0
   

dattaswami, in response to your website.

 
 
Reply Sun 17 Aug, 2008 11:22 am
Quote:
From universal-spirituality.org:



"But you are also incapable of directly proving the non-existence of these super worlds."

My response: Correct, i am not capable of disproving many things, but i won't believe in them simply because i cannot disprove them. If i did my head would be filled with a great number of fantasies simply because i cannot disprove them. The burden of proof lies on the person who claims these places exist.


--------------------



My response: I do not claim to know that these places do not exist, simply that i do not believe in them.



------------------------


"there is an equal chance for the existence and non-existence of the super worlds according to the theory of probability."

My response: Simply because there are two options does not mean the two options hold equal weight. Also probability is not a theory but a mathematical concept.
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 0 • Views: 1,686 • Replies: 16
No top replies

 
dattaswami cv
 
  1  
Reply Sun 17 Aug, 2008 12:10 pm
@Fatal Freedoms,
Fatal_Freedoms;58636 wrote:
"But you are also incapable of directly proving the non-existence of these super worlds."

My response: Correct, i am not capable of disproving many things, but i won't believe in them simply because i cannot disprove them. If i did my head would be filled with a great number of fantasies simply because i cannot disprove them. The burden of proof lies on the person who claims these places exist.


--------------------



My response: I do not claim to know that these places do not exist, simply that i do not believe in them.



------------------------


"there is an equal chance for the existence and non-existence of the super worlds according to the theory of probability."

My response: Simply because there are two options does not mean the two options hold equal weight. Also probability is not a theory but a mathematical concept.
Fatal Freedoms
 
  1  
Reply Sun 17 Aug, 2008 01:04 pm
@dattaswami cv,
dattaswami;58637 wrote:


Atheists do not believe in hell,


Practically you are right, but technically you are wrong. Atheists disbelieve in god but everything else is available for them to believe while still being considered atheists. It is possible for atheists to believe in a heaven or/and hell.


Quote:


??

Quote:


??


Quote:
The abode of God as - upper most world is also required,
Because for the souls - in energetic bodies after death,


I don't believe souls exist. thus there doesn't need a place for them to go.

Quote:


define energy



Quote:


The ancients used to believe that heaven resided in the sky and hell in the earth, but technology has shown these beliefs to be false. Atheists make no such claims today because it is common knowledge that heaven is not in the sky nor hell in the earth.


Quote:
But scientists say that space is infinite


not with any degree of certainty.

Quote:


if there was no space there, then you could not go there to say it wasn't.


Quote:


no need to. I believe the universe has no physical boundaries


Quote:
If there is a compound wall,


a wall in space, that sounds absurd.

Quote:


no need to. the burden of proof is on those who claim it is there.

Quote:


No it is not. the existence or non-existence of something is not 50%. Occam's razor. As explained before simply because there are two options doesn't mean those two options are equally likely.

Occam's razor - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Quote:


a large portion of you life's dedication?

Quote:
Let us assume their presence, - what will be your fate? Think.
You will be powdered in hell,


considering the sheer number of Hells and Hades and other such underworlds you are as likely to be at one of these places as am I.

Quote:

- here also due to over luxuries
You have lost health and peace, - loss here as well as there.


what have i lost here?


Quote:


miracles are events that have not yet been explained.


Quote:


false dichotomy,

(probability is mathematical not scientific)


Quote:


The unimaginable? yes. the supernatural? no.

Quote:


another character of fables


Quote:


Beautiful.....yes. But not to be blemished by the myths of men.

Quote:


belief by self-deception?


Quote:


it is not, as i have demonstrated.

Quote:


Belief because of fear is a despicable reason....
0 Replies
 
Fatal Freedoms
 
  1  
Reply Mon 18 Aug, 2008 07:29 am
dattaswami;58644 wrote:
Building is there. Implies Builder should be there. Creation is there. Creator should be there.


