Evaluating #2 still requires a concept of god.
-
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!
Which Position Intuitvely Makes the Most Sense to You?
- Thread starter Sunstone
- Start date
You think so because of our everyday definitions of the English words 'exists' and 'is real'. The background - or the spiritual perspective has different or deeper definitions for these concepts - as I have explained in the post #16
Sure. Let's pick an example right here.
A squirrel?
Does the squirrel always exist, is a squirrel an eternal truth ? No. It is a form taken up for a very short window of time.
Let's say I argue that the squirrel does exist eternally in some form or other of the energy that gave rise to it.
Also, we cannot say that a squirrel never exists. Not only the energy that became squirrel belong to God, but God has made it so the squirrel has life.
Squirrel falls in the 'asat' (not there) bucket but God does not.
It means God (or Bramh) is neither the apparent transient beings like the squirrel (asat), nor the universal energy that keeps transforming but never perishes (Sat).
It means God (or Bramh) is beyond both of these and is the origin or source of both.
In conclusion -- it is very important to have context for what is being said. We cannot take the statements in vacuum or without any background , definitions, context.
But only on the basis of your say-so. It's what you believe, but you have nothing whatever that you could hold out as an argument subject to verification.
Yes, and your context is the religion/philosophy that you were taught. Had you been taught Judaism, or Christianity, or Islam, or atheism from birth, do you think you could have got there on your own?
Koldo
Outstanding Member
It can be true as long as we conclude that 'existence' (or its lack) is not applicable to God.
It is a pretty crazy idea though.
That is precisely why I explained in Post #16 the original idea of where it came from, and what the original words said. I never claimed it was my idea.
Many times people who came from the faiths you have listed have unanswered questions because the faith does not answer them. Hinduism answers those questions. Then over time , the people have absorbed what they needed to know and share it as philosophy, but do not mention the origin of the idea, and context. A lot is lost when it is translated into simple English without reference.
Rather than debate with anyone, my purpose on this thread is to supply that context.
Last edited:
Trailblazer
Veteran Member
Logically speaking, it has to be 1).
I have said this to atheists on forums about a hundred times.
Trailblazer
Veteran Member
I could be wrong, but I think I know what your option 3 is. However, that option is covered under option 1.
Option 1 is the only logical option because it covers all possibilities of existence.
Trailblazer
Veteran Member
I fully agree. It is the only logical position.
I don't see that "Hinduism answers those questions" any better than any other religion. It makes claims that cannot be tested, just like every other. If you are suggesting that those claims are the only ones that are of value, that might be construed as proselytizing, unless you can provide something just a bit more evidentiary. Otherwise, the "context" that you supply is indistinguishable -- to me -- from the "context" supplied by every other religion I've encountered.
Trailblazer
Veteran Member
I could easily say the same thing about my religion, the Baha'i Faith; it answers the questions that were not answered in those faiths that were listed, and it answers questions that were not answered in faiths other than those listed. But the hundred-dollar question is whether those answers came from God or from man.
Again , I did not come here to prove anything to anyone. I only came in this thread to supply the references and context -- a little more than simply the word "exists"
I never said any such thing. All faiths have gems that can be picked, but since you said this :
I mentioned that Hinduism has answered people's questions - That is an observation, it does not mean I am proselytizing. People who came to the Hindus or Hindu forums saying -- "I had questions from childhood that my faith did not answer, then when I read the Upanishads, Gita and other Hindu scriptures it all made sense and my questions were answered"
It answered questions for those seekers , and they were happy, but let us suppose one such seeker went home and shared it in English without reference or background.it means you admit that I could not have arrived at it thru Christianity, Islam or Judaism.
I mentioned that Hinduism has answered people's questions - That is an observation, it does not mean I am proselytizing. People who came to the Hindus or Hindu forums saying -- "I had questions from childhood that my faith did not answer, then when I read the Upanishads, Gita and other Hindu scriptures it all made sense and my questions were answered"
Example -- "neither exists nor not exists." sounds bizzare in English without any background.
The point here was that reference helps more than a stand-alone statement. The meaning or context is lost in the English translation if it does not refer to the original text. That is all I was saying.
What I wrote is only for those who appreciate the additional info. Not to claim or debate.
Last edited:
Jimmy
King Phenomenon
Option 3
God exists
Trailblazer
Veteran Member
That is the correct answer but it was not given as an option.
Twilight Hue
Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
Number two seems to suggest a plausibility either way.
It comes across as being contradictory.
Number one would be the straightforward approach and would definitely settle the matter but how do you falsify non-existence of something that was never there?
Either way, it's a great philosophical thought to pounder over.
It comes across as being contradictory.
Number one would be the straightforward approach and would definitely settle the matter but how do you falsify non-existence of something that was never there?
Either way, it's a great philosophical thought to pounder over.
Jimmy
King Phenomenon
I'm awareThat is the correct answer but it was not given as an option.
chinu
chinu
Position 3)
Trailblazer
Veteran Member
Sheesh, not another one.
That's kind of cheating because that was not on the list of options, so now there should be an option 4) for atheists...
Fair is fair.
chinu
chinu
Sheesh, not another one.
That's kind of cheating because that was not on the list of options, so now there should be an option 4) for atheists...
Fair is fair.
1) Position 3) either exists or does not exist.
2) Position 3) neither exists nor does not exist.
if either, intuitively which sounds more likely to you ?
PearlSeeker
Well-Known Member
When I've read the thread title my intuitive answer would be:
"Missionary".
But after reading the whole post, I would say #2. I think it's more accurate because I see God as the source of existence.
Trailblazer
Veteran Member
1), since Position 3) does exist.1) Position 3) either exists or does not exist.
2) Position 3) neither exists nor does not exist.
if either, intuitively which sounds more likely to you ?