![Logic & Religion](/img/default-banner.jpg)
- 88
- 24 455
Logic & Religion
เข้าร่วมเมื่อ 20 ก.ค. 2020
Official TH-cam channel of the Logic and Religion Project:
www.logicandreligion.com/
www.logicandreligion.com/
Timothy O'Connor - God, Consciousness, and Cosmos: Prospects for a Non-illusory Theistic Monism
Timothy O'Connor - God, Consciousness, and Cosmos: Prospects for a Non-illusory Theistic Monism
มุมมอง: 30
วีดีโอ
Shivanand Sharma - The Vaiṣṇava Vedānta approach to subjective awareness
มุมมอง 921 วันที่ผ่านมา
Shivanand Sharma - The Vaiṣṇava Vedānta approach to subjective awareness
Ravi Gupta and Mike Ashfield - A Bare Theism for a Fully General Comparative Philosophy of Religion
มุมมอง 1021 วันที่ผ่านมา
Ravi Gupta and Mike Ashfield - A Bare Theism for a Fully General Comparative Philosophy of Religion
S Siddharth - The universe as aṁśa of Brahman
มุมมอง 3421 วันที่ผ่านมา
S Siddharth - The universe as aṁśa of Brahman
Brett Parris - Consciousness, Agency, and Moral Responsibility in Vedānta
มุมมอง 1021 วันที่ผ่านมา
Brett Parris - Consciousness, Agency, and Moral Responsibility in Vedānta
Amit Chaturvedi - Of Micropsychism, Memory, and Maheśvara
มุมมอง 1221 วันที่ผ่านมา
Amit Chaturvedi - Of Micropsychism, Memory, and Maheśvara
Klara Margareta Agnes Hedling - Śiva's Creative Pulsation
มุมมอง 1321 วันที่ผ่านมา
Klara Margareta Agnes Hedling - Śiva's Creative Pulsation
Thomas Oberle - Advaita Vedānta and the God-World Relation
มุมมอง 821 วันที่ผ่านมา
Thomas Oberle - Advaita Vedānta and the God-World Relation
Ricardo S. Silvestre - Panentheism and the Contradictory God in a Bhedābheda Vedānta Tradition
มุมมอง 521 วันที่ผ่านมา
Ricardo S. Silvestre - Panentheism and the Contradictory God in a Bhedābheda Vedānta Tradition
Gavin Flood - Is God Conscious? Reflections on Śākta-Śaiva Ideas of Transcendence and Immanence
มุมมอง 521 วันที่ผ่านมา
Gavin Flood - Is God Conscious? Reflections on Śākta-Śaiva Ideas of Transcendence and Immanence
Benedikt Paul Göcke - Karl Christian Friedrich Krause’s Panentheism and the Vedic Traditions
มุมมอง 421 วันที่ผ่านมา
Benedikt Paul Göcke - Karl Christian Friedrich Krause’s Panentheism and the Vedic Traditions
Munema Moiz - Decombining Perspectives: A Kashmiri Śaivist View of Cosmopsychism
มุมมอง 521 วันที่ผ่านมา
Munema Moiz - Decombining Perspectives: A Kashmiri Śaivist View of Cosmopsychism
Divine Consciousness as Linguistic Consciousness - Veronica Benjamin
มุมมอง 521 วันที่ผ่านมา
Divine Consciousness as Linguistic Consciousness - Veronica Benjamin
Jinesh R Sheth - Between Theism and Atheism: A Jain Paradigm of God
มุมมอง 1821 วันที่ผ่านมา
Jinesh R Sheth - Between Theism and Atheism: A Jain Paradigm of God
Joanna Leidenhag - Panpsychism and Divine Embodiment
มุมมอง 2121 วันที่ผ่านมา
Joanna Leidenhag - Panpsychism and Divine Embodiment
Saheba Saxena - A Comparative Analysis of Brahman and the Anselmian Being
มุมมอง 3721 วันที่ผ่านมา
Saheba Saxena - A Comparative Analysis of Brahman and the Anselmian Being
Ithamar Theodor - Ascending Concepts of God in the Bhagavad-gītā
มุมมอง 3221 วันที่ผ่านมา
Ithamar Theodor - Ascending Concepts of God in the Bhagavad-gītā
Akshay Gupta - Can the Bhagavad Gītā Explain the Existence of Consciousness?
