God and the Devil are Lies

Science can in no way prove or disprove God. Science and religion need not contradict. For those devoid from religious emotions it comes the scientific explanation of the same. The observation that human beings are needy and can form an idea for God (eg like a parent) is correct, but it does not prove in any way that they have created it. Rather it is seen that human beings tend to explore, investigate and become knowledgeful like this. So on observing the nature of human being we would only get to know the human being and would not receive any information about God (supposing human being is not God).

Based on empirical experiences people arm themselves with theoretical terms to form theories, but if you give an example of something without name or form, or that there exists the symbol for it - word or any other symbol, but it is not there practical in some or other form, there is no such thing. It is different whether and to what extent the symbol (or the way we think of it) and the thing match. Like we have aliens, do we have them practical, they could be just dressed up humans, or green people - the way we imagine them.

I mean that if there is idea of God, with no or various explanations about it, then it means we don't know him. And in this matter indeed science cannot help, because it does not even believe He can come himself and introduce himself - the symbol we have of God to match to this new explanation about him, although it can be far from our imagination (and expectation) and look just like an ordinary man. And the only way to know God is to know God and not something else, so first we should come to know what is He then we can know him.

We can know him when he comes and introduces himself. It can sound retro, but it makes sense. So far there used not be God visible practical. It is new that he is now here, not that we should erase him. No so far in the history there used not be god, but just remembrance of him like from the past, human being's ideas.

Killing God even Nietzsche did. It comes with desperation, like when one is desperate he likes to destroy - himself or thers, objects. It is when humanity becomes very unhappy and poor that this happens , and it is bound to happen, because without God there is downfall, that's why we remember and pray to him.

Why should there be taboo things like defaming God? Nothing is taboo now. But who, when and why did created the taboo. Is it the society, or the magician who has invented God to control people. If society or individuals had created taboo then why is the taboo broken now. Who has broken it. The same one. The new idea is that God creates heaven and people make it hell.

We can judge how powerful is the power of information in this era of internet. What if God was just a unique source of unique information?

The problem is, you are saying "God" but meaning the spirit entity or entities that are said to have worked through Lekhraj Kirpalani and Virendra Dev Dixit. There is insufficient evidence to suggest that the two are the same. The spirit entity or entities that work through Lekhraj Kirpalani and Virendra Dev Dixit have been demonstrated to be wrong.

Actually, at present I am not sure that any spirit entity does work through Virendra Dev Dixit but that it is just a level of consciousness that he is speaking from and about. But then, I have never seen him speak and so it is unscientific of me to propose that ...

Science can in no way prove or disprove God.

So they say ... say it enough and it might become true to you. One common thread where scientists meet spiritualist is that there is a need for "scientific rigor" to be applied to spiritualistic matters and it is the lack of such intellectual and experimental rigor has brought the defamation of devotion.

Devotional "hymns", be they songs or "The Knowledge" we sing to ourselves, make us high and lift our spirits ... but that does not make them true or ultimately effective.

What scientific rigor can do is expose a reasoned and reasonable probability of anything being true, to a greater of lesser extent. Scientifically, the historical revision of the BKWSU suggests more than a reasonable probability that BK followers have been misled and deceived and those that have miseld and deceived them have done so for decades.

Nietzsche did not kill God, God crapped out of turning up for the fight. Nietzche sought as all good souls do, the kill and remove the delusion within themselves and their societies ... a big part of which is the God delusion and the vampires that hang off it like haemorrhoids. "He has come ... he has come ..." I know, you have told us before.

At the time of the ritual practices in the past of Nietzsche He used not to come.

My money would have been on Nietzsche. God was a cowherd not to have turned up.

Yes, this is whatever Ravan also used to say. "If Rama is God he has to prove himself to me." Is God to obey Nietzsche?

... So they say ... say it enough and it might become true to you. One common thread where scientists meet spiritualist is that there is a need for "scientific rigor" to be applied to spiritualistic matters and it is the lack of such intellectual and experimental rigor has brought the defamation of devotion. Devotional "hymns", be they songs or "The Knowledge" we sing to ourselves, make us high and lift our spirits ... but that does not make them true or ultimately effective. What scientific rigor can do is expose a reasoned and reasonable probability of anything being true, to a greater of lesser extent.

Thank you ex-l. The above extract from your post encompasses the spirit of my contributions to this topic todate.

