There is no evidence for God, so why do you believe?

[joelr]

These dates agree with my source, and to note, The range of dates of possible origins of the Gita does range as referenced, but the Gita itself is a compilation over time, and parts of it are dated later than in the first millennia AD. The Gita is not known to exist in and of itself prior to ~300 to 200 BCE. There is no reference to a 1500? date. The Gita is not that old. Buddhism, Taoism, and Confucianism are older, and Buddhism cannot be documented as inspired by Gita. Both were inspired by older traditional traditions and beliefs. Considering the documented time Buddha lived he likely inspired part of the compilation of the Gita,

I didn't say the Gita was dated at 1500 B.C.?

Some? The Gita is fundamentally Theistic as claiming an intimate relationship between humans and Gods.

Yes, some. Some Hinduism doesn't consider any Gods real.

It is an important issue concerning the weakness of your claims and being selective about glorifying the Gitaa and negating other religions.

You haven't demonstrated any "weakness" of my claims and you haven't demonstrated I'm glorifying one and negating the other. Total fail.

I started out by saying AT THIS TIME I'm studying Advaita Vedanta. Then I commented on that. The rest about negating and being selective is a complete made-up nonsense argument. When one is learning about a religion and they comment on it that makes complete sense. It doesn't imply any of the nonsense you tried desperately to attach to it.
And look, you are still at it? That's all you got and you repeat this nonsense over and over. That would actually be bullying because no one owes you explanations and you have been told over and over.

Your problem of selectively glorifying the Gita over other ancient religions which is the common ego-centric problem of the followers of other ancient religions like Christianity, Judaism, and Islam relying on selective references that agree with you The reality is many scholars refer to the various different religions as having a significant contribution to moral philosophy and the nature of consciousness. . The Baha'i Faith and I consider them equally in the context of the culture and time their scriptures were compiled in the progressive Theistic spiritual evolving nature of humanity.

Again . . . Yes, ALL contain ancient mythology and non-scientific information in their scriptures including the Gita.

That also includes the Bahai religion as well. Total wu.

Why do you think I care what the Bahai faith has to say? The Eastern religions are far deeper in explorations of consciousness and philosophy. The more modern Abrahamic religions are not and Bahai has nothing of note on philosophy. So the progressive revelations is wrong. But it's also wu because there are no theistic Gods giving messages to people.

So now I see you are only arguing about how "all religions are equal in context" because someone wrote it in a book and said God told him. Don't care.

 

[joelr]

True and recognizes the contributions of ALL religions to the evolving spiritual nature of humanity, and does not glorify one over the others as you do. The Baha'i Faith acknowledges the Theistic nature of the Gita as a part of the Progressive nature of human spirituality. and you conveniently edit it out to justify your agenda. evolution

Well that is a conspiracy theory. What actually happened is I mentioned I was studying Hinduism and commented on it. All the "glorifying" and "conveniently edit it out" is made up nonsense. It gets worse, then this....."to justify your agenda."

HA HA HA HA HA HA HA!

If you want to keep looking silly go ahead. I commented on something I'm looking into. When I'm done I might look into another religion.

[quote[ In another tablet (published in Gleanings, section LXXXVII) Baháʼu'lláh discussed the absence of records about history before Adam. Here he refers to the Jug-Basisht which is the Persian translation of the Yoga Vasistha, a syncretic philosophic text.[2] The translation was done during the Mughal Dynasty in the sixteenth century A.D. and became popular in Persia among intellectuals with Indo-Persian interests since the
In the Story of Bhusunda, a chapter of the Yoga Vasistha, a very old sage, Bhusunda, recalls a succession of epochs in the earth's history, as described in Hindu cosmology. Juan Cole states that this means that in dating Creation, Baháʼu'lláh promotes the theory of a long chronology over a short one.