มุมมอง 1921 วันที่ผ่านมา
Akshay Gupta - Can the Bhagavad Gītā Explain the Existence of Consciousness?
The Logic of ‘Being Nothing’ and ‘Willing Nothing’ in Marguerite Porete - Tatiana Barkovskiy
มุมมอง 215หลายเดือนก่อน
The Logic of ‘Being Nothing’ and ‘Willing Nothing’ in Marguerite Porete - Tatiana Barkovskiy
The Open Future Argument - Dr. Alan Rhoda
มุมมอง 2063 หลายเดือนก่อน
The Open Future Argument - Dr. Alan Rhoda
Sensible Animism - Evan Fales (The University of Iowa - USA)
มุมมอง 685 หลายเดือนก่อน
Sensible Animism - Evan Fales (The University of Iowa - USA)
LARA Celebration of the World Logic Day
มุมมอง 866 หลายเดือนก่อน
LARA Celebration of the World Logic Day
Mozi’s Philosophy of Universal Love and Analogical Reasoning - Caroline Ting (UFRJ, Brazil)
มุมมอง 656 หลายเดือนก่อน
Mozi’s Philosophy of Universal Love and Analogical Reasoning - Caroline Ting (UFRJ, Brazil)
All Pervading Transcendent God - Aaron Cotnoir (University of St Andrews, UK)
มุมมอง 896 หลายเดือนก่อน
All Pervading Transcendent God - Aaron Cotnoir (University of St Andrews, UK)
Why Doesn't Candomblé have a problem of evil? José Eduardo Porcher (PUC-Rio)
มุมมอง 1769 หลายเดือนก่อน
Why Doesn't Candomblé have a problem of evil? José Eduardo Porcher (PUC-Rio)
Contradiction in Islamic Philosophy and Mysticism - Mohammad Jafar Jame Bozorgi
มุมมอง 11410 หลายเดือนก่อน
Contradiction in Islamic Philosophy and Mysticism - Mohammad Jafar Jame Bozorgi
The Ultimate-Unspeakable Paradox and The Principle of Non-Contradiction - Bo Mou
มุมมอง 166ปีที่แล้ว
The Ultimate-Unspeakable Paradox and The Principle of Non-Contradiction - Bo Mou
Dialetheism and the Ineffability of God - Graham Priest (CUNY, USA)
มุมมอง 1.1Kปีที่แล้ว
Dialetheism and the Ineffability of God - Graham Priest (CUNY, USA)
The Logical Problem of Evil from a Paraconsistent Perspective
มุมมอง 192ปีที่แล้ว
The Logical Problem of Evil from a Paraconsistent Perspective
Fabuleux !!! Ca me fait penser à Friedrich Nietzsche.
