However creation and evolution happened, it could not happen without God. We pray to God the creator of all that is seen and unseen, despite all our differences, the same God hears all our prayers.People who don't understand or choose not to understand think that they understand.
Which is the other way? A great magician appeared from nowhere and snapped his fingers six times, and lo, there was the universe with perfect animals and imperfect humans created out of mud and ribs, and then the ever-loving and merciful magician sent them to earth along with disasters and diseases? He was so tied after snapping his fingers six times that he rewsted on the seventh day.
Well, the Hindu God had only to utter "Ekoham, bahusyami", and there was the universe - I am one, I will be many.
Evolution is Unscientific
- Thread starter SufiPhilosophy
- Start date
The 'impossible' one time only in the entire history of the planet 'quantum jump' from simple bacteria and archaea by the unique endosymbiotic event that only happened once and never again -- to become the first eukaryotic cell -- LUCA -- the last common ancestor of all eukaryotic life -- that went on to evolve and become all the higher life forms upon this cornucopia of life planet Earth?
Last edited:
The essential discussion is that although evolution clearly allows for and explains changes within a species, it cannot be shown that random genetic mutation ever resulted in the evolution of a new species unable to sexually reproduce with the species from which it originated?
Eukaryotes replicate by sex. Prokaryotes (bacteria and archaea) replicate by just dividing into new cells.
The original species do not have to resemble in any way the apes or fish or felines in their present form. Todays land mammals are not at all like the marine species from which they evolved. A fish is different from a monkey -- now -- but the progenitor was a primordial life form, from which both fish and mammals are said to have originated?
IMO
Eukaryotes replicate by sex. Prokaryotes (bacteria and archaea) replicate by just dividing into new cells.
The original species do not have to resemble in any way the apes or fish or felines in their present form. Todays land mammals are not at all like the marine species from which they evolved. A fish is different from a monkey -- now -- but the progenitor was a primordial life form, from which both fish and mammals are said to have originated?
IMO
In fact LUCA (last universal common ancestor) as the first product of abiogenesis predates the eukaryotic cell and includes prokaryotic life (bacteria and archea) that combined in a one time only in 4.5 billion year 'miracle' to become the first eukaryotic cell.
So they say ...
So they say ...
Starting from LUCA, billions of things had to come into existence for the first time. Hearts, lungs, stomach, bones, muscles, eyes, etc, etc. These are individually made from millions, billions and trillions of cells. We look at the diversity and complexity of life on Earth today, I honestly can't see how LUCA and evolution could work without God.
Aupmanyav
Be your own guru.
Since you asked, both belong to Phyllum Chordata, but then diverged. Goldfish are Class Actinopterygii where as cats are Mammalia. Therefore goldfish are not ancestors of cats.
Aupmanyav
Be your own guru.
Unfortunately, they don't. Hindu God himself turned into many (I will be many). Your God remains separate from his creations.In the beginning was the Word....
What you are calling "finger snaps" was G-d "uttering the Word," and it was so. Interesting, that our two beliefs agree on this matter.
Unfortunately, they don't. Hindu God himself turned into many (I will be many). Your God remains separate from his creations.
No one owns God, so how can you say, 'your God'.
We all pray to the same God, the creator of all that is seen and unseen, and the same God hears all our prayers despite our differences.
TheLightWithin
...through a glass, darkly
- Messages
- 1,517
- Reaction score
- 885
- Points
- 108
I'm inclined to agree with you. When somebody says "your God" or "a different God" I regard it only as a difference in theology or perception.
Others may not agree... But I think you are correct.
Aupmanyav
Be your own guru.
No. First thing - I am a Hindu atheist, so I do not have any God.
Second - Hindus have thousands of Gods and Goddesses and not just one.
Not sure about your God hearing your prayers - Think of Russia-Ukraine war.
Seems, no one has prayed to him. Or perhaps he is hard of hearing like myself.
Last edited:
juantoo3
....whys guy.... ʎʇıɹoɥʇnɐ uoıʇsǝnb
"Let US create man(kind) in OUR image..."Unfortunately, they don't. Hindu God himself turned into many (I will be many). Your God remains separate from his creations.
The Hebrew word Elohim, one of many translated into English simply as "God" is plural.
Aupmanyav
Be your own guru.
Right. The original religion of Israelites was polythiestic, just like the original religion of Indo-Iranian Aryans. I believe they were debased later.
Last edited:
juantoo3
....whys guy.... ʎʇıɹoɥʇnɐ uoıʇsǝnb
I don't think debased, I think more as Muhammad_Isa pointed out, it was a matter of linguistic construction.
Like as the Hindu pantheon, there is also a feminine aspect of the Creator:
Shekhinah: The Divine Feminine | My Jewish Learning
Divine Feminine in Kabbalah. Renewal of Jewish Mysticism. Modern Jewish Mysticism. Kabbalah and Mysticism. Jewish Spirituality and the Divine World. Jewish Ideas and Beliefs.
www.myjewishlearning.com
Consequently I hold a view that the Creator, the "well-spring," the "Source," is male, and female, both, and neither. As it turns out not unlike the Hindu pantheon in many respects.
Aupmanyav
Be your own guru.
Only that Hindu theists do not insist on one creator, sustainer, destroyer deity. It was a sort of divine community project.
TheLightWithin
...through a glass, darkly
- Messages
- 1,517
- Reaction score
- 885
- Points
- 108
I read somewhere that Hindu theology was not altogether polytheism, but something called "polynomial monotheism" This was supposed to mean that the teachings did believe in One God, who was expressed in thousands of ways or forms. Is that accurate? Would that mean there was one creator? Or is that not a common view of Hindu theism at all? Not being Hindu and knowing it only on the surface, I know there must be much more to it.
Aupmanyav
Be your own guru.
Hindus have various views about it. For some, it was because of Shiva's dance, for others Vishnu or Mother Goddess Durga ordered it. For some Brahma made it, for others Vishwakarma did that.
juantoo3
....whys guy.... ʎʇıɹoɥʇnɐ uoıʇsǝnb
I politely disagree. He permeates His creations.Unfortunately, they don't. Hindu God himself turned into many (I will be many). Your God remains separate from his creations.
Namaste. I salute the Divine within you.
Aupmanyav
Be your own guru.
Disagreements make life interesting. 'Permeates' is an intrusion. Hindu God himself is the 'it' of everything.
Who is the supreme Hindu god? Is it a trinity of Vishnu, Shiva and Brahma?Disagreements make life interesting. 'Permeates' is an intrusion. Hindu God himself is the 'it' of everything.