There is a difference between how the scriptures that describe the physical existence and our Creation, and the Baha'i Faith specifically acknowledges the evolving scientific knowledge ce of the history of our physical existence, and the Gita does not[/QUOTE]

I don't care what the Bahai faith thinks it's doing with science. Because it isn't. It's based on pure wu, silly prophecies, made up claims and that's it. Until it recognizes that science doesn't support any of those things and it explains why all the science in the science section was outdated or plain wrong, then they are not doing anything with science in mind.

I will take anything from Hinduism that I might consider to be useful and for science I will get from SCIENCE.

In Hinduism, Brahman is believed to be the Absolute Reality. Followers of Vedanta see Brahman as an impersonal reality, of which each soul (ātman) is a part. The theistic traditions of Hinduism, which include Vaishnavism and Shaivism, consider Brahman as a personal God, whom they call Bhagwan or Ishvara (Lord).[4] According to the Baháʼí teachings, these differing views are all valid and represent different points of view looking at the Absolute Reality.


OK not an issur here

But that is a bunch of wu. "Oh they are all valid". Yeah that says absolutely nothing.

I have NOT harped on the 'wu' of Hinduism. I have harped on your selective consideration of the Gits, and failure to consider Hinduism on an equal consideration with other religions in history. ALL religions contain ancient mythology that reflects the culture of the time

You acknowledge above that the Gita is fundamentally Theistic as the Baha'i Faith and I acknowledge., and not just 'some.'

The "selective consideration" is in your imagination. That is the religion I'm studying and commenting on. I may decide to contrast it with something else. I have not seen another religion that goes as deep into the metaphysics of consciousness and reality. The I Ching was more psychology.

 

[Aupmanyav]

You acknowledge above that the Gita is fundamentally Theistic ..

Yes, Gita is Vaishnava and theistic in its current form, but I believe, there have been much interpolation in Gita. It original form may have been different. Gita is probably from a little before the Christian era and written by an unknown poet.
Vedas (as well as Gathas of Zoroastrians), however, go back to a much earlier time, possibly even before the last glaciation. Gathas (Lit. Legends) mention a flood by snow. It is easy to see a time around 4,000 BCE in RigVeda.

 

[joelr]

The above describes the diverse views of Theism, and Panentheism, which are ultimately a human view of God and not God, and in related beliefs also in Buddhism. Though some schools of Zen Buddhism do tend toward Atheism or agnosticism,

The 'Source' some call God(s) is ultimately an impersonal 'Source' and the Ultimate Reality. similar to what is found in Taoism, Buddhism The different aspects described in the scriptures are attributes of God in Creation, and not the personal nature of God, which is unknowable and unattainable,

The disagreement centers on 'What is Revelation?', which I will get into in the next post..

Personal nature of God is unknowable and unattainable because it isn't real. It's a fiction someone made up. Until there is some evidence.

There are no revelations. Period. God is not proven, the cosmological arguments all have been dealt with, theism is total mythology and God sending messages, thoughts in any way to people is complete nonsense. I do not care what Bahai has to say about fictional concepts.
Show me some modern philosophy that was created in these scriptures.

A lot of the concepts about God are just re-workings of Plato's The One. 'The One' is both 'uncaused' and the cause of being for everything else in the universe. Undivisible, uncreated. Aquinas took this and made it into theology about Yahweh. Islamic theologians also use this. It's Greek.

 

[samtonga43]

A lot of the concepts about God are just re-workings of Plato's The One. 'The One' is both 'uncaused' and the cause of being for everything else in the universe. Undivisible, uncreated.

Makes sense to me.

 

[shunyadragon]

Personal nature of God is unknowable and unattainable because it isn't real. It's a fiction someone made up. Until there is some evidence.

There are no revelations. Period. God is not proven, the cosmological arguments all have been dealt with, theism is total mythology and God sending messages, thoughts in any way to people is complete nonsense. I do not care what Bahai has to say about fictional concepts.
Show me some modern philosophy that was created in these scriptures.

A lot of the concepts about God are just re-workings of Plato's The One. 'The One' is both 'uncaused' and the cause of being for everything else in the universe. Undivisible, uncreated. Aquinas took this and made it into theology about Yahweh. Islamic theologians also use this. It's Greek.

