God Exists

[Visalakshi Ramani]

Share:

Facebook X (Twitter) LinkedIn WhatsApp Email Share Link

Dear Mr. O3!!!
Nice to know that you are still O3
and have not dissociated
(Yourself from the forum)!!!

 

[arunshanker]

This could be true, but does not explain the comfort feeling, which has nothing to do with evolution.

How do you say that comfort feeling has nothing to do with evolution
The organism has a considerable goal towards getting to a comfort position in fact that is what the deer is doing
For example the early man who could get the fire going in winter (comfort) was more probable to survive than the one that could not get this comfort
But again there are examples of other types of sources which can give a comfort feeling that may not be an evolutionary advantage (eating a particular type of food)
So not all comfort inducing things are going to be an evolutionary advantage
Learning comes in here
In this case the deers comfort comes from an escape from predation which is a key in survival

Shri Raghy's view on this would be more credible, but I would think the intent of the statement is more fully described in what it implies rather than what it doesnt. It is like asking a Bus Driver where the bus is headed and then making a statement - so should I take it that it does not go to place 'B'?

Agreed, you could not have stated this any better, no point in analyzing a statement from the view point of what it does not imply

If that comforts or motivates you ! BTW is having faith and being faithful the same? Would it harm to say yes under the context of God knowledge/awareness/acceptance?

My above answer of analyzing a statement from the view point of what it does not imply
holds good here too

 

[C RAVI]

nice big story. I think of a parellel story in my life.
I am a believer of god definitely. But, when i see the slaughtering of cows in public places like in trichy city, lorry loads of cows are going to kerala from trichy for slaughtering, i really wonder whether god exists. Also on every sundays, during my walking, the big sheeps are killed on the roadside for mutton with huge audience for buying, i really ask the god why you are not saving them.When i idiscussed this with my wife, she told a simple logic. They must definite do some bad things in their last birth, so they are suffering like this. Definitely they will get good birth after this.

Shri Shiva,

Every living species is destined to have life and death in a specific way. All the dogs are not lucky to be domesticated nicely by humans in their home or in Police Department. Millions of dogs are suffering on the streets and having a gruesome death.

The more gruesome things are happening among the humans. One may ask, why God doesn't help the innocent humans?

In our present life whether we suffer doing bad deeds on our own or having been victimized being an innocent person, it's all time bound, where a person may be genuinely innocent during the present time/life BUT that may not be the truth about his/her soul.

Whatever may be the reason, one may ask, why GOD is not saving the innocent person? Why? Because all wants GOD to favor every one irrespective of their motives and deeds, because GOD is believed to be existing to protect each and every one irrespective of their Karma.

GOD is off course merciful and would pardon any one who surrenders to his purest conscious sincerely. BUT, one can be relieved from the impacts of one's bad karma only after paying them off in some way or other, at a certain point of time.

From the time immemorial, violence, treachery, fraud, abduction, murders, rape, cheating, seducing and misleading, swindling etc.etc., among the humans have occurred, now continues to occur and would continue so in future. The innocents and the criminals BOTH could realize the Rule of the supreme conscious sooner or later and have started to believe in the Supreme Being. This is so happening till now and would continue to happen.


"As you sow so you reap", is the impact that has been experienced from the time immemorial and would continue to impact humans as per rule of the nature. Science calls it as Gene Evolution. Because Science has to systematically reason out and attempt to show everything black and white in agreeable manner. I would even question Science to answer, Why each and every Human Gene still lacks perfection and success in all aspect of its living motive in a proper and righteous manner when Human Genes could come to existence thousands and thousands of years before? Can/Does Science believe that after millions of years there would not be any negative tendencies such as mischief, cruelty, treachery, murder, rape, swindling, hurting, insulting, ridiculing, failures, suicides etc..etc.in human genes??


Shri Shiva, God is there for every one without bias. The only thing is, what we expect from GOD should correlate with what we think and what we do in our life time. That is why, Religion preaches righteousness in one's thoughts and deeds while living a human life with the desire to achieve the sense of fulfillment. As such, religion advocates the significance and importance of Spiritual Growth to help one self to be headed towards the path of righteousness. People can sooth themselves by rejecting unexpected negative events (both innocent person and guilty person in their own terms) as just a random phenomena and nothing else and continue to be indulging in what they do and how they do. Such ideas can help humans to continue with what, how and why they want to do BUT all are subjected under the Rules of Supreme Conscious and would get what exactly they deserve.

 

[Raghy]

Sri. Arun Shanker, Greetings.

Do I have to take the opposite as this "not Learning about God, religion and not building faith may be parellel to "being wild"
Should this be quoted to justify faith
I mean should the faithful have to say that the non faithful may not be parallel to domestication

Yes. I think so. At least I feel so many times like that. I openly say about my choices; I openly say I have no faith in God. I am just being honest. I know I am seen by many members in this forum as 'being wild'. I am quite aware of the vibe I get in this forum from few other members. Only such vibes are quite a mixed bag. I have to sort them out. The good thing is, from the vibes I am getting in return, I am able to fathom some of the members. Some of the members, I can read like an open book. Yes, some faithful do comment about some of unfaithful as 'being wild'. That's just the nature.

Cheers!

 

[ozone]

Dear Mr. O3!!!
Nice to know that you are still O3
and have not dissociated
(Yourself from the forum)!!!

Dear Smt VR Madam,
It was one of those Sundays I was on my PC for long and was tempted to post.
Nice to see your continued active posts. Your favourite thread has more than 3000 posts already !! Wow!!

 

[nannilam_balasubramanian]

கல்யாணத்திற்கு பணம்.