The Law of gravity proves it self constantly and consistently. God disproves Godself constantly and consistent to adults and informed thinkers by not being here in our day to day life.

The Creator, or the Supreme may exist in another plain but it doesn't seem to have much significance to our being here on this plain (accept to seek to perceive higher dimensions individually and empirically, as opposed to believing some dudes subconscious ramblings or interpretations), because God as a single sovereign being IS NOT HERE.

To believe in God just because a man or women says once in while, "I am God and here is something ya never thought about children", is saying God is as real for adults as Santa Claus is as real for children.

Dear all,

Sorry abek if I was too short with you - in a hurry to get away on holiday ...

However, I wasn't at all trying to "dissuade me (abek) from exploring the topic on the basis of its title, i.e. God and the Devils are Lies". I (thought) I was just saying that I don't intend to abrogate my faith to the likes of Richard Dawkins and the God Delusion. And no, I don't personally see God as the higher self - others may do and that's their choice/belief/faith/experience.

My view of God has already been clearly expresed twice on this forum. I (the soul/my higher self) have had and continue to have a relationship with God which has proved extermely beneficial to me and which I continue to work at in an ongoing way. I experience on a regular basis the duality of divine and incarnate/God and soul. It works for me and life just keeps getting better and better ... (including having all you wonderful folk to interact with).

For all of us - I am concerned that we're falling into exactly the same never-ending debate which has echoed down the ages and will continue to do so long after we're gone. As ever, the question posed has led to the clear expression of two divergent opinions/beliefs/faiths/experiences. Neither of us is going to persuade the other of our view, because they are so deep, personal and long-held.

So you could argue, what's the point of continuing the debate? The answer is that it's one of the key questions of life, the Universe and everything ...

So here are some selected points which I simply don't accept because they reflect your combined opinions/beliefs/faiths/experiences:

1. "God disproves Godself constantly and consistent to adults and informed thinkers" - trying to say that people who believe in/experience God in their lives are like children is the last refuge of non-thinking/respecting human beings ...
2. "there is a need for "scientific rigor" to be applied to spiritualistic matters" - who the heck believes that a relationship with God is "spiritualistic"? Answer - some of us who've had our whole relationship with/view of God skewed by a negative experience of being a BK/connecting with Baba. BTW I have a PhD in Astronomy and have been told that about 50% of profesional/academic astronomers believe in the existence of God.

3. "Science can in no way prove or disprove God. Science and religion need not contradict." Agree completely - Western scientifc "rigour" has almost nothing real to say on the existence or not of God. On the other hand, there's a lot to be learned from other people and cultures about the divine.

Love and light to you all on this beautiful Sunday morning ...

BTW I have a PhD in Astronomy and have been told that about 50% of profesional/academic astronomers believe in the existence of God.

What sort of "God"? How would you differentiate between your or their God and the God of the BKs?

I am very interested in the 'evolution of God' within the BKWSU and am still asking how and when the "Shiva" Concept was invoked. Through the historical research, which has underlined the variations and coverups in the teachings since the early days, I am of the opinion that the influential Seniors were deeply conditioned to relate to Lekhraj Kirpalani as their god and continue to raise the question about spiritualistic influences amongst the BK tradition.

I use the word "spiritualistic" to refer to the influence of "spirits" and phenomena such as the mediumship.

Equally, I see that our culture effects our permitted impression of "God". Widely in India you have this impression of a tricky, amorous, playful, child-like, thief and miracle worker of a God ... Krishna. That mental conditioning the BKWSU and their God is given attributes that are projected by humans that are not acceptable to the Western mind that has been conditioned, however lightly, by The Enlightenment, science and rationalism.

I note that the BK conditioning works through the invocation of a number of mental archetypes already within the followers but supplants them with their own "flavor" and am outspoken that I think we should be cautious of accepting when they talk about "God" they mean the same as everyone else does. Obviously they don't and there is a seductive and considerable guise going on.

So can scientific rigor "prove" God ... not by way of an equation. But it can improve our relationship with the 'Great Question Mark' through applied reason. He or his works should stand up to a reasonable amount of scrutiny. My question is your colleagues would have God as the creative force of the material universe ... or as a personal God; Jesus or Krishna. Of course, both these Gods the BKWSU deny.

Thanks pilatus. Everything is easy. Chronologically speaking, my bumping into the God Delusion is more recent to my posting on this site.

