Arguing with theists
#13
(17-Jan-2013, 09:50 AM)arvindiyer Wrote:
(17-Jan-2013, 07:43 AM)Captain Mandrake Wrote: http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nasadiya_Sukta

It sure does read nice. But is the beauty of it in the way it has been translated?

The concern about self-serving distortions in apologist translations is quite well-founded and it is raised here often, like in this instance of bovine exceptionalism thrust in by a translator, or in this instance where an apologist bases conclusions on a dubious translation rather than the original.

However in the case in point, the translation seems to be one of considerable fidelity. I couldn't find the Sukta recited online, but something that is close is this near-verbatim translation into Hindi beginning with the original Rig Vedic stanza, in this clip from Bharat Ek Khoj. Advocates of 'Indian secularism', which is often mistaken for ecumenism, like Shashi Tharoor, quote this hymn ad nauseam as supposed evidence for skepticism and liberalism in the Indian ethos. However, as is discussed in this thread on the Vedas, it will take more than a stray cherrypicked instance like this one to establish the inerrancy and supremacy that is claimed for the Vedas.

Excerpt from the book “Life comes from Life”

Śrīla Prabhupāda: The scientists say that life begins from chemicals. But the real question is, "Where have the chemicals come from?" The chemicals come from life, and this means that life has mystic powers. For example, an orange tree contains many oranges, and each orange contains chemicals—citric acid and others. So where have these chemicals come from? Obviously they have come from the life within the tree. The scientists are missing the origin of the chemicals. They have started their investigation from the chemicals, but they cannot identify the origin of the chemicals. Chemicals come from the supreme life—God. Just as the living body of a man produces many chemicals, the supreme life (the Supreme Lord) is producing all the chemicals found in the atmosphere, in the water, in humans, in animals and in the earth. And that is called mystic power. Unless the mystic power of the Lord is accepted, there is no solution to the problem of the origin of life.

Dr. Singh. The scientists will reply that they cannot believe in mystic power.

Śrīla Prabhupāda: But they must explain the origin of the chemicals. Anyone can see that an ordinary tree is producing many chemicals. But how does it produce them? Since the scientists cannot answer this, they must accept that the living force has mystic power. I cannot even explain how my fingernail is growing out of my finger; it is beyond the power of my brain. In other words, my fingernail is growing by inconceivable potency, acintya-śakti. So if acintya-śakti exists in an ordinary human being, imagine how much acintya-śakti God possesses. The difference between God and me is that although I have the same potencies as God, I can produce only a small quantity of chemicals, whereas He can produce enormous quantities. I can produce a little water in the form of perspiration, but God can produce the seas. Analysis of one drop of seawater gives you the qualitative analysis of the sea, without any mistake. Similarly, the ordinary living being is part and parcel of God, so by analyzing the living beings we can begin to understand God. In God there is great mystic potency. God's mystic potency is working swiftly, exactly like an electric machine. Some machines operate by electrical energy, and they are so nicely made that all the work is done simply by pushing a button. Similarly, God said, "Let there be creation," and there was creation. Considered in this way, the workings of nature are not very difficult to understand. God has such wonderful potencies that the creation, on His order alone, immediately takes place.
Brahmānanda Swami. Some scientists don't accept God or acintya-śakti.
Śrīla Prabhupāda: That is their rascaldom. God exists, and His acintya-śakti also exists. Where does a bird's power to fly come from? Both you and the bird are living entities, but the bird can fly because of its acintya-śakti, and you cannot. To give another example, semen is produced from blood. A man has mystic power in his body so that because he is sexually inclined, blood is transformed into semen. How is this done unless there is some mystic power involved? There are many mystic powers in the living entities. The cow eats grass and produces milk. Everyone knows this, but can you take some grass and produce milk? Can you? Therefore there is mystic power within the cow. As soon as the cow eats grass, she can transform it into milk. Men and women are basically the same, but as a man you cannot eat food and produce milk, although a woman can. These are mystic powers.

Dr. Singh. Scientists would say that there are different enzymes or chemicals inside different types of bodies and that these account for the cow's producing milk.

Śrīla Prabhupāda. Yes, but who produced those enzymes and that arrangement? That was done by mystic power. You cannot make these enzymes or that arrangement. You cannot produce milk from dry grass in your laboratory. Within your body, by mystic power, you can transform food into blood and tissue, but in your laboratory, without mystic power, you cannot even transform grass into milk. Therefore you must accept the existence of mystic power.

To know more you are kindly advised to read the book “Life comes Life” of which the above conversation is a part.
To access the book log on to http://www.vedabase.com/en/lcfl
Reply
#14
**"Where have the chemicals come from?" The chemicals come from life, and this means that life has mystic powers**

No. It does not. What this Prabhupāda is doing here is called making shit up.

To moderators, since the previous post is essentially a cut/paste of zero value I request you please delete it. After that please delete my post as well.
Reply
#15
Dear Mandrake!
If life comes from chemicals, what is the origin of the chemicals. where did the original chemicals come from? Can you answer this question?
Reply
#16
(19-Jan-2015, 04:55 AM)Captain Mandrake Wrote: **"Where have the chemicals come from?" The chemicals come from life, and this means that life has mystic powers**

No. It does not. What this Prabhupāda is doing here is called making shit up.

To moderators, since the previous post is essentially a cut/paste of zero value I request you please delete it. After that please delete my post as well.