> பல வருடங்களுக்கு முன் கரூரைப் பூர்விகமாகக் கொண்டராமநாத கனபாடிகள் என்கிற வேதவித்வான் ஸ்ரீரங்கத்தில்வசித்து வந்தார். அவர் மனைவி தர்மாம்பாள்;ஒரே மகள் காமாட்சி.
>
> அவர் வேதங்களைக் கரைத்துக் குடித்திருந்தாலும் வைதீகத்தைவயிற்றுப் பிழைப்பாகாக் கொள்ளவில்லை. உபன்யாசம்பண்ணுவதில் கெட்டிக்காரர். அதில், அவர்களாகப் பார்த்துஅளிக்கிற சன்மானத் தொகையை மட்டும் மகிழ்ச்சியுடன்பெற்றுக்கொள்வார். ஸ்ரீகாஞ்சி மகா ஸ்வாமிகளிடம்மிகுந்த விசுவாசமும் பக்தியும் உள்ள குடும்பம்.
>
> இருபத்திரண்டு வயதான காமாட்சிக்குத் திடீரெனத் திருமணம்நிச்சயமானது. ஒரு மாதத்தில் திருமணம். மணமகன்ஒரு கிராமத்தில் பள்ளி ஆசிரியர்.
>
> தர்மாம்பாள் தன் கணவரிடம் கேட்டாள்,"பொண்ணுக்குக்கல்யாணம் நிச்சியமாயிடுத்து, கையிலே எவ்வளவுசேர்த்து வெச்சிண்டிருக்கேள்?" கனபாடிகள் பவ்யமாக,"தாமு, ஒனக்குத் தெரியாதா என்ன? இதுவரைக்கும்அப்படி இப்படின்னு ஐயாயிரம் ரூவா சேத்து வெச்சிருக்கேன்சிக்கனமா கல்யாணத்தை நடத்தினா இது போதுமே"என்று சொல்ல, தர்மாம்பாளுக்குக் கோபம் வந்துவிட்டது.
>
> "அஞ்சாயிரத்த வெச்சுண்டு என்னத்தப் பண்ண முடியும்?நகைநட்டு, சீர்செனத்தி,பொடவை, துணிமணி வாங்கி,சாப்பாடுபோட்டு எப்படி கல்யாணத்தை நடத்த முடியும்? இன்னும்பதினையாயிரம் ரூவா கண்டிப்பா வேணும். ஏற்பாடுபண்ணுங்கோ!" இது தர்மாம்பாள்.
>
> இடிந்து போய் நின்றார் ராமநாத கனபாடிகள்.
>
> உடனே தர்மாம்பாள், "ஒரு வழி இருக்கு, சொல்றேன், கேளுங்கோ,கல்யாணப் பத்திரிகையைக் கையிலே எடுத்துக்குங்கோ, கொஞ்சம்பழங்களை வாங்கிண்டு நேரா காஞ்சிபுரம் போங்கோ, அங்கேஸ்ரீமடத்துக்குப் போய் ஒரு தட்டிலே பழங்களை வெச்சு,கல்யாணப்பத்திரிகையையும் வெச்சு மகா பெரியவாளை நமஸ்காரம் பண்ணிவிஷயத்தைச் சொல்லுங்கோ. பதினைந்தாயிரம் பண ஒத்தாசைகேளுங்கோ...ஒங்களுக்கு 'இல்லே'னு சொல்லமாட்டா பெரியவா"என்றாள் நம்பிக்கையுடன்.
>
> அவ்வளவுதான்...ராமநாத கனபாடிகளுக்குக் கட்டுக்கடங்காத கோபம்வந்துவிட்டது. "என்ன சொன்னே..என்ன சொன்னே நீ!பெரியவாளைப் பார்த்துப் பணம் கேக்கறதாவது...என்ன வார்த்தபேசறே நீ" என்று கனபாடி முடிப்பதற்குள்.....
>
> "ஏன்? என்ன தப்பு? பெரியவா நமக்கெல்லாம் குருதானே? குருவிடம்யாசகம் கேட்டால் என்ன தப்பு?" என்று கேட்டாள் தர்மாம்பாள்.
>
> "என்ன பேசறே தாமு? அவர் ஜகத்குரு. குருவிடம் நாம "ஞான"த்தைத்தான்யாசிக்கலாமே தவிர, "தான"த்தை [பணத்தை] யாசிக்கப்படாது"என்று சொல்லிப் பார்த்தார் கனபாடிகள். பயனில்லை. அடுத்த நாள்"மடிசஞ்சி"யில் [ஆசாரத்துக்கான வஸ்திரங்கள் வைக்கும் கம்பளி்ப் பை]தன் துணிமணிகள் சகிதம் காஞ்சிபுரத்துக்குப் புறப்பட்டுவிட்டார்கனபாடிகள்.
>
> ஸ்ரீமடத்தில் அன்று மகா பெரியவாளைத் தரிசனம் பண்ண ஏகக் கூட்டம்.ஒரு மூங்கில் தட்டில் பழம், பத்திரிகையோடு வரிசையில் நின்றுகொண்டிருந்தார் ராமாநாத கனபாடிகள். நின்றிருந்த அனைவரின்கைகளிலும் பழத்துடன் கூடிய மூங்கில் தட்டுகள்.
>
> பெரியவா அமர்ந்திருந்த இடத்தைக் கனபாடிகள் அடைந்ததும்அவர் கையிலிருந்த பழத்தட்டை ஒருவர் வலுக்கட்டாயமாகவாங்கி, பத்தோடு பதினொன்றாகத் தள்ளி வைத்துவி்ட்டார்..இதைச் சற்றும் எதிர்பார்க்காத கனபாடிகள், "ஐயா...ஐயா...அந்ததட்டிலே க்ல்யாணப் பத்திரிகை வெச்சிருக்கேன். பெரியவாளிடம்சமர்ப்பிச்சு ஆசி வாங்கணும். அதை இப்படி எடுங்கோ" என்றுசொல்லிப் பார்த்தார். யார் காதிலும் விழவில்லை.
>
> அதற்குள் மகா ஸ்வாமிகள்,கனபாடிகளைப் பார்த்துவிட்டார்.ஸ்வாமிகள் பரம சந்தோஷத்துடன், "அடடே! நம்ம கரூர் ராமநாதகனபாடிகளா? வரணும்..வரணும். ஸ்ரீரங்கத்தில் எல்லோரும்க்ஷேமமா? உபன்யாசமெல்லாம் நன்னா போயிண்டிருக்கா?"என்று விசாரித்துக் கொண்டே போனார்.
>
> "எல்லாம் பெரியவா அனுக்கிரகத்துலே நன்னா நடக்கிறது"என்று சொல்லியபடியே சாஷ்டாங்கமாக விழுந்து நமஸ்காரம்பண்ணி எழுந்தார். உடனே ஸ்வாமிகள் சிரித்துக்கொண்டே,"ஆத்திலே...பேரு என்ன...ம்..தர்மாம்பாள்தானே? சௌக்யமா?ஒன் மாமனார் வைத்யபரமேஸ்வர கனபாடிகள். அவரோடஅப்பா சுப்ரமண்ய கனபாடிகள். என்ன நான் சொல்ற பேரெல்லாம்சரிதானே?" என்று கேட்டு முடிப்பதற்குள், ராமநாத கனபாடிகள்"சரிதான் பெரியவா, என் ஆம்படையா [மனைவி] தாமுதான்பெரியவாளைப் பார்த்துட்டு வரச் சொன்னா.."என்று குழறினார்.
>
> "அப்போ, நீயா வரல்லே?"; இது பெரியவா.
>
