have a definite answer to your question or mine is complete. As I understand better about this world, my concept also evolves and continuously getting fine tuned. I never expect any one to follow my thoughts because, their understanding may be different or even better.

What I am doing here:?:
Basic concept of “doing” is just survival and follow the natural intention to keep the generation go ahead and safeguard offspring just like any animal in the world. When human were in tribal societies, our ancestors were doing the same. Our love or fear or any kind of basic instincts are similar to any other animal but since we have better brain and we have and better thinking capabilities; we have defined better ways of “doing” the same thing. That’s all. Every one expects some kind of fullness in their life. Some one feels learning some kind of art will bring fullness to their life and another one thinks some thing totally different. I feel my life will be cherished if I can bring happiness to many people. One way it looks like selfish less thought but I frankly accept it also some kind of selfish because it brings comfort to my so called mind. When any one involves with the activity which brings fullness to their life, they will find answer to this questions. Most interestingly the answers of every one need not to be the same.

3) What is happening around me:?:
The world, the every one is busy with their own survival and “doing” something as guided by their basis instincts. As a society we are interlinked not only with social codes but also with emotional codes. Some times, one tries to isolate from this bonds which gives some kind of stress to their mind and looks inside for answers to this question. The answers vary again based on the level of understanding of individual. No definite answer to the above and not necessary to be same. If it is same answer, the society is monotonous and nothing creative but more peaceful and controllable.

At last what you will get from these answers of mine? It varies with each one’s perspective and a believer may have entirely different concept and may contradict with my thoughts which has no belief on Athma or Paramathma or any other super being. I can’t act or lie by saying that I felt such great things, and in fact I feel that I don’t need such things. The above replies are not complete and need lot of pages to explain. Since I have limitation of time and trying to avoid wasting lot of space, I am stopping here.

blahblah

15th January 2005, 10:34 AM

Bad Boy

15th January 2005, 03:36 PM

This thread is going haywire.

Please DO NOT bring specific religions into the discussion. ABSOLUTELY NO RELIGIOUS PROPOGATION of any kind is allowed.

I am only talking about the (in)existence of god. Sorry you deleted my post about my mom's nippels which are classified as arrogance and ignorance. I only wanted to say that I had been arrogant and ignorant from the very first day. This is the meaning of the nippels or in other words I drank those two "-ances" through my mother milk or it is already in the genes or somethink like that.

It is always wrong to put someone into one or another drawer or corner especially by believers of any religions. But all those who KillAndLootAndRapeAndBurn or those who even mentally support the KALARABs are the worst (uncle tony siddarth iyer would have used baddest instead of worst, he is the "baddest" idiot anyhow) of all!

If the discussions dont take a turn into what it was originally intended for, we will have no choice but to terminate this thread.
There is a proverb in German telling: "Es kommt anders als man denkt"(Things go different as you previously thought) or "Der Gott denkt, der Mensch lenkt" (God gears, Man steers)

Kannuma, I am here today too! Still have not passed the Jordan! I am searching for the ferryman.
Even the existence of multiple religions proves the existence of multiple GODs. Multiple Gods don't exist. And there is there is no exception proves the rule.

Bad Boy

15th January 2005, 06:44 PM

since i do not feel that i can have a logical debate with you, ...

Did you know that only 10% of women are able to think logical? I doubt you can even think! No question about logical thinking yet. I am quite sure if you study computer science (not talking of software engineering or system administration, I mean all about computing = science) then you need to think different. Maths is not only calculating 1+1 = 2, 1+1 can also mean 10 if you do the addtion to the base of 2 ( called dual or binary. There are also octal and hexadecimal systems. The ordinary calculations today are based on decimal (means 10) system. I hope you do understand the trivials above (no logical abilities required here). :lol:

Kannuma, please don't take anything serious here, speaking from my own experience from the hub. I am really happy that a newbie is there and I only irritate you, provoke you. This is the best method to check you and your character. Put a smile on your face and lets go wild. I don't need to become matured or smart here, I only want to be entertained. There is no clapping hands if I don't oppose you. So let us fight. This hub is all in all only a platform where you, me, we both and several others dance. Some like bharatha naatiyam but I dance with you the waltz, jive, cha cha and rumba.

Take it easy, Kannuma.

Rohit

18th January 2005, 05:18 PM

I am Rohit, the original Rohit, now registered as "Rohith" as someone, who could not face up to me in the old forum hub in any debate I participated, hijacked my ID. The looser impostor eventually, out of frustration and repeated washed-up defeats, decided to hijack my ID “Rohit” with an ill intention to prevent me from using my own, original ID “Rohit” in the new hub. Everyone, who knows me as “Rohit” from the old hub, knows this fact of hijacking of my ID “Rohit” in this new hub.

Now I am back, with the same ID, which when pronounced, pronounces correctly as it really should do “Rohith”

Cheers!

Bad Boy

18th January 2005, 05:38 PM

Cheers!

Cheers Rohit!

As Kannuma cried for logical thinking 'The Personal Logics' is back :D :D

Rohit, you have been very very silent. That ID Rohit falsely occupied by RSS Thugs are not at all posting, so you can ask for the origin Rohit or I can do it for you!

Welcom back firend, waiting for logical operatiions :lol:

Rohit

18th January 2005, 06:44 PM

Bad Boy,

It is really “good” of you "Bad Boy" to greet me on my coming back. Anyway, I am not fussed with an addition of letter “h” to my original ID. Thanks!

Cheers!

Rohit

18th January 2005, 06:45 PM

Dear friends,

I have been following this and other threads on non-daily but regular basis. I found the current course of the debate, not new, but really interesting.

Aravindhan, Bad Boy, hehehewalrus, just_hubber, kannuma, r_kk, Raghu and all other participants, please accept my hearty greetings.

I will try to post my views on the topic as and when I think it will contribute or enhance the view for which I have strong and valid reasons to believe them to be so.

Till then, I will try to enjoy the debate. :wink:

Raghu

18th January 2005, 06:57 PM

Rohith Ji

welcome back, where have you been all these time?, any way good to see u back. :D

R_KK ji,

Your posting is based upon human(imortal) world, the questions I asked you were based upon a world, which is nothing to do this material world, I hope you see what I am trying to get at. :D

Melon Ji

Neengha Theevira 'Super*' rasigaiya irunthum babajiyai nakaladikureenghale, ithu thahumo, ithu muraiyo, ithu dharmam thaano :lol: :lol: :lol:

Cygnus

18th January 2005, 07:20 PM

Rohith,

Welcome back!!We knew of the id-hijack, but were guessing it would be given back to you, well, this is even better! :thumbsup:

I've been watching this thread eagerly. Recently, although there have been many profound ideologies explored here , the extensive religious preaching and the lack of objective light leaves a bad taste in one's mouth.

Cheers to the ones who keep this on despite other 'real-world' commitments. Finding time to write here must be hard work indeed.
Keep going, you have an avid fan list reading all your posts!

:)

Rohit

18th January 2005, 08:40 PM

Dear Raghu

Thank you for your friendly welcoming questions regarding my whereabouts. In fact I was caught in the “illusions” of worldly “Maya” as expressed by you in your posts, trying to free myself from the illusory, 'real-world' commitments as put by Cygnus.

If I recall it correctly, you were venturing into acting-carrier in films. How is your move into acting going? Please keep the interested fans of yours informed of your new coming releases.

Good luck! :wink:

Dear Cygnus,

How could I miss to thank you for the warm welcome? I hope, at least by doing that, I might just take some satisfaction towards fulfilling at least one 'real-world' commitment/obligation towards an unseen friend. :wink:

Raghu

18th January 2005, 10:27 PM

Dear Rohith

Thanks for getting back to me,Yes, everything in this imortal world is maya. er
I thought you did not believe in any of these aspects.

Yes, Film is Nearly Finishing, Two more songs to go and couple of Scenes, Then I will be
a serious Contendor for John Abrahim,Salman Khan in Hindi, Madhavn in tamil and Brad Pitt in hollywood!
:) :) Just joking, I will put our film poster, once I find a way around it and have some time free.

take care

Gatham Gatham */

Rohit

19th January 2005, 12:00 AM

Yes, everything in this imortal world is maya. er I thought you did not believe in any of these aspects.

Yes, I didn't believe in any of those and I still don't believe in any of those; I just responded to you using your own terminology. :wink:

19th January 2005, 04:15 AM

I mean without him how would we know whats right from wrong without our parents telling us. If we go to a club or something and decide to drink alcohol before the first drink some kind of instinct will show you that it is not a good idea and I feel that our concious is activated by his spirit otherwise there is no explanation everything would be experienced and done. Plus whenever I pray or read his word I feel a sense of security that watching TV doesnt give me. There is a God!!!

19th January 2005, 09:27 AM

Roshan

19th January 2005, 09:33 AM

It's done at last ! Anyways, better late than never :)

Congrats Rohit !!

You can have your original 'Rohit' ID now ! :thumbsup: :D

Rohit

19th January 2005, 02:13 PM

Dear RR,

Thank you RR for restoring my original ID. Please accept my hearty appreciation for executing your administrative role in such an equitable manner. Thank you. :)

Roshan,

Thank you Roshan :)

Bad Boy

19th January 2005, 05:44 PM

It would have ached my fingers a lot if I think of Rohit but had to type an "h" each and every time. :lol:

"Gott denkt, der Mensch lenkt" (God thinks, Human stears) a german proverb saying. We think of IDs and the HubAdMods stear. We are gods and Admods are humans. :lol:

Good Job RR! :thumbsup:
:wave:

Rohit

20th January 2005, 12:25 AM

I mean without him how would we know whats right from wrong without our parents telling us

Dear Menu,

That is a very good question and it does need addressing.

Let me try to explain how good and bad things react and interact in society:

Human understanding of right and wrong begins right from the beginning of humans’ developmental process known as “cognitive development”, the mental process by which knowledge is acquired through perception, reasoning, and/or intuition.

However, this is not to say that morality is something absolutely a self-learnt or a passed down behaviour. The combination of both, the taught values and the individual’s ability to judge and select right from wrong from experience, constitutes one’s overall judgement of moral values and their correct understanding.

