• This forum contains old posts that have been closed. New threads and replies may not be made here. Please navigate to the relevant forum to create a new thread or post a reply.
  • Welcome to Tamil Brahmins forums.

    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our Free Brahmin Community you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our community today!

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact contact us.

God

Status
Not open for further replies.
tbs said:
hi renu,
u can explain neti neti theory as scientific /medicaly....just as tablet/syrup for a patient lahhh...
Click to expand...

Ok first we have to explain what is the meaning of Neti Neti.

Neti is a Guna Sandhi upon breaking down =Na(Not) Iti(This).

So I applied Neti Neti theory and did not vote in this poll.

Do we really need to vote to prove there is God?
 
Raghy said:
Sowbagyavathy VR, Greetings.

God is not reduced. We people are elevated when discussing about God in a sensible discussion. This is one easy way to elevate ourselves. Even God has to come my level if IGod cares for me, if popular belief is to be believed. We all can't become jnanis for God to take notice of us.

Cheers!
Click to expand...
Interesting
 
Raghy said:
Si. Arun shankar, Greetings.

I did not take part in the poll. Not enough options. I believe in myself 100%. I know there is an universal energy; it's every where. I know I am connected to that energy. I know I have no faith in God. But I don't have enough choices in that poll.


Cheers!
Click to expand...

Thanks I will think of a choice to suit your thinking
 
arunshanker said:
The poll is not to prove the existence of God. The poll is to know what people think of God, from your posts I have got an idea
Click to expand...

All these years I have never really had any opinion of God.

God is just God that's all.

What can we really think of Him?

We are limiting God by having an opinion of Him.

What opinion can we really have?

The only "opinion" we can have is just Sat Cit Ananda..that too simplified just to make the human mind grasp a concept.
 
arunshanker said:
I have listed my home page in my profile in this forum
http://www.tamilbrahmins.com/member.php?u=4478
Click to expand...

Ok since you a research scientist in the field of agriculture I have a question for you.

When you look at a seed of a plant..can you see a tree in it right away?

You can not isn't it?

It has to have the suitable environment and nourishing factors in order to develop into a tall tree.

So same with God..we can't see him with our senses.
 
renuka said:
Ok since you a research scientist in the field of agriculture I have a question for you.

When you look at a seed of a plant..can you see a tree in it right away?

You can not isn't it?

It has to have the suitable environment and nourishing factors in order to develop into a tall tree.

So same with God..we can't see him with our senses.
Click to expand...
How illogical can you get
Try to be a little meaningful and anyway this in not the thread the thread is http://www.tamilbrahmins.com/general-discussions/6798-god-exists-256.html
 
Last edited:
renuka said:
Hey what illogical yaar...from seed comes tree..tree lies latent in seed..but you can not see the tree in seed.

Makes sense right?

Why do I have a feeling I am starting to sound like TBS garu?
Click to expand...
Does not make sense very very illogical
It is not tree or seed we are talking about here
the other thread was Gravity, America here it is tree, seed how irrelevant can you get
Please see what the thread is about
in fact you have said "we can't see him with our senses"
that is what exactly I am tell
I agree with that totally
 
renuka said:
Ok since you a research scientist in the field of agriculture I have a question for you.

When you look at a seed of a plant..can you see a tree in it right away?

You can not isn't it?

It has to have the suitable environment and nourishing factors in order to develop into a tall tree.

So same with God..we can't see him with our senses.
Click to expand...
This is a classical case of irrelevant analogy
While an analogy is a useful means of explanation, it does not constitute proof. Argument by analogy tends to evoke a predictable emotional response because it is usually based on accepted symbolism; Remember, what is true of one thing in one set of circumstances is not necessarily true of another thing in another set of circumstances. By drawing analogies, you are manipulating the reader into thinking about the comparison rather than the original subject. Use analogy to clarify or enhance your argument but do not deceive yourself into thinking that you are proving it.
 
Dear Mr.Arun,


YES!!! I agree as I understood that, the poll is about people's level of accepting the existence of GOD. And that, the poll got nothing to do with proving or disproving the existence of GOD.


May I know, what exactly is your stand in accepting GOD (to what intensity/level of agreement)?
 
C RAVI said:
Dear Mr.Arun,


YES!!! I agree as I understood that, the poll is about people's level of accepting the existence of GOD. And that, the poll got nothing to do with proving or disproving the existence of GOD.


May I know, what exactly is your stand in accepting GOD (to what intensity/level of agreement)?
Click to expand...
Lower than 50 per cent but not very low. Technically agnostic but leaning towards atheism. 'I don't know whether God exists but I'm inclined to be skeptical.'
 
Renuka's Analogy,


renuka said:
Ok since you a research scientist in the field of agriculture I have a question for you.

When you look at a seed of a plant..can you see a tree in it right away?

You can not isn't it?

It has to have the suitable environment and nourishing factors in order to develop into a tall tree.

So same with God..we can't see him with our senses.
Click to expand...