> "அப்படி இல்லே பெர்யவா. பொண்ணுக்குக் கல்யாணம்வெச்சுருக்கு, தாமுதான் பெரியவாளை தரிசனம் பண்ணிட்டுபத்திரிகையை சமர்ப்பிச்சு.." என்று கனபாடிகள் முடிப்பதற்குள்"ஆசீர்வாதம் வாங்கிண்டு வரச் சொல்லியிருப்பா" என்று பூர்த்திபண்ணிவிட்டார் ஸ்வாமிகள்.
>
> பதினையாயிரம் ரூபாய் விஷயத்தை எப்படி ஆரம்பிப்பது என்றுபுரியாமல் குழம்பினார் கனபாடிகள். இந்நிலையில் பெரியவா,"உனக்கு ஒரு அஸைன்மெண்ட் வெச்சிருக்கேன். நடத்திக்கொடுப்பியா?" என்று கேட்டார்.
>
> "அஸைன்மெண்டுன்னா பெரியவா?" இது கனபாடிகள்.
>
> "செய்து முடிக்கவேண்டிய ஒரு விஷயம்னு அர்த்தம்.எனக்காகப் பண்ணுவியா?"
>
> பெரியவா திடீரென்று இப்படிக் கேட்டவுடன், வந்த விஷயத்தைவிட்டுவிட்டார் கனபாடிகள். குதூகலத்தோடு,"சொல்லுங்கோ பெரியவா, காத்துண்டிருக்கேன்"என்றார்.
>
> உடனே பெரியவா, "ஒனக்கு வேற என்ன அஸைன்மெண்ட்கொடுக்கப் போறேன்? உபன்யாசம் பண்றதுதான். திருநெல்வேலிகடையநல்லூர் பக்கத்துல ஒரு அக்ரஹாரம் ரொம்ப மோசமானநிலையில் இருக்காம். பசு மாடெல்லாம் ஊர்ல காரணமில்லாமசெத்துப் போய்டறதாம். கேரள நம்பூதிரிகிட்டே ப்ரஸ்னம் பார்த்ததுலபெருமாள் கோயில்ல "பாகவத உபன்யாசம்" பண்ணச் சொன்னாளாம்.ரெண்டு நாள் முன்னாடி அந்த ஊர் பெருமாள் கோயில் பட்டாச்சாரியார்இங்கே வந்தார். விஷயத்தைச் சொல்லிட்டு,"நீங்கதான் ஸ்வாமி"பாகவத உபன்யாசம்" பண்ண ஒருத்தரை அனுப்பி உதவிபண்ணணும்"னு பொறுப்பை என் தலைல கட்டிட்டுப் போயிட்டார்.நீ எனக்காக அங்கே போய் அதைப் பூர்த்தி பண்ணி்ட்டு வரணும்.விவரமெல்லாம் மடத்து மானேஜருக்குத் தெரியும் கேட்டுக்கோசிலவுக்கு மடத்துல பணம் வாங்கி்க்கோ. இன்னிக்கு ராத்திரியேவிழுப்புரத்தில் ரயில் ஏறிடு. சம்பாவனை [வெகுமானம்] அவாபார்த்துப் பண்ணுவா. போ..போ...போய் சாப்டுட்டு ரெஸ்ட்எடுத்துக்கோ" என்று சொல்லிவிட்டு, வேறு ஒரு பக்தரிடம்பேச ஆரம்பித்துவிட்டார் ஸ்வாமிகள்.
>
> அன்றிரவு விழுப்புரத்தில் ரயிலேறிய கனபாடிகள் அடுத்த நாள்மதியம் திருநெல்வேலி ஜங்ஷனில் இறங்கினார். பெருமாள் கோயில்பட்டர் ஸ்டேஷனுக்கே வந்து கனபாடிகளை அைழைத்துச் சென்றார்.
>
> ஊருக்குச் சற்று தொலைவில் இருந்தது அந்த வரதராஜப் பெருமாள்கோயில். கோயில். பட்டர் வீட்டிலேயே தங்க வைக்கப்பட்டார்.கனபாடிகள். ஊர் அக்ரஹாரத்திலிருந்து ஓர் ஈ காக்காகூடகனபாடிகளை வந்து பார்க்கவிலை. "உபன்யாசத்தின்போது எல்லோரும்வருவா" என அவரே தன்னை சமாதானப் படுத்திக்கொண்டார்.
>
> மாலை வேளை, வரதராஜப் பெருமாள் சந்நிதி முன் அமர்ந்துஸ்ரீமத் பாகவத உபன்யாசத்தைக் காஞ்சி ஆச்சார்யாளைநினைத்துக்கொண்டு ஆரம்பித்தார் கனபாடிகள். எதிரேஎதிரே ஸ்ரீவரதராஜப் பெருமாள், கோயில் பட்டர்,கோயில் மெய்க்காவல்காரர். இவ்வளவு பேர்தான்.
>
> உபன்யாசம் முடிந்ததும், "ஏன் ஊரைச் சேர்ந்த ஒத்தருமேவரல்லே?" என்று பட்டரிடம் கவலையோடு கேட்டார்கனபாடிகள்.
>
> அதற்கு பட்டர்,"ஒரு வாரமா இந்த ஊர் ரெண்டுபட்டுக்கிடக்கு! இந்தக் கோயிலுக்கு யார் தர்மகர்த்தாவாக வருவதுஎன்பதிலே ரெண்டு பங்காளிகளுக்குள்ளே சண்டை, அதைமுடிவு கட்டிண்டுதான் "கோயிலுக்குள்ளே நுழைவோம்"னுசொல்லிட்டா. உப்ன்யாசத்துக்கு நீங்க வந்திருக்கிற சமயத்துலஊர் இ்ப்படி ஆயிருக்கேனு ரொம்ப வருத்தப்படறேன்" என்றுகனபாடிகளின் கைகளைப் பிடித்துக்கொண்டு கண் கலங்கினார்.
>
> பட்டரும், மெய்க்காவலரும்,பெருமாளும் மாத்திரம் கேட்கஸ்ரீமத் பாகவத உபன்யாசத்தை ஏழாவது நாள் பூர்த்தி பண்ணினார்,ராமநாத கனபாடிகள். பட்டாச்சார்யார் பெருமாளுக்கு அர்ச்சனைபண்ணி பிரசாதத் தட்டில் பழங்களுடன் முப்பது ரூபாயைவைத்தார். மெய்க்காவல்காரர் தன் மடியிலிருந்து கொஞ்சம்சில்லரையை எடுத்து அந்தத் தட்டில் போட்டார். பட்டர்ஸ்வாமிகள் ஒரு மந்திரத்தைச் சொல்லி சம்பாவனைத் தட்டைக்கனபாடிகளிடம் அளித்து , "ஏதோ இந்த சந்தர்ப்பம் இப்படிஆயிடுத்து. மன்னிக்கணும்.ரொம்ப நன்னா ஏழு நாளும் கதைசொன்னேள். எத்தனை ரூவா வேணும்னாலும் சம்பாவனைபண்ணலாம். பொறுத்துக்கணும். டிக்கெட் வாங்கி ரயிலேத்திவிட்டுடறேன்" என கண்களில் நீர் மல்க உருகினார்!.
>
> திருநெல்வேலி ஜங்ஷனில் பட்டரும் மெய்க்காவலரும் வந்துவழியனுப்பினர். விழுப்புரத்துக்கு ரயிலேறி, காஞ்சிபுரம்வந்து சேர்ந்தார் கனபாடிகள்.
>
> அன்றும் மடத்தில் ஆச்சார்யாளைத் தரிசிக்க ஏகக் கூட்டம்.அனைவரும் நகரும்வரை காத்திருந்தார் கனபாடிகள்.
>
