Statistical evidence of god

[Myles]

unlike the word "blue", "good" can be seen in terms of purpose/functionalism/etc so the analogy doesn't hold

so why is having crops good?
Whose issues of purpose/function are being held as indubitable?


If you examine the proposal that there are two persons in contention

1 - god (the creator of the universe)
2 - the living entity (conditioned by material existence)

would you expect that issues of "goodness" (ie agreeability of function to a said object) would be the same?
Would a conditioned living entity's notion of what something is good for be the same as gods?

Or perhaps you would be more comfortable working with an analogy thats more on your turf

Would you expect a prisoner's notion of how a jail should be "good" top be identical to how a prison manager's notion of how a jail should be "good"?

You never seem to have an argument, merely affirmations. You posit the existence of a creator without having adduced any evidence to support your supposition, So, I suggest you start a few stages earlier by showing that a creator exists. Then we can consider the point you wish to make here.


Also, note that analogies are not always apt and those that are will break down if pushed too far. It's fine to use an analogy to illustrate a point but , in the end, there must be some objective evidence or the whole thing collapses.

I have no idea what you mean by a "living entity ( conditioned by material existence ). Can you show evidence that there are entities not conditioned by material existence, which I take to mean disembodied souls or something of the kind.

Let's have no more analogies. Let's have some evidence to support your claims !

 

[Myles]

How fortunate for them!

They'll be saved within a couple of decades. While I will crawl behind for a billion more kalpas, or more.
How soothing.

It's even worse than you imagine. While we are waiting to be saved, as you put it, many of us thoroughly enjoy life. I suspect the reason you will have such a long wait is because of your behaviour in a previous existence.

 

[greenberg]

It's even worse than you imagine. While we are waiting to be saved, as you put it, many of us thoroughly enjoy life.

Really, you thoroughly enjoy life?
And it is because you thoroughly enjoy life that you come to online forums pretty much every day for a few hours and tell people what morons, losers and weaklings they are who cannot face reality?

 

[lightgigantic]

You do come out with such rubbish. Do you believe that all who do not subscribe to your partoicular view of thing must be suffering ? What a load of tosh ! Buddhism is for wimps, people who cannot handle reality, think for themselves and make their own unfettered decisions. Why else do they talk of "taking Refuge " ?

There is more to life than sufferinmg ! And I notice that you mention a dog or an ass. Why not likre a human ? Is it because it sounds more dramatic to refer to animals ?

it's because a human that suffers like an ass or dog is more tragic than a mere ass or dog

 

[lightgigantic]

How fortunate for them!

They'll be saved within a couple of decades. While I will crawl behind for a billion more kalpas, or more.
How soothing.

there is a saying "spiritual life is simple for the simple hearted"
You don't have to be a genius to go back to the spiritual world - you simply have to have sincere love for god

 

[greenberg]

there is a saying "spiritual life is simple for the simple hearted"
You don't have to be a genius to go back to the spiritual world - you simply have to have sincere love for god

And how do I do that?
I have been trying to "love God" almost my whole life. To no avail or effect.

 

[lightgigantic]

And how do I do that?
I have been trying to "love God" almost my whole life. To no avail or effect.

[Cc. Adi 17.21]
"In this age of quarrel and hypocrisy the only means of deliverance is chanting the holy name of the Lord. There is no other way. There is no other way. There is no other way."

Its not that one has to train oneself to love god (anymore than we would have to train ourselves to love someone who strikes us as charming/attractive/etc). Rather, our love is a natural consequence of coming into contact with them. For this reason the name of god is glorified (hallowed be thy name etc etc), since that is specifically the aspect of god that is available to us in conditioned life.


Gitavali - namastaka song 2

3) O eternal holy name of Krishna, You possess all powers and bestow auspiciousness upon the living beings. Without You there is no other friend to deliver us from the ocean of material existence. You have come for the deliverance of all fallen souls.

4) For all souls within this world there is much misery and sorrow. O Harinam, if someone calls upon You just one time, feeling himself very meek and lowly, possessing nothing and seeing no other remedy for his relief, You then easily destroy all his sorrows.


I have linked this before, but perhaps now the parts where the speaker is referencing the essence of different religious traditions might appear more pertinent.

 

[greenberg]

Its not that one has to train oneself to love god (anymore than we would have to train ourselves to love someone who strikes us as charming/attractive/etc). Rather, our love is a natural consequence of coming into contact with them. For this reason the name of god is glorified (hallowed be thy name etc etc), since that is specifically the aspect of god that is available to us in conditioned life.

I cannot claim to have any such contact with God though -in the sense that I have no knowledge that I could call "knowledge of God"-; I have no idea how such a contact would be recognized. It seems one would have to be beyond karma, or an apriori nominalist to be able to claim knowledge of such a contact. - And I am neither.

[Cc. Adi 17.21]
"In this age of quarrel and hypocrisy the only means of deliverance is chanting the holy name of the Lord. There is no other way. There is no other way. There is no other way."
...
I have linked this before, but perhaps now the parts where the speaker is referencing the essence of different religious traditions might appear more pertinent.

The speaker does say that one also has to meditate, in order to see how the body is not the self.