Mr.Arun's rejection -

arunshanker said:
This is a classical case of irrelevant analogy
While an analogy is a useful means of explanation, it does not constitute proof. Argument by analogy tends to evoke a predictable emotional response because it is usually based on accepted symbolism; Remember, what is true of one thing in one set of circumstances is not necessarily true of another thing in another set of circumstances. By drawing analogies, you are manipulating the reader into thinking about the comparison rather than the original subject. Use analogy to clarify or enhance your argument but do not deceive yourself into thinking that you are proving it.
Click to expand...


Dear Mr.Arun,

IMO, Renuka's analogy makes sense...

1) A totally ignorant and totally avoiding person would not know that, a seed can be placed in its right place, provided with right nourishing factors and in right environment such that, it sprouts and make a huge tree, irrelevant to the strength and the size of the seed itself.

2) A person with improper knowledge, though knows that, a seed can turn into a huge tree, would not know how to make that happen.


3) A person with complete knowledge would do everything right and would have a tree formed out of a seed.


The first person may never bother about the seed...

The second person would break his head to understand how it works and would attempt to gain knowledge before making another attempt and get successful.


The third person, having known everything, would be implementing proper ways and would be sure about the outcome. And it would certainly work.


Since, matters concerned to belief in GOD is up to each person's understanding, and acceptances, emerging deep within one self, out of one's own experiences, we can find "n" numbers of people with varying degrees of accepting god and different time period to conclude for oneself IF God Exists or Not.


All theist in their spiritual growth are attempting to reach the level of the 3rd person in the analogy, from the stage of the 2nd person in the analogy.

All Atheists would fall under the category of 1st person Either as ignorant OR concluding the concept of God as Zilch, illogical, irrelevant and dubious, out of their brain.


Some Theists out of their powerful rational brains are unable to conclude from their Heart, for themselves, as to what extent they can accept the existence of God and believe him. As well, many such theists shy away to declare one self publicly that, they believe in the existence of God 100%, accepting him as omnipotent, omnipresent and omniscient.







 
Last edited:
C RAVI said:
Renuka's Analogy,





Mr.Arun's rejection -




Dear Mr.Arun,

IMO, Renuka's analogy makes sense...

1) A totally ignorant and totally avoiding person would not know that, a seed can be placed in its right place, provided with right nourishing factors and in right environment such that, it sprouts and make a huge tree, irrelevant to the strength and the size of the seed itself.

2) A person with improper knowledge, though knows that, a seed can turn into a huge tree, would not know how to make that happen.


3) A person with complete knowledge would do everything right and would have a tree formed out of a seed.


The first person may never bother about the seed...

The second person would break his head to understand how it works and would attempt to gain knowledge before making another attempt and get successful.


The third person, having known everything, would be implementing proper ways and would be sure about the outcome. And it would certainly work.


Since, matters concerned to belief in GOD is up to each person's understanding, and acceptances, emerging deep within one self, out of one's own experiences, we can find "n" numbers of people with varying degrees of accepting god and different time period to conclude for oneself IF God Exists or Not.


All theist in their spiritual growth are attempting to reach the level of the 3rd person in the analogy, from the stage of the 2nd person in the analogy.

All Atheists would fall under the category of 1st person Either as ignorant OR concluding the concept of God as Zilch, illogical, irrelevant and dubious, out of their brain.


Some Theists out of their powerful rational brains are unable to conclude from their Heart, for themselves, as to what extent they can accept the existence of God and believe him. As well, many such theists shy away to declare one self publicly that, they believe in the existence of God 100%, accepting him as omnipotent, omnipresent and omniscient.
Click to expand...
This is even worse you are analyzing the irrelevant analogy and also concluding that "All Atheists would fall under the category of 1st person Either as ignorant OR concluding the concept of God as Zilch, illogical, irrelevant and dubious, out of their brain."
Where is the context of seed and tree here these are topics of Science
and you make a blanket statement.
Please note that I am not making any statements bad about theists and am I not questioning their intellect but here you are directly attacking the intellect of so called atheists

Please refer and read my statement
here I repeat "Remember, what is true of one thing in one set of circumstances is not necessarily true of another thing in another set of circumstances. By drawing analogies, you are manipulating the reader into thinking about the comparison rather than the original subject. Use analogy to clarify or enhance your argument but do not deceive yourself into thinking that you are proving it." Seed and tree are science in fact Renuka was wrong even there - Seed of a plant will not give a tree - there is a big difference between plant and a tree
A seed of a plant will give a plant
Tree is a perennial woody organism and plants are annual or biennial
You are trying to ridicule the so called atheist by calling them either ignorant ....
This is not what I would expect
this is a fallacy called Appeal to Ridicule

The Appeal to Ridicule is a fallacy in which ridicule or mockery is substituted for evidence in an "argument." This line of "reasoning" has the following form:

  1. X, which is some form of ridicule is presented (typically directed at the claim).
  2. Therefore claim C is false
You said this "Since, matters concerned to belief in GOD is up to each person's understanding, and acceptances, emerging deep within one self, out of one's own experiences, we can find "n" numbers of people with varying degrees of accepting god and different time period to conclude for oneself IF God Exists or Not."
This is the statement I completely agree with you can make this statement with out going into the analogy of seed and tree which is the domain of science
 
Last edited:
C RAVI said:


1) A totally ignorant and totally avoiding person would not know that, a seed can be placed in its right place, provided with right nourishing factors and in right environment such that, it sprouts and make a huge tree, irrelevant to the strength and the size of the seed itself.

