God Exists

[DrBarani]

Share:

Facebook X (Twitter) LinkedIn WhatsApp Email Share Link

(Frankly, I do not what it means - Dr. Barani, or anyone else, if you can, please elucidate). If they do converge to a value, is it no more infinite regression and will that objection fall?

Infinite regression = to do with number of cycles

Convergence = answer to the totality of the regression

Number of cycles can be infinity. The final answer can be finite.

In math, it is like SUM (i = 1 to infinity) of some function. Often when it is rewritten as an INTEGRAL, one can integrate the function and find a final answer. Either one can sit and calculate it term by term infinitely (and claim it is not possible) or one can smartly convert it an integral and solve it in two minutes and demonstrate that it is possible.

The better word to use is "Recursion" than "Regression", but I chose to stay with original term to avoid sounding like a professor.

 

[DrBarani]

That is the reason the first cause should have been something that is beyongd space and time.

First of all, many people consider even the space and time are "infinite", so to take them out of that and then explain something that is not space and time is a difficult challenge.

However, I will give it a try.

Time is not an absolute parameter. It is a relative parameter. It is a measure of events. Like a pendulum oscillating. If the pendulum doesn't oscillate, does time progress? It doesn't.

The Universe is governed by time-independent laws. This means, if you reverse the time variable the laws will still hold good. For example, momentum conservation laws are universal laws, but not energy conservation laws. Therefore, the apparent notion of time passing along in one direction is very illusional, time can reverse and it will be perfectly within existing scientific laws.

 

[Raghy]

Who's a Doctor?

Dear Raghy:

I am against indiscriminate use of the word "Doctor". In my view it must be given to a person who has earned it via rigorous credentials. That's why I call the holders of the following (not limited to) degrees as Doctors:

MD
PhD
DSc
JD etc. etc.

I will call a person with an MBBS as a physician. My reference to what's happening in Haiti is just to point out how the word "Doctor" is abused.

In no way I intended to hurt anybody by my statement. Ms. RK is a fine person, although I believe she is deep into "Superstition and Fear" called Theism. What to Believe or Why to Believe is her Civil Right, I admit.

Some how, of all the protests by the "angry theistic gang", I felt to address you on this issue.

Kindly

Y

ps. My position on this issue is nothing to do with whether Medicine as practiced in the US is superior to any other place or not. Or whether a degree from Manipal is good or not.... they are issues manufactured by the other Vedic people! Lol.

Dear Sri. Yamaka Sir, Greetings.

I request you to take the whole discussion in a more lighter way, please.

Sowbagyavathy Renuka had not demanded anyone to address her as 'doctor'. Only some members choose to address her by that title. Out of about 100 posts directed to her, I seldom addressed her as 'doctor'. So, the detailed explanation, 'who should be called Doctor' is out of place here. The whole thing seems like, you said something, now you like to defend your statement. There is no need for that.

I request you to consider a very important position, please; Sowbagyavathy Renuka is not participating in this forum based on her profession. So, what others call her at her place of work is not important.

Lastly, you do concede she is a physician. Well, a physician is also has a title 'doctor'. Kindly look at this, please. Physician - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia . There is no need to split the hair.

Although she did not show it, don't you think, your comments would have hurt Sowbagyavathy Renuka's feelings? Do you really think it is necessasary in relevance to the discussions at hand?

I request you to have the last word, please. Thanks.

Cheers!

 

[Nacchinarkiniyan]

To ALL the Theists who can solve problems on some logical equations:

1. Do you believe that Gods are Merciful, Omnipotent and All Knowing?

2. Do Gods control every movement of everything in this world?

If you do, then you have a theological responsibility to answer "Why so much poverty and sufferings all around us, in India and elsewhere?"

"Yaen Kadavul Engale Padachan, Samihala, so poor and downtrodden?"

​Peace to ALL.

"Yaen Kadavul Engale Padachan, Samihala, so poor and downtrodden?"