I greatly respect author Dr. Walton’s brilliance and creativity, but his proposed solution to the question of Origins, in "Lost World" only leads to a more serious set of problems. Still, this controversial book still has merit worth considering. Here me out; To be blunt, Walton's philosophical approach is a rather dangerous way of looking at the world. The history of the church includes well-meaning scholars who introduce ideas that undermine Biblical authority. This is the case with the gifted Old Testament professor Dr. John Walton. I was required to read this book for my Master's degree class. While his approach was indeed 'innovative' many of my fellow students were upset over his conclusions and complained to the Professor of the class that it seemed Walton was casting doubt on the infallible authority of Scripture. He introduced some bizarre terms like 'function over form' meaning creation was not so material as it was functional, which made absolutely no sense to most of the class members! For example, Dr. Walton asserted that ancient Near Eastern people focused more on how things functioned than their material nature. This meant that when Genesis 1 describes God forming land, sea, and animals over a series of days, it is not referring to material substances like dirt, water, and flesh appearing at specific times and places. Rather, it reveals the function of these things within the ‘cosmic temple’ of the world. This unusual construction enabled Dr. Walton to conclude that Genesis 1 “was never intended to be an account of material origins. Rather it was intended as an account of functional origins…. If the Bible does not offer an account of material origins, we are free to consider contemporary origins on their own merits, as long as God is seen as ultimately responsible.” Since then, Dr. Walton has continued to apply his ‘lost world’ methodology to other parts of the Bible. In additional books, he redefines the nature of Biblical revelation, that Adam and Eve were ‘archetypes’ instead of the first biological humans, and that the Genesis flood was an unidentifiable local event hyperbolically described as a global catastrophe. Dr. Walton reminds me of the third-century theologian Origen to whom he sometimes refers. Origen had one of the most creative theological minds in the early church. Nevertheless, his creativity led him to advocate views that were rejected as dangerous to Christian theology. These statements reveal a modern form of Gnosticism. By ‘Gnosticism,’ I’m referring to a philosophical view of the world that thinks special, hidden knowledge is necessary to understand what is true. For Dr. Walton, this knowledge is found in his ‘lost world’; it can only be recovered by scholars like himself. Such knowledge provides true insight into reality. According to Dr. Walton, Biblical truth is not dependent on real history. Instead, “truth is found in the narrator’s interpretation, which we accept by faith, regardless of whether or not we can reconstruct the events. His interests are not concentrated on human history but on God’s plans and purposes.” This is the goal of gnostic thinking: the separation of human history from God’s plans and purposes. Gnosticism consistently seeks to substitute Biblical history with its own history. In the early church, it looked to the religions of Persia and the philosophies of Greece to provide a spiritual history of the world. In the modern era, it looks to the religion of evolutionary science and the philosophies of the Enlightenment to create a materialist history of the universe. At its heart, however, Gnosticism is at war with God’s real actions in history. It is a heresy that stands in opposition to the Biblical view that teaches a direct connection between God’s original acts of creation and His absolute control of every event in time. Dr. Walton’s gnostic interpretation of the Bible inserts a gulf between events and the interpretation of those events. He must do this, however, to replace Biblical revelation concerning origins with the contemporary evolutionary history. Authority is therefore taken out of the event and placed only in the interpretation. If events such as the creation of animals or the flood actually happened as the narratives describe them, an evolutionary history of the world is impossible. Dr. Walton may deny this sort of historical substitution is his intent, but the structure of his books, the repetitive comments within them, and his professional associations tell a different story. He has published an extensive corpus of material that provides clear insight into his views. The result of accepting Dr. Walton’s gnostic worldview is the slow destruction of the historical foundation upon which Christianity is based. Although he believes he is providing a solution to the origins debate by disconnecting the Biblical text from real history, he is simply falling into the errors that have beset Gnosticism since the first century. Yet Dr. Walton is a professor at one of the most respected evangelical colleges in the world. Such a position gives him remarkable credibility to spread his “new analysis of the meaning of Genesis” to Christians everywhere. As a result, some will be swayed by his methods to adopt his modern form of Gnosticism. The solution is only found in the Christian worldview. To accept it, however, means the rejection of the neo-Kantian view of reality. It also means the rejection of Dr. Walton’s division of physical and metaphysical as he defines them. That is concerning indeed. I suspect something similar is going on with Dr. Walton. He clearly is a brilliant man and an exceptionally creative thinker. He has developed a unique interpretive structure to solve a particular problem, one he brings up over and over again in his books: the “perceived origins conflict between the Bible and science….” The goal of his work seems to be to solve that difficult problem. The problem becomes a tsunami in the making when one goes to metaphysical philosophy with a non-Christian worldview like that of Kant, that John Walton seems to be drifting to as we speak. "The Lost World" is a book one should read with an open Bible at hand. We live in a day and time when even the most celebrated intellectuals, especially among the academy, are not neccesarily the most beneficial for our faith and walk with God. Discernment has never been needed more than today. Make doubly sure you ask for it when you read "Lost World." You may discover, as many before you, that the only thing which is truly "lost" is the desperate attempt to spin biblical theology of the creation accounts in a way that depresses rather than impresses the average reader.
