Jivananda Prabhu, you are correct -- this was a great conversation, and the devotee in the video did an excellent job of fielding those dishonest and ignorant questions. Haribol!
@@buddhas_nightmare1333 even I've seen come to banke bihari temple in vrindavan or dwarikadhish temple in dwarikapuri,gujrat you'll feel presence of krishna there
if you're looking for proof of God, it is all around you. life itself, consciousness, nature, creation, love, strength, intelligence, beauty, honor, justice, and good fortune are all proof. dreams, consciousness, psychedelics, DMT, science can maybe explain how they work but they can't explain where they came from. modern science points to the existence of God in many ways, multiple spatial dimensions, intelligent design implies an intelligent designer.
Humbleness is the precondition of revelation of knowledge. In order to receive knowledge, you first need to admit to yourself that you do not already have knowledge. So long as you hold yourself to be the highest authority on truth - that is you hold yourself, your own realisation/experience, to be the ultimate standard of truth/knowledge - then you are stuck in the relative, incomplete plane of knowledge, or truth. The Absolute Truth cannot be reached by the ascending method. You can not start from a point of imperfection and arrive at perfection. The Absolute Truth can only be imparted - it descends from the source, which is perfect, which is why it (He) can impart knowledge of itself (Himself). If you start from perfection, you can have perfection. Therefore, humbleness. You have to recognise yourself to be incapable of attaining Absolute Truth by your own imperfect faculties. The only way we can have it (Absolute Truth) is if it is both sentient and willing to reveal itself ie. God, the Supreme Person. So in conclusion, if God exists you can know He exists (by His mercy), if God does not exist you can never know (anything) for sure.
The three authentic methods for acquisition of knowledge are the following: 1. Direct Perception (empiric observation) 2. Logical Inference (using logical arguments to come to conclusions) 3. Revelation from Authority (accepting the facts from reliable sources -- chiefly from God) The first two are flawed, because they rely on the senses and reasoning of flawed human beings. The third one is flawless because it relies not on flawed human beings, but rather, it relies on God, who is flawless.
The problem with the epiphany of belief not possibly being mistaken is odd to me because epiphanies are emotional, some would use the word transcendental. -One can fall in love and even marry the person of their dreams and live a wonderful life until something-a trait, a hidden character, an action, or any unknown until then-disturbs the bliss and reveals only hindsight that our choice was not a good one. It is not an illusion or darkness (his words) to realize one was wrong and go back to more reasonable ideas. The interviewer is obviously new at epistemology, and more so at listening to what Atula is actually saying. Notwithstanding Atula's impressive articulation, I'm not convinced. This is not about final conclusions as honest as they may be. This is about the process of learning and self-correcting thru new and more correct information.
We theists trust people the same way the interviewer trusts people. The difference is that the interviewer trusts the wrong people -- he trusts cheaters -- whereas we theists trust saintly persons, who are actually trustworthy.
if the god believer asked him "if i got up and walked out would you (the ashiest) ever believe i didnt exist? no? why not? because you had a tangible experience, so there is nothing that would happen that would lower your confidence in the belief that i exist." "i am having a tangible experience with the personality of god, so because of this tangible experience i will never believe god doesn't exist, exactly like you to me right now" the sad part is the ashiest is too much in ignorance to even comprehend what the other guy is saying. You can literally see it going right over his head. poor ashiest.
Can one prove that there is such things as “karmi grains”, “Maya”, and “Karma”? Provide solid, concrete, tangible evidence thank you thank you thank you🙏
@@buddhas_nightmare1333 yes one can. The one without a second, the Supreme Absolute Truth, Personality of Godhead can prove everything there is to prove. Can anyone else prove anything without the help of the Supreme Person? No. You can not even prove your own existence as a fact without God. You are asking for tangible evidence. There is plenty. It is called the Vedic literature - the scriptures. The proof of the pudding is in the tasting. So pick up a spoon my friend, and taste that nectarian pudding. No one but yourself is stopping you.