This is asked by those "Religious Bhaktas" trapped inside the Gates of Hell of Poverty everywhere.... I am only asking the self-proclaimed Theists to answer them.


If they ignore, then it's fine with me..


These poor people are not asking for "huge wealth", rather a little better life in this wretched world.

Who is the typical poor family (in about 800 million people in total) in India?

The man earns about Rs.4000 per month.. he has a wife taking care of the family of two older unmarried daughters and the youngest son. Five people must live with Rs. 4000 income a month....these people are very religious; they all believe that their personal God is Omnipotent, All Knowing and Most Merciful....they worship God very many times a day!

Please see my post

http://www.tamilbrahmins.com/general-discussions/6798-god-exists-18.html#post86538

Now the question is Do all Hindus believe that Gods are Merciful, Omnipotent and All Knowing?

The truth is that they do not.

Let me explain;

The Hindus are famous for performing Pujas, Homas, Pariharams etc. etc to please the Gods. The basis of this is the Vedic concept of performing sacrifices to please the gods.

Again we hear of Daiva Kurram from the Astrologers. The God is angry, he tells you and asks you perform pariharams.

These rituals and practices go totally against the often repeated statement that Gods are merciful. Puranic stories again and again repeat the argument of the wrath of the Gods.

2. Do people believe the Gods are Omnipotent and All Knowing?

No. They do not. Ask any Tamil Brahmin. He will tell you that you have to worship Vigneswara before any ritual as he can creates obstacles. The question will arise how the God to whom the Puja is dedicated is not able to take care of the obstacles?

Then Astrologers tell you that even Gods are affected by the ill will of Saneeswaran and will quote Puranic stories.

You still think that for Hindus the gods are Omnipotent?

Now there is a facile assumption that if you pray to GOD, all your problems would be solved. Especially the belief that you would become prosperous and would be protected against all calamities.

A reading of the stories of Bhakthas like Bhaktha Vijayam or Peria Puranam reveals that this assumption is wrong. You find that almost all the Bhakthas were poor. Many of them suffered throughout their lives.

When I was given Mantra Deeksha, my Guru told me that I have to undergo suffering if I am initiated. He repeatedly asked me whether I am prepared for that.

In these days every one tries to promote his/her Gods. Most of the arguments are not between Atheists and believers, but between different group of believers who proclaim their God to be the supreme and all powerful. They promote temples, pariharams.

But that is not based on the basic principles of Hinduism.

For this propaganda, the concept of all merciful, omniscient, omnipotent Gods who seek to ensure that all the people of the world prosper become necessary. This propaganda also serves a useful purpose socially. The poor and the downtrodden have nothing to look forward to. They live in the hope that things would improve. Belief in God gives them that hope. They trust in God.

When the day comes when we have a really representative government which is able to fulfill the aspirations of the people, the belief in Gods will take a back seat. But that day is very far off. What has happened is that we have raised the expectations of the poor and downtrodden, without being able to fulfill them.

 

[ShivKC]

god is defined as something, nothing greater can be conceived. the greatest conceivable thing. ie, no one can think of anything that is greater than god. even if a person does not believe that god exists, as long as the person believes this definition of god, this very such explanation of god itself, he has to accept the existence of god by logic.

the next question is if such god exists in your mind or he exists in reality also, and can i see the god? it again takes us back the very same definition of god.

since god is defined as the highest conceivable one, one can also conceive the same god to be a reality. corollary is, if god failed to exist, it would be, that than which nothing greater cannot be conceived will be a wrong statement.

 

[DrBarani]

god is defined as something, nothing greater can be conceived. the greatest conceivable thing.

Sometimes I like to think of God as our Brain and humans as our finger. The brain can see the finger, the finger cannot see the brain. The brain can exist without the finger, the finger cannot exist without the brain. But are fingers and brain different? They are part of the whole embodiment, which is again perceived only by the brain. So, what is the role of the finger? Bhagwat Gita says do your duty. The finger is supposed to do its duty.

As part of that duty, my middlefinger is shown to nonbelievers!

