• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

How do you tell the difference?

Nimos

Well-Known Member
PSR. Principle of Sufficient Reason.
Ok see what you mean.

The idea is that it is existence itself, for lack of better word. So it's not like saying that something comes into existence and that it must have a cause for doing so. It has two states, either it exist or it doesn't, if it needed a cause, then it couldn't be existence as something else would have needed to create it. And since we exist, we can know which state it is in :)

At least to me, I can't see how one would get any "lower" or closer to the beginning of everything than existences itself. Which is why I refer to it as such. So as far as I understand it, it doesn't conflict with PSR, as it is simply the state of existing.
 

Nimos

Well-Known Member
My God resurrected 2,000 years ago and there is historical evidence for this event.

If an Muslim, or Hindu provides similar/equivalent evidence for a miracle from their God I would be open to listen and accept that religion as “probably true”
Let's assume that your God did that.

So if hindus should do that, you would accept that their gods were true as well, despite of what the God of the Quran say?
 

leroy

Well-Known Member
Let's assume that your God did that.

So if hindus should do that, you would accept that their gods were true as well, despite of what the God of the Quran say?
Quran?

But in response to your question , yes if there where historical evidence for an Hindu miracle I would accept it powerfully evidence for the truth of this religion.
 

PruePhillip

Well-Known Member
If you as a believer, let's say a muslim, believe in God and this is the only God that exist. Yet you have people that believe differently, let's say a hindu, which must from the muslims point of view mean that they are wrong about their gods.

So how do you tell the difference between your own God(s) (the real ones) and the wrong ones (made up ones)?

And if you can't tell the difference, what reason do you have for choosing one God over the other?

You have three religions and can't make up your mind.
One preaches to you
Another is contemplative and peaceful
And the third will cut your head off if you don't believe.

So if you had to cut your list down to two, which one would you remove?
 

firedragon

Veteran Member
Ok see what you mean.

The idea is that it is existence itself, for lack of better word. So it's not like saying that something comes into existence and that it must have a cause for doing so. It has two states, either it exist or it doesn't, if it needed a cause, then it couldn't be existence as something else would have needed to create it. And since we exist, we can know which state it is in :)

At least to me, I can't see how one would get any "lower" or closer to the beginning of everything than existences itself. Which is why I refer to it as such. So as far as I understand it, it doesn't conflict with PSR, as it is simply the state of existing.

You mean to say existence existed eternally?

That violates the principle. Hard.

Illogical.
 

RestlessSoul

Well-Known Member
I don't get how it can be so difficult to understand.

If you have two scientists, one claiming that quantum mechanics is real, the other one that it isn't, then there is a contradiction. You don't need to know everything there is to know about quantum mechanics to understand the contradiction. In fact you don't need to know anything at all. Simply to be able to read the sentence and understand it. "If you have two scientists, one claiming that quantum mechanics is real, the other one that it isn't, then there is a contradiction."


If you have two scientists, one saying that QM is real, the other saying that the Laws of Thermodynamics are real, can they both be right?
 

Nimos

Well-Known Member
You have three religions and can't make up your mind.
One preaches to you
Another is contemplative and peaceful
And the third will cut your head off if you don't believe.

So if you had to cut your list down to two, which one would you remove?
I would remove the last one. But what does that have to do with whether that religion is true or not? The last one might be the one with the real God, which if proven to be the case, would mean that I would believe that one to be the true one, but I wouldn't worship such God regardless of that.
 

Nimos

Well-Known Member
If you have two scientists, one saying that QM is real, the other saying that the Laws of Thermodynamics are real, can they both be right?
Yes, I see no problem with that, as they are not talking about the same thing. If Thermodynamics prevents QM from being possible, then there would be a conflict, between the two statements.
 

PruePhillip

Well-Known Member
I would remove the last one. But what does that have to do with whether that religion is true or not? The last one might be the one with the real God, which if proven to be the case, would mean that I would believe that one to be the true one, but I wouldn't worship such God regardless of that.

You have a point there - I am comparing the gods of the Abrahamic religion.
Maybe the true god is just a killer god, sowing death and misery. If you believe
that then you too could be doing the same.
 

Nimos

Well-Known Member
You have a point there - I am comparing the gods of the Abrahamic religion.
Maybe the true god is just a killer god, sowing death and misery. If you believe
that then you too could be doing the same.
I do believe that God of the Bible is an immoral, selfish and terrible killer of a God, that I wouldn't worship even if he was proven to be true. He would probably rank the lowest of the God I would wish for to be true, at least of those I know of.
 

Nimos

Well-Known Member
By a necessary being. Only logical outcome is that.

you may say no, but you have yourself given the answer.
In principal I can see your point. However I do find a creator such as a God running into several problems as a creator, when comparing it to what we know about the Universe.

To me the design itself doesn't make a whole lot sense, if it were intelligently designed and we run with the God of the bible, he created everything, yet he apparently decided to make it so it took several billions years for it to even be possible for there to be humans? Even before humans came along, he decided that Earth should be home for all sorts of other lifeforms, including dinosaurs, which lived here for 165 million years. If humans were what he thought was important, why all that nonsense? And the list goes on as I see it.

If existences is a state such as I am talking about it, time is irrelevant as it is not an intelligent creator which have a purpose or favorite goal in mind, but rather a natural process as a result of a state that everything is in.
 