Recorded on April 19, 1973, In Cheviot Hills Park, Los Angeles

Karandhara. Modern proponents of Darwinism say that the first living organism was created chemically.

Śrīla Prabhupāda. And I say to them, "If life originated from chemicals, and if your science is so advanced, then why can't you create life biochemically in your laboratories?"

In the Future

Karandhara. They say they will create life in the future.

Śrīla Prabhupāda. What future? When this crucial point is raised, they reply, "We shall do it in the future." Why in the future? That is nonsense. "Trust no future, however pleasant." If they are so advanced, they must demonstratenow how life can be created from chemicals. Otherwise what is the meaning of their advancement? They are talking nonsense.

Karandhara. They say that they are right on the verge of creating life.

Śrīla Prabhupāda. That's only a different way of saying the same thing: "In the future." The scientists must admit that they still do not know the origin of life. Their claim that they will soon prove a chemical origin of life is something like paying someone with a postdated check. Suppose I give you a postdated check for ten thousand dollars but I actually have no money. What is the value of that check? Scientists are claiming that their science is wonderful, but when a practical example is wanted, they say they will provide it in the future. Suppose I say that I possess millions of dollars, and when you ask me for some money I say, "Yes, I will now give you a big postdated check. Is that all right?" If you are intelligent, you will reply, "At present give me at least five dollars in cash so I can see something tangible." Similarly, the scientists cannot produce even a single blade of grass in their laboratories, yet they are claiming that life is produced from chemicals. What is this nonsense? Is no one questioning this?

Karandhara. They say that life is produced by chemical laws.

Śrīla Prabhupāda. As soon as there is a law, we must take into consideration that someone made the law. Despite all their so-called advancement, the scientists in their laboratories cannot produce even a blade of grass. What kind of scientists are they?

Dr. Singh. They say that in the ultimate analysis, everything came from matter. Living matter came from nonliving matter.

Śrīla Prabhupāda. Then where is this living matter coming from now? Do the scientists say that life came from matter in the past but does not at the present? Where is the ant coming from now—from the dirt?

The Missing Link

Dr. Singh. in fact, there are several theories explaining how life originated from matter, how living matter came from the nonliving.

Śrīla Prabhupāda. [casting Dr. Singh in the role of a materialistic scientist]. All right, scientist, why is life not coming from matter now? You rascal. Why isn't life coming from matter now? Actually such scientists are rascals. They childishly say that life came from matter, although they are not at all able to prove it. Our Kṛṣṇa consciousness movement should expose all these rascals. They are only bluffing. Why don't they create life immediately? In the past, they say, life arose from matter; and they say that this will happen again in the future. They even say that they will create life from matter. What kind of theory is this? They have already commented that life began from matter. This refers to the past—"began." Then why do they now speak of the future? Is it not contradictory? They are expecting the past to occur in the future. This is childish nonsense.

Karandhara. They say that life arose from matter in the past and that they will create life this way in the future.

Śrīla Prabhupāda. What is this nonsense? If they cannot prove that life arises from matter in the present, how do they know life arose this way in the past?

Dr. Singh. They are assuming...

Śrīla Prabhupāda. Everyone can assume, but this is not science. Everyone can assume something. You can assume something, I can assume something. But there must be proof. We can prove that life arises from life. For example, a father begets a child. The father is living, and the child is living. But where is their proof that a father can be a dead stone? Where is their proof? We can easily prove that life begins from life. And the original life is Kṛṣṇa. That also can be proven. But what evidence exists that a child is born of stone? They cannot actually prove that life comes from matter. They are leaving that aside for the future. [Laughter.]

Karandhara. The scientists say that they can now formulate acids, amino acids, that are almost like one-celled living organisms. They say that because these acids so closely resemble living beings, there must be just one missing link needed before they can create life.

Śrīla Prabhupāda. Nonsense! Missing link. I'll challenge them to their face! [Laughter.] They are missing this challenge. The missing link is this challenge to their face.
Reply
#17
**Dear Mandrake!
If life comes from chemicals, what is the origin of the chemicals. where did the original chemicals come from? Can you answer this question?**

Me not answering this question does not make the ideas of the charlatan Prabhupāda true by default. Both you and this Prabhupāda character need to understand how not to use arguments from ignorance before engaging in debates.
Reply
#18
(21-Jan-2015, 03:14 AM)Captain Mandrake Wrote: **Dear Mandrake!
If life comes from chemicals, what is the origin of the chemicals. where did the original chemicals come from? Can you answer this question?**

Me not answering this question does not make the ideas of the charlatan Prabhupāda true by default. Both you and this Prabhupāda character need to understand how not to use arguments from ignorance before engaging in debates.

you are asking for elements or chemicals?
Follow discovery science channel, I think they will teach you about the origin of elements
Reply
#19
(06-Feb-2015, 10:10 AM)drashokn Wrote:
(21-Jan-2015, 03:14 AM)Captain Mandrake Wrote: **Dear Mandrake!
If life comes from chemicals, what is the origin of the chemicals. where did the original chemicals come from? Can you answer this question?**

Me not answering this question does not make the ideas of the charlatan Prabhupāda true by default. Both you and this Prabhupāda character need to understand how not to use arguments from ignorance before engaging in debates.

you are asking for elements or chemicals?
Follow discovery science channel, I think they will teach you about the origin of elements

The question here is "How is it possible for the world that we see around us to "arise" out of "nothing"? We have two options here
1.Everything comes from "nothing"
2. Everything comes from "something"
Which one do you accept?
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)