 

[C RAVI]

Sometimes I like to think of God as our Brain and humans as our finger. The brain can see the finger, the finger cannot see the brain. The brain can exist without the finger, the finger cannot exist without the brain. But are fingers and brain different? They are part of the whole embodiment, which is again perceived only by the brain. So, what is the role of the finger? Bhagwat Gita says do your duty. The finger is supposed to do its duty.

As part of that duty, my middlefinger is shown to nonbelievers!

Kalakittenga pongay!!!!

Little finger is shown to bathroom
Ring finger is shown to a boy/girl
Middle finger is shown to nonbelievers
Index finger is shown to right knowledge/truth/deeds
Thumbs up is shown to achievement/success/fabulous performance

Thumbs up to you Sir..

 

[N.R.Ranganathan]

Sir / Madam,

After all these discussions running into 230 exchanges of views,
arguments and counters, what is the conclusion ? Does HE exist
or not ?

 

[C RAVI]

Sir / Madam,

After all these discussions running into 230 exchanges of views,
arguments and counters, what is the conclusion ? Does HE exist
or not ?

Sri N.R.Ranganathan,

IMHO,

If majority of the arguments are in favor of "God Exist" - Than "God Exist"
If few arguments are in favor of "God does not Exist" - Than "God Exist"
If few arguments are expressing confusion "Not sure if God Exist" - Than "God Exist"

Acceptances, rejections and confusions if exists, it means "God Exist" without doubt, in his fullest control.

 

[renuka]

Sometimes I like to think of God as our Brain and humans as our finger. The brain can see the finger, the finger cannot see the brain. The brain can exist without the finger, the finger cannot exist without the brain. But are fingers and brain different? They are part of the whole embodiment, which is again perceived only by the brain. So, what is the role of the finger? Bhagwat Gita says do your duty. The finger is supposed to do its duty.

As part of that duty, my middlefinger is shown to nonbelievers!

Dr Barani,

hastasya bhUShaNaM daanaM satyaM kaNThasya bhUShaNaM
shrotrasya bhUShaNaM shaastraM bhUShaNaiH kiM prayojanam


You have give some the ultimate "Daanam" for the hand in the form of a simple extension of the 3rd Metacarpophalangeal joint.

 

[sravna]

Sir / Madam,

After all these discussions running into 230 exchanges of views,
arguments and counters, what is the conclusion ? Does HE exist
or not ?

Dear Shri Ranganathan,

Only you can answer that for you. Others cannot. Finally it boils down to what appeals to your mind.

 

[Nacchinarkiniyan]

Yamaha had shot off a number of questions which are supplementary to the question of the existence of God.

But what he has failed to understand is that these questions have been asked time and again by all believers. In fact the believers have more questions than the non-believers.

We have been seeking answers to these questions for thousands of years.

The Hindus propounded half a dozen Karma theories in answer to these questions. Of these theories only two assign a role to God. The older theories do not assign any role to God.

They created Swarga, Naraka, the different Lokas like Pithru Loka. All in an attempt to answer the questions.

But the answer has not been found.

Will never be found.

It is like trying to find an answer to the question of creation of the Universe. Theories abound. But no answer.

 

[C RAVI]

Well said Shri Nacchinarkiniyan,

To add to your comments..

The remote control in the hands of God, can allow us to get the answer. Still that answer can be only for one self who attempts requesting activation of the remote, to God. To get that favor, we got to free our mind/brain from all wants, desires, expectations and all sorts of feelings/emotions If we could achieve this, we would realize that we are close to the answer for our self, within our self. When we realize that we are dumbs before the supremacy of some supernatural power, we will have the answer that "God exist".

This answer that "God exist" is only the self realization and can just be shared with others. For others to believe substantially, the other has to go through the similar process.

Unless the other gets into the same process and realize, it would be considered only as blind belief out of fear of the believers.

If we want to believe the existence of God clearly without ambiguity and without rejecting our mind/brain from all wants, desires, expectations etc, we would be realizing that the concept of God is nothing but a paradox.