OK, you are an atheist This is what you believe but like the Baha'i Writings, the Vedas are fundamentally Theistic from cover to cover.

I never claimed that there is objectively verifiable evidence for the 'Source; some call God

 

[Aupmanyav]

No. The 'Nasadiya Sukta'.

"arvāg devā asya visrjanena athā ko veda yat ābabhūva ll"
"The Gods are later than this world's production. Who knows then whence it first came into being?"
Rig Veda: Rig-Veda, Book 10: HYMN CXXIX. Creation.

 

[shunyadragon]

No. The 'Nasadiya Sukta'.

"arvāg devā asya visrjanena athā ko veda yat ābabhūva ll"
"The Gods are later than this world's production. Who knows then whence it first came into being?"
Rig Veda: Rig-Veda, Book 10: HYMN CXXIX. Creation.

True, '[nobody] knows whence it first came into being.' It is most likely that the 'Source' in Hindusim is eternal and infinite. Still, the Veda supports the polytheistic belief in Gods and the undefinable 'Source; of all things that came into being.

 

[shunyadragon]

Yes, Git is Vaishnava and theistic in its current form, but I believe, there have been much interpolation in Gita. It original form may have been different. Gita is probably from a little before the Christian era and written by an unknown poet.
Vedas (as well as Gathas of Zoroastrians), however, go back to a much earlier time, possibly even before the last glaciation. Gathas (Lit. Legends) mention a flood by snow. It is easy to see a time around 4,000 BCE in RigVeda.

I believe that the Gita is an edited redacted compilation of previous writings, oral traditions, and beliefs like other ancient scriptures, and not one 'author.' Yes, like the epic Gilgamesh, these texts originate from much older oral traditions.

Yes, older forms may have been different, but most ancient cultures evolved from animism to polytheism to forms of Theism, whether God or Gods exist or not. Archaeology supports this in all cultures of ancient history.

 

[shunyadragon]

You are not properly formatting your posts. You have quotes from me and then in the text where you reply it looks like more of my text. Post 4367 If you cannot handle simple code then this is what will happen.
Yes the Vedas go back to around 1500 B.C.

There is absolutely no evidence whatsoever that the Vedas date back to '1500 BCE. Both your and my citations date it as compiled ~600 BCE to ~200 AD.

If you persist in this illusion please cite a reliable reference that confirms this. Most

Right but I never said that the Gita was the inspiration. Yet another fictional argument. I said Buddhism is an offshoot of Hinduism.

There is absolutely no objective evidence that the Gits existed during the life of Buddha

Buddhism is an offshoot of Hinduism. Its founder, Siddhartha Gautama, started out as a Hindu. For this reason, Buddhism is often referred to as an offshoot of Hinduism. Known to the world as Buddha, Gautama is believed to have been a wealthy Indian prince. [/quote]

In the period Buddha live there was no known record of the Vedas existing as what we know today, There was no actual specific beginning of Hinduism. Hinduism is an evolved cultural belief system and Buddhism is a part of these traditional evolved belief systems. It is possible that the teachings of Buddhism influenced the Vedas.

and another! More fictional arguments? Telling someone they are being a bully isn't name calling. It's describing their bully actions. But when you do try to call out things like that with NPD people they will say it's name calling.

Calling some bullying is name calling. We disagree nothing more.

More perpetual redundant name calling on your part. I have never used such offensive language concerning you.



OMG.......ANOTHER fake argument. I said the work was influential and considered a classic of philosophy. Once again you moved the goalpost and think I have to show it's MORE influential? Cooky? ]/quote]

OMG do I hear a Freudian slip here.

Your motives for creating all these bizarre arguments remain subjective vague and undocumented. The comments about deep philosophy are documented in several of my posts. I said it was deep. There, it's documented. I don't care about your opinion of that? Why would I ? Plus I gave examples of Ghandi, Emerson and the internet philosophy encyclopedia all giving high praise to this work, far more than I need to post.

