ForumGarden

The inconceivable oneness & difference (acintya-bheda-abheda-tattva ) is a philosophy taught by its founder Chaitanya Mahaprabhu (1486 - 1534). It`s a theological tenet that reconciles the mystery of creation. That God is simultaneously one with and different from His creation. That He always exercises supreme control over his creation. Sometimes directly, but most of the time indirectly through his different potencies or energies. That the cosmic manifestation or creation is never separated from God.

One who knows God knows the scientific conception of how the universe was born ( the big bang ) theorized by scientists and personal conception of how the universe manifested ( God`s glancing at His own effulgence ) in accordance with the Hindu scriptures are to be considered simultaneously present in everything and that there is no contradiction. An example is the spider & its web; the plants that come forth from the earth & hair growing on a human being.

Since science (from Latin scientia, meaning "knowledge") is described to be a systematic enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the universe, the relationship between science & religion can be explained using the analogy of the sun and sunshine being part of the same reality, but there is a great difference between having a beam of sunshine in your room, and being in close proximity to the sun itself. Qualitatively both are the same, but in quantity they are different.

The same philosophy of simultaneous oneness & difference can also be applied to the living beings and God - St. Paul being of a similar quality to Jesus Christ, but not sharing the qualities to an infinite extent.

I would agree to the extent that religions attempt to give you a fantastical explaination to things that science has yet to explain

littleCJelkton;1388243 wrote: I would agree to the extent that religions attempt to give you a fantastical explaination to things that science has yet to explain


The blogs I posted here are one of those scientific explanations. For example CANCER/KANSR. You say these words aloud, " CANCER/KANSR!!!" It can be reversed with this word KRSNA-the most holy name of God. God and the name is no different. Since God is the cause of CANCER/KANSR, you just say the word KRSNA & you shall be healed. :-6

what makes Kansr holy? what makes god holy? what makes cancer=kansr? what makes god=kansr? Nothing scientifical states kansr = cancer = god.

What exactly does saying KRSNA heal? does what it heal need healing? I actually had cancer when I was 5 and I had it removed is this why I don't believe in god. The boy I was in the hospital with died of cancer. To me I am healed for not having cancer/kansr/krsna/god and that little boy died because of it.

littleCJelkton;1388386 wrote: what makes Kansr holy? what makes god holy? what makes cancer=kansr? what makes god=kansr? Nothing scientifical states kansr = cancer = god.

What exactly does saying KRSNA heal? does what it heal need healing? I actually had cancer when I was 5 and I had it removed is this why I don't believe in god. The boy I was in the hospital with died of cancer. To me I am healed for not having cancer/kansr/krsna/god and that little boy died because of it.


Kansr/Cancer is not holy. It`s a disease or Karma. if you had your Karma removed since you were 5 and survived does it mean you won`t get Kansr/Cancer again? The possibility is there. So, if Krsna who is the reverse of Kansr/Cancer if you only say Krsna and you shall be healed then you will not get Kansr/Cancer. But if you insist on your own way then don`t blame God if you get later Kansr/Cancer. You been told.

rajakrsna;1388387 wrote: Kansr/Cancer is not holy. It`s a disease or Karma. if you had your Karma removed since you were 5 and survived does it mean you won`t get Kansr/Cancer again? The possibility is there. So, if Krsna who is the reverse of Kansr/Cancer if you only say Krsna and you shall be healed then you will not get Kansr/Cancer. But if you insist on your own way then don`t blame God if you get later Kansr/Cancer. You been told.


I don't blame god for anything nor do I give god credit for anything, so what exactly have I been told? I didn't really need to be told but thanks anyway. What makes karma=disease and still yet again you have failed to produce anything that makes science and religion one

littleCJelkton;1388392 wrote: I don't blame god for anything nor do I give god credit for anything, so what exactly have I been told? I didn't really need to be told but thanks anyway. What makes karma=disease and still yet again you have failed to produce anything that makes science and religion one


My point here is that science and religion should go hand in hand complementing for discoveries made by what religion finds to be proof of God`s existence. And science should not use the laboratory to disprove God`s existence. Instead of using the Hubble telescope why not use the electron microscope to probe what goes inside our human bodies and find the cure for diseases man has not been able to cure. God has explicitly told everyone the kingdom of God is from within not from without. Scientists can not find God in outer space by looking at a galaxy or universe. God is not there. That`s why Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu has came forth with this philosophy of the inconceivable oneness and difference say between God and soul, between religion and science, between a man and woman, etc.

rajakrsna;1388394 wrote: God has explicitly told everyone .


