How do I know what's true?

[Newcomer4831]

This might be a two parter: how do you guys deal with opposition to the other side that claim evidence against your religion? [ideological, philosophical, or scientific]

Also, what "test" exist to prove that a religion of any kind has any truth in it? If there exist, I would like to see how it applies to Hinduism. Just for fun.

[Maxel]

This might be a two parter: how do you guys deal with opposition to the other side that claim evidence against your religion? [ideological, philosophical, or scientific]

To date, I've found nothing cogent enough to convince me my religion is wrong. The best arguments brought against my faith are inadequate to shake my faith, and I don't see any veracity in said arguments.

Also, what "test" exist to prove that a religion of any kind has any truth in it? If there exist, I would like to see how it applies to Hinduism. Just for fun.

The test of the truth of a religion must be found within the religion itself, in my opinion. If, however, that test goes against the nature of the world, then that test is inadequate.

How's that for vague? More simply put, I would say the burden of proof lies with God Himself- either He must make Himself manifest to us so that we understand the message He is relaying, or else we cannot know one way or the other. If a religion is non-theistic, then I have no idea. It makes me glad I've already found what I believe to be the right religion. As far as Hinduism goes, I have no idea what the religion claims for itself, so I have no idea what test might be fairly given to it.

[Newcomer4831]

I would like to answer my own question: I have found no faults through various searching to find one thing wrong. Not even a reasonable claim, a scientific claim or a philosophical claim that says otherwise. I'm a open person, however if there is one flaw in one place, one place challenged, then I can assume the rest of the religion is bunk. If I have to somehow bend my understanding, search for answers for a challenged conclusion, or just have blind faith in something because evidence explains some of it; then that belief does not hold my interest.

A non-theistic religion, fyi, finds its basis on nature. Whether it's God provided nature or science explain nature, that is where a non-theistic religion such as Jainism or Buddhism claims it's findings. From nature we see certain "laws" that exist, one of which is that nothing holds it's same form forever. Even the sun, in the 15 billion years of glorious sunlight, will eventually die, and the universe through a phenomena known as the "big rip" will also die as well. And I find it fascinating that 500 years before the birth of Christ, that Heaven, Hell, the Afterlife, God(s), Saints, Demons, and Angels are all explained. Yes, even the presence of the Holy Ghost, which could be explained in the form of Jhanas, existed in a religion that didn't even know of Yewah, Abraham, Jesus, or Joesph Smith.

[Maxel]

I would like to answer my own question: I have found no faults through various searching to find one thing wrong. Not even a reasonable claim, a scientific claim or a philosophical claim that says otherwise. I'm a open person, however if there is one flaw in one place, one place challenged, then I can assume the rest of the religion is bunk. If I have to somehow bend my understanding, search for answers for a challenged conclusion, or just have blind faith in something because evidence explains some of it; then that belief does not hold my interest.

I don't mean to offend, but if this is the manner in which you search for truth then you will find it nowhere. I'm no scientist, but perhaps someone else can explain to you the differences and controversies that can be found within science itself.

The idea that the bending of one's understanding or searching for answers to a question is the sign of a 'bunk' religion will only lead to a person being a die-hard atheist who doesn't question anything. It is the ultimate apathy. It is the philosophy that can slowly lead to the flat refusal of any truth being given to man. Because of the nature of learning and growing, the understanding and learning of new truth requires us to bend our understanding and search for answers. A religion that didn't require any of that would be a religion of lazy ease, and entirely false.

A non-theistic religion, fyi, finds its basis on nature.

So there's no discernible test for truth there, except inasmuch as nature seems to coincide with the principles of the religion?

Whether it's God provided nature or science explain nature, that is where a non-theistic religion such as Jainism or Buddhism claims it's findings. From nature we see certain "laws" that exist, one of which is that nothing holds it's same form forever. Even the sun, in the 15 billion years of glorious sunlight, will eventually die, and the universe through a phenomena known as the "big rip" will also die as well. And I find it fascinating that 500 years before the birth of Christ, that Heaven, Hell, the Afterlife, God(s), Saints, Demons, and Angels are all explained. Yes, even the presence of the Holy Ghost, which could be explained in the form of Jhanas, existed in a religion that didn't even know of Yewah, Abraham, Jesus, or Joesph Smith.

I'm not surprised either, and that fits well into our belief that from the very first man, the Gospel of Christ was taught to all the children of men (Moses 5:58).