Also, certain behavioural patterns considered “wrong” in one culture are not necessary considered “wrong” in other cultures and thus shows their origin in human cognition, which, again, shows significant diversity not only from culture to culture, but also from individuals to individuals.

Nonetheless, bad things in general, tend to hurt others and therefore they would not result in pleasant experiences, compelling both the victims and offenders to agree, formulate, learn and respect good conducts. Thus, the overall commutative learning process over a long period (centuries) would tend to integrate more good values in society than bad ones and establish “good” values as essential and necessary for human survival as social structures.

In that case, there is no agency outside human existence that could teach us right and wrong apart from our parents, who partly learnt these good values from their parents and society and partly developed their own ideas about what is good and what is bad, as they grew older. We are doing the same - partly learning from our parents and society and partly developing our own understanding of good and bad values as we grow older and learn from our own experiences. The next generation would do the same and such learning process, partly taught, partly self-learnt, goes on over generations and gets accumulated over periods as aggregate values.

I hope this would provide some basic idea of the overall process involved. :)

aravindhan

20th January 2005, 04:22 AM

Also, certain behavioural patterns considered “wrong” in one culture are not necessary considered “wrong” in other cultures and thus shows their origin in human cognition, which, again, shows significant diversity not only from culture to culture, but also from individuals to individuals.

Absolutely. And don't forget that ideas of right and wrong also change very drastically over time. When the British outlawed sati, some of our foremost intellectuals railed and ranted about how they were destroying our way of life. Money was collected to take a suit challenging the enactment all the way to the Privy Council. Today all of this seems astounding, because the practice seems so obviously wrong.

Thus, the overall commutative learning process over a long period (centuries) would tend to integrate more good values in society than bad ones and establish “good” values as essential and necessary for human survival as social structures.

Not necessarily. We humans tend to grow attached to our traditions with the result that they all too often end up being preserved, even though they're patently in conflict with what we claim as our basic values. We're also very good at rationalising these conflicts away, and pretending that they really don't exist. In other words, we don't necessarily learn, because we're stubborn.

*True* religion (as distinct from dogmatic religion) can help here, because it requires one to disengage from the world - to live in the world while at the same time not being wholly of it, as it were. But so can other disciplines, such as the social sciences and even ethical philosophy, because they have the ability to make us see what our society is really doing.

I see I'm moving away from the question of whether God exists to whether religion can be a force for the good. To get back to Menu-vaal's original point, in my opinon, arguing for God's existence because God is useful to explain morality is not a good idea. Arguments of this sort lead to God over time becoming a furitive creature of the "gaps" into which science cannot as yet cast light.

Rohit

20th January 2005, 05:50 AM

Not necessarily. We humans tend to grow attached to our traditions with the result that they all too often end up being preserved, even though they're patently in conflict with what we claim as our basic values.

Exactly that is why I wrote: the overall commutative learning process over a long period (centuries) would tend to integrate more good values in society than bad ones and establish “good” values as essential and necessary for human survival as social structures.

aravindhan

22nd January 2005, 03:18 AM

Exactly that is why I wrote: the overall commutative learning process over a long period (centuries) would tend to integrate more good values in society than bad ones and establish “good” values as essential and necessary for human survival as social structures.

And I was trying to say I remain unconvinced that we necessarily improve over time.

Rohit

22nd January 2005, 03:57 PM

And I was trying to say I remain unconvinced that we necessarily improve over time.

Also

Today all of this seems astounding, because the practice seems so obviously wrong.

Such is the nature of social reactions for adopting something that was not so obviously “wrongs” due to faulty cognition and such is the nature of social interactions influencing the realisation of such “wrongs”. This shows its roots to cultural diversity, which, again, to human cognition and nothing more; and not to forget, religious practices are nothing more than the inventions of human cognition.

This is one of the ways, which explain how good and bad things react and interact in general.

aravindhan

22nd January 2005, 04:37 PM

Such is the nature of social reactions for adopting something that was not so obviously “wrongs” due to faulty cognition and such is the nature of social interactions influencing the realisation of such “wrongs”.

I think where I disagree with you is in the value you attach to cognition. Human cognition, by itself, is a rather limited tool. We realise that something is "wrong" when it becomes obviously incommensurable with our other values. But cogniton by itself is not sufficient to make us realise this. Some of the world's leading moral thinkers have justified fairly horrible practices. Think of Aristotle's ideas on slavery (not to mention most of the other Greeks'), Plato's views on liasons with young boys, Kant's views on "inferior races" (categoric imperative notwithstanding), Thomas "all men are created equal" Jefferson's treatment of his slaves, and so on.

The values which "true" religion cultivates - humility, reflectiveness, a willingness to question oneself and everything one does - are of more help, as are the values which the "scientific temper" promotes. But very often it takes a huge "rupture" in a society's normal progress to really make us see that what we're doing is "wrong". A good example would be colonialism in India, which produced several generations of social reformers - not because we were exposed to the west's "superior ideas", but because the dismantling of our traditional institutions forced us to rethink what they were really trying to achieve. But in the absence of this sort of "shock" or of a general taking-hold of the sort of values I discussed above (neither of which has much to do with cognition), societies are as likely to stagnate in their practices as to improve.

Bad Boy

22nd January 2005, 06:02 PM

Some of the world's leading moral thinkers have justified fairly horrible practices. Think of Aristotle's ideas on slavery (not to mention most of the other Greeks'), Plato's views on liasons with young boys, Kant's views on "inferior races" (categoric imperative notwithstanding), Thomas "all men are created equal" Jefferson's treatment of his slaves, and so on.
Even at that time they knew slavery contradictory to their way of democracy. Athens is the first democracy I've learned. But they accepted the slavery because even at that time the wealth and money ruled.

Also, certain behavioural patterns considered “wrong” in one culture are not necessary considered “wrong” in other cultures and thus shows their origin in human cognition, which, again, shows significant diversity not only from culture to culture, but also from individuals to individuals.
For example
if you show your palm with thumb and forefinger tips put together (the rest of the fingers are straight and pointing up) means very good or superb or something special or superlative. In Italy the same sign means "You a--hole!"

aravindhan

22nd January 2005, 08:18 PM

Even at that time they knew slavery contradictory to their way of democracy. Athens is the first democracy I've learned. But they accepted the slavery because even at that time the wealth and money ruled.

No. Aristotle and other Greek philosophers held slavery to be a part of the natural human condition. Aristotle argues that the "lower sort of people" are "by nature slaves", because they are by nature inferior. Consequently, they must at all times be under the rule of a master. Aristotle goes on to imply that barbarians (i.e., those who were not part of Greek civilisation) are by nature slaves and it is fitting and proper that they be enslaved. See chapters 2, 5 & 6 of book 1 of his Politics.

You're probably thinking about the enslavement of prisoners of war, which Aristotle did in fact oppose. This was, however, because he believed that it was wrong to enslave civilised Hellenic warriors, since they were not of their nature slaves.

So for all the fine ethics of the Greeks and Romans, it was not until early Christianity challenged the basis of their society that the movement for the abolition of slavery gained any sort of ground. See, for example, the writings of early church fathers such as Ignatius of Antioch, Maximum, and even St. Augustine.

Of course, the Christian church changed its views once it became institutionalised - compare the writings of Pope Gregory I and St. Aquinas with St. Augustine, for example - and stayed firm in its new views until new post-reformation Christian movements such as the Quakers once again challenged the basis of Church doctrine and forced a rethink. But that just proves the point I'm trying to make, I think.

Rohit

22nd January 2005, 10:09 PM

I think where I disagree with you is in the value you attach to cognition. Human cognition, by itself, is a rather limited tool. We realise that something is "wrong" when it becomes obviously incommensurable with our other values. But cogniton by itself is not sufficient to make us realise this. Some of the world's leading moral thinkers have justified fairly horrible practices.

Just to list your own words and statements:

------------
I think……
We realise that something is "wrong" when it becomes obviously incommensurable with our other values.
Some of the world's leading moral thinkers have justified fairly horrible practices.
--------------
First of all, all these examples are the product of human cognition and nothing else.

The limitation of human cognition itself is the proof of it being at the root of human misconceptions, malpractice, reluctance and thus the cause of impedance being faced by society against change/adaptation in abandoning some of the most deep rooted social evils. At the same time, it is only the human thinking (cognition) that makes reforms, modifications, changes etc. in society and raises the level of thinking mode of the masses, gradually developing and enabling them to realise faulty, misconceived practices, irrespective of whether they are social or religious. You yourself provided examples of such gradual developmental processes by quoting various thinkers of various societies.

Therefore, I cannot see, think or conceive any other means by which such diversity and mutually incompatible social, religious practices along with equally diverse and mutually incompatible worldviews could ever evolve and coexist. Whether one was/is a moral thinker or a religious thinker, the history shows trails of horrible malpractices in all sect of life in every society of the world. There is no exception and the possibility of alternative ways of gaining knowledge/ignorance diminishes along with the existing human situation of their inaccessibility of such knowledge beyond human existence.

Rohit

22nd January 2005, 10:40 PM

Further to my above response to Aravindhan, I would like to add:

The belief, that human “goodness” or morality is the sole responsibility of religion, is obviously proving fallacious from the countless events of heedless religious wars and religious oppressions history has witnessed and still being witnessed in recent times. All it proves is that, along with all the "ugliness" and "dirtiness", the human “goodness” or “morality” must have existed before religions (or Gods) were invented.

Psychologists have developed several cognitive rationales explaining the psychological aspects of moral judgement in humans.

There are three main progressive stages of human morality.

1. Pre-conventional morality: Involves compliance with rules to avoid punishment and gain rewards.
2. Conventional: Involves conformity to rules that are defined by the authority or society (or religion).
3. Post-conventional: Involves moral reasoning on the basis of individual principles and conscience.

As one can see, each subsequent stage of moral development relies on higher cognitive abilities on the part of society or individual than the preceding stage; and it the last stage, the Post-conventional stage, where the judgement of morality is left to the intellectual abilities of individuals.

aravindhan

22nd January 2005, 11:31 PM

ரோகித் வாள்! I'm finding this discussion stimulating and interesting, and I hope I don't sound too forceful or aggressive. I certainly don't mean to.

