|
Post by gadreel on Aug 28, 2022 23:06:28 GMT
I think you just said going by that argument you agree with your own argument, thanks No, going by that argument, you accept everything that Christianity teaches about Christ. Not even a little bit. I am saying that the bible speaks to westerners because it is written in their cultural language, in other words it appeals by culture more than say the Veda, or the Quaran. You still need to read it critically, and understand what each book is saying. I bet you don't believe every word of the bible.
|
|
|
Post by clusium on Aug 28, 2022 23:47:44 GMT
No, going by that argument, you accept everything that Christianity teaches about Christ. Not even a little bit. I am saying that the bible speaks to westerners because it is written in their cultural language, in other words it appeals by culture more than say the Veda, or the Quaran. You still need to read it critically, and understand what each book is saying. I bet you don't believe every word of the bible. The Quran has been translated into English & other languages for people living here in North America. The Hindu scriptures can be too (& may very well have been, since ISKCON was born in the West).
|
|
|
Post by gadreel on Aug 29, 2022 0:48:59 GMT
Not even a little bit. I am saying that the bible speaks to westerners because it is written in their cultural language, in other words it appeals by culture more than say the Veda, or the Quaran. You still need to read it critically, and understand what each book is saying. I bet you don't believe every word of the bible. The Quran has been translated into English & other languages for people living here in North America. The Hindu scriptures can be too (& may very well have been, since ISKCON was born in the West). Translations dont change the cultural aspect, but at any rate that is beside the point the point is that you are more likely to believe something in your own cultural paradigm
|
|
|
Post by captainbryce on Sept 23, 2022 23:04:19 GMT
If an idea is not testable, repeatable, observable and falsifiable, it is not considered scientific. www.allaboutscience.org/scientific-method.htmJust to establish what is involved in proof, according to science, for eventual reference in discussions here. Natural laws can be proven (gravity, thermodynamics, etc.) The existence of a god cannot be proven by the scientific method. One can 'believe', 'believe that they know' and speculate all they want to, but if subjected to scientific method, it cannot be proven. Key word scientific. There is no scientific argument for god, it is all philosophical, in fact the very nature of god (unknowable) means that there cannot be a scientific argument for god. Judaism speaks of ain soph ur, the great unknowable, meaning that all we know or can ever know about god is it's effect on the universe, since god is outside the universe. This essentially makes (of course) god a place holder word, as god could just as easily be the source of the big bang. Are there people who try to prove god scientifically? I would contend they do not understand god or religion I would contend that nobody understands god. Even the the ones who claim they do.
|
|
|
Post by captainbryce on Sept 23, 2022 23:05:58 GMT
Plot twist: The Scientific Method doesn't attempt to prove anything; it attempts to disprove hypotheses. Failing that, hypotheses are promoted to theories. In other words, if it can't be falsified, it remains standing. No, that’s actually not how that works. If an idea can’t be falsified, then it doesn’t have a leg to stand on in the first place.
|
|