Bhakta Anders Olesón okay well your invisible friend Krishna isn’t here right now nor does pointing to a book count as actual evidence. Can YOU YOURSELF prove to me that sins enter in to grains? Or that there is an invisible framework so to speak built into the fabric of reality called Maya? Or an invisible justice system called Karma? If you can I’d like to skype so you can show me. I will kiss your lotus feet if you prove it.
(46:14) "How can we demonstrate God?" We cannot demonstrate God. He can demonstrate Himself. You cannot demand revelation from God, but you can ask for it. And then it is up to Him whether He wishes to reveal Himself to you, and how.
God, Krishna, is a person, and he reserves his right to privacy, just as any person reserves his right to privacy. You must first become qualified to see him, and then he may choose to share his private life with you.
The interviewer asked how we can know that authorities are trustworthy. That was a fair question. Here is the answer: The same way we know that we are eating good, healthy food -- we can taste the food when we put it in our mouths, and immediately, we know whether the food has a pleasing taste or not. Later, when we begin to digest the food, we can tell whether it is satisfying or not by how we feel as a result of the digestion process. When we hear from a saintly person, immediately, there is a pleasing taste. Later, as we digest the statements of the saintly person, we feel real satisfaction, just like when we have a good, healthy meal, we feel real satisfaction.
Ya nice answer.. it's also when we see the source.. most of the scientific claims come from people who are so much materialistic working for money and many more involvement. But these knowledge comes from great spritual masters in succession and of someone really see their life how they loved what they sacrificed they will understand the authenticity. It's just like someone who is drug addict sex addict giving you lecture about how to be a good person. On the other hand if a person who really followed the rules then he is eligible and authentic to tell us what is good. Same with the spritual masters.jesus sacrificed his life for what?? To save them from hell or sin. He was not a mad man. But he did his life his personality is enough to convince us that there is a God who wants us to come back Bcz this world is full of misery and temporary
may be great siddhas can do that it's not a big deal.do you know about adi guru shankaracharya,guru gorakhnath and many others.they could release their soul from body and could enter in a dead body.then come back their body 😊😊
We can test saintly persons by observing their qualities. If their qualities are saintly, then they are saintly persons. If their qualities are not saintly, then they are not saintly persons.
The abundance of truth that this devotee presented to the interviewer really frustrated him, because he was expecting to stump the devotee. He failed to stump the devotee, however, and found that his own silly atheistic belief system was stumped instead.
The interviewer says that he wants to test Krishna Consciousness, but his method is wrong. The proper method for testing is to approach a self-realized soul respectfully, and submissively render service to him, and honestly inquire from him. He has never done that, so he has been unable to test so far. If he ever honestly engages as written above, then he will find that Krishna Consciousness passes the test.
Why believe atheist Dogma? There's no good reason, because nobody has ever demonstrated the notion that God doesn't exist. That silly atheistic notion can't be demonstrated because it's false.
Mere consistency does not mean, necessarily, that something is true. However, inconsistency found to be present within a belief system indicates that that belief system is false. The belief in atheist Dogma is extremely inconsistent, and therefore it is clearly false.
