I don't see how not, but I'll research that thought
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
What proof do you have of God?
- Thread starter Ashir
- Start date
I don't see how not, but I'll research that thought
Hinduism is not dogmatic. We're allowed to say what we wish about the Gods we love, because we still love them.
After all, Krishna, one of the biggest Gods in Hinduism, was quite the prankster when he was a youth. One time, he even stole his bathing girlfriends' clothes, just for fun. ^_^
Likewise, I don't agree with Rama (long story, but same God as Krishna, though different incarnation), when he attacked one of his enemies from the bushes, and defended it by saying that since this enemy was a monkey and not a human, that was not a breach of Dharma.
tumbleweed41
Resident Liberal Hippie
Only for the dogmatic literalist.
Since you can't "know" anything, do you accept some things on faith alone?
Orias
Left Hand Path
I assume this quote was in response to my post #75.
Your point seemed to be that western science is the only way we can learn about the universe. Science is a study of how the physical universe operates. It does not address deep philosophical questions.
Hindu 'Vedic Science' explores beyond the physical realm and I believe has much to teach us. It is not as you put it, a case of me having 'resorted to such a dramatically unsupported theory'. I and many Hindus have found it profound.
I can't prove God nor do I really wish to. We call it faith because we have no scientific or physical proof of God. It isn't proof that makes us (theists) believe in God or at least not the kind of proof that would be required to prove it to people who don't believe in something that you can't use your five senses to experience(I hope that makes sense).
I do understand that there are people who need to experience something with one or more of their 5 senses in order to believe in it. I don't condemn them- I can't because it just wouldn't be right for me to do that.
I do understand that there are people who need to experience something with one or more of their 5 senses in order to believe in it. I don't condemn them- I can't because it just wouldn't be right for me to do that.
You could make another God and claim him to be the supreme one. Is that not by definition heresy?
No, I simply do not believe anything. I do not believe you exist. I do not believe I do. I find it so likely that you and I do however that it is relatively safe to discard the possibility of us not existing as long as you accept that that percentage still exists.
Point being?
Science does address god, a fine example of this is Hawkins's 'Does God exist?'
So because science does not answer some questions, as I said before, you are free to believe whatever you want and that your beliefs would remain logical
Science is and has been such a mighty subject because it is the only way to learn about the physical, and perhaps aspects of the philosophical, universe. People believe in science because it gives evidence for it's claims and theories and does not say 'Well, since I know a moon in a different galaxy exists I can safely say I believe aliens are on it because you cannot prove otherwise and since science has not addressed whether aliens are on this particular moon and it's near impossible to travel to another galaxy I am perfectly justified to believe such without being delusional.'
tumbleweed41
Resident Liberal Hippie
If you're not sure, but accept the possibility, that is faith.
...you're not familiar with Hinduism, are you?
For the Vaishnavite, Vishnu is Supreme God. For the Shaivite (woot!) Siva is the Supreme God. For the Shakta, the Mother Goddess is the Supreme God. There are many others who consider various other Gods to be Supreme, from Ganesha, Murugan, Krishna, Rama, or earlier Vedic Gods like Surya, Varuna, Indra, Agni...
As said in the famous verse from the Rig Veda, one of Hinduism's oldest and most revered Scriptures:
They call him Indra, Mitra, Varuṇa, Agni, and he is heavenly nobly-winged Garutmān.
To what is One, Sages give many a name: they call it Agni, Yama, Mātariśvan.
Ad infinitum, making such an acceptance virtually useless since you'll never reach what the possibility is of.
It is useless, but sometimes the truth is useless, I still accept it.
I stand corrected, but I did ask 'Is it not illegal in *Christianity* to blaspheme?'
I don't think your aliens on another galaxy's moon example works as your counter-argument. First of all it does not address the question of why this person believes aliens are on this moon. You make it sound like a random belief he just wants to have. And analogously my beliefs are just random beliefs I would like to have. The difference is my beliefs come from what I believe to be the great spiritual master of the east (India) as part of the vast world of Vedic Science. Not to mention my study of the paranormal seems to corrobrate their world-view.
