Guest guest Posted March 4, 2006 Report Share Posted March 4, 2006 > >There is absolutely no basis to this assertion. Even if no theist can > >prove God, doesn't make atheism a rational position. > > I never said that! I'm just making a parody on your way of arguing. You > said that you can know all atheists by examining one of them, so I'm > saying that I can know all theists by examining one of them. Is that good > reasoning? Yes, I think it is good reasoning. That's how you can know that theists are following logic and reason and atheists are opposed to it. > > Atheism is fundamentally > >irrational because it is based on an assumption that can never be proven. > > No it's not! Atheism is simply the lack of belief on God. It doesn't rest > on any assumptions. It rests on the assumption that there is no God. To claim anything else is irrational. To lack belief in God is an assumption that there is no God. > >At least theism has a theoretically chance of being proven... by God. I > >may >not be able to prove God to you, but I can prove Him to myself. In > >fact, >God has proven Himself to me, so I know beyond doubt that Krishna > >is God. > > Atheism is not something that needs to be proven, because it doesn't > assert anything. It's just the lack of belief in God/Gods. Which is an assertion that there is no God. That you can't seem to understand that, just proves that atheists are irrational. > Actually you're also an atheist - because you believe in Krishna, and not > in so many other Gods. So when it comes to them, then you are also an > atheist. The difference between you and me is only that I believe in one > God less than you. I don't believe in Krishna, I know He is God. > Furthermore, how can you know that you're God is actually God, even if He > tells you? He is much more powerfull than and therefore He could be > cheating you. Maybe He's a big demons who makes you believe he's God. How > can you know? The same way I can know anything else. But ultimately you can of course only know by the revelation of God. > >Well, I never saw any good reason for being an atheist. > > Since the existence of God has never been proven, then there's a good > reason not to believe in God. But it has been proven. It's been proven to me and many others. > >Can you prove that? Otherwise I don't believe you. > > So I'm guilty until proven unguilty. Is that the way your lwas work in the > Hare Krishna Movement? The way it works in the Hare Krishna movement is that we accept real knowledge that comes from God. > Well, I don't believe you are intelligent enough to prove God. Can you > prove you are? Otherwise I don't believe you. I think you confuse me with someone who gives a toss about what you believe in. The process of Krishna consciousness is only meant for people who are interested in knowing who God is and how to love Him. > >I have already proven that you are prejudiced, because if you weren't you > >would know that God exists. I know that God exists, so if you don't know > >it, it must mean you are prejudiced against notions of God. > > This is bad reasoning, because you first have to prove God, before you can > prove, that I'm prejudiced if I don't believe in God. And I'm still > waiting for that proof. What will you accept as proof? > But if I knew I would already believe in God. I just know that proof > normally come in the form of something percievable by our senses and/or > something that's logical. How do you know that? > If God came before me, if you can point me towards something which could > only exist if God existed, then I would be convinced. I don't believe you. You would have to prove that. > Ot if you somehow > could show me some logical argument which forces us to conclude, or at > least makes it reasonable that God exists, then I also would accept that. > And, as I said, if you have some other method then I'm open to that also, > provided you give good reasons to trying it out. I don't believe you. The existence of irreducible complex systems like eg. a singe cell suggests an intelligent deisgner, but you won't accept that, so when you say that you will accept a logical argument you are either lying or too unintelligent to recognize a logical argument. > >I said, an irreducible complexity. It's like a car engine. A car engine > >only > >works as a unit. Do you think that a Mercedes came about by itself > >without any intelligent design. > > We have seen cars produced by intelligent agents before. But we have never > seen an intelligent agent produce a cell - or something like that. But it is easy to understand that just like car engines are designed so is a cell. If you don't accept that it measn you don't accept logic and reason or even common sense. > If you want to convince me you have to come up with something more. We > have seen many times that things we couldn't explain by natural laws are > now explainable by these. Also there's a very long way from an intelligent > designer to a trancendental deity. The intelligent designer could be a > spaceman that was produced by natural selection and mutations somewhere > else in the universe. Maybe, could be etc. Is that how you refute logical arguments? > >I agree we should stick to Ockams razor. The most simple explanation when > >you see some kind of orderly design, is that there is a designer. > > But if you explain things by referring to God then the theory becomes > unlimitedly complex because God is unlimitedly complex. We can never > understand an infinite being that con do things incomprehensable to our > intelligence. Therefore such a God-theory is the most complex we can > imagine. All other explanations are more simple. No they are not. The most simple explanation is that there is an intelligent designer behind the design of the universe. > But you are complicating matters by introducing something we don't need - > something anti-material. A material theory is much more simple because it > deals with something