Saturday, December 15, 2012

India Broadband Forum Feed

India Broadband Forum Feed

Does God Exist?

Posted: 15 Dec 2012 03:08 AM PST

Before I respond to your post, I'd like to highlight a very interesting tactic you are using to dismiss my arguments. You keep accusing the points I put across as dogma, and simply ignore them. Like when I quoted the Bible and the Quran to show that the role of a creator is one that is attributed to god. You simply labelled them as dogmas and dismissed them, whereas clearly, the statements were pretty straightforward and factual. I'm not sure I want to continue debating the topic with you if you insist on twisting facts into dogmas. I will only engage in a discussion as long as you honest and have respect for logic. If you lack either of them, then I can continue this no more.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jaymin View Post
I m not telling u that the Universe is made by someone.
I m not telling u to prove "Otherwise". I m just asking u - do u have any proof, that the theories can come out of vacuum?
Yet you make statements like "a much complex universe certainly can't be built without a programmer"(post 2783). Stop being dishonest!

And do you think that the only possibilities of the universe coming into existence is either through a creator/programmer/whatever or through a vaccuum? Are you really so narrow-minded that these are the only 2 options you are willing to consider?

Quote:
Yeah fine! Science can find a theory for explaining the existence of all the theories. So the question still remains - how did that master theory come into existence!
That can only be answered once we have a better understanding of the theories that exist. And who knows, maybe we'll find that the theory was in fact created by a god, or maybe that the theories have always been in existence. Eternally. Just like god.

You should reserve judgement on the issue until someone more qualified finds the answer.

Quote:
U r just reading 1 part of it! Only when u read something in its entirety, can u interpret it rationally. From what i can see, the meaning implied from here is - God created the basic necessities for heavens & earth to exist. Now those basic necessities are the laws. A plain reading of that statement clearly shows the bias of the person who has tried to reproduce the statement. Who knows what was original?

Same logic applies here too.

Same logic applies for this too. Else that very Gita clearly mentions that the one who blindly follows others is not a good person. 1 shud question the established dogmas, and the age-old traditions & then do what is right. No one is allowed to force his or her opinion on the other.
The Genesis quote is the very first thing you read in the Bible. The statement itself is straightforward, and the rest of the chapter doesn't mention or hint towards god simply creating the 'basic necessities of the law'. It's quite explicit that god created the heavens and the earth itself. Brings me back to the point I emphasized at the start of this post. You cannot deal with the facts being presented to you that show that god is attributed as the creator. Thus you falsely label these facts as dogmas and dismiss them.

Quote:
Because it is as recent as the Akbar era. Tansen was able to use it.
Yeah, recent. As in ~500 years ago, when neither of us were alive. When such supernatural claims couldn't even be investigated properly. Poor evidence.

Quote:
I have shown how flawed ur interpretation is.
I wasn't interpreting them. I was merely looking at the literal meaning. Thus your argument is invalid.

Quote:
Yeah, so what answer do u expect to it? Another theory, or something?
I expect any answer backed that is up by sufficient evidence. I make no reservations or limitations regarding what the answer might be.

Quote:
No where it is written in any book, that it is infallible. Over the years, the interpretation shud have been actually refined. But the interpretation has actually been degraded since people have never tried reading the books themselves, nor have they questioned.
It's not explicitly written that it's infallible, like the Genesis quote. But take for instance a verse from the Quran:

"This is the Scripture whereof there is no doubt" -Quran 2:2

Falsifying a claim begins with doubting the truth of it. But if the author claims that the scripture is one where there is no doubt, then it means that the scripture is infallible.

Also, one of the attributes ascribed to god is infallibility. Therefore his words are infallible. And since scriptures are the word of god/inspired by god, they are infallible too. I had to Wiki this, but the Gita supports that claim too:

In the Bhagavad Gita, Krishna explains to Arjuna (Bg 15.16 to 15.20) "There are two classes of beings, the fallible and the infallible. In the material world every living entity is fallible, and in the spiritual world every living entity is called infallible. Besides these two, there is the greatest living personality, the Supreme Soul, the imperishable Lord Himself, who has entered the three worlds and is maintaining them. Because I am transcendental, beyond both the fallible and the infallible, and because I am the greatest, I am celebrated both in the world and in the Vedas as that Supreme Person. Whoever knows Me as the Supreme Personality of Godhead, without doubting, is the knower of everything. He therefore engages himself in full devotional service to Me, O son of Bharata. This is the most confidential part of the Vedic scriptures, O sinless one, and it is disclosed now by Me. Whoever understands this will become wise, and his endeavors will know perfection."


I rest my case.

Quote:
The author of the books is man himself. Man has made the books out of what he had understood about the realities of life. He added the ways of living life also, depending upon the conditions that suited that specific community, which lived in 1 corner of the world. Like why do u have the Roja fasts? The rationale was that during those periods, the rains wud be scarce, and the Arabic regions being more desert dominated, food & water wud be hardly available. So actually, those days they "fasted", and that is now a dogma.....people follow it blindly. Its upto people like u & me, to encourage the others to read the stuff, analyse the factors behind the literature & then ask people to interpret it on their own.
You seem to quietly ignore the parts where the prophets actually speak to god or hear his voice. Moses, Jesus, Muhammad all preached and wrote down what they heard from god himself. So making out these scriptures as though they're a chronicle of man's understanding of reality is a blatant lie.