It is than up to us to decide what we want? Should we become dumbs to prove our self that God exist? Should we continue to hold rational brain and all its desires and never to believe in God? Should we continue to hold rational brain and belief in God together and hold righteousness through out life?

 

[renuka]

Time for us to relax with a nice Punjabi song about God(comes with translation) Note the title of this song is Sai and it means Lord here and its NOT a song on Sathya Sai Baba.

‪Satinder Sartaj - Sai‬‏ - YouTube

 

[DrBarani]

Sir / Madam,

After all these discussions running into 230 exchanges of views,
arguments and counters, what is the conclusion ? Does HE exist
or not ?

If you have seen God in your dreams or even in your imagination, then yes, he exists. Thought experiments are no different from real experiments, since both send the signals to the same section of the brain for cognizance.

 

[tks]

But the answer has not been found.

Will never be found.

It is like trying to find an answer to the question of creation of the Universe. Theories abound. But no answer.

Sri Nacchinarkiniyan -

This is an opinion / belief, not a categorical statement of truth. There are no answers to inconsistent questions.
For example questions like 'creation of the universe' has no meaning when the concept of creation does not exist in an absolute sense.

Question such as 'what was 'before' big bang' has no meaning in the current model of the universe in Physics because the concept of space and time did not exist 'before' or even immediately after the so called big bang!

Most questions that seemingly have no answers in this thread or result in apparent paradox has to do with wrong assumptions ("Have you stopped beating your wife/husband?" type questions) or wrong logical framework (thanks to DrBarani for sharing this insight).

Upanishads do teach the right set of questions, teach why they are the right questions, provide a compelling resolution without contradiction and a logical framework to make all this understandable. The path to this knowledge requires immense preparation and even before that one has to answer the question why one wants to learn this. It does not promise resolution after death or any such vague promises but here and now. The effort required could last a lifetime.

This knowledge cannot be acquired by any amount of Poojas and rituals.

No one has to take my word and can consider these statements as my understanding. In the end one has to discover the truth of this on their own with the help of a right teacher.


Regards

 

[Nacchinarkiniyan]

It is facile to assume that we could find all the answers in the Upanishads. I am sorry. This is the orthodox Tamil Brahmin view. I do not agree.

I only wish it were true.

I am sorry that the assumption is always that you have not asked the right question or you have not had the right teacher. We hear it so often. Then we say you are not mature enough to understand the answers. Your understanding is shallow.

Pujas and rituals do not teach anything. They are practices. They were not intended for that purpose.

I do not know whether I had the right teachers. My Guru Parampara goes back to generations. Then I have been guided by other enlightened teachers.

But no enlightened teacher ever claims that he knows all the answers.

Of course everything boils down to a question of beliefs/opinions. Including the one about finding all the answers in Upanishads.

Unfortunately this is the type of answer which leaves most people who ask such questions in frustration and anger.

 

[DrBarani]

It is facile to assume that we could find all the answers in the Upanishads. I am sorry. This is the orthodox Tamil Brahmin view. I do not agree.

I only wish it were true.

I am sorry that the assumption is always that you have not asked the right question or you have not had the right teacher. We hear it so often. Then we say you are not mature enough to understand the answers. Your understanding is shallow.

Pujas and rituals do not teach anything. They are practices. They were not intended for that purpose.

I do not know whether I had the right teachers. My Guru Parampara goes back to generations. Then I have been guided by other enlightened teachers.

But no enlightened teacher ever claims that he knows all the answers.

Of course everything boils down to a question of beliefs/opinions. Including the one about finding all the answers in Upanishads.

Unfortunately this is the type of answer which leaves most people who ask such questions in frustration and anger.

I think Upanishads and other masterpieces of yesteryears have great amount of knowledge that have not been translated into simple words for our simple minds. When we exhaust that Library of knowledge, we may be able to ask better questions than the ones we did so far. I am not sure anyone claimed that any single treatise has answers to all questions. But many do try to explain some of the naive questions we repeatedly ask.