[Islander]

I would like to answer my own question: I have found no faults through various searching to find one thing wrong. Not even a reasonable claim, a scientific claim or a philosophical claim that says otherwise. I'm a open person, however if there is one flaw in one place, one place challenged, then I can assume the rest of the religion is bunk. If I have to somehow bend my understanding, search for answers for a challenged conclusion, or just have blind faith in something because evidence explains some of it; then that belief does not hold my interest.

A non-theistic religion, fyi, finds its basis on nature. Whether it's God provided nature or science explain nature, that is where a non-theistic religion such as Jainism or Buddhism claims it's findings. From nature we see certain "laws" that exist, one of which is that nothing holds it's same form forever. Even the sun, in the 15 billion years of glorious sunlight, will eventually die, and the universe through a phenomena known as the "big rip" will also die as well. And I find it fascinating that 500 years before the birth of Christ, that Heaven, Hell, the Afterlife, God(s), Saints, Demons, and Angels are all explained. Yes, even the presence of the Holy Ghost, which could be explained in the form of Jhanas, existed in a religion that didn't even know of Yewah, Abraham, Jesus, or Joesph Smith.

Newcomer:

I am a social scientist by training. I would suggest, however, that looking for scientific evidence of God is the wrong way to approach matters of faith. The claims of Christianity (let's leave the rest aside for now) are fantastic, to say the least. Trying to visualize the creation will give you mental meltdown. Think of it; a burning-talking bush in the middle of the desert?

We could stretch our imagination and theorize how these phenomena could take place. Such theories would not bring you any closer to truth. The fact is that the exercise begins with faith for it rests on revelation from the mind of God to your mind. We were not eye witnesses to the events in the bible but the Spirit of God can and will reveal to you the reality of such. But first you MUST have the desire to believe, in faith.

Naturalistic religions have always existed. There are thousands garden variety religious cults on the planet, most you never heard of. They are, primarily philosophical abstractions that hinge on a more or less random element or perhaps naturally occurring phenomena. The notion of deity is always an attachment but they never started that way. They have been kept in the dark because their oral histories have not been carried across the world by the sword as others have. Because they have been limited by chance and geography. Inca and Maya religious traditions had a much stronger scientific and historical component than the ones you site as examples. They did not expand and perished by pure accident or fatalistic fortuity, depending on who's talking. We could spend a year debating the merits of my statement here.

We can not rationalize or theorize about the nature of God and the possibility of His existence. It is and always has been a futile intellectual exercise. It always leads to the philosophical diatribes of the last 2000+ years.

Just some thoughts.

Edited March 26, 2009 by Islander

[Newcomer4831]

I am a social scientist by training. I would suggest, however, that looking for scientific evidence of God is the wrong way to approach matters of faith. The claims of Christianity (let's leave the rest aside for now) are fantastic, to say the least. Trying to visualize the creation will give you mental meltdown. Think of it; a burning-talking bush in the middle of the desert?

We could stretch our imagination and theorize how these phenomena could take place. Such theories would not bring you any closer to truth. The fact is that the exercise begins with faith for it rests on revelation from the mind of God to your mind. We were not eye witnesses to the events in the bible but the Spirit of God can and will reveal to you the reality of such. But first you MUST have the desire to believe, in faith.

We can not rationalize or theorize about the nature of God and the possibility of His existence. It is and always has been a futile intellectual exercise. It always leads to the philosophical diatribes of the last 2000+ years.

Just some thoughts.

Oddly enough, I actually came to know more about the Hindu God of creation, Krishna, first than Yewah or Jesus. [Not entirely true, of course I knew who Jesus was, but didn't know details. Just saying that I knew the finer details of Krishna than Jesus] With that said, Arjuna could only see the world through the divine eyes Krishna gave him. So saying that normal people cannot see what God sees isn't anything new.

However as a Buddhist I would say that you should concentrate on your own being and mind. As for truth, truth being things we know are real such as suffering, such as death, such as conservation/decay/cause & effect.

Here's a story you might be aware of:

A man was walking down the street and he gets shot with a poison tipped arrow. A doctor rushes to his side and says "sir, we must remove the arrow." The person shot proclaims he doesn't want the arrow removed until he knows the reason the arrow it was shot, whether the person who shot the arrow was tall or short, fat or skinny, bad or evil. The doctor searches for the person, but the man eventually dies from the poison without ever knowing the answers to his questions.