God has not told everyone squat, There are only a few people god has ever supposedly told anything to, and I doubt who ever it was in their head telling them things was god.

God has told everyone in the New testament of the Bible. From the Gita. From the Koran. Need I tell you more where God has told everyone?

God told only a few people in the new testament, koran, ETC..., those people didn't even tell everyone else they only told a few more people and it probably wasn't even the same thing God told them that is if God actually did tell them anything or it was just some tiny voice in their head because they where all schizophrenic, then those people told a few others which was something similar but not the same as what they were told, then some of those people decided to write books of what they were told, and a select group of some other people decided what books they were going to keep, even though they might not have been books that represented the closest thing to what was actually said.

SO AGAIN GOD TOLD ALL OF US NOTHING, AND AGAIN NOTHING YOU HAVE SAID RELATES RELIGION TO SCIENCE.

The rod of Asclepius is an ancient symbol associated with astrology, the Greek god Asclepius, and with medicine and healing. It`s the same symbol we read from the Bible of prophets say Moses dabbling with snakes. In John 3:14 Just as Moses lifted up the snake in the desert, so the Son of Man must be lifted up. This here we say that Religion and Science ( Medical ) are One.

rajakrsna;1388521 wrote: The rod of Asclepius is an ancient symbol associated with astrology, the Greek god Asclepius, and with medicine and healing. It`s the same symbol we read from the Bible of prophets say Moses dabbling with snakes. In John 3:14 Just as Moses lifted up the snake in the desert, so the Son of Man must be lifted up. This here we say that Religion and Science ( Medical ) are One.


wrong again links nothing about the scientific process of medicine to religion

littleCJelkton;1388528 wrote: wrong again links nothing about the scientific process of medicine to religion


Intelligent design theory postulates that humans originated due to the intentional arrangement of biomatter by an intelligent agent. Under intelligent design, humans exist because an intelligent being did "have them in mind." Intelligent design theory is also based upon empirical evidence and the scientific method, yet intelligent design also has theological implications: we are because a designer "deliberately put us here." We feel that our approach to gives safe and proper boundaries to both the pursuit of science and the pursuit of religion, while also properly acknowledging their very real areas of overlap.

rajakrsna;1388413 wrote: God has told everyone in the New testament of the Bible. From the Gita. From the Koran. Need I tell you more where God has told everyone?


Doesn't the Koran encourage men to beat their women?

In fact, the Koran Is pretty much Ok with violence, even stoning women to death.

contradictions in the quran - YouTube

rajakrsna;1388531 wrote: Intelligent design theory postulates that humans originated due to the intentional arrangement of biomatter by an intelligent agent. Under intelligent design, humans exist because an intelligent being did "have them in mind." Intelligent design theory is also based upon empirical evidence and the scientific method, yet intelligent design also has theological implications: we are because a designer "deliberately put us here." We feel that our approach to gives safe and proper boundaries to both the pursuit of science and the pursuit of religion, while also properly acknowledging their very real areas of overlap.


still wrong with your I said he said she said crock of bull, but continue on to how what i said she said he said you said they said relates to what they know you know he knows she knows i know

littleCJelkton;1388606 wrote: still wrong with your I said he said she said crock of bull, but continue on to how what i said she said he said you said they said relates to what they know you know he knows she knows i know


Hahaha

rajakrsna;1388666 wrote: Hahaha


that is exactly what goes through my head whenever a I am better than you because my religion tells me I am crusader pops on here.

They always come on with some meaningless LAUGHABLE argument on how their religion and belief system is the better than the one everyone else has.

littleCJelkton;1388704 wrote: that is exactly what goes through my head whenever a I am better than you because my religion tells me I am crusader pops on here.

They always come on with some meaningless LAUGHABLE argument on how their religion and belief system is the better than the one everyone else has.


