Convincing Atheists

[dattaswami]

The logic of atheists is based on perception (Pratyaksha Pramana), which was propagated by the sage Charvaka. Perception means the knowledge derived from the observation with the naked eyes. Infact in the logic (Tarka Sastra) all the means of knowledge are based on perception only. In the inference (Anumana) also, the fire on the hill is inferred by its smoke. But the relationship between the fire and smoke is perceived with the naked eyes only. Similarly other means of knowledge are also based on the perception only.



Thus Charvaka forms the basic of the entire logic and without logic there is no knowledge. The statement that the God is above logic must be proved only by perception. The divine miracles performed by the human form of Lord prove that there is a power above the logic. These miracles are seen by the naked eyes. The atheists must be allowed to prove whether the miracles are simply magic tricks. When they cannot prove, they must accept the existence of super power above the logic. If they do not accept this they are contradicting their own basis, which is the perception. The divine miracles are experienced by the devotees and the experience cannot be contradicted. If the experience is contradicted, the experience of the atheists is also contradicted. Therefore atheists must be open-minded and should not be conservative. If they are conservative they have no right to criticize the religious conservatism.

The theory of Vedas and Bhagavath Gita never contradicts the perception and therefore the logic of atheists becomes the basis of the spiritual knowledge. The Lord comes in human form and this human form is perceived by the naked eyes. Even the miracles performed by demons establish the existence of super power. Therefore to convince the atheists the miracles of the Lord are not necessary.



When they are convinced about the existence of the Super power (Maya), the possessor of the Super Power, the Lord, coming in human form must be also accepted because the form is seen by the naked eyes. The salvation is breakage of the bonds in this world. Since the bonds of this world exist based on the perception, the salvation is also existing based on the perception. Since the family members and the money are perceived by the eyes, the bonds with them are also perceived. Thus the salvation (Moksha) must be accepted by the atheists. A single bond with the human form of the Lord is called ‘Saayujya’ or ‘Kaivalya’.

Since the human form is perceived, Sayujya or Kaivalya is also perceived and must be accepted by the atheists. The Bliss is derived by the devotee from the divine knowledge of the human form of the Lord. Therefore the Bliss is also true according to atheists. Thus the goal, the means to please the Lord (Sadhana) and the fruit of Sadhana (Moksha and Kaivalya) are perceived and exist in this world itself. Veda says ‘Yat Saakshat Aparokshaat’, ‘Pratyagatmana Maikshat’ which mean that the Lord in human form is perceived by the naked eyes.



Veda also says ‘Ihachet Avedeet’, which means that everything is true as seen in this world itself. This is called ‘Jeevanmukthi’, which means attaining the salvation while one is alive and not after death. The salvation after the death is not true because that has no basis of perception. Thus if the atheists are little bit patient and leave their aggressive nature of criticism, they are best fitted in the true spiritual knowledge of Vedas. In fact Swami Vidyaranya included the philosophy of Charvaka in his book as one of the logical philosophies (Darsanaas).

[WFCY]

first!

w1n

[dattaswami]

first!

w1n
ok, thanks

[Donkey]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=raerE_zUfCA

[dattaswami]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=raerE_zUfCA
God is never non-existent

The Veda says “Asanneva Sa bhavati…” etc. This hymn means “God exists while being the non-existent. Realize that God is both the existent and non-existent items. Then you will realize that God exists”. This hymn needs an elaborate analytical explanation. You can bring another Vedic statement here (Tat Srushtvaa…, Satcha Tyat Chaabhavat…). This means “God created the world and entered into it. Then He became both existent and non-existent”. Bring the Gita here (Manusheem Tanum...), which means that God enters the human body.


The non-existent items (Asat) are energy, matter and awareness, forms and feelings. Forms and feelings are non-existent with respect to matter and awareness. Both matter and awareness are non-existent with respect to energy. Energy is non-existent with respect to God. God is never non-existent. He is always existent (Sat). When God enters in the energetic form, the energetic form consists of form and energy and both these are relatively true (Asat) items.

When God enters the human body, the body consists of matter, energy, awareness, forms and feelings, which are also relatively true (Asat) items only. You have to take that form as God as you take the live wire as current. If you agree that the unimaginable God exists and enters imaginable items, which are non-existent (since they are relatively true), now you can say that God exists and is visible. Through the imaginable and relatively non-existent items (like energetic form or human body) only you can experience God.