At the same time, it is only the human thinking (cognition) that makes reforms, modifications, changes etc. in society and raises the level of thinking mode of the masses and gradually develops enabling them to realise faulty, misconceived practices, irrespective of whether they are social or religious.

Perhaps we are talking past each other. I do not disagree that everything is the product of cognition. But rational cognition is neutral. We cannot be certain that it will guide us towards a better society, rather than towards - for example - Nazisim or genocide. It could do either.

The belief, that human “goodness” or morality is the sole responsibility of religion, is obviously proving fallacious from the countless events of heedless religious wars and religious oppressions history has witnessed and still being witnessed in recent times. All it proves is that, along with all the "ugliness" and "dirtiness", the human “goodness” or “morality” must have existed before religions (or Gods) were invented.

Agreed. Just as the numerous wars of the 19th and 20th century fought for atheistic ideologies justified in the name of science and progress (colonialism, communism, fascism, liberalism, the free market) have demonstrated that rational cognition, too, is as capable of doing evil as good. People are quite capable of subverting any institution to serve their own rapacious ends.

You yourself provided examples of such gradual developmental processes by quoting various thinkers of various societies.

Yes, and I can also cite examples where it hasn't. Slavery persists, prostitution and exploitation of women persist, the caste system persists and is increasingly being justified by apologists, ethnic hatred persists, political exploitation of difference persists, utter immorality is more entrenched in politics and international relations today than at any other time in recent history. I could go on. There is no sign that any of this is going to change at any point of time in the future, and each one of these continues to find plenty of people to justify and practice them.

it the last stage, the Post-conventional stage, where the judgement of morality is left to the intellectual abilities of individuals.

Which creates societies that produce Kissingers, Stalins, Saddams, PNAC, and Abu Ghraib. A morality which leaves each person to decide what is moral or immoral for him, with no foundational guiding principles, is not really worth very much.

Thinking, rational cognition, and the intellect can be used for good or evil. Our cognition will not necessarily direct itself along the "good" path. I'm not arguing that a return to a rigid, conventional morality will provide the answer - it clearly didn't when it was the norm, and I don't think a rigid, institutionalised set of principles can ever be dynamic enough to meet the needs of society. But placing our faith solely in rational cognition as the provider of a better future is really not going to leave us much better off.

adiyen,

Aravindhan

Rohit

23rd January 2005, 01:51 AM

Thinking, rational cognition, and the intellect can be used for good or evil. Our cognition will not necessarily direct itself along the "good" path. I'm not arguing that a return to a rigid, conventional morality will provide the answer - it clearly didn't when it was the norm, and I don't think a rigid, institutionalised set of principles can ever be dynamic enough to meet the needs of society. But placing our faith solely in rational cognition as the provider of a better future is really not going to leave us much better off.

There no way out of this vicious circle, the irrefutable human condition that exists; whether involving any institutionalised set of principles or not. Nonetheless, as I have said, through mutual social interactions, humans as social structures, have to collectively identify their social needs through rational thinking and pave their own ways for their good survival.

So, once we agree that the root of good or evil lies in human cognition; and that is what I addressed in my response to Menu, the choice of which stage to follow, out of the three progressive stages of human morality one is intellectually fit for, rests with individual.

aravindhan

23rd January 2005, 04:51 AM

So, once we agree that the root of good or evil lies in human cognition; and that is what I addressed in my response to Menu, the choice of which stage to follow, out of the three progressive stages of human morality one is intellectually fit for, rests with individual.

You know, this would work quite well in a world of perfect, unselfish other-regarding beings. It won't work in the real world, because if one leaves it to each individual to decide what moral rules bind them, it's almost inevitably bound to be a race to the bottom. This has been demonstrated scientifically - the Stanford Prisoner Experiment of 1971 comes to mind right away.

Rohit

23rd January 2005, 05:56 AM

Yes, that is why this is a vicious circle, bound by the irrefutable reality of human cognition, there is no way out other than one’s own grasp of what is “good/right” and whats is “bad/wrong”. Evidently, that proves no amount of institutionalised and/or imposed rules would work for some and with 100% effectiveness, whether it is imposed under law and order or under any other set of rules, but one always has a choice for executing their moral judgement under one of the the three stages I listed, which never goes away.

Raghu

31st January 2005, 09:28 PM

Dear Rohit,

One question I always wanted to ask you?

Do you believe in GOD or not, and provide any justification to back your answer.

in the 'Ghosts' topic, I said, I would write up about 'Maya', but that is not the appropriate place, I will try and write it up here, very soon, It will be a very big post, so please bare with me.

thanks :D

Rohit

1st February 2005, 12:25 AM

Do you believe in GOD or not, and provide any justification to back your answer. thanks :D

Dear Raghu,

I think, you will to have read all my previous posts in this thread and others to understand my justification and proof for the non-existence of both an impersonal God, the system that prescribes no separate reality to the physical world – i.e. world is an illusion/maya - and a personal God, the system that prescribes separate rality to both God and the physical world i.e. the physical world is real and not illusion/maya.

I hope you must have clearly noticed and realised the diffrence and contradiction that is created and exists between the two God systems.

Over to you Raghu, just get going. Good Luck :D

Rohit

1st February 2005, 12:28 AM

Raghu please also go through a lengthy discussion in
http://forumhub.com/indhistory/7691.17.22.02.html

Click old responses till from where you can start to understand the basics of the whole argument.

Rohit

1st February 2005, 01:00 AM

hehehewalrus

1st February 2005, 01:36 AM

Rohit, u have given an actress gallery site to an upcoming actor :P

Rohit

1st February 2005, 02:15 AM

Rohit, u have given an actress gallery site to an upcoming actor :P

Hehehewalrus, I suspect you are confirming Raghu's claim that everything is an illusion/maya; you must have landed your vision on an illusions/maya of the actress galleries, that's all, nothing much to worry about. Raghu will surely be happy to read that. :lol:

aravindhan

1st February 2005, 03:36 AM

Raghu, let me remind you that it is not advisable to post material from a perticular religious doctrine, which is rejected by more than 90% of the world's religious population; as that will lead to a series of contradicting religious views and the thread would not serve its intended purpose.

It's hard to discuss the concept of the divine in the abstract, and when this thread tried to do so it ended up turning into a discussion on whether the Bible was literally true or not. I personally find the idea that one can prove or disprove God's existence quite mindboggling. What I'd find more interesting (and more useful) is a discussion on why each of us believes (or does not believe) in God. Anyone else up for it?

hehehewalrus

1st February 2005, 03:53 AM

Rohit,
arent u aware that Raghu is himself a star in the tinsel world? :)

Rohit

1st February 2005, 03:59 AM

What I'd find more interesting (and more useful) is a discussion on why each of us believes (or does not believe) in God. Anyone else up for it?
Below is what I have been saying for a long time about the believer’s psyche behind their beliefs in some supernatural “entity”. This applies to all believers with 100% certainty; there are no exceptions.

God begins when situations start to pose severe limitations on individual’s ability to find answers and solve so many puzzles and mysteries surrounding him/her. People with such mental orientations can only go without such imaginative support as far as their thinking guide them and as long as they succeed in achieving their intended goals in an environment they are familiar with and which they have, more or less, taken it for granted.

As things get more complex and go beyond their conceptual grasp, people often find themselves running into unknown territories and find themselves severely handicapped, helpless and they feel insecure under those situations. This is the time when they seek refuge in their imaginative saviour, the God. Psychologically, this serves as the pressure reliever and saves them plunging into panic modes. The temporary transfer of mental stress to an imaginative power allows them to revisit the problem at a later time with composed minds and they frequently succeed in resolving the crisis, building their faith in God even stronger.

As this tendency continues, they rely lesser and lesser on their own efforts and rely more and more on God, who now have occupied a real psychological place in their minds and believed to guide them in crisis.

Rohit

1st February 2005, 04:07 AM

Rohit, arent u aware that Raghu is himself a star in the tinsel world? :)

:)

Rohit

1st February 2005, 04:23 AM

It's hard to discuss the concept of the divine in the abstract, and when this thread tried to do so it ended up turning into a discussion on whether the Bible was literally true or not
I never have read any post from anyone that attempted to do just that and precisely that is why the situation ended up as it did. So, please don't bring any religious "books" in the discussion, as a significantly large section of the world's religious population would reject them.

aravindhan

1st February 2005, 04:42 AM

Below is what I have been saying for a long time about the believer’s psyche behind their beliefs in some supernatural “entity”. This applies to all believers with 100% certainty; there are no exceptions.

I was actually hoping people would discuss the reasons behind their views, not speculate as to why they think others hold the views they do.

God begins when situations start to pose severe limitations on individual’s ability to find answers and solve so many puzzles and mysteries surrounding him/her.

So in your opinion only feeble-minded people believe in God? This reminds me of the religious view that it is only extremely spiritually blind or handicapped people who disbelieve in God. I'm not sure exactly what it is about this question that seems to lead people to take extreme positions, but anyway...

Rohit

1st February 2005, 04:47 AM

Please goahead with your "poised" views. :)

mellon

1st February 2005, 04:51 AM

This reminds me of the religious view that it is only extremely spiritually blind or handicapped people who disbelieve in God. .

What exactly mean by "relgious view" here?

What do you mean by "spirutually blind" and what is the "antonym" for such a phrase????

Please spell it out for us, Mr. Aravindan

Rohit

1st February 2005, 04:56 AM

r_kk

1st February 2005, 05:11 AM

Hi Rohit/Aravindan,
Most of your arguments are very interesting. Human is very comfortable with the concept of God. It solace when human in trouble, gives hope when they are in unrecoverable loses. From most remote tribal society to educated urban, the concept of God is there in one or another form. Even some of the latest experiments shows that our brain is highly tuned (wired) for the belief on supernatural. Even if some one proves that the particular religious belief is not correct as per science or science explains the ultimate truth, then also human will find another god or create another God.