> "வா ராமநாதா! உபன்யாசம் முடிச்சுட்டு இப்பதான் வரயா?பேஷ்...பேஷ்! உபன்யாசத்துக்கு நல்ல கூட்டமோ?சுத்துவட்டாரமே திரண்டு வந்ததோ?" என்று உற்சாகமாகக்கேட்டார் ஸ்வாமிகள்.
>
> கனபாடிகள் கண்களில் நீர் முட்டியது. தழுதழுக்கும் குரலில்பெரியவாளிடம், "இல்லே பெரியவா, அப்படி எல்லாம்கூட்டம் வரல்லே. அந்த ஊர்லே ரெண்டு கோஷ்டிக்குள்ளேஏதோ பிரச்னையாம் பெரியவா, அதனாலே கோயில் பக்கம்ஏழு நாளும் யாருமே வல்லே"என்று ஆதங்கப்பட்டார்கனபாடிகள்.
>
> "சரி...பின்னே எத்தனை பேர்தான் கதையைக் கேக்க வந்தா?"
>
> "ரெண்டே..ரெண்டு பேர்தான் பெரியவா.அதுதான் ரொம்பவருத்தமா இருக்கு" இது கனபாடிகள்.
>
> உடனே பெரியவா, "இதுக்காகக் கண் கலங்கப்படாது. யார் அந்தரெண்டு பாக்யசாலிகள்? சொல்லேன், கேட்போம்" என்றார்.
>
> "வெளி மனுஷா யாரும் இல்லே பெரியவா. ஒண்ணு, அந்தக்கோயில் பட்டர். இன்னொண்ணு கோயில் மெய்க்காவலர்"என்று சொல்லி முடிப்பதற்குள், ஸ்வாமிகள் இடி இடியென்றுவாய்விட்டுச் சிரிக்க ஆரம்பித்துவிட்டார்.
>
> "ராமநாதா... நீ பெரிய பாக்யசாலிடா! தேர்ல ஒக்காந்துகிருஷ்ணன் சொன்ன கீதோபதேசத்தை அர்ஜுனன்ஒருத்தன்தான் கேட்டான். ஒனக்கு பாரு.ரெண்டு பேர்வழிகள்கேட்டிருக்கா. கிருஷ்ணனைவிட நீ பரம பாக்கியசாலி"என்று பெரியவா சொன்னவுடன் கனபாடிகளுக்கும்சிரிப்பு வந்துவிட்டது.
>
> "அப்படின்னா பெரிய சம்பாவனை கெடச்சிருக்க வாய்ப்பில்லைஎன்ன?" என்றார் பெரியவா.
>
> "அந்த பட்டர் ஒரு முப்பது ரூவாயும், மெய்க்காவல்காரர்ரெண்டேகால் ரூவாயும் சேர்த்து முப்பத்திரண்டே கால் ரூவாகெடச்சுது பெரியவா!" ;கனபாடிகள் தெரிவித்தார்.
>
> "ராமநாதா, நான் சொன்னதுக்காக நீ அங்கே போயி்ட்டு வந்தே.உன்னோட வேதப் புலமைக்கு நெறயப் பண்ணனும்.இந்தச்சந்தர்ப்பம் இப்படி ஆயிருக்கு" என்று கூறி, காரியஸ்தரைக்கூப்பிட்டார் ஸ்வாமிகள். அவரிடம், கனபாடிகளு்க்குச் சால்வைபோர்த்தி ஆயிரம் ரூபாய் பழத்தட்டில் வைத்துத் தரச் சொன்னார்.
>
> "இதை சந்தோஷமா ஏத்துண்டு பொறப்படு. நீயும் ஒ்ன் குடும்பமும்பரம சௌக்கியமா இருப்பேள்" என்று உத்தரவும் கொடுத்தார்ஸ்வாமிகள்.
>
> கண்களில் நீர் மல்க பெரியவாளை நமஸ்கரித்து எழுந்தகனபாடிகளுக்கு, தான் ஸ்வாமிகளைப் பார்க்க எதற்காகவந்தோம் என்ற விஷயம் அப்போதுதான் ஞாபகத்துக்குவந்தது."பெரியவாகிட்டே ஒரு பிரார்த்தனை...பெண் கல்யாணம்நன்னா நடக்கணும். "அதுக்கு...அதுக்கு..." என்று அவர்தயங்கவும்,"என்னுடைய ஆசீர்வாதம் பூர்ணமாக உண்டு. விவாகத்தைசந்திரமௌலீஸ்வரர் ஜாம்ஜாம்னு நடத்தி வைப்பார்.ஜாக்ரதையா ஊருக்குப் போய்ட்டு வா." என்று விடைகொடுத்தார் ஆச்சார்யாள்.
>
> ரூபாய் பதினையாயிரம் இல்லாமல் வெறுங்கையோடு வீட்டுவாசலை அடையும் தனக்கு, மனைவியின் வரவேற்பு எப்படிஇருக்குமோ என்ற பயத்துடன் வீட்டு வாசற்படியை மிதித்தார்ராமநாத கனபாடிகள்.
>
> "இருங்கோ..இருங்கோ...வந்துட்டேன்..."உள்ளே இருந்து மனைவி தர்மாம்பாளின் சந்தோஷக் குரல்..
>
> வாசலுக்கு வந்து, கனபாடிகள் கால் அலம்ப சொம்பில் தண்ணீர்கொடுத்தாள். ஆரத்தி எடுத்து உள்ளே அழைத்துப் போனாள்.காபி கொடுத்து ராஜ உபசாரம் பண்ணிவிட்டு,"இங்கே பூஜைரூமுக்கு வந்து பாருங்கோ" என்று கனபாடிகளை அழைத்துப்போனாள்,
>
> பூஜை அறைக்குச் சென்றார் கனபாடிகள்.அங்கே ஸ்வாமிக்குமுன் ஒரு பெரிய மூங்கில் தட்டில்,பழ வகைகளுடன் புடவை,வேஷ்டிஇரண்டு திருமாங்கல்யம்,மஞ்சள்,குங்குமம்,புஷ்பம்இவற்றுடன் ரூபாய் நோட்டுக்கட்டு ஒன்றும் இருந்தது.
>
> "தாமு..இதெல்லாம்..." என்று அவர் முடிப்பதற்குள்,,"காஞ்சிபுரத்துலேர்ந்து பெரியவா கொடுத்துட்டு வரச் சொன்னதாஇன்னிக்குக் காத்தால மடத்தைச் சேர்ந்தவா கொண்டு வந்துவெச்சுட்டுப் போறா. "எதுக்கு?"னு கேட்டேன். "ஒங்காத்து பொண்கல்யாணத்துக்காகத்தான் பெரியவா சேர்ப்பிச்சுட்டு வரச்சொன்னா"னு சொன்னா" என்று முடித்தாள் அவர் மனைவி.
>
> கனபாடிகளின் கண்களில் இப்போதும் நீர் வடிந்தது. "தாமு,பெரியவாளோட கருணையே கருணை. நான் வாயத் திறந்துஒண்ணுமே கேட்கலே. அப்படி இருந்தும் அந்தத் தெய்வம்இதையெல்லாம் அனுப்பியிருக்கு பாரு" என்று நா தழுதழுத்தவர்"கட்டிலே ரூவா எவ்வளவு இருக்குன்னு எண்ணினியோ" என்றுகேட்டார். "நான் எண்ணிப் பார்க்கலே" என்றாள் அவர் மனைவி.
>
> கீழே அமர்ந்து எண்ணி முடித்தார் கனபாடிகள்.
>
> பதினைந்தாயிரம் ரூபாய்!
>
> அந்த தீர்க்கதரிசியின் கருணையை எண்ணி வியந்து"ஹோ"வென்று கதறி அழுதார் ராமநாத கனபாடிகள்.

