Comments on: A study on Soul

By: Ambi

Ambi — Mon, 24 Aug 2009 09:12:44 +0000

@ Hellogoodbye AKA Butter AKA Lucky:

You are applying logic which is born out of perception to something that is beyond logic.

By: Ambi

Ambi — Mon, 24 Aug 2009 09:05:25 +0000

Even though its been a long time since this topic was written…

@ Sushil:

How do you believe that the food served in a nice platter in a 7-star restaurant is always edible or uncontaminated or unpoisoned?

You need to know what Gita says to even begin verifying whether it is correct or not… have you read the Gita? Or atleast understand the essence of what it talks about? How did you come to the decision then, that there is an absence of proof of them being correct?

By: Hellogoodbye AKA Butter AKA Lucky

Hellogoodbye AKA Butter AKA Lucky — Sat, 11 Oct 2008 15:25:58 +0000

ok, here is the link, that provide crystal explanation.

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

By: Mr.R

Mr.R — Fri, 10 Oct 2008 14:36:04 +0000

butters am not sure what you mean by cannot life himself ? does he had to prove now and then by lifting a rock ?!!

and about the morality you are talking about , its not morality but the basic nature of species. Every species has its own basic nature. Its not to be confused with morality. Morality is different from it.

By: Hellogoodbye AKA Butter AKA Lucky

Hellogoodbye AKA Butter AKA Lucky — Thu, 09 Oct 2008 05:30:57 +0000

Butters i tend to vary in this point , morality is not part of the nature. Morality by n large is part of a culture. One culture’s high morality can be another culture’s taboo. The concept of God is universal but various cultures and societies build in due course of time rituals and superstitious belief and laws.
=========
Morality is part of nature and there is morality in animal and homo sapience too. I can quote u from different scientific sources if u want

By: Hellogoodbye AKA Butter AKA Lucky

Hellogoodbye AKA Butter AKA Lucky — Thu, 09 Oct 2008 05:26:07 +0000

my question was can god create a rock which he cannot lift himself? if he cannot create he is not omnipotent and if he can create and cannot lift, then too he is not omnipotent. In short omnipotent logically cannot exists.

Second question was if there is free will God cannot be omniscient and if he is omniscient there is no freewill.

By: Mr.R

Mr.R — Thu, 09 Oct 2008 01:43:28 +0000

>>>>I know omniscience, omnipotent, omnipresence is attributed to God, but using of these words itself illogical.

For example:
Omnipotent – Can God create a rock which he/she cannot lift himself/herself?

Omnipresence: if gods know everything, freewill is just stupid word. <<<

===============

Its not illogical but highly logical if you are in the opposite camp of view.

You asked can a God lift a rock ? Why not ? What makes u think he cannot lift it ?

And about the free will . God has definitely given us a choice of free will .God knows everything and Free will is also a practical thing. Infact i hav in mind to write a post on it . Look forward to my comming post on it.

By: Mr.R

Mr.R — Thu, 09 Oct 2008 01:38:33 +0000

>>>Fact is, morality is part of nature. We create societies and build laws around these basic natural principals. Religions only use these principles and laws and build their own set of explanations for them. After a few centuries of heavy indoctrination, the generations tend to think that their religion of choice was the creator of such principles.

=====================================================

By: Hellogoodbye AKA Butter AKA Lucky

Hellogoodbye AKA Butter AKA Lucky — Wed, 08 Oct 2008 11:21:19 +0000

>>>>Practically every human being on the planet would simply vanish into oblivion. Would this solution be preferable to you?”<<<<<<
hmmm..so god can’t separate evil from human being.
In that sense a terrorist is also God only if he can get a nuclear bomb.

By: Hellogoodbye AKA Butter AKA Lucky

Hellogoodbye AKA Butter AKA Lucky — Wed, 08 Oct 2008 11:17:32 +0000

>>>The atheist cannot logically prove God’s nonexistence. And here’s why: to know that a transcendent God does not exist would require a perfect knowledge of all things (omniscience). To attain this knowledge would require simultaneous access to all parts of the world and beyond (omnipresence). Therefore, to be certain of the atheist’s claim one would have to possess godlike characteristics. Obviously, mankind’s limited nature precludes these special abilities. The offensive atheist’s dogmatic claim is therefore unjustifiable. As logician Mortimer Adler has pointed out, the atheist’s attempt to prove a universal negative is a self-defeating proposition. The theist should therefore emphasize that the offensive atheist is unable to provide a logical disproof of God’s existence.<<<<

I know omniscience, omnipotent, omnipresence is attributed to God, but using of these words itself illogical.

For example:
Omnipotent – Can God create a rock which he/she cannot lift himself/herself?

Omnipresence: if gods know everything, freewill is just stupid word.