As Aravindan said, the abstract arguments are very hard for believers since the belief system doesn’t work fully with logics. For example, when Lord Ganesha was drinking milk, many so called educated people (including Seshan, the formal election commissioner) went to temple and started feeding milk. They just ignore other possibilities. There are so many so called supernatural experiences makes the people to believe beyond logics. Even though the present day science provide answers for near death experience, hallucination, visualization of God or Ghost (interesting to note that the things they see varies with their pre-defined perspective and cultural background), reincarnation stories etc… it is very easy and comfortable for a believer to believe rather than questioning.

I don’t think the concept of God can be discussed logically for long time by God believers. I had faced one of such arguments long back when I had discussion with my friend on Fritjof Capra’s books. I will try to summarize those arguments soon.

Rohit

1st February 2005, 05:19 AM

Dear r_kk,

Yes, please go ahead with your summary.

aravindhan

1st February 2005, 05:32 AM

What exactly mean by "relgious view" here?

Bad phrasing, sorry. "View of some relgiously inclined people" is what I should have said.

What do you mean by "spirutually blind" and what is the "antonym" for such a phrase???? Please spell it out for us, Mr. Aravindan

You'll have to ask the people who hold this view - there are plenty of them floating around Usenet, so it shouldn't be difficult to catch hold of one of them. From past chats with them, though, I think the opposite of "spiritually blind" would probably be "endowed with spiritual insight" (whatever that may mean). As I said before, I continue to be surprised at the vehemence debates about God's existence engender.

aravindhan

1st February 2005, 05:36 AM

I was actually hoping people would discuss the reasons behind their views, not speculate as to why they think others hold the views they do.
I don’t know how people can express their views, with or without speculations, but devoid of thinking. I would be obliged if someone can demonstrate the precise technique. :)

Errr... I meant I was hoping you would discuss why you don't believe directly, not why (in your opinion) religious people believe.

I've made the reasons why I personally believe in God fairly clear in a previous post (http://forumhub.lunarpages.com/hub/viewtopic.php?p=47863&highlight=#47863) in this thread, and I don't think I can usefully add very much to that.

aravindhan

1st February 2005, 05:43 AM

For example, when Lord Ganesha was drinking milk, many so called educated people (including Seshan, the formal election commissioner) went to temple and started feeding milk.

The most interesting thing about that incident was that educated people seemed to be a lot more taken in by it than the unlettered. I was cycling home that evening, and I passed some college lads talking excitedly about the "miracle". Then I stopped at a pottikadai, and met a bunch of construction labourers there who were of the opinion that the whole thing was a rumour spread by the milk companies to make a quick buck.

But please try to keep "religion" (the core idea of the existence of God) and "superstition" (the various layers of myth, legend, belief, etc grafted onto that idea) apart. It'll help smoothen this discussion.

Rohit

1st February 2005, 06:47 AM

This reminds me of the religious view - "View of some religiously inclined people" - that it is only extremely spiritually blind or handicapped people who disbelieve in God.
With reference to the above quote and the discussion we had earlier on morality, I can assertively say that if the “believers” hold such views, then they only confirm what I have said earlier in my original post, that their minds cannot think/function correctly.

Since,
1) Buddhism is a highly spiritual religion, and it is followed by 100s of millions of people.

2) One the most important founding pillars of Buddhism is constructed on moral principles.

3) Buddhism does not prescribe the belief in God.

So, by all three counts, the arguments presented by aravindhan get totaly nullified and invalidated to insignificance, I am afraid. :)

just_hubber

1st February 2005, 11:57 AM

Since,
1) Buddhism is a highly spiritual religion, and it is followed by 100s of millions of people.

2) One the most important founding pillars of Buddhism is constructed on moral principles.

3) Buddhism does not prescribe the belief in God.

Rohit , you are keep on telling here , "dont bring any religion specific data here then what you are doing here by posting about Buddhism .,

And also you have only part of the data , here is the full picture ,

1. Christianity: 2 billion

2. Islam: 1.3 billion

3. Hinduism: 900 million

4. Secular/Nonreligious/Agnostic/Atheist: 850 million

5 .Buddhism: 360 million

Out of 360 Million of Buddism [except well educated people of buddha teachings and monks ]
There are so many majority of buddhism people from china and korea.. still projecting Buddha as a God , and they worship with so many statues to represent him , so your argument is not valid either

Rohit

1st February 2005, 12:48 PM

Just_hubber,
Please read more on the original teachings of Buddha and only then comment. However, Buddhism is neutral towards other religious beliefs. I only raised this in response to the comments by previous posters to make the precise point that it is not advisable to bring such arguments anyway. :)

Rohit

1st February 2005, 12:50 PM

Just_hubber,

Thanks for the statistics for the benifit of all readers. :)

Bad Boy

1st February 2005, 04:45 PM

Hi Rohit,
regarding logics please let me explain my logical abilitiy.
What is logic for me:
When I take a shower I get wet.
Without my feet I can only move not walk.
It is logical for me to add 1 to 1 if you find a plus.
It is also logical for me to switch from dezimal to dual, octal or hexadizimal systems, actually the way of thinking is the same.
It is logical for me not to speak Tamil in Germany. I don't say it is wrong to speak Tamil in Germany (there are only few who may understand Tamil in Germany) but it is also logical for me not to explain everything to Rohit.
it is also logical if I don't proceed with my analysis of logics. :lol:

aravindhan

1st February 2005, 05:19 PM

So, by all three counts, the arguments presented by aravindhan get totaly nullified and invalidated to insignificance, I am afraid. :)

Rohit-vaal, for the third time, I'm not arguing for (or against) the existence of God. I don't think it's an issue that can be settled by argumentation, and these arguments always seem to descend into bitterness and / or ad-hominem attacks on the mental competence of people who hold a different view (as posts in this thread readily evidence). It serves no useful purpose, in my opinion, and I really don't know how I can make this any clearer.

scorpio

1st February 2005, 05:22 PM

Hi Raghu and others,

In my opinion, the answer to the topic is a big 'Yes'. There is one supreme power that controls everything that happens in this world. That power has different names depending upon one's religious leanings.

What happens once we die? I would have just said we die and thats the end of us, had you asked this question 6 months back. Sometime ago, I had an opportunity to meet a Medium who helped me to get replies for some hard-pressing issues from my deceased relatives who are in the 'other world' presently. To my surprise, all that was communicated to me ( of course, thru' the medium) was 100% correct (it had some future predictions too). I had visited the medium more than four times as on date and this is what i could gather-

1. Only our physical bodies die, but there is no end for the soul (or the spirit)
2. After death, we very much 'live' in the spirit world.
3. There is nothing called as 'heaven' or 'hell' as we would have believed.
4. After we pass on to the other world, we are definitely taken thru' a rewind of the immediate earthly life and made to understand our shortcomings.
5. Souls that understand and mature in the journey of seeking love and harmony progress into higher levels in the other world before re-birth while those who do not, get re-born comparitively early.
6. As the souls reach higher spheres, they can feel more pronouncedly, the presence of GOD, the supreme power.

I was ridiculing past-birth experiences that I've read elsewhere before, but now, I think they are true.

The moral of the story is - To be good and do good as long as we have this physical life.

rw_2005

1st February 2005, 08:01 PM

-deleted-

Raghu

1st February 2005, 10:49 PM

-deleted-

Sudhaama

2nd February 2005, 12:50 AM

Oh!.... GOD .!!! ...... Do YOU... ???..... Exist .. ???????

One Pilgrimage-Tourist Bus proceeding towards Guruvayoor.... at late midnight hour... carrying 47 Pilgrims.... One Lady of about 50.... sitting in the Back-seat.... in the midst of Sound-sleep ....suddenly gets awaken .... at 02-10 hours....AM... while most of the Co-passengers are snoring .... but four members of one family sitting just by her side chatting in a low-voice.... one young man sitting awake, murmuring a Cinema-tune..... One Old-man gazing on the Sky... One young man in the adjacent back-seat, restlessly watching his watch and the Road in front alternately.

... But Ah!.... this Lady.... wide awake... tries to sleep... but fails.... and then .... she starts chanting... Vishnu-Sahasranaamam .... at 02- 52 hours.... AM...

And Oh! -------- !!!.... the Major ACCIDENT !! ....at 02-58 hrs.... PAST MID-NIGHT !!.... while the Bus crossing an unmanned Level-crossing.... had a collition with a fast-running Express-Train.... dragging it .... for about 700 feet.... finally throwing it out .... forcefully into a Side-ditch... killing on the spot 23 persons including children.... and 24 seriously injured.... out of which 3 breathed their last.... one by one... in the Hospital ... within 14 days.... leaving 3 physically handicapped inexplicably the worst .... and 13 .... moderately Handicapped...!!!.

.... But .... But.... But... Sparing this ... SOLE-SOUL .... HUMAN-BEING ... Lady of 50.... who was holding her back-bar.... And then... strenuously had to climb out of the VERTICALLY STANDING Bus by breaking the Back-Glass.... by means of ... what....?????.....some Tourist-object .... far-off to reach ... being too far for access... and had to struggle .... in the midst of .... loud cries, weeps, sighs and murmurs.... finally jumps out... of the Helly-Bus.... Could not get up ... due to steep VERTICAL fall from ... about 15 feet height.... but....

Oh!!-------- !!!.... She escapes.... unhurt !!.... barring severe Sprains, Catches, and Bleeding- Scratches all over her body..... gradually gets up .... at 03-36 Hrs.... AM... yes, about midnight.... at Pitch-dark .... in the Winter-month of Maarhazhi (December).... in the shivering cold .... CRAWLS forward.... then slowly limps .... step by step.... towards the NEAREST VILLAGE... for a distance of .... about TWO KM !!....

.... Knocks at several doors of that nearest village ! ... at about 2 KM !!.... in that Unearthly Hour..... requests frantically one after another... several villagers.... seeking INMMEDIATE HELP ... without waiting for Day-dawn ONLY after JUST 2 Hours .... and...

... Consequently.... 24..... innocent Victims .... SERIOUSLY INJURED.... Humans ....

... belonging to all the mosaic of Indian Communities....

.... were taken to Different Hospitals ....

.... Thus .... SAVED ALIVE !!! .... Yes .... 20 + 1 .... !!!

