(May 8, 2014 at 4:38 pm)Ben Davis Wrote: By pointing out that if there's no way to tell if it exists or not, it might as well not exist. The problem is that this definition means that Brahman can't interact with us however hindus all over the world have described visions of and messages from Brahman. This contradiction demonstrates that the definition cannot be met therefore this god doesn't exist.
I didn't quote everything in that article.
Quote:Though impassioned and above the ordinary feelings of the mind, the masters of the Upanishads some times could not suppress the glory, the emotion, the passion and the poetry that accompanied the vast and utterly delightful , inner experience of His vast vision.
It seems that Brahman can be experienced but the experience is of supposed to be of something which is beyond the human intellect to grasp etc.
Hinduism is very complex and there are different versions of it. This particular concept of Brahman probably is contradicted by other concepts but it was this particular concept I was talking about. I wouldn't know where to start disproving something which my intellect isn't supposed to be up to grasping. I'd go for the cop out by saying that a subjective experience which is interpreted as God/Brahman doesn't prove that God/Brahman actually exists. It would then be up to the believer to prove otherwise.
(May 8, 2014 at 4:38 pm)Ben Davis Wrote: Regarding your points on the implications of neurology, we've started dicussing that here so I won't duplicate that in this thread.
I've just seen your additions to that topic but it's nearly 11 pm here and I'm starting to fall asleep.
Where are the snake and mushroom smilies?