You are right, we cannot or will not know all the facts, however we should concentrate on our own problems when they arise but be humble enough to know that we all eventually die.

[Islander]

Oddly enough, I actually came to know more about the Hindu God of creation, Krishna, first than Yewah or Jesus. [Not entirely true, of course I knew who Jesus was, but didn't know details. Just saying that I knew the finer details of Krishna than Jesus] With that said, Arjuna could only see the world through the divine eyes Krishna gave him. So saying that normal people cannot see what God sees isn't anything new..

I think we are not talking about faith here. At least I get the impression that your definition of it is quite different from mine. You no more know that what you describe above is true than the account of Jesus walking on water in the Sea of Galilee.

[Newcomer4831]

I don't mean to offend, but if this is the manner in which you search for truth then you will find it nowhere. I'm no scientist, but perhaps someone else can explain to you the differences and controversies that can be found within science itself.

The idea that the bending of one's understanding or searching for answers to a question is the sign of a 'bunk' religion will only lead to a person being a die-hard atheist who doesn't question anything. It is the ultimate apathy. It is the philosophy that can slowly lead to the flat refusal of any truth being given to man. Because of the nature of learning and growing, the understanding and learning of new truth requires us to bend our understanding and search for answers. A religion that didn't require any of that would be a religion of lazy ease, and entirely false.

(Moses 5:58).

I do not get offend for myself, however I do get offended for other people. So if you have something, this goes out to anyone, please say so. Being humble is a luxury when you are faced with someone who is not humble themselves.

However, please find a place of controversy in Buddhism. Whether in science or in philosophy. I know there is small bits of controversy in people themselves. Such as the Dalai Lama. Despite what he's done [good or bad], he is a contradiction to what the Buddha taught; the Buddha set up a rule for monks not to engage in politics, however a Dalai Lama by definition is a political leader. You also learn that Tibetan Buddhism was setup a millenia after the death of the Buddha. There are many things that they do that is not present in early Buddhism as is added after by men in power. I would like to believe that China's rule over Tibet is just Karma for acts deemed ignoble by Devadetta himself years before.

Tibetian Buddhism aside, I have yet to find any evidence against Buddhism. FYI, there is a theory from M-theory that states that branes become active and that the big rip isn't the end of the universe, such in a manner that the whole big-bang and big-rip events become a cycle. Just as the Buddha said, everything truly is [like] a illusion.

[Newcomer4831]

I think we are not talking about faith here. At least I get the impression that your definition of it is quite different from mine. You no more know that what you describe above is true than the account of Jesus walking on water in the Sea of Galilee.

I'm sorry, for some reason I thought you knew the story. But in India, there was a great war as suggested in the epic "The Mahabharata" which is similar to Troy, where there might or might not have been an actual war. Arjuna is troubled to fight in the war and is counseled by the Lord Krishna who tells him that Krishna is the creator and the destroyer. And that a man must give him complete devotion and do what he is asked of. And you are right, I don't know the full events of the war, but if you take the Mahabharata as witnessed events, then it's somewhat believable. [Arjuna and Krishna talk in the middle of the battlefield before the war is engaged.]

[Maxel]

I do not get offend for myself, however I do get offended for other people. So if you have something, this goes out to anyone, please say so. Being humble is a luxury when you are faced with someone who is not humble themselves.

I don't know if I'm being reprimanded here or not. Regardless, I apologize if I came off as rude, condescending, and/or haughty.

However, please find a place of controversy in Buddhism. Whether in science or in philosophy. I know there is small bits of controversy in people themselves. Such as the Dalai Lama.

If I were to apply your own test of finding one flaw or inconsistency within a religion meaning that religion is false, then this right here is enough to 'prove' Buddhism false (FYI, I don't think Buddhism is 'false'; this kind of example was one reason I rejected your earlier idea about how to find if a religion is true or not). I would like to know what Buddhism presents as a test of its truth, if there is such a test extant in Buddhist doctrine.

Tibetian Buddhism aside, I have yet to find any evidence against Buddhism.

It is good that you feel so strongly about your faith! I can join you in that I have found no evidence against my own faith; in fact every search into Mormonism's history and theology presents more evidence that it is true.

Personally, I believe one can know of the truth of any matter- including (nay; especially) religious matters- through the power of the Holy Ghost. Throughout my life, I have found it a constant companion and testator that has taught me and guided me on the right path.

[ceeboos_boss]

Oh boy here we go............