I have heard a similar event from one of my family members, who was the ardent
devotee of Shree Maha Periyaval. Shree Mathura Kaliamman, Siruvachur is Kula Deivam of Shri Maha Periyaval.
When my relative prostrated before HIM, he only enquired whether my relative visited the Temple and
took the Blessings of the Ambal and nothing else.


Balasubramanian
Ambattur

 

[nannilam_balasubramanian]

The existence of God cannot be proved through objects or disproved stating that
he does not exist. If some body desires to see the God physically, we have to take
avatar of Saint Thyagaraja and request HIM to be present or simply appear before
this Universe that HE exists to protect us. It does not mean that one should
conclude that there is no evidence for HIS existence. As we look at the stars
appearing at the correct time in the sky and when one is able to understand
the vastness of the universe besides watching the unusual effects of nature,
watching the beauty of a sunset and moonrise at a time at Kanyakumari, if
I am correct all these relates to the existence of God, who is ultimately responsible
to create everything in this Universe. To my knowledge, I am absolutely sure that
but for God we would not have sense organizations in us to understand the concept
of right and wrong. Many people knowingly or unknowingly do commit murders,
tell lies, cheat people, steal things and behave in an undisciplined way, etc. by
one particular section though all these are totally rejected and not accepted by
anyone. When such persons are awarded punishment, they repent for the mistakes
or crimes. If one realizes the mistakes, he admits and the true reason for not
behaving properly. As they are responsible to the Judiciary or Police for admitting
their mistakes, they are also equally responsible to the God for all the misdeeds
during their life span. The very fact that some make an attempt so ferociously
and try to disprove His existence is in fact, turns into an argument for His existence.
In some Cinema, there is a joke relating to two bananas and similar to that. We
can only hear the sound and not see it. Similarly Light only can drive away the darkness.
As Renuka Madam has put it, I don't think it will be possible or able to present an
object evidence for God's existence in such a way similar to a mathematical formula
or obtain a result of mathematical certainty.

Balasubramanian
Ambattur

 

[Raghy]

Sri. Balasubramanian Sir, Greetings.

The existence of God cannot be proved through objects or disproved stating that he does not exist. If some body desires to see the God physically, we have to take avatar of Saint Thyagaraja and request HIM to be present or simply appear before this Universe that HE exists to protect us. It does not mean that one should conclude that there is no evidence for HIS existence.

Sir, it is quite disheartening to see the above lines in your message in post # 2632. Somehow I think you may not have read my message addressed to you here in post # 2585. In that post I wrote

You like to have a proof for the existence of God. That is very simple. Compare a corpse and a person. That corpse doesn't have something that the person has in possession. That corpse is just an order number for the undertaker; but that person has feelings, plans for the week-end.. etc. So, what is the difference? That difference is God. Identify that, you have identified God. The whole thing is that simple.

.
It seems you don't seem to think much of that above quote. Sir, simple things are often the best in life. There, I just gave you the evidence for God. But since I said I had no faith in God, possibly you may not havve read any further in my message, did you?

I am frank and open. I said I have no faith in God. Most people have no faith in God, but say they have a lot of faith in God. Since you said you have 'no thrani' or 'no energy' to argue like this, I am writing this to you. Even before you wrote you had 'no thrani', the person who said he had no faith in God wrote you how to identify God. What would you make of that? Kindly think about that, please. Sir, I may not have faith in God; but I can show you how to identify God. ( then you may wonder why I have no faith in God.... If God appears in front of me, I am that sort of person who would not ask anything from God but ask God " How can I help you?".. and that is not out of arrogancy either). Kindly think about this post. Thank you.