How do you know it was created at all? If the universe is infinite in age it couldn't have been created because it has always been.

Quote:

I can see the building, which is in front of my eyes, but builder need not stand in front of the building.


....because i can call the builder, i can see the deed, i can see the blue-print, i can ask the construction company.

Quote:
He will be in his own job. If you want to meet the builder, you should definitely put effort to locate the builder and see him.


he seems to be playing hide and seek at the moment.

Quote:
Likewise Creation is there in front of our eyes.


and how do we know it is the result of a god if it was created at all? You are prone to making assumptions my friend.

Quote:

But have we put anytime effort to locate and identify the creator? Instead of that, with least effort we can propagate to others also that God is not there.


He likes to hide i guess, and he likes to fool us with all of this evidence that suggests otherwise.

Quote:
They are not only blinded, they are making others also blinded. Some people who are theists may become prey for the propagation of this ignorance also unfortunately. The greatest sin on the earth is to be unfaithful.


"to see by faith is to close the eye of reason"
-Benjamin Franklin

Why should a god value faith over reason? If there is a god he is a truly twisted individual...



Quote:
To identify the builder you should know the identification marks,


the identification marks all point to the absence of a creator.

Quote:

where he lives, what he does etc.. and we have to inquire if we don't know. This is to say that knowledge is required to identify any person.


I guess he just doesn't want to talk to me, which is sad because if he just put a little effort into letting himself know we wouldn't have to play this game of hide and seek.


Quote:
This knowledge is called divine knowledge


and you know this how?


Quote:
if the aim is to identify the Lord, which actually only is to be propagated. Lord created this universe for the enjoyment without any selfish motive and we human beings are enjoying the creation.


and you know this how?

Quote:
Like through nice parents, wife, children, beautiful nature consisting of pleasant looking mountains, rivers, sea, nature, changing weather etc.


nature is wonderful isn't? Seems such a shame to pollute the concept with fairy tails.

Quote:
If we cannot please the Lord, the human life is incomplete.


what a miserable existence that would be!

Quote:

We serve our family members by spending our hard earned money and also physically. Are we not serving family as Servant, and these family members are nearly equal to us.


we serve our families by caring for them, not worshiping them! what makes you think this god even wants to be worshiped?


Quote:
Where as, Lord is omnipotent and requires no help from us, many times satisfied our desires, saved us from mishaps etc. and if we cannot bow our head in front of Him, it is very ridiculous. It is very great honour to serve Him, this is the path followed by His real devotees. These real devotees could overcome ego and always wants to serve Him as servant.


what a miserable existence that would be. And all this time i thought like was about making memories and helping people to live their and your life to the fullest, when actually our only purpose is the feed the ego of this megalomaniac godhead of yours.

Quote:
Jesus preached the gospel and His followers participated in His mission as servants for further propagation of divine knowledge. These great devotees never hesitated to serve Lord Jesus and their names have also been known even today.


as well as the followers of other messiahs.



[/QUOTE]
0 Replies
 
Fatal Freedoms
 
  1  
Reply Thu 21 Aug, 2008 02:53 am
The fine-tuning you see is the result of millions of years of trial and error.

If you did anything for a million years, chances are, you'd be pretty good at it. The same goes for the functions of life forms.
Fatal Freedoms
 
  1  
Reply Thu 21 Aug, 2008 04:58 am
Quote:


thats a bit of wishful thinking on your part, don't you think?

Quote:
Therefore, the deep analysis of the nature which is Science is exposing the miracle of God to every body in this world and there is no need of a separate miracle.


science does not deal with the supernatural. Science only deals with phenomena. Scientists neither prove nor disprove the existence of god.


Quote:
Therefore, Science is the best religion exposing the existence of God to every ordinary human being on this earth including atheist.


Science is not a religion. It deals not with supernatural nor does it rely on faith, in fact science discourages faith and embraces logic and evidence.