Isn't the point of the book that Genesis 1 isn't talking about creation ex nihilo (it's more about order etc) BUT other passages in the bible confirm that God did indeed create things out of nothing. I agree it's definitely something to chew over but it's not saying God doesn't create it's saying Genesis 1 isn't talking out that event
i like this but didn't ibn sina say that the necessary being must be one or it had to differ from other necessary being or beings which make it contingent because of it has parts
Yes he affirms absolute divine simplicity
The intrinsic state of the Godhead is ineffable, it can only be spoken of in an apophatic manner however the extrinsic/immanent nature of God may spoken of in some positive respects such as providence, grace, etc.
@@spiralintobliss6785 you can call anything any thing you want but that does not make it a descriptive representation. Dude...do you even know what the word apophatic means? To describe it as infinite is an apophatic description. Now try to figger it out!
Is there a way to read this paper from Professor Timalsina? Thank you
Hello I visited your TH-cam channel ''Logic & Religion'' and found it needs a lot of updates. First of all your channel video SEO is very weak due to which your channel video views are not increasing. If you do SEO then your video will come first in the search list and your video views and subscribers will increase. I am waiting for your reply. Please let me know if you need my service. Thank you
The problem with Chalcedon it is makes it sound like Jesus did miracles by his own attributes of deity. But Scripture does not bear this out. The book of John illustrates many times that Jesus did miracles by the Father dwelling in him in the power of the Holy Spirit. This is why Jesus did no miracles in his childhood, or early adult life. It was after the Holy Spirit came upon him that the miracles started. Scripture teaches is that Jesus was the Logos made flesh. His Logos spirit was made into a man's spirit, so his identity did not change so he was deity. He did not glorify himself by having attributes of deity. He did not have two natures, which makes no sense, anyway. If he did have partial knowledge and yet omniscience, wouldn't the omniscience obliterate the partial knowledge?
Yes. The workings themselves are attributed to God or the Holy Spirit, including after the Crucifixion, "God raised Him up."
I have difficulty with the blatant hypocrisy and dishonesty used by theists when invoking divine ineffability. Theists depict, in excruciating detail, the demands of their deity. But when asked to provide the tiniest bit of objective confirmation on the nature or existence of said deity, it suddenly becomes an ineffable divine mystery.
A SUPREME PERSONAL GOD IS IMPOSSIBLE: The English word “PERSON” literally means “for sound”, originating from the Latin/Greek “persona/prósōpa”, referring to the masks worn by actors in ancient European theatrical plays, which featured a mouth-hole to enable the actors to speak through. Therefore, the most essential aspect of personhood is that the individual possesses a face. The fact that we do not usually refer to a decapitated body as a “person”, seems to confirm this claim. If you were confronted, simultaneously, with a severed head and a decapitated body, and asked to point to the person, would you point to the head or point to the body? I am certain most everyone would indicate the head (at least in the first instance), agreed? Theists, by definition, believe that there is a Supreme Deity (God, or The Goddess), who incorporates anthropomorphic characteristics, such as a distinct, corporeal form (even if that form is a “spiritual” body, whatever that may connote), with a face (hence the term “PERSON”), and certain personality traits such as unique preferences and aversions. Of course, they also believe that their fictitious God or Goddess embodies the so-called “omni-properties”, but as will be clearly demonstrated below, this is a largely nonsensical, unfalsifiable, and fallacious assertion. Of course, the more intelligent Theists normally counter with: “But God is not a person in the same sense as we humans are persons. God is an all-powerful spiritual being, without a body. He is all-knowing, all-loving, and present everywhere”. In that case, God is most definitely NOT a person in the etymological sense, and not a person even in the common-usage sense of the word. When did you last hear anyone refer to an omnipresent entity as being a person? The mere fact that Theists use personal pronouns in reference to their non-existent Deity (usually the masculine pronoun “He”), proves that they have a very anthropomorphic conception of Absolute Reality. If