 

[Myles]

Really, you thoroughly enjoy life?
And it is because you thoroughly enjoy life that you come to online forums pretty much every day for a few hours and tell people what morons, losers and weaklings they are who cannot face reality?

Yes, it's all part of the fun. I do not recall calling anyone a moron or a loser.

 

[Myles]

it's because a human that suffers like an ass or dog is more tragic than a mere ass or dog

How do you quantify suffering and, more to the point, why should anyone believe such nonmsense ?

 

[Myles]

[Cc. Adi 17.21]
"In this age of quarrel and hypocrisy the only means of deliverance is chanting the holy name of the Lord. There is no other way. There is no other way. There is no other way."

Its not that one has to train oneself to love god (anymore than we would have to train ourselves to love someone who strikes us as charming/attractive/etc). Rather, our love is a natural consequence of coming into contact with them. For this reason the name of god is glorified (hallowed be thy name etc etc), since that is specifically the aspect of god that is available to us in conditioned life.


Gitavali - namastaka song 2

3) O eternal holy name of Krishna, You possess all powers and bestow auspiciousness upon the living beings. Without You there is no other friend to deliver us from the ocean of material existence. You have come for the deliverance of all fallen souls.

4) For all souls within this world there is much misery and sorrow. O Harinam, if someone calls upon You just one time, feeling himself very meek and lowly, possessing nothing and seeing no other remedy for his relief, You then easily destroy all his sorrows.


I have linked this before, but perhaps now the parts where the speaker is referencing the essence of different religious traditions might appear more pertinent.

In other words, you brainwash yourself into a belief in god by continuous chanting.

Are you aware that a lot of shamans and witch doctors, to mention a few use that technique to put their followers into altered states of mind which makes them receptive to any old tosh.

How about arranging an online chant-in and see what appears on the screen !

 

[lightgigantic]

In other words, you brainwash yourself into a belief in god by continuous chanting.

said the frog to the ocean

Are you aware that a lot of shamans and witch doctors, to mention a few use that technique to put their followers into altered states of mind which makes them receptive to any old tosh.

does that mean I have to give up biting heads off live chickens too?

How about arranging an online chant-in and see what appears on the screen !

sounds like a good idea

 

[Carcano]

The famous statician George Gallup said," I could prove God statistically. Take the human body alone: the chance that all the functions of the individual would just happen is a statistical monstrosity."

Could this also be said of the simplest life form...a one celled organism with hundreds of millions of molecules in complex arrangement?

 

[Myles]

said the frog to the ocean



does that mean I have to give up biting heads off live chickens too?


sounds like a good idea

DO you ever address a point or are you always content to come out with a little quip or quotation which does nothing to support your view.

 

[lightgigantic]

DO you ever address a point or are you always content to come out with a little quip or quotation which does nothing to support your view.

While it can be entertaining to discuss issues of theory/concepts with you from time to time, there is no value in the discussion of practice, since I am sure it is something you haven't and won't do.

 

[lightgigantic]

Could this also be said of the simplest life form...a one celled organism with hundreds of millions of molecules in complex arrangement?

sure
I recall one biologist who made the point that the infrastructure of the simplest organisms is more complex than the infrastructure of NYC

 

[lightgigantic]

Greenberg
“

Originally Posted by lightgigantic
Its not that one has to train oneself to love god (anymore than we would have to train ourselves to love someone who strikes us as charming/attractive/etc). Rather, our love is a natural consequence of coming into contact with them. For this reason the name of god is glorified (hallowed be thy name etc etc), since that is specifically the aspect of god that is available to us in conditioned life.
”
I cannot claim to have any such contact with God though -in the sense that I have no knowledge that I could call "knowledge of God"-; I have no idea how such a contact would be recognized. It seems one would have to be beyond karma, or an apriori nominalist to be able to claim knowledge of such a contact. - And I am neither.

sometimes it is referred to as karma yoga - which basically means it is action that connects one to the absolute. It can be recognized by its purifying qualities (PS - see the link)

“
[Cc. Adi 17.21]
"In this age of quarrel and hypocrisy the only means of deliverance is chanting the holy name of the Lord. There is no other way. There is no other way. There is no other way."
...
I have linked this before, but perhaps now the parts where the speaker is referencing the essence of different religious traditions might appear more pertinent.
”
The speaker does say that one also has to meditate, in order to see how the body is not the self.

yes, meditate on the names of the lord ... which then leads on to qualities, form, etc

 

[Myles]

While it can be entertaining to discuss issues of theory/concepts with you from time to time, there is no value in the discussion of practice, since I am sure it is something you haven't and won't do.

Most of us need to have a reason o take up a practice. Your unreason is a disincentive to take anything you say seriously. You cannot even maintain an argumeny; you shift your ground and make statements as the fancy takes you or as the weakness of your position dictates.

Keep licking your invisible stamps !

 

[Myles]

sure
I recall one biologist who made the point that the infrastructure of the simplest organisms is more complex than the infrastructure of NYC

You are relying on the worn-out argument from design which has been refuted time and again. So your " famous" statistician is talking through his ass. He can prove nothing statistically, if he is relying on complexity to make his point

 

[Carcano]

You are relying on the worn-out argument from design which has been refuted time and again.

I'd like to read one of those refutations...links?