The way i understand some of the book's arguments - and it does also present many arguments for the case that God exists - opens me to experience a sort of 'rationality' that strengthens my spirit. I would like to think that the god i am after would be an Ocean of Rationality, into which i could dive. "I", a whole human and whole spiritual being. Maybe, as ex-l said, i hope that my relationship with the 'Great Question Mark' can be flavoured with this applied reason.

Yes, this is whatever Ravan also used to say.

You missed the witicism andrey. I do appreciate English is not your first language ... too many people miss my jokes but then I appreciate jokes are against Shrimat to those without a sense of humor.

I did not say, "coward". I said, "cowherd". (God was a cowherd not to have turned up.) Cowherd means Krishna. Krishna equals Lekhraj Kirpalani. They all thought he was God or the Godhead incarnate. I suppose it helps if you enjoy cross words or poetry, as I do.

Actually, it was a pretty clever "Advanced Knowledge" pun, even if I say so myself.

I am obviously channelling Ravan ... my head has become so big as to encompass all ten of his.

Wow ex-l, that was kewl. Which reminds me that I went to a school in which one of our classes was held in a converted cowshed. As a fully paid-up BK, i used to see all that stuff as having sweet Gyani significances. In this case: Krishna the cowherd, "Brother" to abbeykay of the cowshed. Surely i am destined to play a part in the Golden Age as one of Krishna's playmates? ... So I thought.

Ta. Yeah ... that was another one, "enjoy cross words" and not "crosswords". Excuse my vanity but welcome to my world.

As a fully paid-up BK, I used to see all that stuff as having sweet Gyani significances.

This is something that we have not documented and discussed but the neurotic seeing of significances in the most mundane things is something that I certainly went through, you say you did, Lekhraj Kirpalani obviously did ... and was in my experience widely encouraged through the BKWSU.

Another topic elsewhere ->.

Hello again all (esp. ex-I, abek, andrey and bro neo),

Sorry I've not been responding to your questions ex-I - I went off in the direction which I felt bro neo wanted to explore given the references to God and Satan rather than God/Baba and Ravan/Maya ...

I am very interested in the 'evolution of God' within the BKWSU and ... the "Shiva" Concept ...

I am also interested in the BK version of God and my experience of he/she/it. I recognize that this is really important to a lot of you, plus probably most of those who are watching us as "semi-detached" observers. I've shared this elsewhere but am happy to reiterate some of it again:

1. I've been developing a strong "Godly" connection over the last six-seven years.
2. This started with my reconnecting with the Anglican church.
3. Closely followed in increasing involvement with BK - but always as what I referred to semi-jokingly as an "irregular" student.
4. I was fortunate enough to be allowed to go to Madhuban at the end of 2003 with my other half.
5. It was an intense, divine experience - especially at the BapDada encounter but also at Gyan Sarovar meditation the next day.
6. I distinctly felt the presence of the BapDada/BB "spirit" but also that of Jesus Christ - and the very clear message from BapDada/BB that "if you're OK with Him (i.e. Jesus Christ) then you're OK with us".

With the benefit of space/time (and having come through the breakdown partially precipitated by my encounter with India in the wider sense), I would agree with you that whatever the BapDada/BB "spirit" is, my sense of it is much more BB/Lekhraj Kirpalani than Shiva Baba.

I never really accepted that it was (Lord) God incarnating into a human Chariot. For me, my Christian roots are too strong and Jesus Christ played that role 2000 years ago. If that consigns me to the Copper Age in BK thinking, as ex-I joked elsewhere, then I am happy with that. On the up side, I've long identified with the Lord of the Dance (Shiva/Shankar/Nataraj) figure, so maybe I am keeping my options open ...

My question is your colleagues would have God as the creative force of the material universe ... or as a personal God; Jesus or Krishna. Of course, both these Gods the BKWSU deny.

For clarity, I no longer work in astronomy, but have contact with former colleagues and friends. As you say, I'd imagine that nearly all of them would have God as the creative force of the material universe ... or as a personal God; Jesus or Krishna. Very few, if any of them, would go for the God who is apparently incarnating on a regular basis in the here and now. The view of Eastern astronomers/astrologers would perhaps be more varied/interesting ...

Lots of love and best wishes

Ultimately wisdom HAS TO BE all encompassing, accepting every element but putting it in its place.

The BKWSU's denial of all and any other spiritual hierarchy and superiority except for its own worldly one might prove to be the biggest lie.

How long should we give them to come up with the goods? Should the administration re-register this domain until 2036?