The Eternal Way

Yoga Discussion General Yoga
#10

[QUOTE=TeeA;34016]I will step out on a limb here and state that “god” is never dead, and since neither of us can prove or disprove this argument through verified facts or proof, neither can prove the other is wrong.
Please feel free to respond as you wish, but note that I expect all counter-arguments to not be personal statements about your opinion, but backed up by facts, sources, or examples.[/QUOTE]

Ahhh yes, but the burdon of proof is on the person making the claim. God is considered a ‘negative’ claim. If I was to tell you I can fly, that would be a ‘negative’ claim. It’s not up to you to prove that I can’t fly, It’s up to me to prove that I can

#11

[QUOTE=YogiAdam;34022]Everyone can do something better than me or you, so why don’t we worship everyone equally. I might do things better than celebrities. I bet I can play the guitar better than Brad Pitt. I bet the Buddha hasn’t had threesomes… they should worship me, should they?[/QUOTE]

Well, exactly then and if Brad Pitt knew what was good for him, he would surrender his ego to you and learn the guitar from you. However, why would he do that with you, when he could seek out the best guitarist in the world.
Do you get my point?

so why don’t we worship everyone equally

Bingo. And this is why ultimately we Hindus recognise everybody is actually great and why we say "Namaste - the divine in me greets the divine within you"
However, remember it is only a potential, and no Hindu is going to worship you if you have nothing to show for it. Nobody rewards potential. Only merit is rewarded.

#12

Hi Yogi Adam

I believe there is (or may well be)a legal axiom that probably goes something more like:-

The burden of proof rests on the person wishing to disprove whatever is being claimed , i.e on the prosecution , not what is claimed by the defence.The prosecution’s job is to disprove the claims made by the defendant(innocent until proven guilty and all that). Have you not got things mixed around perhaps then in this respect? i.e the inverse,opposite or back-to front sounds to me more true

i.e Your job might want to be to prove me or anyone else can’t fly.The burden is,and so it should be, on any other position that wishes to challenge.

#13

Surya Deva
Then isn’t stating “God is dead” also a Unfalsfiable claim (since we can’t prove using perception or logic that he/she is actually alive) and therefore useless as well.

#14

[QUOTE=Surya Deva;34026]Well, exactly then and if Brad Pitt knew what was good for him, he would surrender his ego to you and learn the guitar from you. However, why would he do that with you, when he could seek out the best guitarist in the world.
Do you get my point?[/QUOTE]

No not at all. Define the best guitarist in the world?? I think it’s Yngwie Malmsteen. What do you think?.. do you see my point?

#15

[QUOTE=core789;34028]Hi Yogi Adam

I believe there is (or may well be)a legal axiom that probably goes something more like:-

The burden of proof rests on the person wishing to disprove whatever is being claimed , i.e on the prosecution , not what is claimed by the defence.The prosecution’s job is to disprove the claims made by the defendant(innocent until proven guilty and all that). Have you not got things mixed around perhaps then in this respect? i.e the inverse,opposite or back-to front sounds to me more true

i.e Your job might be to prove me or anyone else can’t fly.[/QUOTE]

We’ll you’d be wrong. This is a logical fallacy. You must believe everything you hear of imagine, if this is the case… you don’t believe everything you hear do you?

#16

[QUOTE=TeeA;34029]Surya Deva
Then isn’t stating “God is dead” also a Unfalsfiable claim (since we can’t prove using perception or logic that he/she is actually alive) and therefore useless as well.[/QUOTE]

As the claim hasn’t been established in the first place there is no reason to even believe such an entity exists. So to declare its non existence is basically stating a fact.

Are you familar with Occams razor? Do not multiply quantities unnecessarily. There is no reason supported either by perception or by logic where we can posit a god.

God is a human concept and this is supported by perception. I only have heard of this concept from humans. Anybody who you talk to who claims to have met god says “I have felt his presence” In other words it is a psychological phenomenon. Another person who does not have a religious bent of mind would label that experience as “esctacy” or “orgasm” or “bliss”

#17

[QUOTE=YogiAdam;34031]No not at all. Define the best guitarist in the world?? I think it’s Yngwie Malmsteen. What do you think?.. do you see my point?[/QUOTE]

Your point is that Yngwie Mamsteen may not be the best of them all. However, he is the known best, and he is a billion times better than you. So it is a good point to start with him, even if there is somebody even better.

Greatness is always one better than you(n+1)

#18

[QUOTE=Surya Deva;34033]Are you familar with Occams razor? [/QUOTE]

If you brought Occam’s razor into a Yoga forum, you’d slice all the metaphysical nonsense to pieces.

#19

[QUOTE=Surya Deva;34034]Your point is that Yngwie Mamsteen may not be the best of them all. However, he is the known best, and he is a billion times better than you. So it is a good point to start with him, even if there is somebody even better.

Greatness is always one better than you(n+1)[/QUOTE]

Again, define best. My dad thought that Yngwie Malmsteen was boring, and that Tommy Emmanuel was the best.