we can observe and test - physical matter. But a material theory is obviously not enough to explain even the most basic facts of life like consciousness, pleasure, pain, feelings etc. Besides the theory of something anti-material is not something which is being introduced. IT has always existed in human reasoning. There was never a time when there was not some form of religion in human society. Atheism, on the other hand is a fairly recent introduction. > >remains the same. If you won't accept that, it proves my idea that > >atheists are opposed to logic and reason. > > No, you don't know if it's constant since you can remember everything that > has happened in your past. If the "I" is constant, then it's eternal, and > then you should be able to tell me EVERYTHING that you experienced. I can tell you everything I remember. You can't even remember what you did this time last week, but that doesn't mean it didn't take place. > I know > of no person who can remember all his past lives. So that means we can't > establish the "I" to be constant. But you can establish it within your experience. Besides, there is lots of empirical evidence of past lives. Just do a search on the net on Ian Stevenson and you will see. > >Maybe, probably - that means you don't know. The most logical explanation > >is > >what we find in the Bhagavad Gita where Lord Krishna says that the body > >changes, but the observer stays the same. If the observer stays the same > >during the bodily and mental changes from boyhood to youth to old age, > >why should you assume that it changes at death? Again it is clear that > >Lord Krishna offers the most simple and logical explanation but atheists > >reject that, because they are prejudiced. > > This is just inductive reasoning based on a very limited range of > experience. It's not enough to convince me of anything. That's ok. I am not out to convince you of anything. I couldn't care less what you are convinced of. > When a person lives we observe the "I" in that person. When he dies we > "don't." Therefore, why should we believe it's still there? That's the same as saying, why should I believe the studio and the people are still there when I turn off the TV. > >The consciousness, ie. the observer is not affected, it is only the mind, > >the feelings, the intelligence etc. that are affected by chemicals. You > >observe the change in the mind by taking drugs, that means you are not > >the mind. The observe is always distinct from that which is observed. > >Since you can observe your mind being affected by drugs that means you > >are not the mind. What you are saying is the same as saying that if I > >smash my TV then I affect the program in the studio where it is being > >produced. You can alter the mind, but you cannot alter the observer. You > >can even smash your brain, but that just means you have removed the media > >through which you observe the material world. You can alter your sight by > >putting on a pair of sunglasses, but the eyes are still the same. In the > >same way you can alter your vision or your mind by drugs, but the > >observer remains the same. comprende? It is very logical. > > That's a hypothesis, but if you can't prove it then what's the use. Show > me a piece of spirit, then I will believe you. You claim something > non-material exist, but you can aonly show me some argument about an > observer that doesn't change. That's what you asked for... a logical argument, and I provided it. Apparently you were lying when you said you would accept a logical argument as proof of God. Either that or you you don't recognize logic when you see it. > I would say that such an observer is the only thing that could possible > have a change of being non-material, but since everything else we know is > material, and since the most simple explanation is that everything is > material, then I think that's the best explanation until I see some more > convincing proofs. To me it's completely convincing. > >Actually the burden of proof is on you. If you say that consciousness is > >material you have to prove it. But you have no proof. So you are just > >believing in it blindly. I have given the logical argument that Krishna > >gives in the Bhagavad Gita, and it makes so much more sense, than what > >you are saying. > > And I'm saying that way to speculative for me. Is not in any way the last > word in such an investigation. Just because some hindu god say it's > non-material doesn't at all mean it's true. It also doesn't mean it's not true. > >It also doesn't mean it is not. Clearly it is more rational to believe in > >a higher intelligence than to believe that everything happened by itself > >without any intelligent direction. > > Well, I don't think so! That proves you don't accept logic and reason. > >You are also uneducated. You are uneducated in the spiritual science of > >bhakti yoga. > > And if you don't give me any good reasons to not being educated in > bhakti-yoga, then I'm happy to remain uneducated. Good for you. A pig is also happy in it's mudpool. > >So you are appealing to the masses of atheists, which is a logical > >fallacy. > > At least I'm appealing to the most intelligent, whereas you are appealing > to the general mass. No you are appealing to ignorance, I am appealing to reason and common sense. > >The most intelligent, educated scientists and philosophers down through > >the ages have always been theists. People like Socrates, Schopenhauer, > >Oppenheimer, Einstein, Fromm, Jung, Thoreau, Emerson were all some type > >of theists. I would rather listen to them than to you. > > But none of them were able to prove God. And there's a lot of very > educated atheists also. It is not a matter of proving God. What gave you that idea? > >But I can. Krishna has proven Himself to me. How can I convince you of > >that? > > So you admit that you can't prove it? I can prove it.. to myself. > >What will you accept as proof? > > I already told you very clearly! No