I am laughing because you are directly avoiding a discussion what I`m trying driving at while indirectly telling me I am wrong.

rajakrsna;1388715 wrote: I am laughing because you are directly avoiding a discussion what I`m trying driving at while indirectly telling me I am wrong.


I am not directly avoiding anything you just think I am because I don't thing what you are trying to dive at needs to be driven to as there is nothing there once you get there

littleCJelkton;1388942 wrote: I am not directly avoiding anything you just think I am because I don't thing what you are trying to dive at needs to be driven to as there is nothing there once you get there


You`re not a happy go lucky and carefree guy? Hey, dude. Wake up from your slumber. Enjoy and have some fun. You`ll grow old faster than your Dad!

rajakrsna;1389028 wrote: You`re not a happy go lucky and carefree guy? Hey, dude. Wake up from your slumber. Enjoy and have some fun. You`ll grow old faster than your Dad!


So an I thought I was the one avoiding questions

Disagreeing with the statement Science and Religion are one has nothing to do with my age or rate at which I age or that of any other person.

Who said I was asleep, or is that a metaphor for wake up to your revealed "truth" that I still claim is a bunch of B.S.

You hope if you put your statements through the loop of (I said he said She said They said We said They know We Know He Knows She Knows I know that) then it will be so convoluted in people that might have said what your trying to say that it might actually be true. Nope I am sorry when you put something in that is what you get out so if your going to make statements that are pure B.S. your going to get responses telling you so.

I am not saying there isn't a place for science and there isn't a place for religion. I am saying they are not the same thing. I am also saying that a person's religion(beliefs) do not make them better than another, and because a god revealed may or may not have revealed something is not an excuse to make up some B.S statement that shows someone's religion(beliefs) are better than another if anything religion(beliefs) should guide your actions to best help all of your fellow man/woman regardless of if they believe what you do or not.

littleCJelkton;1389126 wrote:

I am not saying there isn't a place for science and there isn't a place for religion. I am saying they are not the same thing. I am also saying that a person's religion(beliefs) do not make them better than another, and because a god revealed may or may not have revealed something is not an excuse to make up some B.S statement that shows someone's religion(beliefs) are better than another if anything religion(beliefs) should guide your actions to best help all of your fellow man/woman regardless of if they believe what you do or not.


I know you do not believe in God. Maybe something from the past made you stop believing in God. maybe your parents were atheists. Or maybe your parents were devout Catholics and did not show they were by way they treated you. Atheists have countless of reasons why they do not believe in God. & when somebody starts proselytizing or preaching to them about God they always ask from that somebody to show them proof. Believers in God have shown atheists countless of proofs in the existence of God. & yet atheists still do not believe. Atheists do not love life. They are kill joys. Atheists do not know how to love. Atheists does not even know the meaning of romance. Atheists have limited imaginations. Atheists are not vibrant. Atheists are predictable. Atheists are boring. Atheists are straight guys. Atheists have no future to look forward to. Atheists do not know the word hope, faith and love. Atheists are robots. Atheists are not spontaneous. I could go on and on.

rajakrsna;1389326 wrote: I know you do not believe in God. Maybe something from the past made you stop believing in God. maybe your parents were atheists. Or maybe your parents were devout Catholics and did not show they were by way they treated you. Atheists have countless of reasons why they do not believe in God. & when somebody starts proselytizing or preaching to them about God they always ask from that somebody to show them proof. Believers in God have shown atheists countless of proofs in the existence of God. & yet atheists still do not believe. Atheists do not love life. They are kill joys. Atheists do not know how to love. Atheists does not even know the meaning of romance. Atheists have limited imaginations. Atheists are not vibrant. Atheists are predictable. Atheists are boring. Atheists are straight guys. Atheists have no future to look forward to. Atheists do not know the word hope, faith and love. Atheists are robots. Atheists are not spontaneous. I could go on and on.