The Veda says that God becomes both ‘Sat’ and ‘Tyat’. God exists as God and also as non-God (body and soul). In human body, He entertains Himself under the illusion of forms and feelings like an ordinary human being. If necessary, He will rise to higher level and will realize that forms and feelings are unreal. If still necessary, He will rise to still higher level, will realize both matter and awareness as unreal, and will perform miracles. Finally, He will rise to the highest level, where energy also becomes unreal and in this state, He is creator, maintainer and destroyer of the world. In this highest level only the Gita or the Bible or (divine knowledge) comes out.

[Margot]

Still not convinced.

[The Drunk Guy]

I watched a guy run right across Straight Creek one night when we's all drinkin. I think he was God. Course I's drinkin a lot a whiskey that night. :shrug:

[Non Sequitur]

Still not convinced.

Nor should you be. It's not about convincing people.

[dattaswami]

Still not convinced.

Proof for atheists

Scientists have to accept the existence of the unimaginable nature from the practical example of the unimaginable limits of this infinite universe. Scientists may reject miracles but they cannot reject the unimaginable limits of space. One instance of the existence of an unimaginable entity is sufficient to prove the existence of unimaginable God. Miracles act as supporting evidence of the same concept.


Miracles are very widely distributed in the world to give proof for the existence of God to every human being, which is the basic requirement. If you pray sincerely in a temple or even in an open place, generally God gives you His answer through a miracle. Many have witnessed this in their lives. Sometimes due to the inevitable fruits of your past deeds, God keeps silent for sometime in spite of your prayers and that time is used for your transformation. Hence, scientists call this as probability or coincidence of events[1] (http://www.discussionworldforum.com/forum/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=39396#_ftn1). Hence, God demonstrates specific miracles through His human form, to meet this twisted interpretation of scientists or atheists. Even devotees and demons do specific miracles.
God has given a wide coverage for spreading miracles since it involves the very basic issue of His existence.

[1] (http://www.discussionworldforum.com/forum/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=39396#_ftnref1) Atheists say that sometimes God responds to your prayers by a miracle and sometimes He does not. Since there is no predictable and definitive relation between your prayers and God’s response, the very concept of
God is wrong. The ‘miraculous’ responses to your prayers were simply coincidental.

[Margot]

Proof for atheists

Scientists have to accept the existence of the unimaginable nature from the practical example of the unimaginable limits of this infinite universe. Scientists may reject miracles but they cannot reject the unimaginable limits of space. One instance of the existence of an unimaginable entity is sufficient to prove the existence of unimaginable God. Miracles act as supporting evidence of the same concept.


Miracles are very widely distributed in the world to give proof for the existence of God to every human being, which is the basic requirement. If you pray sincerely in a temple or even in an open place, generally God gives you His answer through a miracle. Many have witnessed this in their lives. Sometimes due to the inevitable fruits of your past deeds, God keeps silent for sometime in spite of your prayers and that time is used for your transformation. Hence, scientists call this as probability or coincidence of events[1] (http://www.discussionworldforum.com/forum/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=39396#_ftn1). Hence, God demonstrates specific miracles through His human form, to meet this twisted interpretation of scientists or atheists. Even devotees and demons do specific miracles.
God has given a wide coverage for spreading miracles since it involves the very basic issue of His existence.

[1] (http://www.discussionworldforum.com/forum/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=39396#_ftnref1) Atheists say that sometimes God responds to your prayers by a miracle and sometimes He does not. Since there is no predictable and definitive relation between your prayers and God’s response, the very concept of
God is wrong. The ‘miraculous’ responses to your prayers were simply coincidental.



Still not convinced.

[dattaswami]

Still not convinced.

The atheist is always rigid and does not accept God even if a miracle is performed by God physically. He will attribute it to hypnotism and magic. When Lord Krishna showed the vision of His cosmic form in the court, Duryodhana fell unconscious, but he attributed it to an illusion and hypnotism. Therefore a rigid foolish atheist can never be transformed and he shall be condemned forever like a student debarred by the university. One must have an open mind to recognize the truth and must have the courage to come out of one’s conservative rigid circle. The atheist blames the devotees regarding their foolish conservative limits, but he himself is trapped by such limits! For a wise person even a subtle experience in small incidents taking place in his life is sufficient proof to realize the existence of God. God is giving proof of His existence even in very small incidents that take place in every walk of your life. If you sit and analyze your past life with careful, shrewd analysis, you can see the existence of God at every step and how He is trying to help you always.