#20

[QUOTE=YogiAdam;34035]If you brought Occam’s razor into a Yoga forum, you’d slice all the metaphysical nonsense to pieces.[/QUOTE]

Nope actually you would not. As Occams razor says do not multiply quantities unnecessarily and go for the simplest explanation. As there is no explanation within materialism for the mind(this is a widely accepted fact in philosophy of mind and called the hard problem) to posit that the mind is separte from matter is not multiplaying quantities but giving the simplest explanation. If mind cannot be reduced to matter, then mind is not matter.

Just because we Hindus are athiest/impersonalists does not mean we embrace materialism. Materialism is just as illogical to us as theism.

#21

[QUOTE=Surya Deva;34037]
Just because we Hindus are athiest/impersonalists does not mean we embrace materialism. Materialism is just as illogical to us as theism.[/QUOTE]

That’s why Hinduism is illogical. It’s all just guessing about the unknown.

#22

[QUOTE=YogiAdam;34036]Again, define best. My dad thought that Yngwie Malmsteen was boring, and that Tommy Emmanuel was the best.[/QUOTE]

The chances are they are both miles better than you.

You are not blind. You know when somebody is better than you in something.

Like I said greatness is always one better than you.

#23

Don’t know about logical fallacy.Not so sure about that.

But, No,True, i don’t necessarily come to any definite truth about anythng i hear. I try to keep an open mind as far as i can, as much as i can if for e.g conditioning ,culture,perspective,prec-conceptions,errors,the balance of evidence and other varaibles may allow.

But if someone claims to say the moon is made of cheese then the burden is on others to prove it may well be not.So if you accuse someone of making up fibs or porkies, i’m sorry but you have to prove it.( whether there are vested interests or not, or over-all leaps for mankind)

#24

[QUOTE=YogiAdam;34038]That’s why Hinduism is illogical. It’s all just guessing about the unknown.[/QUOTE]

Not guessing but simply saying it as it is. Mind cannot be reduced to matter and this is accepted in philosophy of mind. So you are saying the modern philosophers of mind are illogical?

Modern science does not even back you up. Even they reject materialism. Are they also illogical?

Face it you are not as irreligious as you claim to be. Your faith is materialism.

#25

[QUOTE=Surya Deva;34039]The chances are they are both miles better than you.

You are not blind. You know when somebody is better than you in something.

Like I said greatness is always one better than you.[/QUOTE]

Ok, So who should worship who? Yngwie worships Tommy, or Tommy worships Yngwie.

Obviously, you can see my point now surely, but even if we could define best (which we can’t), I simply don’t buy the idea that we should worship the ‘best people’. It’s a shallow, petty idea, and I can’t believe it has come up on a Yoga forum. I was expecting some wisdom.

#26

[QUOTE=Surya Deva;34042]Not guessing but simply saying it as it is. Mind cannot be reduced to matter and this is accepted in philosophy of mind. So you are saying the modern philosophers of mind are illogical?

Modern science does not even back you up. Even they reject materialism. Are they also illogical?

Face it you are not as irreligious as you claim to be. Your faith is materialism.[/QUOTE]

Who said anything about Materialism? I don’t believe I have even used the word. All I’m saying, is there are things modern science can’t answer with any certainty. And I’m not prepared to guess an answer.

#27

[QUOTE=YogiAdam;34043]Ok, So who should worship who? Yngwie worships Tommy, or Tommy worships Yngwie.

Obviously, you can see my point now surely, but even if we could define best (which we can’t), I simply don’t buy the idea that we should worship the ‘best people’. It’s a shallow, petty idea, and I can’t believe it has come up on a Yoga forum. I was expecting some wisdom.[/QUOTE]

The point is they both are better than you :wink:

This ain’t rocket science. If you want to be as good as them you study them and emulate what they are doing that makes them that good.

Who is the best is relative. Who is better than you is not. Einsein is smarter than you. Yes or no?

#28

[QUOTE=Surya Deva;34045]The point is they both are better than you :wink:

This ain’t rocket science. If you want to be as good as them you study them and emulate what they are doing that makes them that good.

Who is the best is relative. Who is better than you is not. Einsein is smarter than you. Yes or no?[/QUOTE]

Einstein knows much more about maths and physics than I do. Yes… There are probably homeless people on the street who know more about maths and physics than I do… What was the point?

#29

[QUOTE=YogiAdam;34044]Who said anything about Materialism? I don’t believe I have even used the word. All I’m saying, is there are things modern science can’t answer with any certainty. And I’m not prepared to guess an answer.[/QUOTE]

Materialism is the belief that everything is made out of matter, including mind and consciousness. As you reject metaphysics which is about there being non-material substances as well in existence such as minds and other methods of grasping such as using logic, then you must be a materialist.

Modern science has answered many things with certainty. It has demonstrated that there is no such thing as matter or laws of space and time, everything is just a wave of probability. It has proven that the world cannot exist without an observer. It has proven there are dimensions beyond the material world. It has proven that mind is not in the physical world(through non-locality) It has proven that the mind can and does interact with matter and these effects can be measured. It has proven levitation, teleportation and the existence of etheric forces(prana).

The various stages of meditation as decribed by yogis have also been proven by science to be real.

All of these are things Hinduism says. So Modern science is backing everything up about Hinduism. So if Hinduism is illogical, so is modern science.