you didn't. > >That means you didn't know to begin with. Any idiot can form an opinion > >based on available information. But it takes intelligence to discern the > >truth. > > So why don't you discern it for us then? I did, you just didn't understand it. > >You don't know that. You just repeat what you have heard. Can you give > >any examples so I may know what you are talking about? > > Like that there's life on the sun, that all the stars are not suns, the > distance to the moon is different, there's is also all kind of > supernatural things in the Vedas, like a body that's seven miles long, > atomic explosions, people who can transform themselves into animals. It's > just like reading a fairy tale. So is reading about consciousness coming from matter, amoebas growing legs and learning to talk, and universes popping out of nowhere. > >That's because you are uninformed about the knowledge of the Vedas, That > >also proves you are prejudiced. > > Well, I just see that as the best explanation. If you think otherwise > please prove to me and everyone else that you are correct. I don't have to prove that to you. It's good enough if I can prove it to myself. > >You just revealed your own blind belief. You said that so many scientific > >theories disprove the Vedas. A theory is an unproven assumption. How can > >an unproven assumption prove anything? > > At least it shows that the theory is a more realistic and better > explanation than the literal reading of the Vedas. How does it show that? > >What will you accept as proof? I know that God exists but how can I > >convince you? > > I already explained that! So do you admit that God cannot be proven though matter? > I accept logic and direct observation, but none of these points towards a > supreme trancendental entity. They do to me and many other people I know. > >Why? To say that it seems to far out means you are arguing from your own > >incredulity. > > Why should I think we can make an analogy? Because you have a brain? > I never said that God could! I just say that this is a normal way of > proven things that I would accept. It doesn't really matter what you will accept. > >He has revealed Himself to so many people. As an atheist you signal to > >God that you don't want to know Him. If He would reveal Himself to you, > >He would interfere with your desire to not know Him. > > I'm just an atheist because I don't see any other choice. I would like to > know God if He exist, so why doesn't He show Himself to me? Because God doesn't show HImself to atheists. If He did, they wouldn't be able to remain atheists. > So I have to love God before I can see Him? But how can I love Him, if I > don't know if He exist? That's not a scientific approach. I have accept > God before I can get a proof for Him. Of course, that's just like you have to accept that 2 plus 2 equals 4 before you can learn mathematics. You can't learn or know anything without belief in it. You cannot learn mathematics from a teacher if you have no faith in the teacher. > >Like what? Give me an example. > > God Himself, or something that couldn't exist if God didn't also exist. If > you can't provide such things then I can't believe in God. You and the world couln't exists if God didn't exist. > You claim you know God exists, and you claim to have the proof. Then just > give it to us, so we can see it. How can I do that if you don't want to follow the same process I have followed? > So now you're saying that the proof is your own subjective experience that > you can't share with anyone. Then how is it a proof? It is proof to me. > We all have so many > subjective imaginations in our mind. In theory I could come before your > eyes, why doesn't God come before my eyes? So many people claimed to have > revelations, but they almost always contradict each other, and some of > these people were actually insane. How can you prove you're not? I don't have to prove that. You can't really prove anything. You can't even prove to me that you exist. You can't even prove to me that you are not insane. If you cannot prove these things, why do you then demand that that I prove them. That's highly unreasonable. Again you prove that atheists are opposed to reason and common sense. > >And you haven't given me any reason to think that you accept logic and > >reason. > > I could say the same about you! You could say anything. That doesn't mean it makes sense. > >I mean that you are opposed to logic and reason, since you reject > >reasonable arguments for God's existence. > > Reasonable arguments??? Can you prove to me you are a reasonable person? > > Well, can you prove that your idea of logic and reason is correct? > > >I can prove it, but maybe not to you. What will you accept as proof? > > So now you're just making logic and reason into something relative. We > might disagree, but you're the one failing because you never gave us the > proof for God, which you said you had. I have. God has proven Himself to me. > >I have given you so many reasons in the course of this discussion, but > >you reject reasonable arguments. Besides proof is subjective. You can't > >even prove to me that you exist, so how do you suggest I prove God to > >you? > > So then nothing can be proved, because proofs are subjective. Then science > and logic becomes useless. I think I'll just stick to modern science and > logic, because your process is not very promising. It's all the same to me. I don't even believe you exist. What does it matter what you do or think? > >I did take a course, and from what I learned i can see that you are > >against logic, because you have rejected every logical argument against > >God. > > I think you misunderstood the course. I don't think so. > >Can you prove to me that you exist? > > What would you accept as proof? That you come before me and bow down and chant the Hare Krishna mantra 1728 times. Before you do that you don't exist Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.