[Margot]

The atheist is always rigid and does not accept God even if a miracle is performed by God physically. He will attribute it to hypnotism and magic. When Lord Krishna showed the vision of His cosmic form in the court, Duryodhana fell unconscious, but he attributed it to an illusion and hypnotism. Therefore a rigid foolish atheist can never be transformed and he shall be condemned forever like a student debarred by the university. One must have an open mind to recognize the truth and must have the courage to come out of one’s conservative rigid circle. The atheist blames the devotees regarding their foolish conservative limits, but he himself is trapped by such limits! For a wise person even a subtle experience in small incidents taking place in his life is sufficient proof to realize the existence of God. God is giving proof of His existence even in very small incidents that take place in every walk of your life. If you sit and analyze your past life with careful, shrewd analysis, you can see the existence of God at every step and how He is trying to help you always.

Still not convinced.

[dattaswami]

Still not convinced.

Only atheists deny miracles. Science keeps silent about the miracles because it cannot explain the miracles. Silence does not mean negation. In the books of science you do not find any topic with the name “denying miracles”. It only mentions the topics like light, heat, electricity etc., which are the topics of analysis of known and knowable items of the world.

It never touches the unknown and unknowable aspects. In fact the uncertainty principle of Heisenberg establishes that there are certain concepts, which are beyond the accuracy of our senses and even sophisticated instruments like electron microscope etc. Therefore, science is neutral and cannot be added to atheists or theists.

The atheists are definitely in negligible minority compared to theists. Therefore, people denying miracles fall under minority only. The theists also accept the concepts proved by science, which are related to the world. These theists accept miracles also as unimaginable events about which science does not speak at all.

Therefore, there is no contradiction between theists and science. The theist never says that the revolution of fan is unimaginable miracle and hence, the theists never oppose science. In fact, atheists oppose science by denying miracles about which science keeps silent.

[Margot]

Only atheists deny miracles. Science keeps silent about the miracles because it cannot explain the miracles. Silence does not mean negation. In the books of science you do not find any topic with the name “denying miracles”. It only mentions the topics like light, heat, electricity etc., which are the topics of analysis of known and knowable items of the world.

It never touches the unknown and unknowable aspects. In fact the uncertainty principle of Heisenberg establishes that there are certain concepts, which are beyond the accuracy of our senses and even sophisticated instruments like electron microscope etc. Therefore, science is neutral and cannot be added to atheists or theists.

The atheists are definitely in negligible minority compared to theists. Therefore, people denying miracles fall under minority only. The theists also accept the concepts proved by science, which are related to the world. These theists accept miracles also as unimaginable events about which science does not speak at all.

Therefore, there is no contradiction between theists and science. The theist never says that the revolution of fan is unimaginable miracle and hence, the theists never oppose science. In fact, atheists oppose science by denying miracles about which science keeps silent.

Still not convinced.

[dattaswami]

Still not convinced.
Instead of just saying simply 'Still not convinced' will not work. You have to come up with equal points against my argument that is called a good discussion rather than simply saying samething again and again...

[Donkey]

Er. I don't think you have Heisenberg's uncertainty principle quite right.

[The Drunk Guy]

Instead of just saying simply 'Still not convinced' will not work. You have to come up with equal points against my argument that is called a good discussion rather than simply saying samething again and again...
You're commenting on her saying the same thing again and again. :rofl: No one will talk to you as long as you keep copying and pasting pre-typed responses that have nothing to do with what we say.

Also, can you not just keep all this shit in one thread? Its so annoying to see 20 new threads, but all of them are about your little religion and have nothing unique.

[The Drunk Guy]

Only atheists deny miracles. Science keeps silent about the miracles because it cannot explain the miracles. Silence does not mean negation. In the books of science you do not find any topic with the name “denying miracles”. It only mentions the topics like light, heat, electricity etc., which are the topics of analysis of known and knowable items of the world.

It never touches the unknown and unknowable aspects. In fact the uncertainty principle of Heisenberg establishes that there are certain concepts, which are beyond the accuracy of our senses and even sophisticated instruments like electron microscope etc. Therefore, science is neutral and cannot be added to atheists or theists.