Quote:
Therefore, I have given a place for Science in the symbol of Universal Spirituality.


that's nice.

Quote:
A scientist does not require a separate miracle to recognize the existence of God


recognizing god is not the job of a scientist.

Quote:

like a realized soul since the deeper analysis of this nature reveals the unimaginable power of God


how so?

Quote:
A scientist who does not believe the existence of God is not a scientist at all.


so if a scientist disagree with you (which is like 90% of them) then they don't count as scientists? That is very arrogant of you to say.
xj0hnx
 
  1  
Reply Thu 21 Aug, 2008 03:28 pm
@Fatal Freedoms,
Seriously, what's up with this fuckin' college thesis for replies?

Unicorns must exist, you can't prove they don't, so does bigfoot, and that flying spagetti dude. Hell, Santa Clause, elves, and the frickin minotaur too.
0 Replies
 
dattaswami cv
 
  1  
Reply Fri 22 Aug, 2008 01:54 am
@Fatal Freedoms,
Fatal_Freedoms;58726 wrote:
thats a bit of wishful thinking on your part, don't you think?



science does not deal with the supernatural. Science only deals with phenomena. Scientists neither prove nor disprove the existence of god.




Science is not a religion. It deals not with supernatural nor does it rely on faith, in fact science discourages faith and embraces logic and evidence.



that's nice.



recognizing god is not the job of a scientist.



how so?



so if a scientist disagree with you (which is like 90% of them) then they don't count as scientists? That is very arrogant of you to say.
Fatal Freedoms
 
  1  
Reply Fri 22 Aug, 2008 04:08 am
@dattaswami cv,
dattaswami;58776 wrote:


define unimaginable!



For me the concept of a "million" is unimaginable but that does not mean it is "other-worldly" in any way.
dattaswami cv
 
  1  
Reply Fri 22 Aug, 2008 11:31 am
@Fatal Freedoms,
Fatal_Freedoms;58809 wrote:
define unimaginable!



For me the concept of a "million" is unimaginable but that does not mean it is "other-worldly" in any way.
dattaswami cv
 
  1  
Reply Fri 22 Aug, 2008 11:35 am
@Fatal Freedoms,
Fatal_Freedoms;58809 wrote:
define unimaginable!



For me the concept of a "million" is unimaginable but that does not mean it is "other-worldly" in any way.
Fatal Freedoms
 
  1  
Reply Sun 24 Aug, 2008 01:31 am
@dattaswami cv,
dattaswami;58835 wrote:
If you choose that way, silence only indicates God and some have followed this way also.


how so?
0 Replies
 
Fatal Freedoms
 
  1  
Reply Sun 24 Aug, 2008 01:35 am
@dattaswami cv,
dattaswami;58836 wrote:


It is silly to define the essence of something by whether or not you can imagine it, this is a completely subjective measure that means different things to different people.



Ps. I don't care what the veda's says....unless you can independently test every statement made within it, it means nothing to me or anyone else in this group.
dattaswami cv
 
  1  
Reply Sun 24 Aug, 2008 10:41 am
@Fatal Freedoms,
Fatal_Freedoms;58874 wrote:
It is silly to define the essence of something by whether or not you can imagine it, this is a completely subjective measure that means different things to different people.



Ps. I don't care what the veda's says....unless you can independently test every statement made within it, it means nothing to me or anyone else in this group.
The basis is the observation of this world containing all imaginable items only. Hence all his logic is based on the observation of the nature of imaginable items and the relationships between the imaginable items only. This means that the preacher should say that God is an imaginable item and the imaginable process of generation of the imaginable world from imaginable God is in imaginable way only. Every sentence of the preacher should be imaginable to the student and then only the student gets satisfied.
Fatal Freedoms
 
  1  
Reply Sun 24 Aug, 2008 12:25 pm
@dattaswami cv,
dattaswami;58881 wrote:
Fatal_Freedoms;

This is the practical problem in revealing the absolute truth.


