Hare Krishna

[Akincana Krishna dasa]

But...that's a double standard, isn't it? You admit that 'we atheists' are skeptics when it comes to god, but you are willing to suspend all disbelief in that area. It has only been proven that non-living matter can become organic matter; said matter was not truly alive. It is true that you don't have to accept it as fact until there is proof. However, when looking at the merits of two competing, unproven hypotheses, it would be most logical to either claim agnosticism until the proof is in, or side with the one that has greater evidence. As of yet, I have seen evidence for abiogenesis, although not proof, but I haven't seen any evidence for god. So, by my reasoning, it would be most logical to either say I don't know, or place my bets with abiogenesis. Is there a reason you have concluded god on this point?

By what standard of evidence and proof? In another thread we tried to talk about the ultimate subjectivity of these things.

The modern scientific method is great for a certain field of knowledge. But it's a completely different philosophical assumption to assume that the modern scientific method applies to everything knowable.

There is an old method for spiritual knowledge. Of course the methods for achieving such knowledge are somewhat different than achieving knowledge in modern material science. Attaining spiritual knowledge requires the elevation of one's consciousness. There is a deep science to this, and, just like any dope off the street can't easily realize the truth of quantum physics, it's a category of knowledge that requires serious discipline and is not available to anyone and everyone.

---

You're very welcome, I think. The thing about agreeing to disagree, however, is that it only works when neither side of a two-sided debate has any more claim to validity than the other. If you are as sceptical about chemistry giving rise to life as you say, then the burden of proof is on you to support that position. It's not merely a question of being sceptical for scepticism's sake; the person deviating from the default position, or the one proposing some additional factor to the system, needs to bring it or evidence of it to the table. Otherwise, what are we to sink our teeth into, apart from my yummy cake?

Oh, ok sure. I appreciate the worldview of the Bhagavad Gita - it's the paradigm I consider most appropriate for understanding reality. Before you accuse me of dogmatism, I ask that you consider your own paradigm for achieving knowledge and the philosophical assumptions you've made that allow you to accept it.

Your comment assumes something like "the modern scientific method for achieving knowledge is the only legitimate source of attaining knowledge about the nature of reality." You've assumed that, not proven it.

I'd be happy to discuss the merits and faults of accepting one paradigm or another.

One of the fundamental truths explained in the Bhagavad Gita is that of the eternal spirit soul. It's nature and characteristics are described, as well as the method for experiencing it.

The Bhagavad Gita describes 5 categories of basic truths. Those are: the supreme controller, the material energy, the living entity, time and karma (activity). 4 of those truths are eternal, only karma is not.

As another poster mentioned earlier in this thread, accepting material energy as eternal may be a position even an atheist may be forced to accept. So, in any case, eternally existing matter is kind of a mystical idea, that is beyond reason and logic - so there are intellectual problems that are real hard to solve there.

My point is that dull matter, by itself, is inadequate to explain life.

If you'd like to seriously examine this alternative view with me, of course we could.