Cheers!

 

[ShivKC]

Not in this forum I have tried and failed mainly because as I said faith is based on emotion and not evidence
Like someone said “from the brain I think this and from the heart I know this” scientifically both thoughts come from the brain. Give me an idea/method logically to explain that heart does not think
This is an example there are many more
Another one here “..before Chris Columbus went on his famous trip that did not mean that America did not exist isnt it?”
This case I dont know how this is connected to the idea that God exists
There are logical fallacies like
Appeal to Authority – Eg A great person ( I don’t want to name it may offend someone) said in Hindu history so it is true
Red herring - irrelevant topic is presented in order to divert attention from the original issue
Irrelevant analogy and many more

dear Arun, sorry, i was bit tied up hence couldnt make a prompt response.

when you claim religion is not based on evidence, then you need to submit what kind of evidence you need?You are stuck with the physical evidence, and that's what blinds you from exploring god.

If you go to a villager and tell him that an Infra Red light is passing through the remote control to the TV, he only will laugh at you, and may ask you for evidence by taking you to the dark room. this is the platform you are in.

is we could stay away from just sheer physical dimensions of MLT, and move futher to the metaphysical/philosophical and to your own favorite logics, sure we, or many of the members here can have a meaningful dialogue.

your eg, of before columbus america never existed analogy, is just a suicidal argument. religionists worked much beyond in all aspects. they propounded the world and universe through many mythologies /purana's/divine intervention, and worked towards reaching there through the help of science.

where as science, as such, in the 15th century would said, 'comon' man, show me the evidence for america.. or would have asked 'show me the evidence of other universe'.. here science is slow but, though science is principally driven by religion, with an impulse to explore un known things.

any way, start again with a fresh approach in topics like Evidence/Metaphysics... will try to join often here.

 

[nannilam_balasubramanian]

Dear Mr Raghy

Greetings.

I have no intention of hurting anyone nor create an ill feeling with anyone. I generally said
as a common point and not to you in person that it may not be that easy to present the
God before any one, just like Saint Thyagaraja who had the vision and bliss to see the Lord
and nothing else. Please do not take it otherwise. One thing, we all have to understand in
this Universe. If something unusual or unexpected or unimaginable things happen to an
ordinary common person, he/she will not have any words to utter or speak but to watch
and admire the magnificent omnipotent. If you see my thread, I do not address any one
by name in a specific way, unless I am pretty sure, that I have to address someone in reply
to that particular point. If you feel that I have hurt you, I feel sorry. You may like to
see a clipping God_does_exist.wmv.

We all know about the scientific studies being carried out in various fields. Normally, Scientists
too evince keen interest on this point. In the process, through scientific processes, they often
try to explore mysteries of nature that were beyond the direct observation of naked human eyes.
Normally, Scientists do take interest in finding out the truth where things that could not be
directly observed. For e.g. molecules, bacteria and genes, etc. One may not be able to see
them through naked eyes unless one has a powerful microscope. If one watches carefully
and observe it, then one can understand what goes in and what comes out of one of these.
Similarly unless one has a faith microscope and a belief instrument to navigate, it may be difficult
to identify the God easily.

I repeat, repeat again that I have no intention to hurt anyone nor I intend to do it since
the day of my entry into this forum. If I feel not worth in participating in any thread, I just
keep away and do not offer my views. That is all.



Balasubramanian
Ambattur

 

[Raghy]

Sri. Balasubramanian Sir, Greetings.

I don't feel you hurt me or anyone else at all. I do read your opinions. I am quiter familiar with that too. I was under the impression I hurt your feelings by surprising you when I said "I have no faith in God". Since I felt I hurt your feelings, I drew your attention to one of my messages again. I know mostly you don't address anyone in your messages. But I addressed you to express my mind to you without any doubt at all.That was all.

If one has faith in God one will not realise God. One has to burn that faith too.

Similarly unless one has a faith microscope and a belief instrument to navigate, it may be difficultto identify the God easily.

This where I disagree with most persons. Realising God is not a difficult task. That is wrapped in all sorts of illusions. We should be preapred to cut away all the trimmings and cut away all the extras attached with the God concept. Then only we realises God.

There is one more way to put the same thing. Are we paying any special respect for ourselves? Say for example, if we see ourselves in the mirror do we perform 'sashtaanga namaskaram' to ourselves? I don't know about others, I don't. So, what has that to with the subject in discussion? We go on saying day in and day out " God is with in us; we are made of paramatma and jeevatma.. blah, blah.... But we don't listen to ourselves, do we? So if God is part of us, then we are part of God too. So, why should there be any faith involved?

If God shows up I may just say, " buddy, take a number and make yourself comfortable. Help yourself to any of the drinks you fancY! Kindly wait for your turn!....".. Then when the time comes ask God " How may I help you, please!"

Cheers!

 

[Raghy]

Cheers!

If one has belief in God, one likes to realise God, the only way is ........ one should drop all the inhibitions, be natural and be bold. One should have faith in oneself.

Episode 1: Shiane Hawke - Channel 7 -Yahoo!7 TV - Yahoo!7 TV

Cheers!

 

[tbs]

Cheers!

If one has belief in God, one likes to realise God, the only way is ........ one should drop all the inhibitions, be natural and be bold. One should have faith in oneself.

Episode 1: Shiane Hawke - Channel 7 -Yahoo!7 TV - Yahoo!7 TV

Cheers!

hi raghy sir,
this is advaita says.....tatvamasi...tat tvan eva asi...means...one should have faith in oneself....u r really a advatin sir....

appadi sollungo....nanna sonnel pongo....romba kacchithama advaita maathavalukku sonnel....besh besh....matha

mangai madayangalukku ungalai pathi innum puriyale...appadi thaane?

 

[arunshanker]

where as science, as such, in the 15th century would said, 'comon' man, show me the evidence for america.. or would have asked 'show me the evidence of other universe'.. here science is slow but, though science is principally driven by religion, with an impulse to explore un known things.

Could you explain clearly here
What exactly do you mean by “here science is slow but”

“science is principally driven by religion”

Is it, can you explain

any way, start again with a fresh approach in topics like Evidence/Metaphysics... will try to join often here.