The atheists are definitely in negligible minority compared to theists. Therefore, people denying miracles fall under minority only. The theists also accept the concepts proved by science, which are related to the world. These theists accept miracles also as unimaginable events about which science does not speak at all.

Therefore, there is no contradiction between theists and science. The theist never says that the revolution of fan is unimaginable miracle and hence, the theists never oppose science. In fact, atheists oppose science by denying miracles about which science keeps silent.
Its a well known fact that professional skeptic Dr. James Randi has had an ongoing challenge for anyone to offer proof of the supernatural in exchange for one million dollars. It has stood unclaimed for nearly half a century.

The Foundation is committed to providing reliable information about paranormal claims. It both supports and conducts original research into such claims.
At JREF, we offer a one-million-dollar prize to anyone who can show, under proper observing conditions, evidence of any paranormal, supernatural, or occult power or event. The JREF does not involve itself in the testing procedure, other than helping to design the protocol and approving the conditions under which a test will take place. All tests are designed with the participation and approval of the applicant. In most cases, the applicant will be asked to perform a relatively simple preliminary test of the claim, which if successful, will be followed by the formal test. Preliminary tests are usually conducted by associates of the JREF at the site where the applicant lives. Upon success in the preliminary testing process, the "applicant" becomes a "claimant."

SOURCE (http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/1m-challenge.html)

Go prove your divinity so the world can know! :rofl:

[Margot]

Instead of just saying simply 'Still not convinced' will not work. You have to come up with equal points against my argument that is called a good discussion rather than simply saying samething again and again...

Actually, no, I don't. And it has been working quite well for me so far.

You have failed to convince me of anything, despite the title of the thread.

Therefore, I'm still not convinced.

[Donkey]

I, for one, am convinced. So long atheism. HELLOOOOOO Odin.

[dattaswami]

Its a well known fact that professional skeptic Dr. James Randi has had an ongoing challenge for anyone to offer proof of the supernatural in exchange for one million dollars. It has stood unclaimed for nearly half a century.

SOURCE (http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/1m-challenge.html)

Go prove your divinity so the world can know! :rofl:
Veda says that God alone does miracles

This world is just imagination of God.

Miracles are done by God and not by individual soul (Jeeva). Veda says that God alone does miracles (Satyakamah…). The logic in this point is that this entire creation is just His will only. This world is just imagination of God. You can do any impossible thing in your imaginary world. You can also make somebody created by you in the imaginary world to do anything. That somebody is able to do anything due to your will only. Hence, if somebody is doing a miracle, that somebody is not doing the miracle. God, the creator of the world is doing miracle through him. The will power is the material of your imaginary world and is responsible for any action that is natural as well as supernatural. Hence, for realized souls, who see every action as the will of God only, the miracle is not a special action at all.

For realized souls, not only the actions but also the entire material of the creation is also His will only. In such case they do not distinguish matter, energy, work and miracle. Only ignorant people distinguish miracle from ordinary action that can be done by human beings. They think that the human being can do such and such work and God is not involved in it. For them only, miracle is necessary, which is the action of God separately distinguished from the action of human being. This is the reason for the realized souls not giving any importance to a miracle since they see every action and even the entire world also as the action of God only.

[The Drunk Guy]

Veda says that God alone does miracles

This world is just imagination of God.

Miracles are done by God and not by individual soul (Jeeva). Veda says that God alone does miracles (Satyakamah…). The logic in this point is that this entire creation is just His will only. This world is just imagination of God. You can do any impossible thing in your imaginary world. You can also make somebody created by you in the imaginary world to do anything. That somebody is able to do anything due to your will only. Hence, if somebody is doing a miracle, that somebody is not doing the miracle. God, the creator of the world is doing miracle through him. The will power is the material of your imaginary world and is responsible for any action that is natural as well as supernatural. Hence, for realized souls, who see every action as the will of God only, the miracle is not a special action at all.

For realized souls, not only the actions but also the entire material of the creation is also His will only. In such case they do not distinguish matter, energy, work and miracle. Only ignorant people distinguish miracle from ordinary action that can be done by human beings. They think that the human being can do such and such work and God is not involved in it. For them only, miracle is necessary, which is the action of God separately distinguished from the action of human being. This is the reason for the realized souls not giving any importance to a miracle since they see every action and even the entire world also as the action of God only.
So your message is for skeptics to shut the fuck up and start paying tithes, right? That's been done before.

