How did he learn about “God”? - From his teacher - Sawan Singh. Did you do any research?
Unfortunately researching the exact details of his childhood from an infant until about 7 or 8 years old is very limited. Your answer however is incorrect, as Kirpal Singh did not learn about “God” from Sawan Singh. In his early life Kirpal Singh learned about “God” from many other sources including yogis and mystics and did not choose to follow them. Kirpal prayed to “God” on his own prior to meeting and eventually following Sawan Singh.
I cannot find any information on the parents of Kirpal, however unless Kirpal was an orphan, he was likely raised by his parents and raised with some concept of “God”.
Was he told about “God” from someone else, his parents perhaps? Yes, that is where I suspect Kirpal Singh learned about “God”, from his parents. His teacher - Sawan Singh. No need to make up what is not true.
Where exactly did I make anything up? I asked a question. It seems you answer confirmed exactly what I expected. He learned about “God” from someone else. As I state before, your answer is incorrect.
Just about every spiritual or religious person (if not all) learn about “God” as children, from the people who raise them. Sweeping statement again we have is books and all dedicated to his teacher. The sign of a true human being who claims nothing for the knowledge he has but says it is his Masters.
Do children not learn from their parents? People make lots of claims in books and attribute their knowledge to others, it doesn’t mean what they are saying is true. They might even say a few things that are true, but again, that doesn’t mean everything they say is true.
Why do you insist on being gullible? Is it not the easier path to simply believe what you read or hear instead taking the hard path of thinking for yourself and asking tough questions?
This is a serious problem as children will believe almost anything including true and untrue things.More sweeping statements. Parents always wants the best things for their children. Not necessary what you want them to teach their children. Which in my opinion has no moral agenda or leader. You need to fix that problem first to claim it is a problem of others.
Do children not believe their parents when they say “Santa Claus is coming to town” or “put your baby teeth under your pillow for the tooth fairy”?
Are children not impressionable?
Do you even understand what the problem is? Do you not understand how it could be possible that a child could be raised to believe something that is not true?
Do you honestly think children are raised only to believe what is true?
Perhaps you think a theist is raised perfectly to only know what is true. Ah, but where is the evidence for this? Why is there such an abundant amount of evidence that humans are imperfect and are capable of believing untrue things, especially if raised by their parents to believe said untrue things?
Simply having a desire to know “God” proves nothing. It proves that one has that desire. Because that sets up their determination for the rest of their life on who and what they want to be.
Okay fine, it proves they have a desire to know something for which its claimed existence has no evidence.
The equivalent of desiring to know “God” is a desire to know “unicorns” or a desire to know “Santa Claus”.
Some children may also have a desire to know Santa Claus, however eventually children figure out the truth or they are told the truth that Santa Claus is imaginary. Nonsense -- we are talking about real people and their desire to know what they know - not imaginary ones. Selective Bias at work and you do not see it.
“Desire to know what they know” = “Selective Bias at work and you do not see it”
Are you saying things and then responding to yourself or are you projecting?
A person having a desire to know what they know is exactly selective bias at work. Do you knot see that?
These real people we are talking about had a desire to know something which is imaginary. Please stop wasting my time and provide evidence that what these real people supposedly knew is not actually imaginary.
There is no evidence that Santa Claus actually exists. So, where is the evidence that “God” actually exists?One is a story to feed our minds to be a better human being the other is what our individual consciousness being part of the all consciousness. There is evidence the theists have been saying exists - Life comes from God. They know this and you don't. Neil De Grasse said he did not know where life comes from and not afraid to admit that. Theists say they know where life comes from and is not afraid to say that.
I’ll repeat myself.Please stop wasting my time and provide evidence that what these real people supposedly knew is not actually imaginary.
It is fair to say, people who assume things with zero supporting evidence for their assumptions are idiots.
No it is not fair at all. You are making sweeping judge mental statements. Very inappropriate for someone to select such a bias about another human being they have no knowledge off. You should first try to prove he is an idiot through something he has said or written or know because you were in his class. But to base your judgement on something so intangible is based on your selective bias processing. Human psychological error - not science.
If you read what I said again, I never made a judgment about anyone specifically (not until later in my reply). I merely said that people who assume things with zero supporting evidence for their assumptions are idiots. Making assumptions with zero supporting evidence could be considered lacking in sense, judgement or discretion and given to unintelligent decisions or acts and subsequently is exactly what would be described as idiotic.
Why exactly is it not fair to say someone who makes assumptions without supporting evidence is idiotic?
Your response appears to be misdirected from where I conclude that Kirpal Singh is an idiot. Are you becoming defensive?
For instance, if I were to assume that aliens from another planet are stealing my socks to fuel their intergalactic space ships, I would be an idiot. If I were to assume my 14-speed bike can fly me to the moon, I would be an idiot.Indeed your idiocy would have started with your assumption without evidence.
So you agree with me that it is fair to say that someone who assumes something without evidence is idiocy. Yet before you say it is not fair. Can’t make up your mind?
Or perhaps you like it if I call myself an Idiot, but you become defensive if someone you believe is speaking the truth might be considered an idiot?
Is that selective bias on your part? You seem to be mentioning that a lot in your reply, are you projecting?
I can’t speak for Graybeard, but for me it would be my educated stance that Kirpal Singh is an idiot. I say that not as an insult, but as a evaluation.That's what I am worried about. Your ability to make claims about other people who you do not know and have not studied and you would call that an educated stance. Don't you think it is Selective bias?