Good suggestion

 

[arunshanker]

any way, start again with a fresh approach in topics like Evidence/Metaphysics... will try to join often here.

The problem with metaphysics is that one can say anything and defend
I am not saying that metaphysical statements are meaningless statements, but they are not fallible, testable or provable statements
But one can say anything and get away with it
A metaphysical statement typically suggests an idea about the world or about the universe, which may be sensible but is eventually not empirically testable
So we come to a stand where some statements are self-defeating, these ideas or statements whose truth or falsehood is a logical concern of the action or condition of holding them to be correct. Numerous philosophies are called self-refuting by their critics, and such indictments are consequently nearly at all times debatable, with defenders affirming that the idea is being misinterpreted or that the argument is unacceptable. Most philosophical statements and metaphysical statements are often used as maxims, which are descriptions taken to be accurate in the tautological sense, and cannot be used to test themselves, if we try this would take us to circular reasoning. But is should also be noted that, it is imperative to distinguish that the deduction of an argument that is self-refuting is not essentially untrue, subsequently it could be reinforced by another, more effective, argument.
Metaphysics as a subject involves what is outside the material. Whereas religion encompasses doctrine and unbending beliefs is more organised in structure. Metaphysics is subject in itself religion is more systematized and controlled by leaders

But again the role of religion in the world should not be underestimated.
Most of you would have read about the Darwin’s theory of evolution
Now what do you think of evolution of religion, why is that religion has taken a great hold of humanity, if like the non-believers say religion is not of much use, then the argument is according to Darwin’s theory of evolution most of which is of no use is discarded by evolutionary forces whereas here religion has not been discarded. So there is something in religion that has forced its evolution.
It would be nice to have discussion here on these lines

 

[zebra16]

But again the role of religion in the world should not be underestimated.
Most of you would have read about the Darwin’s theory of evolution
Now what do you think of evolution of religion, why is that religion has taken a great hold of humanity, if like the non-believers say religion is not of much use, then the argument is according to Darwin’s theory of evolution most of which is of no use is discarded by evolutionary forces whereas here religion has not been discarded. So there is something in religion that has forced its evolution.
It would be nice to have discussion here on these lines

Let me share my opinion on this. Please note that this is just my opinion:

It would be better to rephrase the term as "spiritual/spirituality" instead of religion because the spirituality is the core of any religion.

To understand why religion has evolved, almost adapting the Darwin's theory can be understood if we know (i) Whether spirituality is innate or (ii) whether it is learnt consciously or unconsciously or sub consciously from parents, friends, peers, society etc.

If it is innate there is nothing to discuss. If it is acquired, why is it being accepted unquestioningly, even inspite of some evidence to the contrary? The reasons could be:

1. The subconscious or unconscious learning comes mostly from parents and family members, whose other traits (such as taking care during infancy, giving the necessary material comforts and alleviating the distress to the maximum extent possible etc.) causes enormous trust to be reposed in the said personalities and their teachings and admonitions are unflinchingly accepted.

2. The growing up years also disclose these father/mother figures are of unimpeachable integrity, trust, faith etc. (at least as far as the little one is concerned) and no empirical evidence is needed to verify their character.

3. Thus as far as belief in spiritually is concerned, unless that belief is "sublated", that is it is overthrown by incontrovertible evidence to the contrary, the belief remains unchallanged.

For eg. I know you for the last 1 year through this ID and having followed your posts I know what I could probably expect of you. Unless the contents of your current message is drastically different from your past actions or from being a gentle poster you turn into an abuser, all my responses would be with the same one Mr. Arunshanker, I was doing all along, even if there was some ghost-writing at your end. But once this belief is "sublated" by the current posting (of abusive writing or diametrically opposite view etc.) I shall definitely cause to enquire whether the ID has been hacked or whether you have gone nuts etc. Please note that till my cessation from this site or death etc. there is one Mr. Arunshanker, (whose mental image of writing and thought has been impressed in my mind) whether that Mr. Arunshanker is a real person, fake person, non-existing one etc. The same applies to the Almighty or God or whatever the people chose to believe.

4. To be free of doubt (including that of existence or otherwise of God) one needs to be omniscient and every living being knows that he/she is not omniscient and cannot be one. So there is no point in denying an entity when one does not have complete knowledge.

5. Almost everyone experiences a bolt from the blue in their lifetime (may be good windfall or a very bad experiene) which cannot be explained satisfactorily by any known means of knowledge, including science. The ownership of such an act is attributed to the God or Unknown.

For eg. if I am struck by lightening (the odds are very heavily stacked against such an occurance) the best explanation one could give is my "luck" or the scientists in their fashion would call it a random occurrence.

For believers, the very statement of random occurrence is an "escapist attitude" of scientists because instead of explaining the "why" aspect they are trying to convey that they have absolute sure knowledge of when and where the lightning will strike and the present occurrence is a non-scheduled one.

 

[sarang]

At least, for the followers of sanatana dharma, meaningful discussions and debates can be done only when the rules of indian tarka are understood and the pramanas are accepted. Otherwise we will be like the american child of yesteryears who, when asked where the milk comes from, answered, 'from the milk factory in a bottle'.

Otherwise our arguments and conclusions will run like this:

All brahmins are vegetarians.
X is a brahmin
So, X is a vegetarian.

Unless the first statement is proved true in toto, which is impossible or a veda vakya or a primary postulate says that a brahmin ceases to be a brahmin if he eats meat. This is not the case - that is there is no pramana. All the three rules - pramanam, pratyaksham and anumanam are to be used in such discussions. My view.

 

[HARE RAMA HARE KRISHNA]

To proove non-existence of a thing the thing should be known , like to say there is "NO TOMATO" here a priori of what is "Tomato" should be known before .

We can only negate things that are known to us .

How can one negate a completely unknown thing?

 

[HARE RAMA HARE KRISHNA]

there is a logical way to explain the existence of GOD.

 

[arunshanker]

Let me share my opinion on this. Please note that this is just my opinion:

It would be better to rephrase the term as "spiritual/spirituality" instead of religion because the spirituality is the core of any religion.

To understand why religion has evolved, almost adapting the Darwin's theory can be understood if we know (i) Whether spirituality is innate or (ii) whether it is learnt consciously or unconsciously or sub consciously from parents, friends, peers, society etc.