The interviewer Scott Hodgin needs to be held accountable for his ridiculous claim that he can prove he has a mother. Can someone please forward him these questions from me? Amd tell him the best way to reach me is via my Facebook Messenger: David Ernest Wachter... Let i = the interviewer / individual self; t = thou / an other individual self communicating with i; m = mother of i / the individual self who gives birth to i; then: 1) Why is i certain he exists & how can i communicate this certainty to t? 2) Why is i certain that t exists & how can i communicate this certainty to t? 3) Why is i certain that m exists & how can i communicate this certainty to t? 4) why is i certain that anything exists and how can i communicate this certainty to t? Let the i define “exist” however i likes. But Jeez, if the interviewer could prove his mother exists as he claimed in this video then he would become the most famous person to have ever lived imho. [This is an aside but, Why does the interviewer (and interviewee for that matter) accept that something is either true or it is not true? This is a glaring Aristotelian binary-bias which has been demonstrated to be weak logic for ages in systems which employ the Catuṣkoṭi. And today quantum computers currently run operations with something equaling both 0 & 1 simultaneously. I am far from an expert in Achintya Bheda Abedha but it would seem to add a 5th “ineffable” category to the classic 4 logical categories of true, false, true & false, neither true nor false. Atula Govinda Dad is so calm, cool and collected during this conversation with the irritating Scott Hodgin that the interviewee’s Krishna conscious speech quality itself is convincing evidence that his spiritual praxis is effective. I would have totally ended up screaming at Scott Hodgin, that he is a poorly educated bald-brained Socrates wannabe who needs to go back to elementary school and start over from scratch. If he is a skeptic then he is the worst skeptic I have ever heard speak. He assumes so much in his dialogue & I would like someone to hold him accountable for his assumptions. My 4 questions above regard just one of his truth claims which he can never prove, but I want to see him try. Haribol!
God has already demonstrated himself. Nobody has ever demonstrated the notion that God doesn't exist. The notion that God doesn't exist is a false notion.
The interviewer is just like a bee that is licking the outside of a bottle of honey, and aggressively asking "How do you know the honey tastes sweet???" We know because we aren't licking the outside of the bottle -- we have actually tasted the honey. He doesn't know because he hasn't made the effort to actually taste it.
Yep, exactly and he's not willing to do the experiment, probably out of fear that he will be defeated. It's like going to a chemistry class practical, and your professor is doing the experiment to create banana smelling fragrance, but you refuse to perform the experiment, yet continue ask him how can he produce a banana fragrance and also how does he know it's banana...😅
We didn't conclude that God exists -- God personally reveals himself to everyone. Revelation is God's action, not ours -- we simply accept the facts about God from God without actively resisting his revelation. Believers in atheist Dogma actively reject God's revelation because they hate God. We theists simply don't engage in that hateful rejection.
We don't "believe" that Krishna exists -- we accept factual knowledge that he exists. We receive such knowledge, and we possess that knowledge with certainty. The questioner "believes" that God doesn't exist, and that is 100% uncertain (it is also false). There is a huge difference between the two.
i am half way trough. I believe in god, i like Krishna counciousness, but this debate sounds less like debate and more like a lecture, where the atheist gentleman has more respect for the devotee than other way around. I like that i dont feel too much pressure though. I dont like debates where both sides are aggressively attacking the other, i like debates where people are trying to establish common ground and then look together for something higher. I dont see that here either though. I see the atheist gentleman is approaching this debate like a scinetist, working with curiousity, but using discrimination. The devotee here is speaking a lot from memory, repeating things he learned i dont believe in his understanding very deeply. But still, i like krishna conciousness and i didnt find anything better in life and i believe it might be true. We cannot say Krishna counsciousness is a science in classical western sense though. We cannot prove god. Western science use ascending method from bottom up which is impossible to use in this case. So until we see god its belief. And i think that should be perfectly fine,.
@Nathan Nitai Das To hell with what you been reading. Prabhupada clearly said "Hitler was reading Bhagavad Gita" Bhagavad Gita Lecture 2.7-11, New-York, March 2, 1966. Shut up and go read Prabhupada lectures. I don't need to read the grabage you have been fed over the years.
It’s quite ironic how the same scientist he says that are prone to the four defects; he uses their knowledge to justify some of his beliefs that he’s ***100%***(no doubt, not a single bit, zero, nada, none) confident in.
1GodOnlyOne reading your other post, you sound like a fanatic, so I don’t have much hope in convincing you, that you could possibly be wrong and wasting your entire life to a religion that might not be true. I’m 98% sure that Krishna isn’t real.
He even said that those saintly persons also have these 4 defects on material platform. But Unless you come on spiritual platform how will you experience God?