But OH!------- !!!... WHO ?.....or.... WHAT ??.... Saved this Lady alone..... ???... For.... ????????

Sparing her .... in FULL-SHAPE !...... WITHOUT ANY HANDICAP !!!

Hae ! The Unseen, Unknown, Immanent, Transcendental...Inexplicable....
Hae ! The so called Omnipotent....Cosmic-Power .... ............ . Are YOU???......EXISTING ?????
Hae ! The So called Nature-power ............................... Are YOU???........EXISTING ?????
Hae ! The So-called Idol-powers in Temples ..... ........... Are YOU???..... EXISTING ?????
Hae ! Unseen Abstract Power in Gurudwaras,
Mosques, Churches and such other Holy Centres....
. ... all over the World.................. ...................Are YOU???... EXISTING ?????

Hae! Guruvaayoorappaa !!!They came to see You ....... Are YOU ???. EXISTING ??????
Hae! Naaraayanaa !!!.... . In Search of You.... ...... Are YOU ???. EXISTING???????

If so... ANY-ONE of YOU... please FILL-UP ....THE DASHES ....
following the ... "Ohs" here .....we left out ...........................................BLANK !!!!!!..

Since we are Still .................................................. .............................. BLINKING !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

But... ONE ! .... THING !! ...... SOMETHING !!! ....

... SURE (?) .... we know ...... That ........ WE ARE !!! ...... EXISTING !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

malligai

2nd February 2005, 01:36 AM

Srini,

just because an old lady was saved in an accident, that doesnt prove the existence of God...

or r u saying that she was saved bcos of chanting the Vishnu Sahasranaamam?? :roll:

if this proves that God does exist, then what about all those innocent and gullible devotees who r being killed in accidents on their sacred yaatra and in stampedes...what does that prove??

all chances r not miracles...

Sudhaama

2nd February 2005, 02:07 AM

Manhamihu MALLIHAIYAE ,

I am SUDHAAMA in this Dais.... But if you like SRINI only.... please ... peep into .... my Home... the Mail.... you will see SRINI there....

Not only there.... you can see .... SRINI... within.... SUDHAAMA... also... and VICE-VERSA...

... because it is VISIBLE only by TASTE...

.... as also SMELT only by the TONGUE ....

.... of the Double Inner-meanings of both... the PUN-WORDS.

Regarding... your Point.... My Answer is your Question .... and...

.... My Question is your Answer....

So... You have to Find out.... and .... CONVINCE .... Yourselves First...

... And also JUSTIFY ... in a NON-PHILOSOPHICAL ....Language.

My interest is to see....HAPPILY... You.... ANSWER.... RIGHT....

..... "I" .... the least.... and the.... last.

So to say ..... the Ball is... in the BLINKERS' COURT .... NOT IN MINE.

malligai

2nd February 2005, 02:14 AM

SUDHAAMAA...Uu replied already?? :D

'eye of the beholder' nu solareengala??...ok. ok...we interpret different things in different ways...what is one man's junk can be another man's treasure right??

(this is the sentence we use when we go to 'garage sales' :lol: :lol: )

geno

2nd February 2005, 02:20 AM

Sudhama,

Please can you re-consider - reviewing the "style" of your writing? :)

You can do with a cutting down of caps please - i suggest that you use "quotes" instead of caps - for the words that you intend to "highlight".

Thanks :)

Sudhaama

2nd February 2005, 03:31 AM

Yes.. please... Mr. Geno... Agreed... noted for the future.

hehehewalrus

2nd February 2005, 04:12 AM

and we should thank our great British Emperors for that, who colonised 1/3 of the world and preaching ...

Raghu, who told you the british emperors were christian or even colonised 1/3 of the world??
Have you any basic idea as to when britain became a superpower?

Why do you think Srilankan cricketers have names like De Silva which are portuguese and not english?

You have spent your life in both Srilanka and UK and your GK of these two countries is next to nothing.

thanks for the amusement though :)

Rohit

2nd February 2005, 04:54 AM

Dear Raghu,

You have said everything that you must. Anyway, your post hoc views do seem to draw some conclusion but not the one that you have just drawn. :)

Be careful you are on a slippery slope; keep throwing red herrings while on the long slide. :lol:

mellon

2nd February 2005, 05:16 AM

Aravindhan!

Thanks for your response :)

Rohit

2nd February 2005, 05:22 AM

I meant I was hoping you would discuss why you don't believe directly, not why (in your opinion) religious people believe.

Please refer to my earlier post addressed to Raghu and the link provided, you will know exactly why I don't believe and that why such beliefs in a non-existent "entity", postulated variously; are utterly nonsensical.

Raghu

2nd February 2005, 06:26 PM

sudhama,

Neengha Krishnanin uyir nanban aayitre, appa neenghalum en nanbhar thaan 8) 8)

HHW,

Dear Respected Sir, :lol: :lol: :lol:

I have missed the Dutch and the Portuguese, in my list of emperors who introduced
Christianity to the Asian Sub Continent, I have told many times to dumbo's like you :poke:
I type in hurry most of the time , my window is minimised , so that my boss don't see it, hence such mistakes
are bound to be made. You being one of the 3 wise men, should tolerate such mistakes!!

Now coming back to the subject you highness, due to your lack of Raja Veda :lol: :lol: you are not able to
post anything thing relevant to the topic, kind request sir, please post some thing relevant to the topic,
we can discuss cricket and the Portuguese names like De Silva, Mendis and the rest in the history topics. :lol: :lol:

Rohit,

Thanks, Detailed explanation of 'Maya' will follow shortly to enlighten you from this world :wink:

just_hubber

4th February 2005, 09:21 AM

microbiologist Michael Denton ,in his book, Evolution: Theory in Crisis, argues persuasively that the extreme complexity of life at the cellular level, a complexity that science has yet to fully unravel, has presented hurdles that the tired horse of evolution couldn't even dream of leaping. Biochemist Michael Behe, in his book, Darwin's Black Box, demonstrates how an irreducibly complex system, such as that required for the seemingly simple feats of blood-clotting or the movement of flagella, would require an all-or-nothing change that would be absolutely impossible for randomness to account for.

When writing Shattering the Myths of Darwinism, science journalist Richard Milton , he also demonstrates how the evolutionary establishment actually bans certain scientific articles from their journals if the author is a creationist (It doesn't matter if the article has scientific merit.) or if the science in the article dares question the validity of evolution.

What is "intelligent design?" When I start exercising with my weights and my nose opens wider, I breath deeper for my heart needs more oxygen and my heart beats faster to supply the power. When I stop my exercise, my heart beat returns to normal. A cut would not heal, cells would not divide and you would not grow to a certain size and then stop growing if there was not intelligent design. Everything on the earth was created with intelligent design, for God created it.

Raghu

4th February 2005, 05:44 PM

Dear Rohit,

please comment on the foloowing.

Either the scientists or speculative philosophers have yet arrived at any conclusion concerning the cosmic situation. All they have done is posit different theories about it. Some of them say the material world is real, while some say it is a dream, and yet others say it ever exists. In this way different views are held by mundane scholars, but the fact is that no mundane scientist or speculative philosopher has ever discovered the beginning of the cosmos world or it’s limitations, no one can say, when it began and how it floats in space, they may come up with theories about the law of gravity, but actually they can not put this into practical use. The actual fact is that this material world is full of miseries, that no one can overcome them by promoting some of this material theories.

:D

4th February 2005, 10:25 PM

Bad Boy

4th February 2005, 10:34 PM

Raghu,

are your film(s) also copied?

Rohit

5th February 2005, 12:28 AM

Dear Just_hubber,

Thank you for the convoluted information on “intelligent design”

First, let me make this clear that Michael Behe admitted, in his book “Darwin's Black Box” that “on a small scale, Darwin’s theory has triumphed”. In other words, overwhelming evidences of evolution forced Behe to acknowledge that things do evolve, very reluctantly though.

When a molecule is proposed, which creationists believe to be irreducibly complex, there are plenty of evidences of the occurrences of molecular evolution by gene duplication, which drastically dilutes the creationists’ arguments of irreducible complexity. Creationists forget the fundamentals of the evolution theory, which boldly and very rightly proclaims that once you accepts microevolution, macroevolution comes free, and then, there is no escape, pushing the “intelligent design” concept right back to the very beginning.

Such states of affairs leave creationists with little armoury for backing their delusional claims. Moreover, the creationists’ claim for “intelligent design” using paraphrases such as, complexity of life, irreducibly complex systems, minuscule probability of life by chance, unlikely sequence of events etc. completely collapses by its own criteria, as proved below.

Let us normalise what is called as complexity - used by creationists to back their claim of “intelligent design” - with reference to the complexity of the supposed “intelligent designer”; then the resulting complexity for the supposed “intelligent designer” would equate to 1. Now this would allow one to map the entire complexity range between 0 and 1, starting with no complexity whatsoever to which all irreducibly complex objects must reduce to for evolution to remain valid; to the ultimate complexity of the supposed “intelligent designer” against which all other complexities are normalised.

Now let us evaluate how much water does the “intelligent design” claim hold.

According to “intelligent design” criteria, as the complexity “C” increases from 0 to 1, the probability P of something as complex coming into existence by chance, self-creation or self-design/evolution would decrease from 1 to 0 by default, otherwise the whole argument for the “intelligent design” collapses.

Now what these creationist oafs do is, they apply the product of these two quantities and derive the improbability IP of something as complex as life, coming into existence by chance, self-creation or self-design/evolution and then treat life as having an ultimate complexity.