More redundant useless rhetoric that does not relate to the discussion/ where you selectively glorify the Vedas and Hinduism and negate other religions of the world.

The Rigveda is the oldest known Vedic Sanskrit text.[5] Its early layers are among the oldest extant texts in any Indo-European language.[6][note 2] The sounds and texts of the Rigveda have been orally transmitted since the 2nd millennium BCE.[8][9][10] The philological and linguistic evidence indicates that the bulk of the Rigveda Samhita was composed in the northwestern region (see Rigvedic rivers) of the Indian subcontinent, most likely between c. 1500 and 1000 BCE,[11][12][13] although a wider approximation of c. 1900–1200 BCE has also been given.[14][15][note 1]


This article thinks the dates were changed because Genesis says the world started in 4B.C.
Thus, it can be seen that most of the Sanskritists, even those in the West disagreed with Max Mueller’s arbitrary date given to the Rig Veda and the Vedic literature. Most of the scholars now agree that Rig Veda can be dated around 4500–5000 BC and the rest of the Vedic literature from 4500 BC to 2000 BC. The Vedic literature is far older than the Genesis stories and Bishop Usher’s date of the creation of the universe at 9 am on 23rd October 4004 BC.
You are all alive because of PM Modi: Bihar minister asserts in viral video-India News , Firstpost

NOT TRUE, MOST scholars DO NOT date the Vedas before~600 BCE at best. What you are referencing are traditional sources of the age of the Vedas and NOT the objectively verifiable references that date the Vedas. Traditional claims of believers like other claims of religions are not reliable. The earlier claims of the Vedas is based on unfounded traditional beliefs without any evidence. Your article objectively dates the Vedas as in agreement with my reference.

Mythical ancient claims of ALL the ancient scripture of the world are NOT objectively verifiable.

 

[Aupmanyav]

True, '[nobody] knows whence it first came into being.' It is most likely that the 'Source' in Hindusim is eternal and infinite. Still, the Veda supports the polytheistic belief in Gods and the undefinable 'Source; of all things that came into being.

Yes, the source, Brahman, could be eternal and infinite, but that may not be a God. IMHO, it is 'physical energy'.
Of course, most of RigVeda is prayers of Central Asian herders to their Gods and Goddesses for the welfare of their family, clan and their livestock.

 

[Aupmanyav]

I believe that the Gita is an edited redacted compilation of previous writings, oral traditions, and beliefs like other ancient scriptures, and not one 'author.' Yes, like the epic Gilgamesh, these texts originate from much older oral traditions.

Yes, older forms may have been different, but most ancient cultures evolved from animism to polytheism to forms of Theism, whether God or Gods exist or not. Archaeology supports this in all cultures of ancient history.

Agree completely with your post.

 

[samtonga43]

Personal nature of God is unknowable and unattainable because it isn't real. It's a fiction someone made up.

Is there any possibility you may be wrong?

There are no revelations. Period. God is not proven, the cosmological arguments all have been dealt with, theism is total mythology and God sending messages, thoughts in any way to people is complete nonsense.

Is there any possibility you may be wrong?

I do not care what Bahai has to say about fictional concepts.

I really don't think anyone cares that you do not care.

A lot of the concepts about God are just re-workings of Plato's The One.

It is a sign of maturity to re-work ideas, young man.

 

[Aupmanyav]

NOT TRUE, MOST scholars DO NOT date the Vedas before~600 BCE at best. What you are referencing are traditional sources of the age of the Vedas and NOT the objectively verifiable references that date the Vedas. Traditional claims of believers like other claims of religions are not reliable. The earlier claims of the Vedas is based on unfounded traditional beliefs without any evidence. Your article objectively dates the Vedas as in agreement with my reference.

Modern European scholars may say whatever they want but many hymns in RigVeda point to a sub-Arctic habitation of Indo-Europeans before coming to the Pontic steppes:

1. A two month long Arctic night, present even now in Hinduism as 'Ati Ratra' (Greater Night). Why did ancient Romans have a 10-month year?
2. A month long dawn (thirty sisters) before the sun appears can happen only in Arctic region.
3. Mention of Seven and a half suns (meaning the time when the sun was continuously seen in the sky).
4. Mention of Navagwahas and Dashagwahas (priests who completed their sacrificial cycle in nine or ten months.
This, supplemented by the reference to a deluge by snow in Gathas is a pointer to Arctic home of Indo-Europeans.