God is not a male, then why use masculine pronouns? If God is, in fact, male, then why would the Supreme Person necessitate gender? Does God require a female mate in order to reproduce? The most popular religious tradition, Christianity, claims that God is “Spirit”, yet “spirit” is a very vague term that is rarely defined. Tangentially, the term “person” can be (and, in my opinion, should be) used in reference to any animal that possesses a FACE, since most humans do not accept the fact that animals are persons, worthy of moral consideration. In recent times, animal rights activists have been heard referring to animals in such a way (as persons). The fact that vegans are still relatively rare in most nations/countries, seems to validate this assertion (that most humans do not see other animals, like birds, fish, and mammals, as persons), otherwise, non-vegetarians/non-vegans would have no qualms about saying such things as “I’m planning to consume three persons for dinner tonight” (in reference to three animals). Those who reject the assertion that animals are persons, would necessarily refuse to accept any intelligent extraterrestrial species as persons. The fact that we recognize our domestic pets having variegated PERSONALITIES, appears to confirm that they are, by definition, persons. Undoubtedly, if highly-intelligent humanoid extraterrestrial life exists, we would all refer to those alien species as “persons”. Similarly, if we were to somehow come across a Neanderthal (Homo neanderthalensis), surely we would consider him or her to be a person, even if the Neanderthal was unable to communicate in any semblance of a modern language. Therefore, it is an undeniable, objective fact, that the term “person” does not refer exclusively to Homo sapiens, and that when the word is used in reference to the Supreme Deity, it strongly implies that the Deity possesses more than just a mind of some kind, but also a face of some sort. Some major Theistic religions say as much, anyhow! THE ABSURDITY OF AN “OMNI” BEING: There has never been, nor will there ever be, even the SLIGHTEST shred of evidence for the existence of the Godhead, that is, a Supreme Deity, for the notion of an omnipresent, omniscient, and omnipotent Person is both profoundly illogical and extremely incongruous, to put it mildly. At the risk of sounding facetious, any human being who believes in a gigantic man (or woman) perched in the heavens, is a literal moron! Regarding the OMNIPRESENCE of God: if a Supreme Person was present everywhere, it would imply that one would be able to visually-perceive such a Person at every location. Of course, Theists claim that their fictitious God is imperceptible via the bodily senses, but can be experienced solely in one’s “heart”, by which they mean mentally (or “spiritually”). Clearly, there is no way in the world one could possibly consider such a “being”, by definition, to be personal in nature. And if it was so, this Being would be a separate object (see the Glossary definition of “object”). How could a personal God be present everywhere, when there was no such thing as a created universe before He created it? This implies that, before God created the world, He was not located in any particular place, yet became omnipresent only after creation was manifested. Note that, when the term “personal God” is used in this book, it does not imply that there exists, either potentially or actually, the concept of an impersonal God, for that is a flagrant oxymoron, given the most accurate understanding of the term “person”. Theists may contend that God is infinite, both before and subsequent to any creative act, but again, that would necessitate God being situated in every possible point in space, which makes sense only if God was not a person, and hence, not a god/goddess, definitionally (see Glossary). When we look around us, we do not see any semblance of a personal Deity anywhere in creation, so to claim that God is OMNIPRESENT is an obvious falsehood. Theists would argue that God is present in His creation in some kind of mysterious way, such as in the form of His Holy Spirit or via some other vague model, but that contradicts the very definition of the word “god” (see the Glossary entries for “god” and “God”). If this fictitious Deity was actually present everywhere, as claimed by most all Theists, there would exist nothing but God, which is closer to a Pantheistic metaphysical schema, rather than a Monotheistic system. The mental gymnastics required to justify the Godhead is truly puerile. Also, this would bring into play the question of time - without time, how does God deliberate on His desire to create a material universe? Likewise, why would the Absolute require