occams.rzr
Razerian-barbologist
- No anecdotes (personal events)
- No long commentaries.
- Use scientific evidence.
- Preaching is not evidence, but simply restating your claim.
- No circular logic. (Bible is true because it says so.)
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:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
The prophets add up over a few thousand years, to show what will occur...Use scientific evidence.
Couldn't the same be said for the sacred writings of your religion, then?The Bible and the Old Testament aren't infallible, as they were written by ordinary men. Thus, what ever is written in them can be disregarded, including the Abrahamic God.
Of course not, otherwise I wouldn't have written this. The Vedas were revealed to sadhus through intense meditation, which they in turn, divinely inspired, created the Upanishads.The Bhagavad Gita was being recited to Dhritarashtra by Sanjaya, who heard it from Sri Krishna as he was giving the discourse to Arjuna, and the Srimad Bhagavatam and the Puranas were written by Veda Vyasa, an incarnation of Narayana.Couldn't the same be said for the sacred writings of your religion, then?
Peace be on you.
- No anecdotes (personal events)
- No long commentaries.
- Use scientific evidence.
- Preaching is not evidence, but simply restating your claim.
- No circular logic. (Bible is true because it says so.)
That's no different from members of Abrahamic religions claiming that the Bible was written by men under the influence of God and who were in contact with him (prophets). So if we can disregard the Bible (and Qur'an) as fallible because they were written by ordinary men, the same can be said about your religion's holy texts.Of course not, otherwise I wouldn't have written this. The Vedas were revealed to sadhus through intense meditation, The Bhagavad Gita was being recited to Dhritarashtra by Sanjaya, who heard it from Sri Krishna as he was giving the discourse to Arjuna, and the Srimad Bhagavatam and the Puranas were written by Veda Vyasa, an incarnation of Narayana.
The difference between our scriptures is that our ones have been recited since time immemorial, in many different universes. Our universe is no exception. The Bible was written after the death of Jesus. Not during. It is a wonderful message, but it's not the butter of Sri Krishna.That's no different from members of Abrahamic religions claiming that the Bible was written by men under the influence of God and who were in contact with him. So if we can disregard the Bible (and Qur'an) as fallible because they were written by ordinary men, the same can be said about your religion's holy texts.
Come on, really? You're not sounding any different from a preacher right now. You can't make unprovable faith-based claims about your own holy texts and then just dismiss the claims of other religions about their holy texts, merely because they're not of your own favorite religion. That's an illogical double-standard. They have just as much historical, scientific and scholarly evidence to back up their claims about their holy texts as you do about yours.The difference between our scriptures is that our ones have been recited since time immemorial, in many different universes. Our universe is no exception. The Bible was written after the death of Jesus. Not during. It is a wonderful message, but it's not the butter of Sri Krishna.
I sure did sound obnoxious.Come on, really? You're not sounding any different from a preacher right now. You can't make unprovable faith-based claims about your own holy texts and then just dismiss the claims of other religions about their holy texts, merely because they're not of your own favorite religion. That's an illogical double-standard. They have just as much historical, scientific and scholarly evidence to back up their claims about their holy texts as you do about yours.
Kudos for catching yourself, though.I sure did sound obnoxious.
- No anecdotes (personal events)
- No long commentaries.
- Use scientific evidence.
- Preaching is not evidence, but simply restating your claim.
- No circular logic. (Bible is true because it says so.)
Not nearly as obnoxious as some of the Abrahamics I have seen & heard.I sure did sound obnoxious.
- No anecdotes (personal events)
- No long commentaries.
- Use scientific evidence.
- Preaching is not evidence, but simply restating your claim.
- No circular logic. (Bible is true because it says so.)
I answered "no". Do you still want the answer to these points, but for why the Abrahamic God doesn't exist?
- No anecdotes (personal events)
- No long commentaries.
- Use scientific evidence.
- Preaching is not evidence, but simply restating your claim.
- No circular logic. (Bible is true because it says so.)
- No anecdotes (personal events)
- No long commentaries.
- Use scientific evidence.
- Preaching is not evidence, but simply restating your claim.
- No circular logic. (Bible is true because it says so.)
Peace be on you.
Intelligent and guided evolution shows there should be Maker.
Revelation, purity and blessings tells God exists - the God of all humanity and universes.
I did not make it impossible. Unless god can only be proven through subjective reasoning. I want scientific evidence, is that too much to ask?Let me get this straight. Your thread title indicates that you want proof for the existence of the one-god in the Bible, but then you make a list of demands that renders this impossible.
Apologies, but why did you create this thread?
Personal experiences are our greatest proof of anything, everything else is taking somebody's word for it,
Having said that, there are other forms of evidence we can all consider for God, but not proof, that has to be discovered personally- how else could it ever work?