I do not say that the whole of RigVeda is that old. We know that Book 1, Book 10 and Book 9 have hymns written at a later time, some even after the Aryans had come to India (That is why the mention of Indian rivers in RigVeda and the mention of the Battle of Ten Kings on the banks of Rriver Ravi). But some hymns/verses were surely written before the last glacial age began and before the Indo-Europeans sought refuge in Yamnaya region.

 

[shunyadragon]

Modern European scholars may say whatever they want but many hymns in RigVeda point to a sub-Arctic habitation of Indo-Europeans before coming to the Pontic steppes:

1. A two month long Arctic night, present even now in Hinduism as 'Ati Ratra' (Greater Night). Why did ancient Romans had a 10-month year?
2. A month long dawn (thirty sisters) before the sun appears can happen only in Arctic region.
3. Mention of Seven and a half suns (meaning the time when the sun was continuously seen in the sky).
4. Mention of Navagwahas and Dashagwahas (priests who completed their sacrificial cycle in nine or ten months.
This, supplemented by the reference to a deluge by snow in Gathas is a pointer to Arctic home of Indo-Europeans.

I do not say that the whole of RigVeda is that old. We know that Book 1, Book 10 and Book 9 have hymns written at a later time, some even after the Aryans had come to India (That is why the mention of Indian rivers in RigVeda and the mention of the Battle of Ten Kings on the banks of Rriver Ravi). But some hymns/verses were surely written before the last glacial age began and before the Indo-Europeans sought refuge in Yamnaya region.

I go by the evidence, yes, like all ancient scriptures, they evolve from older oral traditions, and possibly maybe earlier writings, but at present, there is no evidence of earlier texts before ~1200 BCE. In Gilgamesh which is based on earlier oral traditions of a geologically confirmed flood of the Tigris Euphrates valley. It is most likely that these events were handed down as oral stories unless other evidence comes to light.

Pretty much all extensive written scriptures and other writings of all cultures of the world date after ~1200 BCE except the Egyptian records and the Sumerian written records including the Gilgamesh epic. I realize that some date to 1500 BCE, but I favor oral traditions memorized and later recorded.

The early written records of China also record the accurate time and description of an older event of a catastrophic flood of the Yellow River long before any known written records are found.

 

[joelr]

Makes sense to me.

Right but Plato was not talking about any theistic God, he was talking about a primal substance that was undivisible and so on. But it wasn't a consciousness entity. Aquinas took those ideas and said "oh yeah, my God has all those attributes and is the real version of the One". So of course Islamic theologians also use this as proof of God which leads to proof of their version of God.
To Plato it was just an idea.

 

[joelr]

OK, you are an atheist This is what you believe but like the Baha'i Writings, the Vedas are fundamentally Theistic from cover to cover.

Well it isn't just what I believe, it what the evidence presents. I'll believe anything if it is warranted by good evidence.
The RigVeda isn't just theism, it deals with meditation, philosophy, consciousness and ontological knowledge but also deals with spiritual ideas. It has themes common to modern philosophy at times.
The other Vedas are about rituals, hymns and other subjects.
They also believe in revelations which is where the spiritual concepts come from. So clearly these are made up by people and debunks any supernatural information they have come to feel is correct.

I never claimed that there is objectively verifiable evidence for the 'Source; some call God

I know that, there isn't any.

 

[joelr]

There is absolutely no evidence whatsoever that the Vedas date back to '1500 BCE. Both your and my citations date it as compiled ~600 BCE to ~200 AD.