[Michael]

This world is just imagination of God.
In philosophy, we call this solipsism.

Philosophers take the idea seriously, only because it cannot be rationally disproven.

But in reality, anyone who preaches it as truth is assumed to be suffering some form of mental illness or psychic delusion. :shrug:

[dattaswami]

In philosophy, we call this solipsism.

Philosophers take the idea seriously, only because it cannot be rationally disproven.

But in reality, anyone who preaches it as truth is assumed to be suffering some form of mental illness or psychic delusion. :shrug:
Your conclusions are not correct when the case of God is considered.

God is the absolute reality and creation is relatively real

God can never be imagined as long as space, energy and matter (Creation) exist
Shankara established the fundamental concept in the spiritual knowledge according to which God is the absolute reality and the creation is relatively real. If you analyze the present science deeply, this can be well appreciated. Science says that matter is a form of energy. Matter and energy are the simultaneous concept and both are inter-convertible. Einstein says that matter and space are similar simultaneous concepts. He says that there is no absolute space without referring the matter since geometrical space only exists. The bending of space around boundary of matter indicates that space is not nothing but has physical status.



Thus, energy and matter are similar to matter and space in the simultaneous existence. Therefore, space and energy must have similar relationship. The generation of galaxies from space indicates the inter conversion of space into energy and matter. All this concludes that space, energy and matter are mutually existing and are simultaneous inter-convertible concepts like the sides of a coin. The forms that are converting between themselves must be relatively real. The absolute basic form must be always one without any conversion. This can be clear by an example.
You have seen a rope in mild darkness. The existence of rope is clear to you but not the form of the rope. The superimposed forms like snake, stick and garland appear but their existence is the same existence of rope. Therefore, the three superimpositions appear as if they really exist. These superimpositions will be converting in to each other because you will be seeing the snake for some time, the stick for some time and garland for some time. Once the light is put on, the absolute reality, the rope, appears. This rope will never be converted into any of these relative forms (snake, stick and garland). Therefore, the right conclusion is that the absolute reality is never converted into another form and the inter-convertible forms are always relatively real. Based on this example, space, energy and matter are relatively real, which are inter-convertible between themselves. Absolute reality is God and cannot be converted into any other form with reference to the realisation of rope. The rope is never seen as long as the relative forms exist. Therefore, God can never be imagined as long as space, energy and matter (Creation) exist. Therefore, God is unimaginable.

You are a part and parcel of creation and you will disappear along with the disappearance of creation. Therefore, for you creation can never be unreal. It is unreal only for the God. But Shankara gave a twist here to purify minds of atheists. He said that the world is unreal. They atheists took that the world is unreal for them. Shankara kept silent because such misunderstanding is going to do good for the atheists. Due to unreality of the world, one will reduce the influence of family bonds, which are supposed to be unreal. This will minimise selfishness and mind is purified, which is required for the devotion to God. Thus, Shankara converted atheists in to theists by saying that they are God. Then they purified their minds by taking the world as unreal for them. The theist with pure mind is eligible to become a good devotee. Then He introduced the Lord for worship with devotion in order to become God practically. Who can handle this situation, with such efficiency except the human incarnation of God?

[WFCY]

In philosophy, we call this solipsism.

Philosophers take the idea seriously, only because it cannot be rationally disproven.

But in reality, anyone who preaches it as truth is assumed to be suffering some form of mental illness or psychic delusion. :shrug:

Actually solipsism is when world is the imagination of the individual. not god.

[The Drunk Guy]

Your conclusions are not correct when the case of God is considered.

God is the absolute reality and creation is relatively real

God can never be imagined as long as space, energy and matter (Creation) exist
Shankara established the fundamental concept in the spiritual knowledge according to which God is the absolute reality and the creation is relatively real. If you analyze the present science deeply, this can be well appreciated. Science says that matter is a form of energy. Matter and energy are the simultaneous concept and both are inter-convertible. Einstein says that matter and space are similar simultaneous concepts. He says that there is no absolute space without referring the matter since geometrical space only exists. The bending of space around boundary of matter indicates that space is not nothing but has physical status.