OMNIPOTENCE, when there is naught but the Absolute extant? Of course, Theists would argue that once God has created the material universe, He requires total power and control over His creation (otherwise He wouldn’t be, by definition, the Supreme). However, that argument itself easily falls apart when one understands the simple fact that the universe (at least our particular bubble universe) is composed of space-time, that time is relative, and therefore, cannot supervene upon the eternal, timeless Absolute. The only omni-property that comes even close to being an accurate description of Ultimate Reality is OMNISCIENCE, since The Monad knows absolutely everything there is to know (that is, The Monad Itself). See the previous two chapters for further clarification of this concept. On the other hand, there is a possible infinite epistemological regression problem regarding the omniscience of God. Since God knows absolutely everything, He obviously knows that He knows everything. Consequently, He knows that He knows that He knows everything, correct? So, how far does this knowledge of knowledge retrogress? Of course, one could say “infinitely”, but certainly this is too perplexing! Many Theologians have added the property of OMNIBENEVOLENCE (infinite goodness) to the three major omni-properties. Above all, it is imperative to understand that goodness can only make sense in relation to badness, and therefore nonsensical in reference to The Absolute. First of all, one would be required to provide an incontestable definition of the term “good”, and then demonstrate that God is absolutely always good, without the slightest hint of badness. Assuming that even one of the major Theistic religions is accurate, this assertion would be difficult to substantiate, to put it mildly. Even so, if God is transcendental to all dualities, He cannot be good, since goodness cannot exist without a measure of badness, and consequently, God must be infinitely bad as well as infinitely good, or at least beyond both good and bad. See the Glossary entries “Absolute”, “bad”, “good” and “evil, the problem of”. Also, read Chapter 03 regarding the notion of concepts/Truth. Cont...
God cannot create what WE call disorder, as God never ceases to be in control of all things, even atoms, so they are how and where God wants them to be. We must be careful at attributing God human attributes.
Really good comparison
Shoutout to the other 73 people on earth who are interested in Karl Christian Friedrich Krause (sad to see this is the only video about him on TH-cam that exists, we need to translate his "Entwurf des Systems der Philosophie" to english)
You're in luck, sir! There's a channel called "The Young Idealist" that did an interview with the same Benedikt Göcke about Karl Krause where he also gives an overview of his philosophy, his life, and other cool stuff. The channel (run by Christopher Satoor, a doctoral candidate (ABD) in the Department of Humanities at York University) also interviews other scholars about other philosophers in Classical German Philosophy, German Idealism, and Post-German idealist philosophers including many other neglected thinkers during these periods.
Bertato’s system is interesting, but I find it too weak. The definition of omnipotence he gives seems insufficient: if I understand it correctly, it doesn’t mean that an omnipotent being has all powers, only that its powers are perfectly effective. I’m not sure if the formalism is sufficiently powerful to get the notion of possible powers, given the lack of modality. It would also be interesting to add a new definition of another divine attribute: providence. We could say that x is provident if, and only if, for any good situation p, x is willing p. And then, to be divine, x must also be provident. I don’t know if the logical problem of evil can hold with this new attribute and the new characterization of omnipotence.
When something does not exist there is not much that can be said about it.
When you don't have the slightest knowledge about eastern traditions, certainly the concepts of 'nothing' and 'existence' will be mistaken and insufficient
What is the "IT" to which you referred?
@@habacookies1570, in your own words, define “NOTHING”. ☝️🤔☝️
It is easy to explain the Hindu idea of so-called GOD by STEM filed definitions. For example Using SET Theory and computer science Jargons are much more better explaining Hindu ideas of GOD. I did my Ph.D. in Neuromorphic computing. I would love to join your discussions.
Sankhayas don’t believe in creation, speaker is stupid
Thanks! Will the workshops from INDIAN RELIGIONS & THE CONCEPT OF GOD also be available?
Yes!
Congratulations for this iniciative. Thank you for the post.