If you persist in this illusion please cite a reliable reference that confirms this. Most

The Rig-Vedic and Post-Rig-Vedic Polity (1500 BCE-500 BCE)
by R.U.S. Prasad (Author) source


- "

• The Samhitas (Sanskrit saṃhitā, "collection"), are collections of metric texts ("mantras"). There are four "Vedic" Samhitas: the Rig-Veda, Yajur-Veda, Sama-Veda and Atharva-Veda, most of which are available in several recensions (śākhā). In some contexts, the term Veda is used to refer only to these Samhitas, the collection of mantras. This is the oldest layer of Vedic texts, which were composed between circa 1500–1200 BCE (Rig Veda book 2–9),[note 1] and 1200–900 BCE for the other Samhitas. The Samhitas contain invocations to deities like Indra and Agni, "to secure their benediction for success in battles or for welfare of the clan."[36] The complete corpus of Vedic mantras as collected in Bloomfield's Vedic Concordance (1907) consists of some 89,000 padas (metrical feet), of which 72,000 occur in the four Samhitas.[37]

"My initial interaction with Dr. R.U.S. Prasad concerned the research he conducted as a visiting scholar at the Stanford Center for International Development on the resolution of disputes in the telecommunications sector. At that time, I would never have guessed that his true scholarly passion, as revealed in his most recent manuscript, involved an era of much greater antiquity. His investigation of the changes in the Vedic polity that occurred during the many stages from the early Rig-Vedic to the post Rig-Vedic period (1500 BCE-500 BCE) displays a breadth of scholarship as astonishing as it is impressive." --Nicholas C. Hope, Stanford University
https://www.amazon.com/Rig-Vedic-Post-Rig-Vedic-Polity-1500-BCE-500/dp/1622730267

There is absolutely no objective evidence that the Gits existed during the life of Buddha

Buddhism is an offshoot of Hinduism. Its founder, Siddhartha Gautama, started out as a Hindu. For this reason, Buddhism is often referred to as an offshoot of Hinduism. Known to the world as Buddha, Gautama is believed to have been a wealthy Indian prince.

In the period Buddha live there was no known record of the Vedas existing as what we know today, There was no actual specific beginning of Hinduism. Hinduism is an evolved cultural belief system and Buddhism is a part of these traditional evolved belief systems. It is possible that the teachings of Buddhism influenced the Vedas.[/QUOTE]


Historical roots

Mahākāśyapa meets an Ājīvika ascetic, one of the common Śramaṇa groups in ancient India
Historically, the roots of Buddhism lie in the religious thought of Iron Age India around the middle of the first millennium BCE.[464] This was a period of great intellectual ferment and socio-cultural change known as the "Second urbanisation", marked by the growth of towns and trade, the composition of the Upanishads and the historical emergence of the Śramaṇa traditions.[465][466][note 29]

New ideas developed both in the Vedic tradition in the form of the Upanishads, and outside of the Vedic tradition through the Śramaṇa movements.[469][470][471] The term Śramaṇa refers to several Indian religious movements parallel to but separate from the historical Vedic religion, including Buddhism, Jainism and others such as Ājīvika.[472]

Several Śramaṇa movements are known to have existed in India before the 6th century BCE (pre-Buddha, pre-Mahavira), and these influenced both the āstika and nāstika traditions of Indian philosophy.[473] According to Martin Wilshire, the Śramaṇa tradition evolved in India over two phases, namely Paccekabuddha and Savaka phases, the former being the tradition of individual ascetic and the latter of disciples, and that Buddhism and Jainism ultimately emerged from these.[474] Brahmanical and non-Brahmanical ascetic groups shared and used several similar ideas,[475] but the Śramaṇa traditions also drew upon already established Brahmanical concepts and philosophical roots, states Wiltshire, to formulate their own doctrines.[473][476] Brahmanical motifs can be found in the oldest Buddhist texts, using them to introduce and explain Buddhist ideas.[477] For example, prior to Buddhist developments, the Brahmanical tradition internalised and variously reinterpreted the three Vedic sacrificial fires as concepts such as Truth, Rite, Tranquility or Restraint.[478] Buddhist texts also refer to the three Vedic sacrificial fires, reinterpreting and explaining them as ethical conduct.[479]

The Śramaṇa religions challenged and broke with the Brahmanic tradition on core assumptions such as Atman (soul, self), Brahman, the nature of afterlife, and they rejected the authority of the Vedas and Upanishads.[480][481][482] Buddhism was one among several Indian religions that did so.[482]
Buddhism - Wikipedia

 

[joelr]

Calling some bullying is name calling. We disagree nothing more.