In other words; they use IP = C * P as an argument to back “intelligent design”

Now let us carefully considers two boundary conditions: One at [C = 0, P = 1] and the other at [C = 1, P = 0]

At [C = 0, P = 1]

Putting these two values in IP = C * P, we get IP = 0 * 1 = 0

Which means, the improbability IP of something with “0” complexity coming into existence by chance, self-creation or self-design/evolution is "0". That is to say, the probability P of something with “0” complexity coming into existence by chance, self-creation or self-design/evolution is “1”, which is exactly the same as specified for the first boundary condition i.e. [C = 0, P = 1]

At [C = 1, P = 0]

Again, putting these two values in IP = C * P, we get IP = 1 * 0 = 0

Which means, the improbability IP of something with “1” complexity coming into existence by chance, self-creation or self-design/evolution is "0". That is to say, the probability P of something with “1” complexity coming into existence by chance, self-creation or self-design/evolution is “1”, but the result is in total contradiction with the originally specified condition for the second boundary i.e. [C = 1, P = 0]

So, one could clearly figure it out and see how creationists cheat and produce fallacious claims based on probabilistic fallacies. I have clearly demonstrated how creationists falsely derive “1” probability when the actual/original probability is “0”.

Even an ordinary teenage kid, when equipped with some basic knowledge on probability, could figure out the fallacies used by creationists in order to entertain their delusional claims used as wish fulfilment and support their beliefs in religious texts, when confronted with puzzles and complexities that create insecurity. :D

Rohit

5th February 2005, 12:30 AM

Dear Raghu, that was a perfect ad-hoc post to escape explaining worldly “illusion/maya” :)

Rohit

5th February 2005, 01:18 AM

I have clearly proved above that the probability for the existence of an “intelligent designer” is zero “0”

geno

5th February 2005, 04:08 AM

Everything on the earth was created with intelligent design, for God created it.

If that was so - why should Alexander Fleming discover/invent the "Penicillin"?!! :)

If "Bacteria" and "virus" are the handiwork and part of the "Intelligent design" - why should we create "anti-biotics" to "annihilate" or "control" them?

So, medicines are "anti-God" isnt it J-Hubber?!

Well - i can understand that you don't use Soaps, chemical-cleaners, anti-septic products - coz you would wanna "live" with "creations" of the "Intelligent designer"!

ain't that so? :)

geno

5th February 2005, 04:13 AM

Rohit! :D

Nice reading your thought-provoking posts!

I can imagine all the "miseries" that the "pogo kid" of yonder - underwent by your "pulverizing logic"!! :wink: :lol:

geno

5th February 2005, 04:18 AM

Raghu ji,

"mAyA" yAru? unga padathula vara "AyA"-vA?! :lol:

jOke sAmi! kOchikidAthinga!! :)

BTW, Rohit-kitta intha "illusion" kathai-vittu mAttikkAthinga!!

ippOvE solliputtEn! :)

Rohit

5th February 2005, 04:59 AM

Hi Geno; thanks! Let me tell you this, I notice in other threads that people seem to find exceedingly strenuous to counter your interrogative views. :)

geno

5th February 2005, 05:53 AM

Rohit! I should confess that i learnt the ropes from forumhub legends like Madurai veeran,g.dravid, and YOU!!! :D

Not that i'm such a very worthy "understudy!!" :wink: :)

Rohit

5th February 2005, 02:12 PM

Geno, one should never underestimate the power of thoughts. The whole world unfolds in pretty much real sense, only when one learns to manage one’s inner flow of thoughts and communicates and interacts with the world and environment with wholesome integrity. :)

Bad Boy

5th February 2005, 04:19 PM

Rohit, let me frankly tell you that I had been missing real Rohit for a long long time but now everything is washed away by your above post.

Geno, one should never underestimate the power of thoughts. ... :)especially of your foes! Of friends you don't have to care, therefor they are your friends. :thumbsup:

Rohit

5th February 2005, 05:12 PM

Geno, one should never underestimate the power of thoughts. ... :)especially of your foes! Of friends you don't have to care, therefor they are your friends. :thumbsup:

BB, I believe, I have no foes. I don’t know about existing foes whether they consider me as one; and if, that was/is so, I still don’t have foes, I am still the same Rohit as I was before, trying to infuse some sense in where I sense it lacking and/or failing in its management and integrity. :)

aravindhan

5th February 2005, 05:55 PM

According to “intelligent design” criteria, as the complexity “C” increases from 0 to 1, the probability P of something as complex coming into existence by chance, self-creation or self-design/evolution would decrease from 1 to 0 by default, otherwise the whole argument for the “intelligent design” collapses.

Actually, this flavour of the intelligent design argument is even more easily dismissed as a tautology. They *assume* that at ultimate complexity, the probability of evolution is zero, and then go on to claim they have "proved" it by... gasp... *using* the assumed probability!

But the probabilistic argument is rather primitive, and creationists today admit that improbability by itself does not eliminate the possibility of chance evolution. Instead, they resort to arguments based on information theory. They argue that the semantically meaningful and functional nature of the biological information (such as cellular DNA) present in organisms demonstrates "specified complexity". "Specified complexity" cannot be created by natural processes, as that would violate the law of conservation of information.

It seems to me that this argument is also fairly easily refuted, if one knows enough of the basis of information theory. The idea of information is closely connected with the notion of entropy in the natural sciences - Claude Shannon expressly relied on work done on entropy in physics and statistical thermodynamics to formulate his theories of information in communication systems. This means that the law of conservation of information is based on the same assumption as the second law of thermodynamics, namely, that we are dealing with a closed system.

But, unlike communication systems, biological organisms are not a closed system, and there is therefore no scientific basis to expect them to conserve information, and there is therefore no reason why specified complexity (in biological systems, as distinct from the communication systems that information theory was formulated to deal with) cannot evolve. Indeed, a proper application of information science (specifically, bioinformatics) to study biological organisms is casting much light on how these could have evolved naturally.

Relevant articles from wikipedia:

Information theory (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Information_theory)
Information entropy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Information_entropy)
Bioinformatics (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bioinformatics)

geno

5th February 2005, 08:32 PM

Rohit, I gave a pm for you :)

Rohit

6th February 2005, 03:45 AM

Thanks! If you notice in my post, the ultimate complexity was allocated to the “intelligent designer” and all other complexities were normalised against that.

Yes, Aravindhan, I am aware of that. I have learnt information theory in detail and I frequently come across works where I apply the theory. :)

just_hubber

7th February 2005, 09:29 AM

Rohit wrote:
Dear Just_hubber,
According to “intelligent design” criteria, as the complexity “C” increases from 0 to 1, the probability P of something as complex coming into existence by chance, self-creation or self-design/evolution would decrease from 1 to 0 by default, otherwise the whole argument for the “intelligent design” collapses.
)

Hi Rohit,
Why you are posting your failing theory so many times , regardless of how many times you post the same thing , it still fails ,
you should know the probability theory has limitation and fails when it is used wrongly(assumed wrongly)

Probability theory came to science as a way to avoid fearful implication of second law of thermodynamics. The second law implied that the whole universe is tending to Heat death. To day it also form the foundation on which quantum mechanics is constructed

The probability theory is a system theory. It speaks of a system that encloses millions of systems existing in an apparently random manner but predictable in probabilistic manner. The theory tells that the whole system exists between two states “0” and “1”. These limits are the least probable state. For a system that contains few millions of subsystem this is assumed as infinitely distant possibility. Probability Theory however does not exclude these limits.

The probability theory and its limits are best explained by a box having an imaginary partition that allows free movement of matter, but divides the box into left and right. The box is visualized to contain millions of tiny black and white balls in equal proportion in random motion. Now the

1] The limit “ 0 ” means when all the black and white balls finds it self on the left or the right. Here the concept of left and right breaks down. In other words the system is in total danger.

2] The limit “1” is the situation where all the white balls come to lie in the right and black in the left or vice versa. This invariably means a complete differentiation occurs and the whole gets initialized. The balance is restored back to the initial state or the time gets initialized for the time cycle to begin again.

I PROVED the weekness of Probabilty theory you used .

If God exists outside of time and space, and if He is the Creator of time and space, He obviously was not created! God began the beginning! This is why He says, “I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, the first and the last.”
God is the uncaused cause. God is the timeless eternal One. Since we are created beings and exist in a world limited by time, it is impossible for us to understand how God can always have existed.

It was the famous French scientist and Creationist, Pasteur, who provided the first scientific evidence that living things are not produced from non-living matter

Because oxygen in the atmosphere would destroy all possibility of life arising by natural processes, materialists wrongly assumed the atmosphere had no oxygen. [120] They also assumed it contained certain necessary ingredients, including ammonia, nitrogen, hydrogen, water vapor and methane. [121] However, it is well known that mixing these ingredients does not create life.

Many scientists are convinced that cells containing such a complex code and such intricate chemistry could never have come into being by pure, undirected chemistry. [139] No matter how chemicals are mixed, they do not create DNA spirals or any intelligent code whatsoever. Only DNA reproduces DNA.

The notion that... the operating programme of a living cell could be arrived at by chance in a primordial soup here on the Earth is evidently nonsense of a high order. [140]
(Evolutionist Sir Fred Hoyle)

Dr. Wilder-Smith was an honored scientist with three earned doctorate degrees. He was well-informed on modern biology and biochemistry. What, in his considered opinion, was the source of the DNA codes found in each wondrous plant and animal?

"... an attempt to explain the formation of the genetic code from the chemical components of DNA... is comparable to the assumption that the text of a book originates from the paper molecules on which the sentences appear, and not from any external source of information."

NOV

7th February 2005, 09:35 AM

To all discussants:

Please dont spam, i.e posting the same material in more than one thread.
Let me assure you that your target will definitely read the thread you have made your point, so anything more is just redundant.

Raghu

7th February 2005, 04:02 PM

Raghu
your above post is a complete copy paste from
http://www.prabhupadaconnect.com/BTG6.html

Please acknowledge the source when you post.

Hope you dont blame this mistake to your boss, your maidservant or your pet dog.

Dear Name less Mundum,

I have mentioned I am a follower of His Divine Bhativanada Swami Prabhuada, and I am writing my posts made on that, it shows your ignorant and you just want to prove your inferiority complexity by jumping up and down :lol: :lol:

and for your information, the post I made was from his Divine swamiji, and the book is called 'The Ultimate Self Realisation', happy now :wink: , if you don't have anything to post relating to the topic, I can understand your incompetence, typical nature of incompetence mundums, like you. :rotfl: :rotfl:

your posting style looks similar to our great bad boy :wink:

Sandeep

7th February 2005, 05:29 PM

I think i have posted this earlier but anyway I can't help but post it again.