I am not atheist I just don't believe in your version of God

littleCJelkton;1389407 wrote: I am not atheist I just don't believe in your version of God


I wont matter if you don`t believe in my version of God. So long as you believe in God described in the Vedic scriptures e. g. Bhagavad-gita As IT Is, The English version of Srimad Bhagavatam, The Upanishads, The Teachings of Lord Caitanya Mahaprabhu Philippine edition 1981. They can be browsed in the archives of the the US Library of Congress of which the TEXTS ( 18,000 verses ) were encoded in the Master Data Base. Where you could easily retrieve using the Google search engine, Yahoo search engine, etc. The Codes are already part of the system and programs reconfigured in the softwares we are all using ( Microsoft, Apple, etc ). The images we had before were black and white, the one we saw on TV 5-6 decades ago. The Codification of Krishna`s instructions gave us the so-called TECHNICOLOR. Try getting hold of the book Prabhupad authored by Satswarup Dasa Goswami. The answers to your questions are there. Read between the lines to get a clear image of the subtle messages encoded on its pages. These pre-departure instructions ( VANI ) given by His Divine Grace AC Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada when God the PARAM-ATMA was still present prior to Srila Prabhupad`s departure on 11.14.1977. It gave us LIGHT & POWER to activate and run the INTERNET. God is called VAPU if the GURU Messenger representing GOD the PARAM-ATMA has not yet relinquished his material body.

rajakrsna;1389409 wrote: I wont matter if you don`t believe in my version of God. So long as you believe in God described in the Vedic scriptures e. g. Bhagavad-gita As IT Is, The English version of Srimad Bhagavatam, The Upanishads, The Teachings of Lord Caitanya Mahaprabhu Philippine edition 1981. They can be browsed in the archives of the the US Library of Congress of which the TEXTS ( 18,000 verses ) were encoded in the Master Data Base. Where you could easily retrieve using the Google search engine, Yahoo search engine, etc. The Codes are already part of the system and programs reconfigured in the softwares we are all using ( Microsoft, Apple, etc ). The images we had before were black and white, the one we saw on TV 5-6 decades ago. The Codification of Krishna`s instructions gave us the so-called TECHNICOLOR. Try getting hold of the book Prabhupad authored by Satswarup Dasa Goswami. The answers to your questions are there. Read between the lines to get a clear image of the subtle messages encoded on its pages. These pre-departure instructions ( VANI ) given by His Divine Grace AC Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada when God the PARAM-ATMA was still present prior to Srila Prabhupad`s departure on 11.14.1977. It gave us LIGHT & POWER to activate and run the INTERNET. God is called VAPU if the GURU Messenger representing GOD the PARAM-ATMA has not yet relinquished his material body.


well I don't believe any of that is viable enough to make a belief system to justify ones rational and decision making morals, that doesn't mean I am athiest that just means I am not you, but keep trying maybe you will accidently make sense in one of these bloviating rants of yours

rajakrsna;1389326 wrote: I know you do not believe in God. Maybe something from the past made you stop believing in God. maybe your parents were atheists. Or maybe your parents were devout Catholics and did not show they were by way they treated you. Atheists have countless of reasons why they do not believe in God. & when somebody starts proselytizing or preaching to them about God they always ask from that somebody to show them proof. Believers in God have shown atheists countless of proofs in the existence of God. & yet atheists still do not believe. Atheists do not love life. They are kill joys. Atheists do not know how to love. Atheists does not even know the meaning of romance. Atheists have limited imaginations. Atheists are not vibrant. Atheists are predictable. Atheists are boring. Atheists are straight guys. Atheists have no future to look forward to. Atheists do not know the word hope, faith and love. Atheists are robots. Atheists are not spontaneous. I could go on and on.


Sir, I am afraid you are mistaken if you think atheists do not believe in a deity because of an event or upbringing. The majority of deconversions is actually looking for evidence outside of the circular reasoning of religious books. Sadly, there is none.

Let me pop into this conversation for the quick story of a typical atheist deconversion, namely mine.

I was brought up in a mixed household, father being a general deist, mother an Orthodox Christian, neither of them ever having forced their beliefs on me.

In my late teens I had already started looking into religions, gods, etc.

At one point I decided to read the holy books, to see what they are about. What I found was stupifying nonsense, hardly related to reality, with talking snakes, floods that never happened, 6-day universe creation, and the list goes on. I set on to find answers to the tons of questions I had posed, and found many discussions online, in which theists would give what you call proof of their version of their god's existance, or general deity's existance. I am afraid proof never went further than "look at the trees, look at the birds", or went into crap that offered absolutely no empirical evidence, but rather baseless justifications. The more I looked into refutations on both sides, the more I understood the general picture, that every holy book so far has failed to provide any actual proof of a god, and I would like to ask you to try to present any actual empirically testable proof.