At 5:30 "Criticism of religion is primarily concerned with TRUTH, religion primarily with a preservation of HOPE and ... consolation and... salvation". That seems to be a false contrast. Jesus said "I am the way, the TRUTH, the life" (John 14,6). Jesus in John 8,31.32: "To the Jews who had believed in him, Jesus said, "If you hold to my teaching, you are really my disciples. Then you will know the TRUTH, and the truth will set you free."" Jesus and the apostles did not find truth unimportant at all, it was central. In 1 Peter 3,15 says Christians should give REASONS for the hope that they have. Real hope must be based on truth, or it cannot stand. The same with salvation. (If God does not exist, if Christ was not the messiah, if he did not rise from the dead, then Christianity can not offer salvation). So one does not get around examining whether or not the claims are true or not. Truth makes all the difference here. One would not be rational to hold to a set of statements just for pragmatic reasoning (if it would be possible at all - doxastic voluntarism only goes so far. People cannot really force themselves to believe sonething that they do not actually hold to be true.) In John 16,13, Jesus says: "But when he, the Spirit of TRUTH, comes, he will guide you into all the TRUTH." He did not say "When the Spirit comes, he will console you with baseless nonfactual statements that are wishful thinking but practically quite helpful and useful at times."
the question is, is it possible for an almighty God to become absolutely ignorant and are do we have an example of such an avatar
so good . very informative 1st century Israel = 21st century Korea . You have to know that . Amazing historical events are taking place there . Longitude 127 Seoul Okinawa Soul Axis -- Bahai Faith Rael Jesus Huh kyung young Magnificent aletheia .
This series is priceless! Much appreciated!
so good . very informative 1st century Israel = 21st century Korea . You have to know that . Amazing historical events are taking place there . Longitude 127 Seoul Okinawa Soul Axis -- Bahai Faith Rael Jesus Huh kyung young Magnificent aletheia .
An active debate on what Ramakrishna taught is like people debating what Jesus taught.it will be any one’s opinion because Ramakrishna isn’t here to clear it up.
I’m 😅o Ramakrishna was established in Brahman which means complete ego dissolution and the dissolution of the conditioned personal identity .from this state of consciousness who is devoted to who.? To have a Bhakti nature and have the highest realization is not understood by most vaishnavas who still think they are separate from god in order to worship him . They forget hanuman who said he plays the role of servant ,devotee and one with RamA depending on his mood and situation..
Sri Ramakrishna taught that both Saguna and Nirguna were the same Brahman, and that final realization has two forms: immersion in Brahman, like a drop that joins the ocean (the path of the jnani), and the other form: eternal loving union with God (the bhakta path). It said Thakur :"Krishna and his devotees live eternally." There is no idea in Sri Ramakrishna's teaching that the Impersonal Brahman is the ultimate dimension of reality.
“. The bliss of loving Krishna is far surpassed than the bliss of knowers of Brahmin “ the swami quoted here and swami Medhananda have no knowledge of the deep Bhakti of Ramana Maharishi, the great advaitan. Nor do the remember the great love of shankara for divine mother. In fact after he was fully realized and a brahmajnani he wrote his mystical devotional poem the soundari lahari
Superb lecture. Thank you all.
“ the unlimited mind can never be comprehended by the limited mind” Mata Amritananda Mayi Devi
Thank you for this series of lectures. One point to be considered is something being formless is also an attribute. When words are involved to describe a substrate, it can't be Nirguna
Two things we all know about God is that his memory is perfect and his knowledge is perfect. So he can remember the suffering he caused of every creature that died in the flood. But just to make sure he didn't forget, he created the rainbow (Genesis 9:11-17).
To propose an alternate angle of inferring "God is joy", perhaps it might worth toying around with the different possible meanings / interpretations of the phrase (or perhaps even the entire verse) in its original Saṃskṛta form?
Thank you Dr. Malinar for your talk. I appreciate and second your push towards adopting Indian philosophical terminology when studying / debating in these contexts. In addition, I would also stress on the importance of pronunciation, particularly of the "schwa", which I find to be the single most mispronounced syllable, these days also by many Indians! A way to do this is through a more thorough dissemination of the IAST / ISO-15919 standards of transliteration.