You can accept him
You can deny him
But you cannot ignore him.

And just see how passionnate people are about GOD.

7th February 2005, 11:35 PM

Dear Name less Mundum,

I have mentioned I am a follower of His Divine Bhativanada Swami Prabhuada, and I am writing my posts made on that, it shows your ignorant and you just want to prove your inferiority complexity by jumping up and down :lol: :lol:

and for your information, the post I made was from his Divine swamiji, and the book is called 'The Ultimate Self Realisation', happy now :wink: , if you don't have anything to post relating to the topic, I can understand your incompetence, typical nature of incompetence mundums, like you. :rotfl: :rotfl:

Nalla Varthai pesa theriyaadha nee ellaam oru Swamiji bhakthan.....Avamaanam! nalla varthaikum ketta varthaikum vithyaasam theriyumaada unakku?? THOOOOOO!

Rohit

8th February 2005, 02:47 AM

Dear just_hubber

You are absolutely right about how the probability theory miserably fails creationists and their concept of “intelligent design” when they falsely assume “1” probability even when the default probability is “0” for the existence of non-existent entity. I am going to demonstrate and prove that again how you have done the same.

Given that you wrote:

For a system that contains few millions of subsystem this is assumed as infinitely distant possibility. Probability Theory however does not exclude these limits.

The probability theory and its limits are best explained by a box having an imaginary partition that allows free movement of matter, but divides the box into left and right. The box is visualized to contain millions of tiny black and white balls in equal proportion in random motion. Now the

1] The limit “ 0 ” means when all the black and white balls finds it self on the left or the right. Here the concept of left and right breaks down. In other words the system is in total danger.

2] The limit “1” is the situation where all the white balls come to lie in the right and black in the left or vice versa. This invariably means a complete differentiation occurs and the whole gets initialized. The balance is restored back to the initial state or the time gets initialized for the time cycle to begin again.

Using an analogy of a box, black and white balls of equal proportion cannot be considered representative of the type and the scale of the “entities” under question. Not only that, you have not clarified what exactly those limiting values “0” and “1” represent i.e. probability, complexities or something else. That is why, if you care to notice, I have used the concept of complexities as used for falsely supporting the ID, but I have normalised all complexities with respect to that of the ultimate complexity of the assumed “intelligent designer” , which includes everything under question. Only then I have derived the applicable probabilities at the two boundaries.

However, if you still fail to grasp the process of normalisation of complexities, please ask, I will explain it again in more detail.

In your example, which deals with a box, black and white balls, you haven’t specified what each coloured balls represent and what justification you have used to assume them in equal proportion. Nonetheless, in both cases, the probability of obtaining either state – i.e. all the black and white balls gathering on one side - and all the white or black balls gathering on the right or left or vice versa - would approach zero when the quantity of either balls approaches infinite.

So, all you have proved is that the concept of “Intelligent design” relies on a wishfully assumed probability of “1” when it’s actual probability is “0”, which I have already proved in my previous post.

Regarding thermodynamics and its laws, it definitely sounds that you have no idea whatsoever of what exactly thermodynamics is all about. Let me explain; the laws of thermodynamics and its processes are applicable only to closed systems having prescribed boundaries. The properties of all its contents must be definable, observable and their sates identifiable in terms of their values, including the entropy of the system. Though the system boundaries may move, but under no condition its contents should be allowed to leave or new contents be allowed entering it. This is how a closed system is defined.

Thus, if one treats universe as a thermodynamic system, then space and time become the two of the several prescribed boundaries within which everything should be observable, characterisable and the values of all the properties of its contents must be capable of proper evaluation. Nothing should leave it and nothing should enter it.

The rest in your post only confirms and proves it once more what I have already proved earlier about the assumed and manipulated probabilities for the existence of a non-existent entity and nothing more.

:)

Rohit

8th February 2005, 03:43 AM

If we treat the universe as a system, logically it can take four possible formats/states. All four of them allow us to characterise them as systems. Among the four, two systems have totally different and varied concept of God, but they both get rejected due to mutual comparison between the two and also through final mutual exclusion principle, leaving the two systems (in fact only one, but it easily accomodates the other) that could realise the present state of universe as we percive and experience it but without God of any form or function. ID is just a twisted version of the one that is already proved to be false and rejected. I have already discussed this and proved it earlier in this thread and other threads that God of any form or function doesn’t/can’t exist..

Rohit

8th February 2005, 05:26 AM

As I have often said this before, creationists are simply relying on false assurances derived form the known certainties “C” of scientific evidences/methods and then by combining them with whatever uncertainties “UC = 1-C” that exist on pertinent issues. They can’t avoid formulating their false assurances, which take the precise form A = C * (1- C). They keep mentioning all the certainties of known complexities of DNA, their constructions, molecular stability, method of duplication etc. and their ability to adapt (self-design/evolution) for their survivability, but then they raise some issues on the very same subject that are yet to be finalised. They claim "this and that" are not possible without the intervention of some outside entity when things start to become beyond their conceptual grasp. How on earth creationists accept things so selectively, just to falsely sustain their beliefs in something and ignore the way they use scientific evidences in support at one time and reject the same at other times when they start to threaten their belief system?

Well, whichever way creationists use scientific evidences, their false assurance, unfortunately, tends to converge to a value that approaches “0”.

In essence, their false assurance A = C * (1 - C) --> "0" zero as certainty "C"--> "1"

just_hubber

9th February 2005, 09:38 AM

rw_2005

9th February 2005, 11:21 AM

Raghu

9th February 2005, 06:49 PM

Dear Raghu, that was a perfect ad-hoc post to escape explaining worldly “illusion/maya” :)

Dear Rohit,

No man, I don't give up that easily :D , wait just a couple of more days, when my boss will be away :lol:

Raghu

9th February 2005, 06:53 PM

Raghu ji,

"mAyA" yAru? unga padathula vara "AyA"-vA?! :lol:

jOke sAmi! kOchikidAthinga!! :)

BTW, Rohit-kitta intha "illusion" kathai-vittu mAttikkAthinga!!

ippOvE solliputtEn! :)

Geno ji,

Aama, enga Ayya vum Maya, Unga Universal Xerox Nayaganum Maya thaan :rotfl: :lol:

Only Joking,

Geno Please wait couple of more days, for me to write about Maya and How one can attain Mukthi, through pure devotion and avoid this Karamic Cycle of Reincarnation :D

Bad Boy

9th February 2005, 07:25 PM

it is really painful to see how these guys use just "1" and "0" to prove the Non Existence of God.
Hope the readers can understand what i mean ,i just ignore this arguments and expecting the answers for other questions related to the complexity of Life which i listed earlier.

Are you having trouble to understand just two digits?

Yes, it was wrong of Rohit and others who understand more than only 0 and 1 not to think of the option that there are hubbers who do not even understand 0 and 1. I herewith excuse ourselves for being so ignorant.

But anyway, let me please explain those all who are not aware of the meaning of "1" and "0" how I understand it:
If something is inexistent we apply a zero to that because the ancient Indians discovered the zero and "defined" it as nothing or better spoken as something of no value or it is the indicator for nothing.
If something exists then we use "1" (we can also use x element of Natural numbers. Even here there is a difference depending on if you are here in Germany or not. I know that "0" is an element of Natural numbers all over but in Germany the "0" can only be an element of Natural Numbers if the N has an index 0. Else N € {1, 2, 3, ..., (infinte -1), infinite }

Rohit am I right or what do you say? Did I learn my lessons propperly?

Maxwell

9th February 2005, 08:41 PM

just_hubber

You can wakeup some one who is sleeping. But you can't wakeup some one who pretends sleeping. So don't bother.

The evidence is all around. The heavens declare the glory of God. The evidence is so obvious. A single living cell can't be produced by even the sophisticated labs. They are struggling all along for so many years in vain. where is the question of everything forming all by itself.

In his best-selling book, "A Brief History of Time", Stephen Hawking (perhaps the world's most famous cosmologist) refers to the phenomenon as "remarkable."

"The remarkable fact is that the values of these numbers (i.e. the constants of physics) seem to have been very finely adjusted to make possible the development of life". "For example," Hawking writes, "if the electric charge of the electron had been only slightly different, stars would have been unable to burn hydrogen and helium, or else they would not have exploded. It seems clear that there are relatively few ranges of values for the numbers (for the constants) that would allow for development of any form of intelligent life. Most sets of values would give rise to universes that, although they might be very beautiful, would contain no one able to wonder at that beauty."

Hawking then goes on to say that he can appreciate taking this as possible evidence of "a divine purpose in Creation and the choice of the laws of science (by God)" (ibid. p. 125).

Michael Turner, the widely quoted astrophysicist at the University of Chicago and Fermilab, describes the fine-tuning of the universe with a simile:

The precision is as if one could throw a dart across the entire universe and hit a bulls eye one millimeter in diameter on the other side.

God created everything with such a brilliance. He spoke in the past through his prophets. HE revealed him through his wonderful works. HE gave his written word. HE came down and lived among us. History is a witness to that fact. Even today HE is revealing himself to everyone who seeks him truely. If one cannot see that, yes it is really sad.

For them everything came by itself, including the computer they use, the dress they wear, the car they drive. :lol:

When they close their eyes in this world, they will see for themselves who GOD is. Alas! it will be too late.

Brilliantly said, rw. The nonbeliever will never realize how truly MARVELOUS God has created the universe. It is true..... no lab can create an artificial cell. NO LAB CAN CREATE SYNTHETIC RNA OR DNA AND USE IT TO DRIVE THE CELL FUNCTIONS. As PASTEUR proved, LIFE comes only from PRE-EXISTING life. I have read that they tried to give a MAN an artificial heart. He died within SIX months. NO ONE can create life, except GOD. LIFE is the greatest miracle..... a far greater miracle than the METAL JUNK used by atheists to prove the UNIVERSE was created from some PHONY combination of AMMONIA, CARBON DIOXIDE, METHANE, & OXYGEN. Do you know that compared to the LUBRICATING oil used by cars, the SYNOVIAL FLUID used by the body to lubricate JOINTS is 10000 times more efficient? If any MANUFACTURER of LUBRICATING oil could come up with a PRODUCT half as good as this, he would be a MILLIONARE in no time.

