You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: Why does God create or make people to go to hell?
For me, everything about it is science. God can't be proved, bible is just an old book, that maybe a psycho wrote.. Nobody can know it. Religion = pain in the most direct way. Religion = millions of people dead because of it.
If someone could prove it, okay, it's done and we can follow him. But now it's just faction that is used to control people.
Not saying bad about the believers, but I don't need something mystical to help with my problems. God is like the last thing that a human will turn if he has a problem, since there is no other way. It's hard to explain.
I beg to differ. Don't you see the plants and the grass and the flowers in the trees? Where do you believe these creations come from? God can definitely be proven. Who do you think created science? Jusk asking?
Science is a way of thinking and gain knoledge about the physical world, created by man.
Well, to prove something firstly we need to come to agreement what proof we consider proper. According to Vedas there are 3 kinds of proofs: (1) pratyaksha, (2) anumana and (3) shabda.
(1) Pratyaksha means a direct perception. When I see it with my eyes or when I touch. That means I admit the existence of God if I see Him or if I touch His body. But acually all I see and all I touch is His body, why not? So I constantly see Him, but I don't agree that this is His body.
(2) Anumana means a logical argument. I see that every beautiful and useful thing has been created by some person. I've never seen any smoothly functioning system was operating so without an operator who is person. It's absolutely clear to every sane person that this material world is smoothly functioning system, so there must be an operator. It's a logical proof.
(3) Shabda means "sound" proof. If you wanna know who is your father, what is the easiest and the most accurate way to get this knowledge? Can you understand it using the (1) way ("pratyaksha")? Can you understand this is your father just by looking at a man? Is it possible? No.
Or you can try to find your father using logic, the (2) way? Well, in this case you must check millions. And nevertheless you can be wrong. You still can make a mistake. So these two methods are not proper.
But you can ask your mother. And she will tell you who your father is. She knows him like no other, right? And this way of getting knowledge is called "shabda" or listening from authoritative source. When we want to know who's our father, our mother becomes the authoritative source.
These are 3 kinds of proof which we can use while proving. What kind of proof you're ready to accept?
--1-- Because there are many Gods? How are you sure is only one? Which one are you touching? Or should i say..where are you touching? The very words you use apply to many Gods. You merely say you tough air thus god. that is simply unfounded.
-2- Oh really, so you see design in a god that a worm exists with a sole purpose to feed on your eye ball? You see design in cancer? How about design in a universe where no human life can exist? How about design in hurricanes, earthquakes..or even..earth...where 75% is water. I can throw paint on the wall and call it design as well. calling it doesn't make it so. so look again.
--3--this is nonsense
What is the authority is lying?
Well, firstly let us define what is "God", what do we mean by that word. My definition of the word "God" is taken from the Vedas.
janmādy asya yataḥ: the Supreme Person (God) is that one from whom everything has emanated.
This very word "everything" in this definition means there's no other God.
If you can prove that such person cannot exist, please do it. Otherwise, let's accept such definition of God and continue our research.
Yeah, I see it indeed. I see the purpose of sufferings and I see the great design in them and His love also. Bitter treatment is meant to cure you, but still it has bitter taste. So you're asking me what design in this bitter taste? Why is it bitter, not sweet? Because your understanding of love is wrong. You consider sweet things as love. And this "sweet" things is what pleasing your body. So your logic is if you love me, you must satisfy my senses, you must make my life comfortable. And if you don't do this then you have no love for me. This is wrong understanding.
For the sake of real happiness we sometimes have to experience pain and discomfort. And that one who's leading us to the real happiness although meanwhile is causing pain, he loves us. That's love. Love is not material comfort. So the reason for cancer and other sufferings which we experience here is actually love. But due to our misunderstanding of what is real happiness and what is real love, we blame God and dare to claim there's no sane design in what's going on.
Why you're saying it is nonsense? How have you known who's your father? What's your personal experience? Or when you're reading a book where an author claims that there are electrons and protons, you're just believing his words consider him as authority, isn't it? This is kind of faith, nothing more. And you're getting knowledge by listening. Not by direct perception or by speculation. So where's nonsense here?
Things have not necessarily emanated:
Atemporal Unvierse
Well, it's obviously wrong conclusion. Let's take an apple. Has an apple always existed? Obviously not. But it's existing now. So your conclusion is wrong.