If absolute truth cannot be defined, measured, or even imagined what makes you think there even is an absolute truth? And even if there was an absolute truth it is reasonable to say that humans with their limited and fallible mental capacity could not understand it.



Quote:
The basis is the observation of this world containing all imaginable items only. Hence all his logic is based on the observation of the nature of imaginable items and the relationships between the imaginable items only.


wrong, mathematics is full of the unimaginable.

Quote:
This means that the preacher should say that God is an imaginable item and the imaginable process of generation of the imaginable world from imaginable God is in imaginable way only.


:rollinglaugh::rollinglaugh::rollinglaugh::rollinglaugh::rollinglaugh:


are you on acid?



Quote:


again i ask, define unimaginable in objective terms.

Quote:
But to satisfy the student the hypothesis introduced here is that God is pure awareness.


non-sequitar


Quote:
Here the infinite ocean of pure awareness is an assumption created because there is no proof of such ocean of awareness anywhere because you can find only the infinite ocean of inert energy. The infinite ocean of awareness is created by the preacher and such ocean charged by God can be treated as God Himself like the live wire treated as current. Now the student is satisfied.


no....seriously are you on acid? You're sentences don't even make grammatical sense. You continually use adjectives as if they were nouns.



Quote:
Similarly, the creation of world from God should be also done through the imaginable way answering all the objections through imaginable ways only. This makes again the creation of another assumption for the process of creating the world by God.


It is a good habit to not make assumptions

Quote:
The assumption here is that a second unimaginable item called as the power of God is created which is modified into the world. Since the power is negligible, the world is negligible and maintains the existence of single God or Brahman. It is like the dream of a person created by the modification of the mind and the mind is negligible compared to the materialistic person. In course of time to satisfy the logic of students, changes in the hypothesis are made by Ramanuja and Madhva who introduced the assumption of a separate material, which is modified as the world without any connection to God.


and you assume a deity exists why?

Quote:
The hypothetical assumptions can be varied for the sake of preaching the truth to the students in order to satisfy their logic developed from the observation of the world containing only imaginable items. This does not mean that the theories are different.

There is only one real theory that both God and the link between God and world are unimaginable.


what does this have to do with absolutely anything i was talking about? I'm starting to think you aren't even reading my posts.
0 Replies
 
g-man
 
  1  
Reply Sun 24 Aug, 2008 10:48 pm
@Fatal Freedoms,
Fatal_Freedoms;58724 wrote:
The fine-tuning you see is the result of millions of years of trial and error.

If you did anything for a million years, chances are, you'd be pretty good at it. The same goes for the functions of life forms.


Fine tuning in everything related to technology, even seemingly meaningless technology such as how a child's toy jumps when wound properly requires forethought, study and adjustments by a thinking, acting being or beings. They were not tried and judged working or non-working by "chance".
Fatal Freedoms
 
  1  
Reply Sun 24 Aug, 2008 11:20 pm
@g-man,
g-man;58897 wrote:
Fine tuning in everything related to technology, even seemingly meaningless technology such as how a child's toy jumps when wound properly requires forethought, study and adjustments by a thinking, acting being or beings. They were not tried and judged working or non-working by "chance".


trial and error does not require forethought...

furthermore it was "functionality" that judges working or non-working not "chance". Evolution does not work by chance. the only thing in evolution that works by chance is "mutations" everything after that is guided by natural processes.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

So I just joined Facebook.... - Discussion by DrewDad
YouTube Is Doomed - Discussion by Shapeless
Internet disinformation overload - Discussion by rosborne979
Participatory Democracy Online - Discussion by wandeljw
OpenDNS and net neutrality - Question by Butrflynet
Internet Explorer 8? - Question by Pitter
 
  1. Forums
  2. » dattaswami, in response to your website.
Copyright © 2019 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 10/23/2019 at 07:31:50