@@buddhas_nightmare1333 it's okay even while we believe God we never hurt anyone try to make our life better and others life better too we live life of perfect combination of discipline and freedom so we celebrate and enjoy life at the same level other people who might not believe God do .. so the fact is we also lived a peaceful life while being alive and just died like any other but the difference is if God really exists we will see him too and lived a good life too but what about u ? What if God actually exists then ?
Without God, you couldn't know whether or not your brain is just giving you false signals. We can know from God's revelation, and God's revelation only, that our senses, brain, and reasoning are working correctly.
@@Thindorama Same way you know: God provides that knowledge to all of us with certainty. Also, nobody said that his senses weren't working. You are a dishonest person. Thanks for asking!
@@Thindorama You're not here to find out the truth, you're just here to suppress the truth, so give up the pretense. Stop pretending to be honest, and stop asking your dishonest questions -- you're not fooling anyone into thinking you're sincere or honest. Your blatant dishonesty is 100% impotent, and it will get you exactly nowhere with anyone -- nobody believes anything that you claim, and nobody trusts you. You are just promoting lies -- no more, no less. Bye!
In the Pañcama-stabaka (lit. "fifth section"; the use of the word stabaka is very poetic as stabaka generally refers to a bouquet of flowers) of his treatise entitled Nyāya-kusumāñjalī (न्यायकुसुमाञ्जलि; lit. "A Flowery Handful of Logic"), the great logician Udayanācārya (उदयनाचार्य) gave the following nine arguments to prove the existence of a creative God. * Kāryāt (lit. "from effect"): The world is an effect, all effects have efficient cause, hence the world must have an efficient cause. That efficient cause is God. * Āyojanāt (lit. "from combination"): Atoms are inactive. To form a substance, they must combine. To combine, they must move. Nothing moves without intelligence and a source of motion. Since we perceive substance, some intelligent source must have moved the inactive atoms. That intelligent source is God. * Dhṛtyādeḥ (lit. "from support"): Something sustains this world. Something destroys this world. Unintelligent Adṛṣṭa (unseen principles of nature) cannot do this. We must infer that something intelligent is behind it. That is God. * Padāt (lit. "from word"): Each word has meaning and represents an object. This representational power of words has a cause. That cause is God. * Pratyayataḥ (lit. "from faith"): The Vedic literature is infallible. Human beings are fallible. The infallible Vedas cannot have been authored by fallible human beings. Someone authored the infallible Vedas. That author is God. * Śrutiḥ (lit. "from scriptures"): The infallible Vedas testify to the existence of God. Thus God exists. * Vākyāt (lit. "from precepts"): The Vedas deal with moral laws, the rights and the wrongs. These are divine. Divine injunctions and prohibitions can only come from a divine creator of laws. That divine creator is God. * Sāṃkhyāviśeṣāt (lit. "from the specialty of numbers"): By rules of perception, only the number "one" can ever be directly perceived. All numbers other than one are inferences and concepts created by consciousness. When man is born, his mind is incapable of inferences and concepts. He develops consciousness as he develops. The consciousness development is self-evident and proven because of man's ability with perfect numerical conception. This ability to conceive numerically perfect concepts must depend on something. That something is divine consciousness. So God must exist. * Adṛṣṭāt (lit. "from the unforeseen"): Everybody reaps the fruits of his own actions. Merits and demerits accrue from his own actions. An unseen power keeps a balance sheet of the merit and demerit. But since this unseen power is unintelligent, it needs intelligent guidance to work. That intelligent guide is God. Lecture on BG 7.1 -- Sydney, February 16, 1973: Mayy āsakta. You have to increase your attachment for Kṛṣṇa. When I speak of Kṛṣṇa, you should take it "God," the Supreme Personality of Godhead. The Supreme Personality of Godhead, if Supreme Personality of Godhead has got any suitable name, perfect name... God may have many