More perpetual redundant name calling on your part. I have never used such offensive language concerning you.

Bullying does not need offensive language. Repeated attacks on me, an endless stream of acusations - inconsistent and so on, all based on nonsense ideas to which I explained over and over. No rational person would ever fail to understand such a basic concept as, I'm studying a religion and am commenting on it and am not responsible for other ideas that I do not believe and on and on. I have already been over this and you STILL are pretending you don't get it. This is a bully mentality. Even if it's nonsense you just keep coming with the same insults over and over.

Even if you actually thought that, you would say your piece and that would be it. Instead we see the school child approach. It's all there in plain english to see.

OMG.......ANOTHER fake argument. I said the work was influential and considered a classic of philosophy. Once again you moved the goalpost and think I have to show it's MORE influential? Cooky? ]/quote]

OMG do I hear a Freudian slip here.

So yeah that was another false argument, made up by you. This is the last time I'm responding to improperly formatted text. Either figure out how the html works of I'm just erasing the text.

More redundant useless rhetoric that does not relate to the discussion/ where you selectively glorify the Vedas and Hinduism and negate other religions of the world.

I will just erase the further bullying. But for the last time when one studys a religion and says something like "the philosophy is deep" they are not negating any other religions because they are studying just the one at this time. It's not possible to not understand such a simple concept so this leaves one option. Bullying.
Your claims are nonsense and since you cannot (in how many posts?) conceive of an actual argument, point, discussion, debate, except to repeat this ridiculous claim every chance you get, even to the point of not actually answering the text from me you framed, your opinion is meaningless.
Repeating a nonsense argument means you are trolling.

Also every religious person here glorifies their religion and not the others.
Also "does not relate to the discussion"...........there is not much discussion. It's just you bullying a nonsense claim over and over.

NOT TRUE, MOST scholars DO NOT date the Vedas before~600 BCE at best. What you are referencing are traditional sources of the age of the Vedas and NOT the objectively verifiable references that date the Vedas. Traditional claims of believers like other claims of religions are not reliable. The earlier claims of the Vedas is based on unfounded traditional beliefs without any evidence. Your article objectively dates the Vedas as in agreement with my reference.

Mythical ancient claims of ALL the ancient scripture of the world are NOT objectively verifiable.

As you post no source? I already gave a scholars date above. HEck let's check Briticannica

Rigveda, (Sanskrit: “The Knowledge of Verses”) also spelled Ṛgveda, the oldest of the sacred books of Hinduism, composed in an ancient form of Sanskrit about 1500 BCE,




The RIg Veda was put into classical Sanskrit around 500 B.C but was written in Vedic Sanskrit around 1500 B.C. - 1200 B.C.

scholar Panini standardized Vedic Sanskrit into Classical Sanskrit when he defined the grammar, around 500 BCE.

View attachment 65075
Sanskrit manuscript on palm-leaf, in Bihar or Nepal, 11th century. Sanskrit evolved from Proto-Indo-European languages and was used to write the Vedas, the Hindu religious texts compiled between 1500-500 BCE.

Sanskrit | Early World Civilizations

 

[joelr]

Is there any possibility you may be wrong?

About theism, no. You tell me, is there any possibility Zeus is real? About a general deism, a being that started reality, I don't know. It does defy logic for the first, undivisible, uncreated and so on...to have consciousness. We only know consciousness as the result of a very complex system. So that doesn't seem likely but I can't say if a deistic God is real or not.

Is there any possibility you may be wrong?