[rameumptom]

Given that all religions have a human element in it, all have potential errors and problems. That being the case, parts of all religions can be "disproven".

There is no "proof" for any religion. There are evidences, however. One must review the discussion diligently. I would suggest on any religion, to closely study its claims from friendly sources first, and only THEN look at negative sources afterward. Any religion first seen from a negative source can look like a demon incarnate religion that taints our attempts at unbiased research. If we study friendly sources first, then we can see all the anti-claims from a better standpoint.

On his mission, my bishop had a couple people wanting to rub his head, to feel the bumps of his horns. They got that from negative sources. Clearly it was rubbish, but it was convincing enough for those people to believe it. Had they began their study of Mormonism from friendly sources, they easily would have seen that we sand off our horns at an early age, so they are not noticeable.

The key isn't finding a religion with all truth, as most religions have at least some truth - otherwise no one would consider them. The key is continually seeking truth wherever you may find it.

[rameumptom]

Oddly enough, I actually came to know more about the Hindu God of creation, Krishna, first than Yewah or Jesus. [Not entirely true, of course I knew who Jesus was, but didn't know details. Just saying that I knew the finer details of Krishna than Jesus] With that said, Arjuna could only see the world through the divine eyes Krishna gave him. So saying that normal people cannot see what God sees isn't anything new.

However as a Buddhist I would say that you should concentrate on your own being and mind. As for truth, truth being things we know are real such as suffering, such as death, such as conservation/decay/cause & effect.

Here's a story you might be aware of:

A man was walking down the street and he gets shot with a poison tipped arrow. A doctor rushes to his side and says "sir, we must remove the arrow." The person shot proclaims he doesn't want the arrow removed until he knows the reason the arrow it was shot, whether the person who shot the arrow was tall or short, fat or skinny, bad or evil. The doctor searches for the person, but the man eventually dies from the poison without ever knowing the answers to his questions.

You are right, we cannot or will not know all the facts, however we should concentrate on our own problems when they arise but be humble enough to know that we all eventually die.

A true Buddhist would realize that all things of this world are illusory, not real. Real truth comes not in worldly experiences, but in seeking Nirvana or Enlightenment - which has nothing to do with this world.

As for your story of the poisoned arrow, A Buddhist would not focus on the fact of being hit by an arrow, nor of the person who shot it, but on how he can focus on enlightenment in his final moments. Buddhists believe in an afterlife, after all. Reincarnation occurs only for those who have not found complete enlightenment. The same concept occurs in Hinduism. The being who finds total enlightenment achieves his/her final incarnation at that point.

So the Christian and Buddhist truth issue is similar: How does on "prove" reincarnation or resurrection? You can't. They are matters of faith.

For Mormonism, there is one additional phase to it: we claim modern prophets who see through God's eyes (as you would put it), via revelation. Often, a group of Mormon prophets have seen the same revelation together. That is something that one does not see occur in other religions. Buddhists can meditate together, but reach Nirvana alone.

As for a "test", Jesus said that "by their fruits ye shall know them." That is one test you can use. Beyond that, tests go into the spiritual realm. Mormonism has a test of asking God in faith, in the name of Jesus, if the Book of Mormon is or isn't true; and you receive the answer through the power of the Holy Ghost. For a Buddhist, this reasoning is difficult, since he would not believe in God nor in Jesus, necessarily.

As for Arjuna and Krishna being believable because the Mahabharata is used as a historical rather than religious book, why not do the same with the book of Mormon, the writings of Homer, the Bible, and Upanishads? Each obviously have some true sayings and truths in them, but are they actually historical enough to consider them so reliable as to contain the actual discussions a couple beings have on a battlefield?

[Guest Alana]

Not sure if this is what you're looking for, but I only have one reason why I believe The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints is the one and true church. After reading the Book of Mormon I prayed and asked if it was true. The feeling I got was indescribable (I can try, but it would be so lacking) and just incredible. I've never felt anything like that before. I suppose I would say it was a spirit to spirit communication. Now, any one can argue with me about a 'feeling' after all, our minds can do some crazy things. But I remember how that felt and I feel it at other times in varying intensities and I know it's the spirit witnessing something to me. SO that's how I know. How I deal with arguments against it, well, I don't need to argue with them, because I know. It's as though this 'spirit to spirit' feeling is stronger and clearer to me than even the most basic and obvious logic (2+2=4 for instance) So, let them argue away, I know what I experienced.