PruePhillip

Well-Known Member
I do believe that God of the Bible is an immoral, selfish and terrible killer of a God, that I wouldn't worship even if he was proven to be true. He would probably rank the lowest of the God I would wish for to be true, at least of those I know of.

If this God is true, and He kills, then you would be in trouble.
It was Dawkins in the God Delusion who called Jesus a 'milk
sop persona' but this same Jesus spoke often of how His
enemies would be treated, and what would become of the Jews
'until the Gentile's time is finished.' So it's interesting.
 

Hermit Philosopher

Selflessly here for you
If you as a believer, let's say a muslim, believe in God and this is the only God that exist. Yet you have people that believe differently, let's say a hindu, which must from the muslims point of view mean that they are wrong about their gods.

So how do you tell the difference between your own God(s) (the real ones) and the wrong ones (made up ones)?

And if you can't tell the difference, what reason do you have for choosing one God over the other?


Dear Nimos

Speaking as a great believer, but not as member of a particular religious congregation, I’d say that he who speaks with a Hindu in their religious culture and language and then speaks with a Muslim in theirs, may come to see that they relate to one and the same world in different ways and use different words to describe the same things.

Different religions are very much like different cultures with different languages. But, as with different cultures, they relate to this one and same world very differently and, as with different languages, when information is passed on over time, the meaning of their words sometimes change in rather different directions.

Some people are good at translating and mediating. The more history they know about the different cultures and languages they work with, the better translators and mediators they become.

The best translations are not literal but conceptual, because they find the link between things that, over time, have changed direction and become estranged.

I see the same tendencies when working with religions. Their similarities are more significant than one may think and their differences - however large - stem much from historical differences in culture, language and translation itself.

My personal view on the topics in your O.P. is therefore that if religions describe the concept of God differently, it is not a question of which one is right or wrong and one will tend to choose the one which’s culture and language one best comprehends.


Humbly
Hermit
 

Nimos

Well-Known Member
The point is that the two are not compatible, yet neither are demonstrably wrong

http://www.nature.com/doifinder/10.1038/543597a
Sorry, but I don't get the point. If its currently unknown whether they are in conflict with each other or not, doesn't really change anything, except that we can conclude that the question you asked is not possible to answer at this given point. As I wrote, if one exclude the other then we have a conflict.

But that uncertainty is not in religion, we know how many Gods there is suppose to be in each of them and what they apparently told us is the truth. We have no way to verify whether these claims are true or not, so people decided that either we have faith in them or we don't. A majority of people, chose to have faith in these information and treat them as if they were facts.

Im working with these "facts", some religions claim there is only one God, others that there are more. These are the known information and I have no issue saying that there can be lots of Gods, but I do think that a lot of religious people would strongly disagree with that. And if I say there is only one God and name a specific one, then a whole lot of other people would disagree. Therein lies the conflict, you can't satisfy all religions at once, some of the God(s) must be false or at least some of the scriptures from various religions must be incorrect.
 

Marcion

gopa of humanity's controversial Taraka Brahma
I can only answer from my own viewpoint.
Generally speaking it does not bother me how or in which form someone directs their mind towards God.
Because for me, God is the Higher Self in everything, the Cosmic Consciousness where everything and everyone originated and will one day return.

But I do have a certain idea about God or gods (not originally my own idea) which helps me to make distinctions for myself only.
I distinguish four or five categories:

1. Brahman, the Cosmic Consciousness behind or within everything and beyond place and time.
This is in my eyes the exact same as Allah or the Christian God or Beloved Father (Jahweh).

2. Taraka Brahma, mysterious Guru's, historical personalities born with all of the occult powers who are born fully spiritually realized and who change the destiny of humanity by the impact of their lives in response to great need in human society in the time period before they are born.

3. more minor guru's who become deified, turned into gods, e.g. Jesus.

4. invented gods (by humans) who symbolize certain qualities that they wish to emulate by honouring and worshipping them.

5. invented gods that symbolize the forces of nature that humans fear and wish to appease.

The fifth category should be the oldest in the history of humankind, although the first one was always there without us noticing it.

A quote from a short talk given by P.R. Sarkar in 1969 in Ranchi, Bihar which says something more about Taraka Brahma:

WHEN DOES HE APPEAR?
______________________________________________

He comes on earth when there is too much sin and it is difficult for virtuous people to live on earth. When dharma declines and adharma , or sin, gets the upperhand; when the virtuous and the pious are tortured and the dishonest and evil-doers tyrannize over the good; in a word, when the human intellect is guided along degraded and destructive channels, Taraka Brahma forms a desire to come on earth with a specific mission of restoring dharma by launching a ceaseless fight against all injustice and sin.
There are a few notable criteria by which to distinguish Taraka Brahma from other Mahápurushas:

1. He Himself is a born guru and has no spiritual guru.
2. He comes with a specific mission, which is to restore morality and dharma. The entire society becomes divided between moralists and immoralists. A fight between them is inevitable, and ultimately dharma comes out victorious.
3. His emergence means a new era of white peace and dharma.

He needs no sádhaná, but just to set an example to others, He performs sádhaná with the masses.

Shri Shri Anandamurti 1969, Ranchi (quoted from Discourses on Tantra Volume 2, page 92)

That could be the reason you sometimes see Lord Shiva pictured as sitting in a meditation pose.
He doesn't need to do sadhana for Himself but He does it to set an example.
I've never seen Lord Krishna pictured in a meditation pose though.
 
Last edited:
Top