Thus, energy and matter are similar to matter and space in the simultaneous existence. Therefore, space and energy must have similar relationship. The generation of galaxies from space indicates the inter conversion of space into energy and matter. All this concludes that space, energy and matter are mutually existing and are simultaneous inter-convertible concepts like the sides of a coin. The forms that are converting between themselves must be relatively real. The absolute basic form must be always one without any conversion. This can be clear by an example.
You have seen a rope in mild darkness. The existence of rope is clear to you but not the form of the rope. The superimposed forms like snake, stick and garland appear but their existence is the same existence of rope. Therefore, the three superimpositions appear as if they really exist. These superimpositions will be converting in to each other because you will be seeing the snake for some time, the stick for some time and garland for some time. Once the light is put on, the absolute reality, the rope, appears. This rope will never be converted into any of these relative forms (snake, stick and garland). Therefore, the right conclusion is that the absolute reality is never converted into another form and the inter-convertible forms are always relatively real. Based on this example, space, energy and matter are relatively real, which are inter-convertible between themselves. Absolute reality is God and cannot be converted into any other form with reference to the realisation of rope. The rope is never seen as long as the relative forms exist. Therefore, God can never be imagined as long as space, energy and matter (Creation) exist. Therefore, God is unimaginable.

You are a part and parcel of creation and you will disappear along with the disappearance of creation. Therefore, for you creation can never be unreal. It is unreal only for the God. But Shankara gave a twist here to purify minds of atheists. He said that the world is unreal. They atheists took that the world is unreal for them. Shankara kept silent because such misunderstanding is going to do good for the atheists. Due to unreality of the world, one will reduce the influence of family bonds, which are supposed to be unreal. This will minimise selfishness and mind is purified, which is required for the devotion to God. Thus, Shankara converted atheists in to theists by saying that they are God. Then they purified their minds by taking the world as unreal for them. The theist with pure mind is eligible to become a good devotee. Then He introduced the Lord for worship with devotion in order to become God practically. Who can handle this situation, with such efficiency except the human incarnation of God?

The Book of Mormon is the earliest of the defining publications of the Latter Day Saint movement (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latter_Day_Saint_movement). The churches of the movement typically regard the Book of Mormon not only as scripture, but as a historical record of God's dealings with the ancient inhabitants of the Americas (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Americas), written by American prophets (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prophet)[5] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_Mormon#cite_note-4) from perhaps as early as 2600 BC to about AD 421.[6] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_Mormon#cite_note-5)

[Margot]

Actually solipsism is when world is the imagination of the individual. not god.

Is God not an individual?

What do you call it when it's God's imagination?

[WFCY]

Is God not an individual?

What do you call it when it's God's imagination?

is a unicorn an individual, if I name him Mike?

I just ask what that guy is smoking when he says his world is god's imagination.

also, philosophical terms have definitions and I go by those definitions.

[Michael]

Actually solipsism is when world is the imagination of the individual. not god.

Yes, that's true.

But it seems like the term ought to be applicable in this case as well. Kinda like 'super-solipsism' when the whole universe is believed to be God's own imagination. :lol:

That arrangement leaves no place for the existence of anything except God - which means we are all just figments of God's imagination. :shrug:

[Margot]

is a unicorn an individual, if I name him Mike?

I just ask what that guy is smoking when he says his world is god's imagination.

also, philosophical terms have definitions and I go by those definitions.

God, uppercase, proper noun.

Regardless of that miscommunication, I'm asking a legitimate question. Is there a word that refers specifically to God's imagination?

[WFCY]

ask a theologin. nobody outside of the US considers philosophy of christian religion serious philosopy in this day and age, thus, the word is not terribly popular nor important to the point i should care or know. sorry.

and: god

[JHC]

is a unicorn an individual, if I name him Mike?

I just ask what that guy is smoking when he says his world is god's imagination.

also, philosophical terms have definitions and I go by those definitions.
Yes.

Peter Pan had/has an imagination and he was/is an imagination.

[Donkey]

God, uppercase, proper noun.

Regardless of that miscommunication, I'm asking a legitimate question. Is there a word that refers specifically to God's imagination?

Depends on the god. The Judeo-Muslim-Christian God is capitalized, as it is a single divine entity, proper noun. Gods that share a pantheon with one another are not (unless at the start of a sentence...).