The speaker has little idea of Hinduism in detail.
Why an abrupt end to this lively discussion?
Madhavadeva, the disciple of Srimanta Sankaradeva, the propagator of the teaching of Eka Sarana to Krsna, writes in his primary work, the Nama Ghosa, that it's only because Hari (the Lord) is without any *material* form (prakrta akara varjita) that he is called "nirakara" (formless); meaning that he is with a transcendental (nonmaterial, spiritual), almost ineffable form. Both Sankaradeva and Madhavadeva, following the Bhagavata, held that God is with form even at the very highest level of nirguna brahman. And both have described this most beautiful, supremely captivating form of the Lord in their writings. 🙏
Excellent discussion. I really enjoyed this one. Edwin Bryant touched upon the "rupa" (form) of God (Isvara, Bhagavan) in the Bhagavata Purana and other scholars weighed in with fine comments and questions.
I ml phd in hindi
Good morning mam
Great lecture. Always great to see Dr. Graham Oppy. Would personally like to see more Atheists involved in these projects too.
Hi again I realy like what you doing here. Sincères GOD
Please upload all of these in 1080p if you can
1:48 This guy is Brazilian, right? It's nice to listen someone speaking english in a familiar accent for once.
Prakriti means nature not matter No Indian or to be exact bramanical philosophy says brahma created humans and divided them into casts. Brahmin came out of his mouth, kshyatriyas from some other body parts, vaishya from somewhere and dalits from feet Evil is not discussed because it embraces and morality is according to needs of the gods. If god (powerful person) does it then it is ok Equality was never part of brahmanical philosophy There are many discrepancies and wrong info, invite person from science journey channel he will explain the facts
Prakrti _does_ mean "matter;" it refers to the ontological category of "material substance." More specifically, it refers to the Ur-matter or primal matter, the "procreatrix" from which all the material entities evolve.
Great discussion . Anselm on existence was rejected by Aquinas for essence . Descartes revives Anselm .
My favorite. Reason for the existence of God is the fact that we started at a point some 2000 years ago where a group of believers followed this man called Jesus who was put to death and so were slot of the people who would not give up their belief, and they built placed to worship this God , and continued to do until today . Unless all theses people throughout history were duped, which seems not likely, I would say it’s more probably true given the evidence than fault , IMHO
@fludaa And if all of that doesn't get you to 'God' nothing does. Works on so many levels don't you think? Lol Lol to the world da dum dum dum ..
Not necessary for „all these people throughout history“ to be duped. Only the ones who spread the shit need to be duped and what evidence do you have that they weren’t?
@fludaa close minded won’t get you anywhere not the least of which would be God . Every time I try to make a reasoned argument for God based on objective evidence all I ever get back is Jokes or why is your God right and everyone else’s is wrong ? The ancients gave the same story’s of rising and dying gods . bla bla bla the same old arguments that have been debunked years ago . Jesus walked the earth he preached for a few years on earth he was sent to his death on the cross, if that was it and his bones were found in the tomb that would would have been the end of the story . However for over 2,000 years we are still having this debate that tells you something extraordinary happened like an empty tomb ? Post Mourtum appearances of Jesus. Says there’s more to the story like his claims were true about him being the son of God .which makes his claims different than all the other fake comparisons to him . If it was a hoax all the naysayers would have to have done was open the tomb show his dead body to his followers and they would have went home dejected and the story would have ended except for a few wackos . But that’s not the case . Because he was and us who he said he was . God bless and praise Jesus . You naysayers have to come up with a more viable reason to say he’s not God .
@faris An ultimate creator God would be responsible for all those other worldviews. In a World where God exists, God is the ultimate causal origin point for every dependent state of affairs.
Very interesting discussion..
Well I don't know about "very".. but then, I just tuned in (late) for the conclusion.
Underrated show. Great job.
Idea of Creation Create Idea Of Creator.
There is only one argument for atheism. The complete and total absence of any evidence for any god.