Sure, the possibility that Muhammad got revelations about updates for Christianity from the angel Gabrielle. Or the possibility that Joe Smith got revelations from the angel Moroni about further updates to Christianity. All revelations are about that likely.
If I assigned a greater possibility that revelations are real than I would have to take Muhammad as seriously as Paul. Islamic apologetics are no joke and well put together. If someone had revelations it's them. So there is a painful doom for all who don't follow the updates.
But I don't believe in revelations and there is no evidence of any value. Christians may think Paul had revelations but billions of Muslims think Muhammad did and billions of Hindu think Prince Arjuna did.
The odds that they all did not is extremely high.

I really don't think anyone cares that you do not care.

I write in support of critical thinking, what happens after that , who cares, isn't something for me to be concerned about.

It is a sign of maturity to re-work ideas, young man.

Yes but it's also a sign of plagiarism and religious syncretism. Weird that it took Aquinas, using Platonic ideas to come up with a theology of God rather than it actually coming from scripture. Yahweh did kick mountains down and had horns coming out of his hands at one point so maybe Aquinas needed something more modern.
Of course Islam also uses this to describe Allah.



In the Metaphysics, Aristotle attempts to utilize a physical theology as a form of ascent to contemplative philosophy. He also states that this study is to be chosen over all other sciences; and it is this “first science of theology''1 that we must prefer to all other kinds of contemplation, the study of the divine. Through the 2nd century C.E. and onward, the development of Christian theology was partly inspired by interpretations of Neoplatonism, a term coined by early 19th century European scholarship to signify a period of time after Plato that began with the successors of Plato’s Academy, including Aristotle and later Plotinus and Proclus. This essay will focus on the Christian view of God through the lenses of the Prima Pars, of the Summa Theologica of St. Thomas Aquinas, contrasted with Plato’s view of the One in Parmenides, with its further elucidation by the Commentary on Plato’s Parmenides, written during the 5th century C.E. by Proclus.2 For the Platonic tradition, the One is not only superior to Soul and Intellect, but It is even beyond Being itself, truly ineffable; the same way the Christian God is above all assertions and negations, and that through which all divine beings and faculties exist.3 From the entirety of the Platonic corpus, the Timaeus and the Parmenides have been considered the substance of Plato’s thought, the former being on a mystical cosmology and the latter on metaphysical theology.4 The Parmenides contains nine hypotheses. The first hypothesis treats the dialectical exploration of how there is no name, discourse, science, opinion, or knowledge of the One, while the second hypothesis takes the predicates intelligibly negated in the first, and asserts them of the One coordinate with Being. 5 The distinction between I. what can be said of the One/God beyond Being and II. what can be said of the One/God coordinate with Being plays a major role in understanding systematic theology and will be explored in the second part of the argument. Since the hypotheses treat an extended range of metaphysical attributes, this paper will only go through the dialectics of two terms, whose development is expounded in Proclus’ Commentary on Plato’s Parmenides. Subsequently, these will be further contrasted with Thomas Aquinas’ theological framework of God in the Summa Theologica.


We can see traces and projections of Platonism and Neoplatonism in the foundation of Christian theology. Accordingly, St. Thomas Aquinas attempts to utilize an ascent to Platonism through the influence of Aristotle and Pseudo-Dionysius. While the discordance on faith has a significant impact on differentiating Plato from St. Thomas Aquinas, there are various other matters that relate the two thinkers. As shown above, Plato’s Parmenides had indirectly impacted the Thomistic framework of “God” as displayed in the Summa Theologica, to the extent that the One and the Christian God have a share in identities and functions. Furthermore, Aristotle’s translations, which are questionable to date102 , and his method and demonstrative precision also appear to have shaped St. Thomas Aquinas’ theology. For, the structure of the Summa Theologica mirrors Aristotle’s strict and successive style of writing. We note the aforementioned sources and influences on St. Thomas Aquinas’ thought, including a loyalty to Christian interpretations and the historical, psychological and philosophical milieus of the times, which led to the development of his theological doctrine. This implies significant consequences that ought to be brought up for scholarly considerations. The profound nature of this inquiry deserves further investigation