God the singular omnipotent Agent is capitalized, generic god is not. (Also, anything that refers to Jehova is capitalized, regardless of what the word is.)

[The Drunk Guy]

God, uppercase, proper noun.

Regardless of that miscommunication, I'm asking a legitimate question. Is there a word that refers specifically to God's imagination?
Reality.



NAILED IT! :party: Now give me my prize, Pat!

[Margot]

Depends on the god. The Judeo-Muslim-Christian God is capitalized, as it is a single divine entity, proper noun. Gods that share a pantheon with one another are not (unless at the start of a sentence...).

God the singular omnipotent Agent is capitalized, generic god is not. (Also, anything that refers to Jehova is capitalized, regardless of what the word is.)

Uh huh. Note how I consistently use the upper case proper noun, as does the OP, and as does the quote Michael cites when he initially refers to solipsism. It seems there is only one person here not talking about BigGGod. Hence the confusion.

Or were you trying to clarify this for someone else?

[WFCY]

u r just a devout closet catholic, if not an open one, admit it.

[Michael]

God, uppercase, proper noun.

Regardless of that miscommunication, I'm asking a legitimate question. Is there a word that refers specifically to God's imagination?

I would say that would be "the Will of God".

Or alternatively (and Non will probably shoot me for it) it is "God's grace". :lol:

Or for pure humor, I'd say that God's imagination is called "Christianity"! :rofl:

[dattaswami]

Is God not an individual?

What do you call it when it's God's imagination?
It is for your understanding such words are used otherwise you will not understand anything.... This is a simle using worldly logic to just make you undestand this concept. God is unimaginable means you cannot even use any simle also to describe God.

He is unimaginable, but when such God comes in human form we can see Him and experience Him through the human form of God.

Veda says that the soul is understood by shrewd analysis and here the soul is the subject and not God (Drushyate tvagrayaa..). Here, the subject cannot be God since Veda again says that God can never been understood by intelligence and analysis (Namedhayaa…, Naishaatarkena…). Otherwise, there will be contradiction between two Vedic statements. In Gita, Krishna says that nobody can understand Him (mamtuvedana…) and here the subject is God. Again, Krishna says that some blessed soul can understand Him essentially (Kaschitmam….). Here also the subject is God.

This appears to be a contradiction. But the word ‘essentially’ means that God existing in human incarnation can be realized as unimaginable after filtering the entire medium. It again means that God is unimaginable. To support this meaning, a similar Vedic quotation can be shown, which says that one must know God as unknown (Yasyaamatam…).

[Margot]

It is for your understanding such words are used otherwise you will not understand anything.... This is a simle using worldly logic to just make you undestand this concept. God is unimaginable means you cannot even use any simle also to describe God.

He is unimaginable, but when such God comes in human form we can see Him and experience Him through the human form of God.

Veda says that the soul is understood by shrewd analysis and here the soul is the subject and not God (Drushyate tvagrayaa..). Here, the subject cannot be God since Veda again says that God can never been understood by intelligence and analysis (Namedhayaa…, Naishaatarkena…). Otherwise, there will be contradiction between two Vedic statements. In Gita, Krishna says that nobody can understand Him (mamtuvedana…) and here the subject is God. Again, Krishna says that some blessed soul can understand Him essentially (Kaschitmam….). Here also the subject is God.

This appears to be a contradiction. But the word ‘essentially’ means that God existing in human incarnation can be realized as unimaginable after filtering the entire medium. It again means that God is unimaginable. To support this meaning, a similar Vedic quotation can be shown, which says that one must know God as unknown (Yasyaamatam…).

I'll use simles to describe anything I damn well please!

[dattaswami]

ask a theologin. nobody outside of the US considers philosophy of christian religion serious philosopy in this day and age, thus, the word is not terribly popular nor important to the point i should care or know. sorry.

and: god

Comparison of Philosophy & Science:


