Defining God

[Diogenes]

It is time that atheists get over this primitive understanding of God.

'Swami' attempts to turn the table and blame atheists, who believe in no gods, for rejecting some sort of 'primitive' definition of God. This raises questions:

Please define "primitive understanding of God."
In the alternative, perhaps Swami' could suggest his own "understanding of God."

Atheists as well as many theists reject 'primitive' definitions of gods. Atheists reject ALL gods. Perhaps Swami' or others can suggest a 'sophisticated' definition of a god. Then we can let atheists speak for themselves about whether they reject such a 'god.'

[William]

[Replying to Swami in post #30]

While I understand the idea of there being and/or experiencing a higher frequency of consciousness, and I also equate experiences told from those who have had NDEs et al, of what value is the knowing of this in relation to existing in this particular lower density, that it is important that there is a need for all cultures to accept this as true?

[Swami]

[Replying to Swami in post #30]

While I understand the idea of there being and/or experiencing a higher frequency of consciousness, and I also equate experiences told from those who have had NDEs et al, of what value is the knowing of this in relation to existing in this particular lower density, that it is important that there is a need for all cultures to accept this as true?

Good question, William. The ultimate goal is getting everyone to a higher level of consciousness which will open them up to a realm of infinite possibilities. The benefit of this William is to end suffering and bondage. Another benefit is finding the answers to the greatest questions in life. There are many mystics, including Krishna and Jesus, that were able to tap into this realm and leave us with much insight.

To date, scientists do not know how to end suffering. Scientists can not answer any of life's big questions.

[William]

[Replying to Swami in post #32]

To date, scientists do not know how to end suffering. Scientists can not answer any of life's big questions.

To date, no culture knows how to end suffering. Suffering appears to be part of the deal of existing within this simulated reality.

The ultimate goal is getting everyone to a higher level of consciousness which will open them up to a realm of infinite possibilities.

The realm of infinite possibilities doesn't appear to be this reality simulation Swami. This one seems to serve another purpose. Perhaps not unrelated to higher realms and possibilities, but I am not convinced we are here to find scientific ways in which to end suffering...

[Tcg]

There are many mystics, including Krishna and Jesus, that were able to tap into this realm and leave us with much insight.

Please provide verifiable evidence that this claim is true.


Tcg

[Swami]

There are many mystics, including Krishna and Jesus, that were able to tap into this realm and leave us with much insight.

Please provide verifiable evidence that this claim is true.

I first need verifiable evidence that you disagree with anything I have said. Do you disagree with anything I have said?

I hope you realize the point I am trying to make.

[TRANSPONDER]

There are many mystics, including Krishna and Jesus, that were able to tap into this realm and leave us with much insight.

Please provide verifiable evidence that this claim is true.

I first need verifiable evidence that you disagree with anything I have said. Do you disagree with anything I have said?

I hope you realize the point I am trying to make.

That is not logically valid, You are making the claim, Tcg is not. The burden of proof is on you to validate your claim, the burden of proof is not on anyone not making any claim (1), but is asking you to do the validation of your claim, which of course is only based on written anecdotes.

(1) of agreement or disagreement, the logical basis of agnosticism about any claim, as yet unvalidated.

[Swami]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #36]

I am trying to show how foolish skepticism can be. If it is apparent to everyone that my claim is based on religious scriptures then why ask for evidence? Will he also question that Jesus existed, and so on, and so on, and before you know it, the whole point of the discussion is lost.

I will not engage in pointless debates.

[TRANSPONDER]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #36]

I am trying to show how foolish skepticism can be. If it is apparent to everyone that my claim is based on religious scriptures then why ask for evidence? Will he also question that Jesus existed, and so on, and so on, and before you know it, the whole point of the discussion is lost.

I will not engage in pointless debates.

totally. Everything is up for question, including scriptures. These days we question whether Jesus ever existed. There is arguably not a scrap of compelling evidence for it outside the scriptures. Not even the nearest to independent verification,Tacitus. After all, if the Faithful can question evolution at every point and when it is validated, retreat back and back until we get to basic unanswerable - where the Cosmic stuff came from - why can't we do the same with all scriptural claims, which are based on no verifiable evidence other than they came out of somebody's head? Skepticism is not foolish, but the basis of logic and science; and if they are foolishness to you so much the worse for your claims.

Nobody can force you to post anything, but if you don't, it is tacit admission that you have nothing. And I for one ignore the posting of faithclaims with no credible support.