Quote:
But then, u r not following the right manner. U r not asking the right questions. U r just under the impression that Atheist means no God theory.
I've already pointed out that I have no obligation to adhere to your personal definitions of 'atheist'.

Quote:
Then u shud have been asking the right questions, and not under false impressions of any scripture. U wud have understood them right.
I was never under any impression from any scripture when I was in 6th grade. You assume falsely once again.

But as an adult, I did adopt a more rational method of judging god claims which primarily deal with claims made in scriptures.

Quote:
Oh yeah? What about this then: Post no. 2816
Lacking a belief in god(like "god does exist") does not automatically mean that I hold the opposite belief "god does not exist" to be true. The latter is a factual claim, whereas the former is the absence of reason to believe in the original claim. Lemme try explaining with an analogy:

In a court of law, a claim is made that the defendant is guilty of a crime. The judge only gets to decide whether the defendant is or isn't guilty of that 'particular' claim or not. The judge doesn't declare him innocent, but instead declares him 'not guilty' of that claim. The defendant could either be guilty of another crime, or could be completely innocent as he hasn't committed any crime in his entire life. But that is not a matter of concern for the court.

Similarly, my atheism(if you like to call it that) is a rejection of your claim that a god exists, based on the proof(or lack of proof) that you have provided. It does not mean that I claim that there is no god, which a totally different claim.

I hope you understand this difference between the statements and will not bring this up.

Quote:
I have quoted u to show why my understanding about u is right.
And I have clarified that quote as well as why your understanding of me is incorrect.

Quote:
Just goes to show how ignorant u r about the developments in Science. Research is pretty much on in the direction to establish that Particles are conscious. And to an extent, that is evident thru the double-slit experiment. U dont know a zilch in respect of modern developments in science and u call urself Atheist!
You're right. I'm ignorant to not only this development in science, but many others because I don't devote my life to learning about all the scientific discoveries. But I urge you to show me a peer-reviewed paper in a scientific journal that proves that the HB particle has enough conscious to be considered similar to god.

While we are at accusing each other, I accuse you of being ignorant towards the fact that your main reasons for believing in a god(the First Cause and the Design argument) have already been refuted by me as well as other philosophers through many years. are you willing to admit your ignorance and admit that you don't have a strong basis for a belief in a god?

Quote:
I guess its clear from above now. If u still dont understand, let me know.
It's not really clear. Please provide more clarification.

Quote:
A bat sees the whole world as upside down.
Off topic. I'm not here to talk about bats.

Quote:
So what is ur answer to it - how do u think Laws came into existence?
I never claimed to have an answer.

Quote:
I dont assume. I know it.
Such arrogance!

The Mega Movie Review/Suggestion Thread!

Posted: 15 Dec 2012 02:58 AM PST

Watched Twelve Monkey last night and La Jetee just now.

Both are beautiful in their own ways. Jetee is simple and elegant, Monkeys is a little complex and extravagant.

New Girl

Posted: 15 Dec 2012 02:58 AM PST

Quote:
Originally Posted by Saurav View Post
Right. I never saw Season 2 after watching some episodes of Season 1. It didn't have the humor which was expected. Also, sometimes Zoey over acts which gets annoying. I liked her in 500 Days of Summer.
Zoey can be an acquired taste.

The Walking Dead

Posted: 15 Dec 2012 02:56 AM PST

I personally will not touch any of Ryan Murphy's shows with a 10-foot pole. This includes Glee, AHS, The New Normal etc. His work doesn't suit my taste. He generally throws everything and the kitchen sink and numb the senses of the viewer.

Bangalore Airtel 4G Speedtest & Review

Posted: 15 Dec 2012 02:44 AM PST

Doesn't support 4G, No 2300 MHz......
Huawei E3131 Data Card: Flipkart.com

low ping from today

Posted: 15 Dec 2012 02:20 AM PST

shashank can you tell me the first three digits of your IP address? You may have dropped into the list of ip's which are routed using nixi :|

Jab Tak Hai Jaan

Posted: 15 Dec 2012 02:14 AM PST

What happened to Shahrukh Khan.. he is just doing disaster movie after Ra-one..

Barfi!

Posted: 15 Dec 2012 02:12 AM PST

I like kaju barfi but not this barfi..

Talaash (Spoilers in later pages)

Posted: 15 Dec 2012 02:10 AM PST

Talaash is some how a boring movie..

Khiladi 786

Posted: 15 Dec 2012 02:09 AM PST

The movie Khiladi 786 has raked in a total of Rs 48.15 crores nett at the Indian Box Office in six days and i think it's collection will slow down in the next few days.
  • Date: 3:23 AM
  • Author: Vipul Sawant.
  • Labels:

0 comments:

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)