|
|
Post by Nitaidas on Mar 15, 2011 10:55:44 GMT -6
Richard Dawkins & AC Grayling discuss evidence for the supernatural at Oxford ThinkWeek Here is an interesting discussion of what would constitute evidence for the existence of the supernatural by two of the great Gnu Atheists (to balance some of the woo of the other threads here. We are looking for the truth, right.). It is an interesting and sensitive discussion. Here. |
|
|
|
Post by Nitaidas on Mar 17, 2011 11:26:15 GMT -6
Thank you for posting the podcast. This will give us the chance to present the case for god. I think I had posted an article discussing about this topic in 2009. I will however in due course, post more materials discussing thje arguments for God. I listened to the talk and I think, a very important point was raised by one of the audience: if there are no conditions that can occur to convince you that there's a God , doesn't the falsification principle render the atheists position cognitively meaningless. I especially like Grayling's account of what is rational in this discussion, connecting it as he does with the idea of ratio and that with the idea that what is rational is in higher accord or ratio with the facts. In McGrath it is hard to tell what he means by reason. It appears to be some sort of reified straw man that has no relationship to anything actually in use in the world. It seems clear to me that the only way we know things is through the senses, no matter which system of epistemology one appeals to, Indic or Western. We cannot even approach the sacred texts except through our senses and the senses are faulty. Does that mean things are hopeless? Not at all. We just have to keep rechecking our sense-data and depending only on the sense-data of others that has been tested. Even the scriptures are based on the sense-data of the sages or rsis or prophets of the past. We should not believe everything that is written. We should not blindly accept everything that is written, especially in texts like the Bible or the Koran or even the Bhagavata. This is why the Upanisads give us a process to follow: drastavyah, srotavyah, mantavyah, and nidhidhyasitavyah. "One whould see it, hear it, think about it and meditate on it. Even this recommendation should be treated like that. Everything that does not pass muster should be rejected or altered so that it does. As for the atheists. they are not all the same. There are some for whom that fallacy may well apply. But there are others like Jerry Coyne who argue that there are conditions under which they would accept the existence of a God. I expect that is the case with Grayling too based on his discussion of what his response would be to a two-story Jesus walking through the mountains. You start with the most likely explanations and move to the less likely as each hypothesis is tested and rejected. In the end you call it Fred. Fred I think stands for some fact or piece of data for which we have no current explanation but expect to sometime in the future. Is Fred to be taken as God? Only if one is lazy and/or does not understand what is meant by the term "God." |
|
|
|
Post by Ekantin on Mar 18, 2011 13:10:05 GMT -6
This will give us the chance to present the case for god. Very ambitious, methinks. ;D |
|
|
|
Post by Ekantin on Mar 20, 2011 19:54:26 GMT -6
And Ekantin No its not an ambitious activity at all. Theists have come up for more arguments for God in the last 2 decades. Atheists have the same arguments when the first village atheist presented them in the pub! Theists can say whatever they want, but what is more important is the small matter of proof. Atheists simply point this out. |
|
|
|
Post by Ldd on Mar 31, 2011 7:45:30 GMT -6
God is everything- there is nothing outside him., its a question of recognition.. He is paramatama within. Scientist will say its the brain dictating, then the brain is their god, fine. Let them worship the brain and the physical world..When you speak of krishna- thats devotion, a diff. type of contemplation.- You don't need to mention krishna as the almighty father in heaven. He doesn't need it, and neither will they care.
|
|
|
|
Post by Ldd on Mar 31, 2011 8:05:38 GMT -6
some people will not accept the perceptible physical world as proof of god-- I've always wondered what is the real drive behind convincing such people of god, chaitanya or krishna? what is our interest?
|
|
|
|
Post by Nitaidas on Mar 31, 2011 14:38:49 GMT -6
some people will not accept the perceptible physical world as proof of god-- I've always wondered what is the real drive behind convincing such people of god, chaitanya or krishna? what is our interest? Here is a link to an interesting discussion of some of the current arguments for God. Here.Any thoughts? |
|
|
|
Post by Ldd on Mar 31, 2011 19:45:58 GMT -6
the heading of this article is Why evolution is true. His argument is that theists cant prove anything-- not good. If god is our loving father why would he allow such uncaring acts of nature? maybe so that more people become atheist, i think. The guy keeps questioning why is god doing so and so? i am not joining christian theologicians trying to convince people of god. i really couldn't care.
I'm concerned with Krishna, i don't think he gives a fig for this place. There are souls who will love krishna due to favorable acts in previous lives. this is the only criteria--you can't convert people through arguments. if they do pious welfare work, in some lifetimes down the road they will become devotees.
|
|
|
|
Post by Ldd on Mar 31, 2011 19:55:45 GMT -6
thats it-- people do acts knowingly or unknowingly that are favorable- and one day, they will worship krishna--If they do or don't how does it affect my life? why am i so anxious for people to join my faith?. Do we really become dear to Krishna by converting people? these are the questions.
|
|