2) A person with improper knowledge, though knows that, a seed can turn into a huge tree, would not know how to make that happen.


3) A person with complete knowledge would do everything right and would have a tree formed out of a seed.
Click to expand...


Do you know that seeds and plants existed much before the humans beings
They do not need any of the type of persons you describe for it to grow into a tree or plant, there were millions of trees much before humans
If it the science of this thing you need I can give you a detailed description but that is irrelevant to the topic
 
Dear Mr.Arun,

Your statements in your post #45 -

---------------
Do you know that seeds and plants existed much before the humans beings
They do not need any of the type of persons you describe for it to grow into a tree or plant, there were millions of trees much before humans
If it the science of this thing you need I can give you a detailed description but that is irrelevant to the topic
-----------------​



Dunno why I am unable to quote your post. Thus doing this way..


Mr.Arun, you are terribly contradicting!!!! Contradicting your own Thread Topic/Poll.


I am really surprised with your utter misunderstanding of the analogy and its purpose!!! As well, I am bit upset that, you could not try to understand the opinions and analogies expressed here in line with your Thread Topic/Poll and talking about who needs whom and who came to existence First. I am Sorry to say that..


The analogy got nothing to do with IF seeds came to existence before Humans or otherwise...??


The analogy also got nothing to do with IF seeds need humans to sprout and grow into tree OR Not???


The analogy is all about Human's understanding of the Seeds and how to use them.


The analogical Seed is referred to the understanding of the God, in line with your Thread Topic/Poll.


The analogy is all about the level, the efforts and the time taken to believe in God and accept him, cherish him and be dissolved with him.

 
Dear Mr.Arun

Your statements in your post #44 -

-------------

Please note that I am not making any statements bad about theists and am I not questioning their intellect but here you are directly attacking the intellect of so called atheists

---------------


Dear Mr.Arun,


This is what I said in my post #43, elaborating the analogy -


"All Atheists would fall under the category of 1st person Either as ignorant OR concluding the concept of God as Zilch, illogical, irrelevant and dubious, out of their brain."


I don't understand why and how you are taking offence in my above statement?


Please not the following, to understand my statements better -


1) Ignorant are just ingonarants. Can be used against each other both by Theists and Atheists. My remark about ignorance of the Atheists was to use in line with the ignorance about the seeds.


2) I have complimented Atheists, saying that - Atheists with their intelligent Brains would avoid/ignore the concept of God in Toto and would conclude that its all Zilch, Illogical, Irrelevant and Dubious.
 
Even I am unable to quote your posts
You said "Mr.Arun, you are terribly contradicting!!!! Contradicting your own Thread Topic/Poll."
Correct the topic has digressed here
I already have posted to renuka that this should go to the thread "God Exists"
You said 'I am really surprised with your utter misunderstanding of the analogy and its purpose!!! As well, I am bit upset that, you could not try to understand the opinions and analogies expressed here in line with your Thread Topic/Poll and talking about who needs whom and who came to existence First. I am Sorry to say that..

I repeat that this is not a proper analogy seed and tree are topics of science I can give a detailed description of it in a scientific manner if you need
If the analogy is of "The analogy is all about Human's understanding of the Seeds and how to use them." then is even wrong
Human understanding of seed is very clear it has nothing in common with human understanding of God

The thread is digressing further because here an irrelevant topic is presented in order to divert attention from the original issue. The basic idea is to "win" an argument by leading attention away from the argument and to another topic. This sort of "reasoning" has the following form:
  1. Topic A is under discussion.
  2. Topic B is introduced under the guise of being relevant to topic A (when topic B is actually not relevant to topic A).
  3. Topic A is abandoned
Better to stick to the poll and get this discussion to the other thread

 
arunshanker said:
it." Seed and tree are science in fact Renuka was wrong even there - Seed of a plant will not give a tree - there is a big difference between plant and a tree
A seed of a plant will give a plant
Tree is a perennial woody organism and plants are annual or biennial


Click to expand...

LOL!! I knew you had written this even earlier but you edited it so I did not want to comment on this.

When it comes to agriculture I am a lay man.

Hence the mistake but the seed still harbours a plant or a tree anyhow.
 
renuka said:
LOL!! I knew you had written this even earlier but you edited it so I did not want to comment on this.

When it comes to agriculture I am a lay man.

Hence the mistake but the seed still harbours a plant or a tree anyhow.
Click to expand...

Renuka,

I noticed your earlier post about seed and tree. But one can see the tree in the seed. If we study the DNA of the seed, that map would reveal the information packed in there. It would show the tree size, approximate age it may survive, possible disease it may suffer etc. Just because we can't see with our naked eye it doesn't mean we can't see.

Cheers!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Share this page

Share this page

Latest posts

Latest ads

Follow us on Social Media

Back
Top