Now to change my tone and get into the vile stuff you said about atheists.

As of your killjoys, not loving life, not knowing how to love, meaning of romance, I find you downright insulting in your words. "Atheists are straight guys", ok so I am not homosexual, how does that make me bad? I know the meaning of love and faith all too well, and faith is baseless belief into something without evidence. Love is a feeling everyone experiences, to put it in a few words, it is deep emotional connection to someone, and caring for them more than caring for myself. A feeling I am happy to say I do have, however judging of your vile attitude towards ~40% of Europe's, 20% of the United States', etc populations (atheists), you might wanna look into postitive emotions, having an open mind, tolerance, etc.. Atheists are robots, eh? Does not compute. Bad command or file name C:>

The only difference between an atheist and a theist is that the latter believe in one less god than the others. I had once found a quote online, that every person is an atheist towards most gods, and actual atheists simply go 1 god further. If you assert differently, you might as well submit a paper on atheist psychology for peer review, who knows, you might get a Nobel Prize.

Townes;1391386 wrote: Sir, I am afraid you are mistaken if you think atheists do not believe in a deity because of an event or upbringing. The majority of deconversions is actually looking for evidence outside of the circular reasoning of religious books. Sadly, there is none.

Let me pop into this conversation for the quick story of a typical atheist deconversion, namely mine.

I was brought up in a mixed household, father being a general deist, mother an Orthodox Christian, neither of them ever having forced their beliefs on me.

In my late teens I had already started looking into religions, gods, etc.

At one point I decided to read the holy books, to see what they are about. What I found was stupifying nonsense, hardly related to reality, with talking snakes, floods that never happened, 6-day universe creation, and the list goes on. I set on to find answers to the tons of questions I had posed, and found many discussions online, in which theists would give what you call proof of their version of their god's existance, or general deity's existance. I am afraid proof never went further than "look at the trees, look at the birds", or went into crap that offered absolutely no empirical evidence, but rather baseless justifications. The more I looked into refutations on both sides, the more I understood the general picture, that every holy book so far has failed to provide any actual proof of a god, and I would like to ask you to try to present any actual empirically testable proof.

Now to change my tone and get into the vile stuff you said about atheists.

As of your killjoys, not loving life, not knowing how to love, meaning of romance, I find you downright insulting in your words. "Atheists are straight guys", ok so I am not homosexual, how does that make me bad? I know the meaning of love and faith all too well, and faith is baseless belief into something without evidence. Love is a feeling everyone experiences, to put it in a few words, it is deep emotional connection to someone, and caring for them more than caring for myself. A feeling I am happy to say I do have, however judging of your vile attitude towards ~40% of Europe's, 20% of the United States', etc populations (atheists), you might wanna look into postitive emotions, having an open mind, tolerance, etc.. Atheists are robots, eh? Does not compute. Bad command or file name C:>

The only difference between an atheist and a theist is that the latter believe in one less god than the others. I had once found a quote online, that every person is an atheist towards most gods, and actual atheists simply go 1 god further. If you assert differently, you might as well submit a paper on atheist psychology for peer review, who knows, you might get a Nobel Prize.


The descriptions came up when I became a registered user in a science forum. Majority of scientists who contribute to that site are atheists. They don`t even believe to quote from St. Antoine Exupery author of the book Little Prince when the fox said to the Little Prince, " It`s only in the heart one can see clearly. What`s essential is not visible to the eye."

rajakrsna;1391487 wrote: The descriptions came up when I became a registered user in a science forum. Majority of scientists who contribute to that site are atheists. They don`t even believe to quote from St. Antoine Exupery author of the book Little Prince when the fox said to the Little Prince, " It`s only in the heart one can see clearly. What`s essential is not visible to the eye."


Ironically, neither do I.

Apart from going into sarcastic remarks on how hearts merely pump blood, I should also point out that observable, testable, empirical proof is all there is to ever have been proven to exist. The "heart", as people often coin it, is the subconscious, and it is a mere product of brain chemistry combined with the established synaptic pathways. There is nothing spiritual or deep about it, disregarding the fact the spiritual things are not even proven to exist.