If it is innate there is nothing to discuss. If it is acquired, why is it being accepted unquestioningly, even inspite of some evidence to the contrary? The reasons could be:

1. The subconscious or unconscious learning comes mostly from parents and family members, whose other traits (such as taking care during infancy, giving the necessary material comforts and alleviating the distress to the maximum extent possible etc.) causes enormous trust to be reposed in the said personalities and their teachings and admonitions are unflinchingly accepted.

2. The growing up years also disclose these father/mother figures are of unimpeachable integrity, trust, faith etc. (at least as far as the little one is concerned) and no empirical evidence is needed to verify their character.

3. Thus as far as belief in spiritually is concerned, unless that belief is "sublated", that is it is overthrown by incontrovertible evidence to the contrary, the belief remains unchallanged.

For eg. I know you for the last 1 year through this ID and having followed your posts I know what I could probably expect of you. Unless the contents of your current message is drastically different from your past actions or from being a gentle poster you turn into an abuser, all my responses would be with the same one Mr. Arunshanker, I was doing all along, even if there was some ghost-writing at your end. But once this belief is "sublated" by the current posting (of abusive writing or diametrically opposite view etc.) I shall definitely cause to enquire whether the ID has been hacked or whether you have gone nuts etc. Please note that till my cessation from this site or death etc. there is one Mr. Arunshanker, (whose mental image of writing and thought has been impressed in my mind) whether that Mr. Arunshanker is a real person, fake person, non-existing one etc. The same applies to the Almighty or God or whatever the people chose to believe.

4. To be free of doubt (including that of existence or otherwise of God) one needs to be omniscient and every living being knows that he/she is not omniscient and cannot be one. So there is no point in denying an entity when one does not have complete knowledge.

5. Almost everyone experiences a bolt from the blue in their lifetime (may be good windfall or a very bad experiene) which cannot be explained satisfactorily by any known means of knowledge, including science. The ownership of such an act is attributed to the God or Unknown.

For eg. if I am struck by lightening (the odds are very heavily stacked against such an occurance) the best explanation one could give is my "luck" or the scientists in their fashion would call it a random occurrence.

For believers, the very statement of random occurrence is an "escapist attitude" of scientists because instead of explaining the "why" aspect they are trying to convey that they have absolute sure knowledge of when and where the lightning will strike and the present occurrence is a non-scheduled one.

Wonderful insight

For eg. I know you for the last 1 year through this ID and having followed your posts I know what I could probably expect of you. Unless the contents of your current message is drastically different from your past actions or from being a gentle poster you turn into an abuser, all my responses would be with the same one Mr. Arunshanker, I was doing all along, even if there was some ghost-writing at your end. But once this belief is "sublated" by the current posting (of abusive writing or diametrically opposite view etc.) I shall definitely cause to enquire whether the ID has been hacked or whether you have gone nuts etc. Please note that till my cessation from this site or death etc. there is one Mr. Arunshanker, (whose mental image of writing and thought has been impressed in my mind) whether that Mr. Arunshanker is a real person, fake person, non-existing one etc. The same applies to the Almighty or God or whatever the people chose to believe.

I like this part, well thought out

 

[arunshanker]

How can one negate a completely unknown thing?

Why negate at all when it is unknown
The dissimilarity concerning indication that something is absent (e.g. a statement that proposes that there are no Unicorns) and absence of evidence (not enough search has been done) can be distinct. In science it is often debated as to an experiment's result ought to be considered evidence of absence, or just absence of evidence (experimental error).

Arguments from ignorance and incredulity are often advanced in debates as proper "evidence of absence". This could be a powerful method of debate to switch the burden of proof by saying appealing to ignorance is a fallacy.
But in science good experiments, even null results can be indication of absence. A hypothesis can be falsify if we are unable to find important predictions empirically. The hypothesis can be rejected or revised modified. Whether it is acceptable or not depends on many factors involving the methodology of the experiment

 

[zebra16]

To proove non-existence of a thing the thing should be known , like to say there is "NO TOMATO" here a priori of what is "Tomato" should be known before .

We can only negate things that are known to us .

How can one negate a completely unknown thing?

It is not exactly so difficult as you make it out to be and may not be difficult in all cases.

For example, when I know the board is "snow white" in colour, I can deny it (the board) to be of any other colour, say red even if I do not have an iota of of an idea of the colour red, because the only possibility of the board being Red is when Red is equivalent to snow white and my knowledge of snow white colour precludes it to have any shade of red.

 

[prasad1]

It is not exactly so difficult as you make it out to be and may not be difficult in all cases.

For example, when I know the board is "snow white" in colour, I can deny it (the board) to be of any other colour, say red even if I do not have an iota of of an idea of the colour red, because the only possibility of the board being Red is when Red is equivalent to snow white and my knowledge of snow white colour precludes it to have any shade of red.

That assumes you see it in white light. What if you see in red light, the white board will appear red, and red board will disappear. All our knowledge is relative, to a specific base line. like 1+1 = 2 in decimal system, but 1+1=10 in binary system.

 

[prasad1]

Why negate at all when it is unknown
The dissimilarity concerning indication that something is absent (e.g. a statement that proposes that there are no Unicorns) and absence of evidence (not enough search has been done) can be distinct. In science it is often debated as to an experiment's result ought to be considered evidence of absence, or just absence of evidence (experimental error).

Arguments from ignorance and incredulity are often advanced in debates as proper "evidence of absence". This could be a powerful method of debate to switch the burden of proof by saying appealing to ignorance is a fallacy.
But in science good experiments, even null results can be indication of absence. A hypothesis can be falsify if we are unable to find important predictions empirically. The hypothesis can be rejected or revised modified. Whether it is acceptable or not depends on many factors involving the methodology of the experiment

An Unicorn has been defined before you try to find it. Let us say you misidentified a "bull" as unicorn, then you will find it and claim that it is not extinct.

Similarly you define God properly, and then negate it. You can not negate my view of my "God".

 

[arunshanker]

An Unicorn has been defined before you try to find it. Let us say you misidentified a "bull" as unicorn, then you will find it and claim that it is not extinct.

Similarly you define God properly, and then negate it. You can not negate my view of my "God".

Yes I purposely did not take the example of God
The idea was why to negate something that is unknown
Then comes the question unknown to whom you or me
Them comes the the method of debate to switch the burden of proof by saying appealing to ignorance is a fallacy.

Similarly you define God properly, and then negate it.

Again the task of definition is not on the person who wants to negate it he need not define it, why should a person who wants to negate it define it all
the task to define is on the person who does not want to negate it