This theoretical alien believer you postulate shows no reason for his belief. He could just as well believe there's flying monkeys on this moon.
In your ad infinitum, there is no truth to be reached. It's just an endless string of undefined possibilities.
Doesn't matter, because you asked me as a response to me telling you that I don't believe blindly, and don't trust those who request, or worse, demand, blind belief.
1robin
Christian/Baptist
What evidence can the bible supply for it's supernatural claims. For the purposes of this discussion there is no reason why the witness of miracles should be separated. Since one bible miracle is just as improbable as the other than any witness to a supernatural act of God is just as valid. Raising Jesus was no more likely or unlikely than parting the Red Sea..Etc....
These are writers that recorded miracles that they had witnessed first hand within the bible.
1. The four Gospel writers were first hand witnesses to countless miraculous events. 2. Paul 3. Peter 4. James 5. Moses is believed by even skeptical scholars to have written parts of the Torah. He records many miracles. 6. Joshua 7. Samuel 8. Gad 9. Nathan 10. Jeremiah and his partner who wrote some of his works Barach Neriah. 11. Ezekiel 12. The 12 minor prophets which excludes Jonah which is anonymous. 13. David 14. Solomon
This adds up to quite a few even though I used fairly certain eyewitness accounts, some are not absolute. So I will reduce the number down to only about half of what is likely and say 30 eyewitness accounts of supernatural events in the bible. That takes care of primary first hand sources in the bible. I would add that there are tens of thousands of secondary witnesss mentioned within the bible and not one ever produced a work known of that said "I was there and that didn't happen".
Extra biblical accounts that corroborate biblical claims some supernatural, some referenced miraculous events, and some historical references to Christ.
1. Cornelius Tacitus (55-120 AD) 2. Gaius Suetonius Tranquillas 3. Flavius Josephus (37-97 AD), 4. Julius Africanus 5. Pliny the Younger 6. Emperor Trajan 7. Emporer Hadrian (117-138 AD), 8. Talmud 9. Lucian 10. Mara Bar-Serapion 11. The Gospel of Truth, probably by Valentius 12. The Aprocryphon of John, probably by Saturninus 13. The Gospel of Thomas 14. The Treatise On Resurrection 15.Acts of Pontius Pilate 16. Phlegon 17.Clement, elder of Rome 18. Ignatius, bishop of Antioch 19. Ignatius 20. Quadratus 21. (Pseudo-)Barnabas 22. Justin Martyr
Extra-Biblical Historical Evidence of Jesus
So 22 authors of extra biblical texts that confirm the bible. Quite a lot for a mere man of humble origin. These are only contemporary or near contemporary accounts.
Here is what great legal minds as well as experts in differing fields have said concerning biblical evidence and it's sufficiency:
1. William Lyon Phelps, for more than 40 years Yale's distinguished professor of English literature, author of some 20 volumes of literary studies, public orator of Yale, says: "and it may be said that the historical evidence for the resurrection is stronger than for any other miracle anywhere narrated"
2. Professor Ambrose Fleming, ..." says of the New Testament documents: "whether it is probably that such book, describing events that occurred about thirty or forty years previously, could have been accepted and cherished if the stories of abnormal events in it were false or mythical. It is impossible, because the memory of all elderly persons regarding events of thirty or forty years before is perfectly clear. "No one could now issue a biography of Queen Victoria, who died thirty-one years ago, full of anecdotes which were quite untrue. They would be contradicted at once.
3. In a book which has become a best-seller, Who Moved the Stone?, Frank Morison, a lawyer, "tells us how he had been brought up in a rationalistic environment, But when he came to study the facts with care, he had to change his mind, and he wrote his book on the other side. His first chapter is significantly called, 'The Book that Refused to Be Written,' and the rest of his volume consists of one of the shrewdest and most attractively written assessments I have ever read..."