 

[Nara]

For anything to exist in space without a cause it has to be self created. This definitely doe not make sense. Otherwise it should have remained in space for infinite time. The concept of infinite time also does not make sense. That is the reason the first cause should have been something that is beyongd space and time.

sravna, all this is baseless conjecture. You have nothing to show there is anything beyond time and space, let alone there is an entity in that whatever. You further assume that only entities in time and space need a cause, but the entity outside it can just self create itself, why is this so? You own word, experience, intuition, don't count.

Cheers!

 

[sravna]

sravna, all this is baseless conjecture. You have nothing to show there is anything beyond time and space, let alone there is an entity in that whatever. You further assume that only entities in time and space need a cause, but the entity outside it can just self create itself, why is this so? You own word, experience, intuition, don't count.

Cheers!

I gave the reasons

Do you think self creation is possible?
The other possibility for jagat to not have a cause is for time to have no beginning or end. The reason this doesn't make sense too is because if the past is infinite how would be ever have arrived to our present?

The only possibility where the notion of creation doesn't exist is the world beyond space and time.

 

[renuka]

Sat Pratyayaah Kim Nu Vihaaya Santam.(Saddarshanam Ramana Maharishi)

Can there be thoughts of Existence without the princple of Existence?


Naasato Vidyate Bhaavah Naabhaavo Vidyate Satah(Gita2.16)

There is no Existence of Non-Existence nor Non-Existence of Existence.

 

[kunjuppu]

I think Upanishads and other masterpieces of yesteryears have great amount of knowledge that have not been translated into simple words for our simple minds. When we exhaust that Library of knowledge, we may be able to ask better questions than the ones we did so far. I am not sure anyone claimed that any single treatise has answers to all questions. But many do try to explain some of the naive questions we repeatedly ask.

drb,

what is the use of having esoteric outputs, if they are to be consigned to the libraries or to the few minds, who claim they understand it all.

the beauty of a work is in its simplicity, i feel.

it should be spread to one and learn, so that the entire mankind benefits from those thoughts for its betterment.

a knowledge is knowledge, when folks understand and appreciate it. i may not understand e=mc squared, but enough has been written and propagated to understand the power of that equation. i think same should go with upanishads or gita or the vedas: unless commentaries and abridgements are produced and distributed to the masses, these today would be condemned, i think, to the dungheap of history.

written by a few, for the benefit of a few, to me, is useless. especially in these days of mass media and instant communication. any literary work, has an opportunity, today, to be heard, spread and practised in large numbers. so too, it is easy to be obscurized.

the upanishads and such, are even more likely to gather dust, if the attitude prevails, that these are beyond the grasp of the common man. i think that is an insult to the intelligence of the common man, and somehow, to me, vaguely smacks of the arrogance of the old timer tambrams, that i grew up with... no place for such ideas today, and even more importantly, tomorrow.

anyway, that is what i think.

 

[suraju06]

Most questions that seemingly have no answers in this thread or result in apparent paradox has to do with wrong assumptions ("Have you stopped beating your wife/husband?" type questions) or wrong logical framework (thanks to DrBarani for sharing this insight).

Upanishads do teach the right set of questions, teach why they are the right questions, provide a compelling resolution without contradiction and a logical framework to make all this understandable. The path to this knowledge requires immense preparation and even before that one has to answer the question why one wants to learn this. It does not promise resolution after death or any such vague promises but here and now. The effort required could last a lifetime.

This knowledge cannot be acquired by any amount of Poojas and rituals.

The most relevant and succinct statements about the topic in this thread so far. Dear tks, I appreciate your understanding of the matter.