Townes;1391555 wrote: Ironically, neither do I.

Apart from going into sarcastic remarks on how hearts merely pump blood, I should also point out that observable, testable, empirical proof is all there is to ever have been proven to exist. The "heart", as people often coin it, is the subconscious, and it is a mere product of brain chemistry combined with the established synaptic pathways. There is nothing spiritual or deep about it, disregarding the fact the spiritual things are not even proven to exist.


oh yeah? hinduism believes the presence of God & soul in the heart of every living entity. catholicism believes God emmanuel is present in the heart of all human beings. the protestants believe this, too. we believers in God are countless. if you have not realized it yet maybe in the next life you will.

You seem to be Logical Fallacy 101.

What you just attempted is one of the worst fallacies to commit in a debate or discussion - "Appeal to majority". Just because some stupid idea is believed by many people, it does not mean it is true. Virtually everyone believed the Earth was flat some time ago, and there is still the Flat Earth Society even in present day.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum

Here are some interesting reads on logical fallacies, how they are wrong, and why such should not be used ever:

The Logical Fallacies: Table of Contents

Townes;1391655 wrote: You seem to be Logical Fallacy 101.

What you just attempted is one of the worst fallacies to commit in a debate or discussion - "Appeal to majority". Just because some stupid idea is believed by many people, it does not mean it is true. Virtually everyone believed the Earth was flat some time ago, and there is still the Flat Earth Society even in present day.

Argumentum ad populum - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


FG is not a science forum nor it`s debate forum. Look underneath her. What does she say? CONVERSATIONS OF LIFE. If you want a debate go to a debate forum or science forum. It`s about CONVERSIONS. Self-realizing there`s God because of your personal relationship with Him. If you have no personal relationship with God, it means your relationship with Him is IMPERSONAL. Mine is PERSONAL.

As I mentioned, a logical fallacy is comitted in a discussion as well.

So, do you mean a god exists only in the minds of those who choose? Because this is also the meaning of a delusion. ("The God Delusion"? I see what you did there, Dawkins, well played.)

I have no relationship with any god or other supernatural force, as I do not accept the claims of their existance in the first place.

Townes;1391668 wrote: As I mentioned, a logical fallacy is comitted in a discussion as well.

So, do you mean a god exists only in the minds of those who choose? Because this is also the meaning of a delusion. ("The God Delusion"? I see what you did there, Dawkins, well played.)

I have no relationship with any god or other supernatural force, as I do not accept the claims of their existance in the first place.


Well, if we theists can`t convince you atheists then we let the public choose. A vote to those who believe in God & a vote to those who believe there`s no God. The most number of votes win.

This is the fallacy itself, the premise of accepting that if many people believe in something, than it is true. Unlucky for you, as far as voting is considered, reality is not up for a vote. What is demonstrable is what there is, what cannot be proven as a working, testable model, does not.

As I said, everyone believed that the Earth was flat, vote for it as you may, it still is not the case.

Townes;1391746 wrote: This is the fallacy itself, the premise of accepting that if many people believe in something, than it is true. Unlucky for you, as far as voting is considered, reality is not up for a vote. What is demonstrable is what there is, what cannot be proven as a working, testable model, does not.

As I said, everyone believed that the Earth was flat, vote for it as you may, it still is not the case.


What? Voting is not reality? You mean US President Barack Obama is unreal? Your premise that Earth was flat is not accepted anymore. Earth is round. So it`s no longer an issue to be voted upon. But when it comes to who is to be believed, atheists or theists, to put this issue to rest why dont we cast our votes & let the majority decide. Those who believe there`s God & those who believe there`s no God. If the majority will vote for God does not exist then you win. I will accept there`s no God. But if the majority decides there`s a God then you atheists will have to accept there`s a God. Deal or no deal?

If the majority will vote for God does not exist then you win. I will accept there`s no God. But if the majority decides there`s a God then you atheists will have to accept there`s a God. Deal or no deal?
No deal for me. I don't put my trust in majority opinions, especially concerning a matter so personal as this.

AnneBoleyn;1391916 wrote: No deal for me. I don't put my trust in majority opinions, especially concerning a matter so personal as this.


Anne Boleyn is out. Whose next?