When these ATHEISTS close their eyes and open them, some will have CARDIOVASCULAR disease or LIVER PROBLEMS. When all the SYNTHETIC DRUGS mess up their internal BIOCHEMISTRY, the atheists will start SHOUTING to GOD in VAIN.

THIS IS THE POWER OF GOD. DRUGS DO NOT MAKE THE UNIVERSE GREAT. SCIENCE DOES NOT MAKE THE UNIVERSE GREAT. ONLY THE MIRACLE OF GOD, THE MYSTERY OF LIFE, REFLECTED IN THE UNIVERSE, DOES.

Raghu

9th February 2005, 08:56 PM

Rohit Sir,

You have some serious Competition here, dude :wink: :D

mellon

10th February 2005, 12:43 AM

LOOK who is here! *The moron of the millennium* has just arrived IN PERSON from the *home of lord Rama and sita*!

Brilliantly said, rw. The nonbeliever will never realize how truly MARVELOUS God has created the universe.

* It is true..... no lab can create an artificial cell. NO LAB CAN CREATE SYNTHETIC RNA OR DNA AND USE IT TO DRIVE THE CELL FUNCTIONS.

Well, including all the Gods, I suppose :lol: :lol: :lol:

*As PASTEUR proved, LIFE comes only from PRE-EXISTING life.

Was he a Scientist or God, genius?!

Answer that FIRST!

*I have read that they tried to give a MAN an artificial heart.

You READ?! huh!!!

I am SEEING people without BRAIN too, moron!!!

*He died within SIX months. NO ONE can create life, except GOD. LIFE is the greatest miracle

*a far greater miracle than the METAL JUNK used by atheists to prove the UNIVERSE was created from some PHONY combination of AMMONIA, CARBON DIOXIDE, METHANE, & OXYGEN.

*Do you know that compared to the LUBRICATING oil used by cars, the SYNOVIAL FLUID used by the body to lubricate JOINTS is 10000 times more efficient?

Yeah, yeah, yeah, SURE, I dont see why not? :lol: :lol: :lol:

*If any MANUFACTURER of LUBRICATING oil could come up with a PRODUCT half as good as this, he would be a MILLIONARE in no time.

Who is MILLIONARE, anyway?! :lol: :lol:

A new Hindu God??!!! :roll: :lol: :lol: :lol:

*When these ATHEISTS close their eyes and open them, some will have CARDIOVASCULAR disease or LIVER PROBLEMS.

Really?! :lol: :lol:

*When all the SYNTHETIC DRUGS mess up their internal BIOCHEMISTRY, the atheists will start SHOUTING to GOD in VAIN.

Yeah I am sure, you just use viboothi invented by your ancestors to cure for every diesease u are infected with I believe? :roll: :roll: :roll:

THIS IS THE POWER OF GOD. DRUGS DO NOT MAKE THE UNIVERSE GREAT. SCIENCE DOES NOT MAKE THE UNIVERSE GREAT. ONLY THE MIRACLE OF GOD, THE MYSTERY OF LIFE, REFLECTED IN THE UNIVERSE, DOES.

Yeah, sure, why dont you GO TELL the *tsunami victims and the families* that tsunami is ALSO POWER OF GOD, MORON!

hehehewalrus

10th February 2005, 02:15 AM

mellon rhymes with moron. Is that merely a coincidence or am I missing something?

Moronic me! :lol2: :lol2: :lol2: :lol2:

Maxwell

10th February 2005, 03:06 AM

If God did not create the cells, then the only possibility is that they randomly created themselves, via evolutionistic probability! But when one looks at the structure of the cell, one wonders how simple random GENE selection can create anything NEARLY as complex. Consider the following properties of cells.

(I) Specialized functions (following stem cell stage)

(II) Able to divide (except for neurons & hepatocytes)

(III) Able to communicate with other cells via electrochemical gradients

(IV) Able to fertilize an another cell (egg) and create life!

(V) Capable of MOBILITY (example, flagellum of bacteria, red blood cell, skeletal muscle fiber)

(VI) Able to SELECTIVELY move substances in & out of cytoplasm

(VII) Able to SELECTIVELY detect foreign invaders and effectively neutralize them (example, macrophage)

etc. etc. etc.

Now what is the size of a cell?

Eukaryotic: 10-100 um
Prokaryotic: 1-5 um
Nucleus: 10-20 um
Chloroplast: 2-10 um
Mitochondria: .5-5 um
HIV (Large Virus): 100 nm
Ribosome: 25 nm
Cell membrane: 7.5 nm thick
DNA double helix: 2 nm thick
H atom: .1 nm

Atheists will have you believe something that can be that small is randomly created via RANDOM mutations. Now let me give me this example. If you buy some furniture and bring it to your home, will it arrange itself on its own? Will the beds go to the bedrooms, the couches go to the sitting room, the dining table go to the dining room, etc? Assume you left all the furniture in the front balcony. Certainly, one day it will rain, one day it will snow, moonsoon will come, tsunami will come..... BUT FURNITURE IS NOT GOING TO ARRANGE ITSELF. FURNITURE WILL NEVER MOVE TO PRECISE LOCATION. Now see a CELL. How does a NUCLEUS know to have TWO membranes to keep the DNA? How does the cell know to keep the toxic LYSOSOMES enclosed in VESICLES? How come only WATER is capable of passive transport? Does ANY of this sound random to you? The natural state of the universe is disorder! But SOMEHOW, a cell possess an INNATE ability to organize itself. This is no accident! Random genetic mutations could not accomplish this in a billion yrs.

Rohit

10th February 2005, 03:12 AM

it is really painful to see how these guys use just "1" and "0" to prove the Non Existence of God.

That means our dear friend just-hubber and other believers, as expected, miserably failed to grasp the process of normalisation of complexities.

Let me reiterate the part of what I said earlier:

Now this - (i.e. after normalisation of all complexities with respect to the ultimate complexity of the supposed “intelligent designer”) - would allow one to map the entire complexity range between 0 and 1.

What is meant by the mapping of normalised complexities is that all possible complexities would now lie between these two limits defined by “0” and “1”. One could use as infinitely small fraction of normalised complexity as one wants as an increment and reach the limit “1”, defined for the supposed “intelligent designer”. Thus, in no way the normalised complexities are restricted to just two values i.e. “0” or “1” as falsely interpreted by our believer friends.

It is at this maximum normalised complexity “1” where the absolute probability P of something as complex, coming into existence uncaused, by chance, self-creation, self-design/evolution or other processes that one could think of as uncaused, would reach the “0” value by default. Anything that has a normalised complexity less than “1”, the absolute probability P of it coming into existence uncaused, by chance, self-creation, self-design/evolution or other processes that one could think of as uncaused, would be nonzero and always greater than “0”, evaluated for the “intelligent designer”

Thus, I have demonstrated it again, how the believers miserably fail when it comes to grasp the basics.

In his best-selling book, "A Brief History of Time", Stephen Hawking (perhaps the world's most famous cosmologist) refers to the phenomenon as "remarkable."
This is a brilliant example of creationists' slective reading. Perhaps our friend rw_2005 doesn't know that in the same book, Stephen Hawking has finally concluded "there is no place for a Creator"

Read more “Why Steven Hawking's Cosmology Precludes a Creator” - by Quentin Smith at:

http://www.secularhumanism.org/library/philo/smith_1_1.htm

For them everything came by itself, including the computer they use, the dress they wear, the car they drive.
When Buddhists type 1163 + 2623, all computers used by them return the value 3786
When scientists/agnostics/atheists type 1163 + 2623, all computers used by them return the value 3786
When Hindus type 1163 + 2623, all computers used by them return the value 3786
When Jews type 1163 + 2623, all computers used by them return the value 3786
When Muslims type 1163 + 2623, all computers used by them return the value 3786
When Christian type 1163 + 2623, all computers used by them return the value 3786

The same thing happens again when they all type:

2652 + 3217 and get the same answer equal to 5869
7923 +7824 and get the same answer equal to 15747
1410 +3504 and get the same answer equal to 4914

Whatever I have typed and posted here could be accessed by billions and they all would read it with 100% accuracy, including any typo errors, without any loss of information.

Similarly the cars, TV, Radios, washing machines, cell/mobile phones and a host of other machines/equipment designed by human intelligence, perform identically with little or no error or variation.

So, yes they all are artefacts designed by human intelligence and they perform/behave far more consistent than the humans do among themselves – that which creationists believe to be the ultimate design by an ultimate “intelligent designer”.

The example of the worst possible design by the so-believed “intelligent designer” could be clearly demonstrated by the utterly inconsistent and unreliable performance/behaviour of humans when asked to explain their own perceptions of the world. They variously go something like this:

1. I don't know whether God doesn't exist or it does but the universe exists for real
2. I don't know whether God doesn't exist or it does but the universe is unreal like maya/illusion
3. I don't know whether God exists or not but the universe exists for real
4. I don't know whether God exists or not but the universe is unreal
5. I know it for sure that God doesn't exist and the universe exists for real
6. I know it for sure that God doesn't exist and the universe is unreal
7. I know it for sure that God exists and the universe exists for real
8. I know it for sure that God exists and the universe is unreal like maya/illusion

What a laughable joke of ID!

The joke doesn’t end there, there is more; the believers of the same faith create countless foolish/doltish contradictions and they, among themselves, endlessly carry on with the contradicting views on the form and function of "intelligent designer" .

For example

God exists outside of time and space........and

HE gave his written word. ..............History is a witness to that fact.
And the joke doesn’t end there either, there is further more and a lot more- i.e. endless.

By the same token as presented by our friend rw_2005 about the designs of computer/dresses etc., one could easily deduce from the same premise that humans being better designer of far more consistent and reliable artefacts, they are, by far, much better “Gods” than the so-believed “intelligent designer”.

Thus, humans qualify as far more valid candidate for their coming into existence uncaused, by chance, self-creation, self-design/evolution or other processes that one could think of as uncaused; and the probability of that happening is far far greater than that exists for a "intelligent designer", which I have already proved to be "0".

:)