 

[DrBarani]

drb,

what is the use of having esoteric outputs, if they are to be consigned to the libraries or to the few minds, who claim they understand it all.

the beauty of a work is in its simplicity, i feel.

it should be spread to one and learn, so that the entire mankind benefits from those thoughts for its betterment.

a knowledge is knowledge, when folks understand and appreciate it. i may not understand e=mc squared, but enough has been written and propagated to understand the power of that equation. i think same should go with upanishads or gita or the vedas: unless commentaries and abridgements are produced and distributed to the masses, these today would be condemned, i think, to the dungheap of history.

written by a few, for the benefit of a few, to me, is useless. especially in these days of mass media and instant communication. any literary work, has an opportunity, today, to be heard, spread and practised in large numbers. so too, it is easy to be obscurized.

the upanishads and such, are even more likely to gather dust, if the attitude prevails, that these are beyond the grasp of the common man. i think that is an insult to the intelligence of the common man, and somehow, to me, vaguely smacks of the arrogance of the old timer tambrams, that i grew up with... no place for such ideas today, and even more importantly, tomorrow.

anyway, that is what i think.

I am not sure if they were intended to be complex and deliberately designed for a few.

As an example, take the subject of mathematics. To begin with, it was simple arithmetic, it became geometric, then algebra, then vector algebra, tensors then linear algebra, further became complex into group theory, and into Field theory.... and endlessly getting more abstract for even PhDs to catch up quickly. Upanishads must have evolved in a similar manner and became complex. It is not their fault. We want everything simple like a fruitcake and don't want to climb trees to pick the fruits.

My point is, complexity of a subject should not be regarded as an obstacle. Complexity is a requirement for some subjects. Human body is complex. It is made up of so many DNAs and proteins, metabolic pathways. Is it possible for anyone to explain the whole human body in one page of text? Why should we shy away from difficult subjects? Can one explain how a plane is able to fly with that much load, to a common man, without fluid dynamics? Reynolds number? Can anyone explain to me how internal combustion engine in the car works without a course in thermodynamcs and Carnot's cycle? Why do we accept complex subjects for science but demand one liners for Philosophy?

 

[Yamaka]

Dear Sri. Yamaka Sir, Greetings.

I request you to take the whole discussion in a more lighter way, please.

Sowbagyavathy Renuka had not demanded anyone to address her as 'doctor'. Only some members choose to address her by that title. Out of about 100 posts directed to her, I seldom addressed her as 'doctor'. So, the detailed explanation, 'who should be called Doctor' is out of place here. The whole thing seems like, you said something, now you like to defend your statement. There is no need for that.

I request you to consider a very important position, please; Sowbagyavathy Renuka is not participating in this forum based on her profession. So, what others call her at her place of work is not important.

Lastly, you do concede she is a physician. Well, a physician is also has a title 'doctor'. Kindly look at this, please. Physician - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia . There is no need to split the hair.

Although she did not show it, don't you think, your comments would have hurt Sowbagyavathy Renuka's feelings? Do you really think it is necessasary in relevance to the discussions at hand?

I request you to have the last word, please. Thanks.

Cheers!

Dear Raghy:

Thanks for your response.

1. Yes, Ms. Renu did not start this "doctor" discussion. I answered to post #161, where the poster claimed "Dr. Renu here is the REAL Doc". Please see my post #164. And her post #185.

2. I did not say a word about her post #185 because we have had similar silly talks before... she has ridiculed me as "Yamakananda" "LoLa" etc, which I enjoyed. She knows that.

3. I believe the mischievous players are "middle men" who demanded an apology from me. You bought into their "venom" unfortunately.

4. I have opined on the matter of who is the REAL Doctor. That's all. Nothing more.. nothing less.

5. Ms. Renu has said very clearly that she is doing very well with just MBBS and a diploma in Family Medicine in Malaysia (monetarily speaking). Please read her posts answering my response.

I wish her well as a physician; I am sure, in spite of her deep religious belief, she will be a successful physician serving the community.

Take care.

Peace.

Y

ps. I don't want to dwell on this issue any further - Foreign Medical Graduates in the US who are managing with just an MBBS are in real legal liability, and therefore they will be very upset if they come to know of elaborate discussion here on this issue. Cheers.