Philosophy, which is the spiritual knowledge, travels in one direction in the circle of research. Science, which is the physical knowledge, travels in the opposite direction in the same circle of research. A Philosopher or a Scientist should travel extensively, so that they will meet at the same point in the circle. If they are in the middle of their journey only, they will be opposite to each other and therefore, will fight with each other. The Philosopher says that God is beyond this world and He is inexplicable. The Scientist says that this world itself is God and accepts the inexplicable points in the nature. The Philosopher says that God pervades all over the world. The Scientist accepts the inexplicable nature of the world, though some concepts of the world are explicable. When God is inexplicable, the very characteristic nature of the God is only inexplicability. Philosopher calls the explicability as the creation and the inexplicability as God. The explicable part is agreed by both philosopher and scientist. The inexplicable part of the world is also accepted by both. This inexplicability is called as God by the Philosopher and the Scientist calls the same as inexplicability. The Scientist says that there is wire and heat in a hot wire. The Philosopher says that the fire and the wire are co-existing. The only difference is in words. The Scientist calls heat and the Philosopher calls the heat as fire. The wire is the explicable part of the world, which is agreed by all. A Scientist calls the other inexplicable part as a property by calling it as heat. The Philosopher calls the same as the possessor of the property i.e., fire. The intensive heat is fire.

Thus the possessor of a property and the property are one and the same. The Scientist says the independent existence of the inexplicable power as an independent existence of a field of energy. The Philosopher says that there is a substratum of that field of energy, which is called as God and which, is not perceived so far. The Scientist accepts that they have to go still deeper. The Philosopher infers the existence of the substratum in such a deeper state. The argument of the Philosopher is that power cannot independently exist and needs a possessor. Suppose the Sun is not seen due to overlapping cloud, it should not be concluded that the light transmitting through the cloud is independently existing power. The Scientist may see the Sun in future after piercing through the cloud. So, where is the difference or quarrel between a matured Philosopher and a matured Scientist?

The inference of the Philosopher is based on the perception of a similar concept existing in the explicable part of the world. The Scientist does not believe this because it is not a perception of the direct concept. Both have not seen the Sun. Both accept the perception of light. Both accept that their search and research has not reached the end. At this stage the Philosopher infers the Sun, whereas the Scientist does not infer the Sun but still accepts that the final truth is still to be achieved after piercing through the cloud of ignorance. At this point the support for the Philosopher is the Human Incarnation, which preaches the existence of such substratum. If the Scientist accepts the alternative genuine path of the miracles, the human incarnation definitely becomes the final authority about the existence of the possessor of such inexplicable power. If the Scientist has patience to reach the bottom most end, he will become a spiritual philosopher. An impatient Scientist existing in some middle place of the path becomes the atheist.

[Donkey]

Big Text! Strong Man! Beat Chest!

[Margot]

Big Text! Strong Man! Beat Chest!

When I was in middle school I tried to vary the size of my handwriting as much as possible to give my teachers headaches. It never worked.

[JHC]

It is for your understanding such words are used otherwise you will not understand anything.... This is a simle using worldly logic to just make you undestand this concept. God is unimaginable means you cannot even use any simle also to describe God.

He is unimaginable, but when such God comes in human form we can see Him and experience Him through the human form of God.

Veda says that the soul is understood by shrewd analysis and here the soul is the subject and not God (Drushyate tvagrayaa..). Here, the subject cannot be God since Veda again says that God can never been understood by intelligence and analysis (Namedhayaa…, Naishaatarkena…). Otherwise, there will be contradiction between two Vedic statements. In Gita, Krishna says that nobody can understand Him (mamtuvedana…) and here the subject is God. Again, Krishna says that some blessed soul can understand Him essentially (Kaschitmam….). Here also the subject is God.

This appears to be a contradiction. But the word ‘essentially’ means that God existing in human incarnation can be realized as unimaginable after filtering the entire medium. It again means that God is unimaginable. To support this meaning, a similar Vedic quotation can be shown, which says that one must know God as unknown (Yasyaamatam…).

This is a long way to say that God can not be known. I agree.

Then you can neither know that God exists. Although I appreciate Vedic, Biblical and other religious text, I can also appreciate the limits of the same texts.

You talk a lot about how to understand that which is not understandable. If I were a Swami, I imagine I would be utterly silent.

[The Drunk Guy]

If I were a Swami, I imagine I would be utterly silent.
And quite poor! :D

[evanescence]

God has never been proven to be more than a concept. Miracles are subjective. Some may even claim that life itself is miraculous, and though it may be beyond our understanding how the universe functions, it certainly doesn't prove that God exists. There is no proof that God exists. And there is no proof that God doesn't exist. Therefore, even though I claim to be an atheist, it is more accurate to say that I am an agnostic.