Oh, I’m sorry, do you know everything about Kirpal Singh? I didn’t realize you were close personal friends with him and knew everything he knew. Wait, I thought you said you didn’t know “God”?
Hmmm, I sense some doublethink going on here. Let’s see, you know that Kirpal Singh knew “God”, yet in order to know that, you would have to know everything about Kirpal Singh including knowing “God” yourself yet you don’t know “God”.
Jesuis, I think you are very confused. Why do you keep claiming to know things?
You see, I never said I know Kirpal Singh is an idiot. I said it was my educated stance. That means, based on what I know, I think he is an idiot. I don’t know everything do I, so I don’t know that he is an idiot, I merely think that he is an idiot based on what I know. Additionally, I never made a claim about Kirpal Singh, I merely stated what I thought based on what I know. In fact, you are the one making claims about Kirpal Singh, that he knew “God” yet you have provided no evidence that he actually knew “God”.
Yet, you know that Kirpal Singh knew “God”. How do you know if you don’t already know “God”? The only way for you to know that Kirpal Singh actually knew “God” is if you yourself already know “God”.
Please stop projecting your selective bias onto me.
What someone wants to be from an early age has nothing to do with being an idiot. Obviously you have not been paying attention. Everyone if free should be allowed to follow their dreams, to have their purpose of life fulfilled.
Again, you are projecting because it is obvious that you have not been paying attention. I never said anyone shouldn’t be free to follow their dreams. Read what you are responding to, what I said, in other words, is that following ones dreams is not what makes someone an idiot.
You have already agreed that what makes a person an idiot is when they assume things with no evidence.
Who gave you the dictatorial powers over what should or should not be studied?
I never said anything about what should or not should not be studied. I think people should be free to study what they want. In fact, I’ve implied exactly the opposite of what you are implying I am saying.
Your selective bias is causing you to misinterpret what I am saying.
If you say you want people to have morals you would need to have an authority be it the king, the state , the army or the President. You need a moral authority. Theists say God is that moral authority.
Why exactly do we need an authority to provide morals? Why is a moral authority necessary?
Are you familiar with the Euthyphro dilemma?
The Euthyphro dilemma is a simple question regarding moral authority which makes the idea of a moral authority being necessary self defeating.
The question is as follows:
Is something morally good commanded by “God” because it is morally good OR is something morally good because it is commanded by “God”.
Interesting enough, this “urge” to learn and know things has developed over millions of years through evolution and is what has helped the human race survive. Whose story is that???
That is the story told by the Theory of Evolution, which uses the scientific method to do research and come to conclusions about how life functions.
You don't really know what life is or how it survives.
You are correct, I do not know for sure what life is or how it survives. Then again, I’m not claiming to know anything with 100% certainty, unlike you. In order to know something with 100% something, you must know everything with 100% certainty. It is your mistake, thinking you know things like that “Theists” know “God”.
I, in stark contrast to your claims of knowing things you can’t possibly know, am only interested in believing that which sufficient evidence has been provided.
We want to know if there is a lion in the bush that is about to kill us, we want to know about the trails used by animals so we can hunt, we want to know about the cycles of the seasons so we can learn what time of year is the best time to plant crops. Observation is one of the things we use to navigate the world, but it is not the only thing. Feral children would prove you are not on the right track.
Your response does nothing to refute my statement. Feral children are individuals, evolution deals with entire populations. What exactly are you claiming about feral children? That they do not have desires to know things? If that is your claim, do you have evidence to support your claim?
Incidentally, your claim would be meaningless anyway even if it were true, as feral children are not the norm, feral children do not outnumber non-feral children and therefore contribute less to the evolution of the human race.
Unfortunately, simply wanting to learn or know things isn’t enough as a person has to put work into learning and knowing, and has to care if what they learn or know is actually the truth.I am sure if you read Kirpal Singhs books you would find that this is very important to him and to his followers.
I don’t have any doubt that Kirpal Singh says things that are very convincing, unfortunately, saying things is easy.
Some people however take the easy way out of doing the hard work it takes to learn and know things, and just make stuff up like “God exists and created the universe”. Yes some do - however it does not apply to Kirpal Singh.
Why exactly? Where is the evidence that came from the hard work done by Kirpal Singh? My research has only shown Kirpal Singh to merely say things and take the easy way out by making stuff up. Perhaps your research has found the evidence for the existence of “God”, if you have please share it, I am very interested.
Knowing God is not the same as saying God did it.
Saying you know something doesn’t mean you actually know. Where is the evidence that Kirpal Singh actually knew “God”?
How many book has he written?
My research has found that Kirpal Singh has written between 18 and 23 books (some of the books were split into multiple volumes) and 8 booklets.
What education standards did he reach? –
I couldn’t find any information on his educational background besides what different philosophies he studied.
What lack of attention to detail in the books he has written has indicated he lacked intelligence on the subjects he taught?
I haven’t found that he has provided any evidence that “God” exists, which means he is merely assuming “God” exists without evidence.
Perhaps your research has identified the evidence that “God” exists. Could you please provide that evidence or at least a source to that evidence?
Clearly if you were going to say he was an idiot I would have expected a better research than sweeping statements based on your personal group bias.
What you thought were sweeping statements, didn’t actually have anything to do with me determining that Kirpal Singh is an idiot. No, you are merely assuming that is how I made that determination. Perhaps you should ask questions before you assume things or at least acknowledge that you are making an assumption instead of simply claiming to know things.