thousands of names, but the most perfect name which we can give to the Supreme Personality of Godhead is Kṛṣṇa. Kṛṣṇa means "all-attractive." Lecture on BG 7.1-3 -- Stockholm, September 10, 1973: The bhagavān is called Kṛṣṇa. He has got many millions of name, but "Kṛṣṇa" name is the chief. "Kṛṣṇa" name means the all-attractive. God must be all-attractive. It is not that God is attractive for one person, not for the other. No. God is attractive for all living entities. Therefore you see the picture of Kṛṣṇa, He is loving the calves and cows, He is loving the trees, He is loving the gopīs, He is loving the cowherds boy. For Him, for God, everyone is lovable object because everyone is son of God. Lecture on BG 4.18 -- Bombay, April 7, 1974: So this Kṛṣṇa consciousness movement is trying to teach people that the ultimate goal of life is to satisfy Kṛṣṇa, either you, Kṛṣṇa or God. Kṛṣṇa is the most explicit explanation of God. If God can have any name, the "Kṛṣṇa" name is the most perfect name, because Kṛṣṇa means all-attractive. I have explained many times. Unless God is all-attractive, how He can be God? If God is attractive for a certain limited person or limited area, then he is not God. Then you will say, "Our God, your God, his God, that God." But if Kṛṣṇa is all-attractive, that is real God. And that is Kṛṣṇa. That is being proved. Now Kṛṣṇa is all-attractive all over the world. Otherwise, how in America, in Russia, in China, in Europe, all countries? Lecture on BG 2.11 -- Edinburgh, July 16, 1972: In the śāstra it is said, īśvaraḥ paramaḥ kṛṣṇaḥ (Bs. 5.1). Īśvaraḥ means controller, and paramaḥ, the supreme. Īśvaraḥ paramaḥ kṛṣṇaḥ (Bs. 5.1). That is the instruction of Vedic literature. So our... this Kṛṣṇa consciousness movement is not a sectarian religious movement. It is a scientific philosophical movement. Try to understand it. But the process is very simple. The process is by chanting this Hare Kṛṣṇa, Hare Kṛṣṇa, Kṛṣṇa Kṛṣṇa, Hare Hare/ Hare Rāma, Hare Rāma, Rāma Rāma, Hare Hare. We are not magician, but we ask our students "Simply you chant this transcendental vibration," and he becomes gradually cleansed of all dirty things within the heart. This is our process. Ratha-yatra Lecture at The Family Dog Auditorium -- San Francisco, July 27, 1969: Our Kṛṣṇa consciousness movement is no sectarian movement. We don't say that this is Christian religion or Hindu religion or Mohammedan religion or Buddhist religion. These religions develop in different parts of the world under different conditions. That is simply giving some idea of our relationship with God. But real religion is which teaches how to love God. That is real religion.
God reveals himself to everyone. We theists simply accept God's factual revelation about himself, whereas believers in atheist Dogma reject his revelation.
The three authentic methods for acquisition of knowledge are the following: 1. Direct Perception (empiric observation) 2. Logical Inference (using logical arguments to come to conclusions) 3. Revelation from Authority (accepting the facts from reliable sources -- chiefly from God) The first two are flawed, because they rely on the senses and reasoning of flawed human beings. The third one is flawless because it relies not on flawed human beings, but rather, it relies on God, who is flawless.
Is there anything that would lower my confidence? Yes: If a believer in atheist Dogma were to demonstrate that God doesn't exist. Nobody has ever done so, though.
Hare Krishna. He is practicing street epistemology just as he said he was. He is actually being honest, humble and scientific in my opinion. Vaishnava devotees should be confident enough in their beliefs, if they are founded on reality, to have them scrutinized and questioned without feeling the need to criticize the examiner. I actually think the interviewer is doing a wonderful service by applying critical thinking and logical questioning rather than just accepting blindly and “on faith”. your servant, Adi Purusa das
@@adithemonk My name is also Adi Purusha dasa. Pleased to meet you! The interviewer was obviously an atheist, and he was trying only to debunk Krishna Consciousness. His claim that he wanted to know the truth was just a lie in a vain attempt to mask his true intentions. If you can't see that this is the actual case, then I feel kinda sorry for you, Prabhu.