4. The noted scholar, Professor Edwin Gordon Selwyn, says: "The fact that Christ rose from the dead on the third day in full continuity of body and soul - that fact seems as secure as historical evidence can make it."
5. Sir Edward Clarke, K. C. to the Rev. E. L. Macassey: "As a lawyer I have made a prolonged study of the evidences for the events of the first Easter Day. To me the evidence is conclusive, and over and over again in the High Court I have secured the verdict on evidence not nearly so compelling. Inference follows on evidence, and a truthful witness is always artless and disdains effect. The Gospel evidence for the resurrection is of this class, and as a lawyer I accept it unreservedly as the testimony of truthful men to facts they were able to substantiate."
6. Professor Thomas Arnold, cited by Wilbur Smith, This great scholar said: "The evidence for our LORD's life and death and resurrection may be, and often has been, shown to be satisfactory; it is good according to the common rules for distinguishing good evidence from bad.
7. Wilbur Smith writes of a great legal authority of the last century. He refers to John Singleton Copley, better known as Lord Lyndhurst (1772-1863), recognized as one of the greatest legal minds in British history, the Solicitor-General of the British government in 1819, attorney-general of Great Britain in 1824, three times High Chancellor of England, and elected in 1846, High Steward of the University of Cambridge, "I know pretty well what evidence is; and I tell you, such evidence as that for the Resurrection has never broken down yet."
8. Simon Greenleaf (1783-1853) was the famous Royall Professor of Law at Harvard University, Greenleaf produced a famous work entitled A Treatise on the Law of Evidence which "is still considered the greatest single authority on evidence in the entire literature of legal procedure." their writings show them to have been men of vigorous understandings. If then their testimony was not true, there was no possible motive for its fabrication."
I had to edit this and cut it very short for space but the rest can be found at:
Evidence That Demands a Verdict - Ch. 10 p. 2
To add to this mountain of textual evidence is unnecessary but I will any way.
1. 25,000 historical corroboration of biblical claims.
2. 2500 prophecies with 350 plus concerning one man. All of which that were to have been fulfilled have been in detail. The rest are future events.
3. Philosophic consistency.
4. Explanatory power.
5. Scientific claims unknown at the time they were written.
6. The testimony of billions of people who claim to have experienced a spiritual salvation event. Plus the testimony of people who have completely transformed lives such as George Foreman, Johnny Cash, the apostle Paul etc... that have written proof of the radical change.
I said this would be exhaustive but it is proving impractical. There is just too much to possibly post. Any way I can't wait to see what is appealed to in order to justify dismissing even the 10% of the totality. It simply leaves no excuse for a lack of faith. Especially considering God's perspective on the issue:
New International Version(©1984)
For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities--his eternal power and divine nature--have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.
Romans 1:20 For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities--his eternal power and divine nature--have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.
Much more has been accepted on much less evidence.
Shalom,
Right. Comparisons rarely work anyways
I will look into this Vedic scienceWhat's the problem with that?
So why would you believe? You say you rely solely on faith but then proceed to claim you do not follow your religion blindly?
Witnesses are never reliable. They could have been involved in a scheme, they could have been payed to write that, they could have been imitated, I could cook up a lot more. the possibilities are endless.
There is no hard proof those miracles actually occurred. Perhaps they never, or they were just illusions? though I understand how the first seems more likely
I'm sorry I can't be bothered to continue further, you just made it so boring, no offense intended
There is no hard proof those miracles actually occurred. Perhaps they never, or they were just illusions? though I understand how the first seems more likely
I'm sorry I can't be bothered to continue further, you just made it so boring, no offense intended
Because it ultimately makes the word "possibility" completely meaningless. You might as well call it an endless string of waffle sundays.
Faith is not necessarily blind. I have faith, but that doesn't mean I have surety, as I said before. I don't believe stuff just because I was told to. I do some investigations first.
1robin
Christian/Baptist
I don't blame you but it will be worth it.