God Exists

[nannilam_balasubramanian]

Share:

Facebook X (Twitter) LinkedIn WhatsApp Email Share Link

Whether one believes in God or not, HIS main job continues to create people both people
having faith and other group not having faith to learn slowly in their life prior to death.
HE in turn makes them to get replaced by the ones when that die, so there will be
adequate people in this world to take care of the things that happen on the earth.
HE doesn't create grown-ups straight away, HE only gives infants. It is not that it is
easy for HIM to create a tiny baby. In that way, HE doesn't have to spend HIS valuable
time in this world to teach them directly as to how to talk and , crawl, walk, etc. HE just
leaves that point to the mothers and fathers. Is that not the faith, that we notice
in this world, since creation of every one, including animal takes care of its babies.
We talk of many things without giving a small tinckle to our mortal body, which is
at the behest of the God. The human being consists of two aspects - of an immortal spirit
and of a mortal body. In fact, the flesh comes like a gift of the mother Earth and the
spirit of the father God. Everyone dedicates excessively paying more attention to the first one,
while not looking at the latter one; sometimes one even forgets that it exists.
There is a saying that a shirt is always closer to the body than a costly coat.

Balasubramanian
Ambattur

 

[SANDHYAV]

Hi all,
ISKCON chennai, posts a big banner CENTER OF SPIRITUAL ART in its auditorium. Has done quite a lot of research into vedas etc and proves KRISHNA is the father of father of father of gods. agreed when i accept GOD EXISTS, its puts my mind at rest and saves me unnecessary time wasted in the debate if god exists. thats time management quick reply for a start!!
sandhyavandanam

 

[renuka]

What do you mean "faith in one self" we are talking about faith in God here

Faith is one's self=Faith in God cos GOD is SELF and SELF is GOD.

Aham Brahmaasmi.

This is the Truth the whole Truth and nothing but the Truth.

Truth stands on its own..does not need to be proven cos Truth is never guilty,Truth is always eternal and Truth Verily Exists.

This is Sanathana Dharma.

 

[arunshanker]

Faith is one's self=Faith in God cos GOD is SELF and SELF is GOD.

Aham Brahmaasmi.

This is the Truth the whole Truth and nothing but the Truth.

Truth stands on its own..does not need to be proven cos Truth is never guilty,Truth is always eternal and Truth Verily Exists.

This is Sanathana Dharma.

Nothing is true unless proven
Just beacuse you cannot proove it you say so
There is no logic in your statements, you are forcing your idea
This is called "The tendency to seek distraction and relief from realities, esp. by seeking entertainment or engaging in fantasy"

 

[zebra16]

Nothing is true unless proven
Just beacuse you cannot proove it you say so
There is no logic in your statements, you are forcing your idea
This is called "The tendency to seek distraction and relief from realities, esp. by seeking entertainment or engaging in fantasy"

Hi Arunshanker,

Welcome back (after a long break).... Saw your new poll thread "God" also.

Are there any new stuffs that you can share? It is a logician's delight, is it not, in asking the theists to provide proof invoking the maxim "extra-ordinary claims need extra-ordinary proof/s" and pointing out to "burden of proof"

I have a question to ask of the non-theists. If God is beyond time, what proof can one adduce? To the best of my knowledge there are no time independent proofs. Are there any? Have you come across any such proof?

 

[renuka]

Nothing is true unless proven
Just beacuse you cannot proove it you say so
There is no logic in your statements, you are forcing your idea
This is called "The tendency to seek distraction and relief from realities, esp. by seeking entertainment or engaging in fantasy"

I have a question here.

Can any man prove that his wife loves him?

Just becos she is staying with him and doing all her wifey duties we for sure do not know that she loves him or not.

A man has Faith that his wife loves him.

So same way..Faith in God and Faith that a woman loves her husband is NOT

"The tendency to seek distraction and relief from realities, esp. by seeking entertainment or engaging in fantasy"​

BTW Arun sir, it is not me who is seeking for proof or evidence.

 

[arunshanker]

I have a question here.

Can any man prove that his wife loves him?

Just becos she is staying with him and doing all her wifey duties we for sure do not know that she loves him or not.

A man has Faith that his wife loves him.

So same way..Faith in God and Faith that a woman loves her husband is NOT

"The tendency to seek distraction and relief from realities, esp. by seeking entertainment or engaging in fantasy"
​

BTW Arun sir, it is not me who is seeking for proof or evidence.

Please read my post carefully I did not say faith is ""The tendency to seek distraction and relief from realities, esp. by seeking entertainment or engaging in fantasy" I said faith is "We only speak of faith when we wish to substitute emotion for evidence" that answers the your question "Can any man prove that his wife loves him?" we can only sustitute emotion for evidence here like you yourself have said "for sure do not know that she loves him or not"
I said forcing one idea without logic by just saying it is true it is true several times is ""The tendency to seek distraction and relief from realities, esp. by seeking entertainment or engaging in fantasy"
I do not question faith here I do not say somebody faith is wrong I hope I am clear

 

[arunshanker]

Hi Arunshanker,

Welcome back (after a long break).... Saw your new poll thread "God" also.

Are there any new stuffs that you can share? It is a logician's delight, is it not, in asking the theists to provide proof invoking the maxim "extra-ordinary claims need extra-ordinary proof/s" and pointing out to "burden of proof"

I have a question to ask of the non-theists. If God is beyond time, what proof can one adduce? To the best of my knowledge there are no time independent proofs. Are there any? Have you come across any such proof?

Thanks
The question you asked has an assumption "If God is beyond time" so we must tackle the assumption before answering the question by asking "Is God beyond time" how good is the assumption. Now again we have an assumption here in this question too, the assumption is that " there is God" only when we assume that there is God we can talk about if He is beyond time
so now we have to tackle the second assumption Is there God, if He is there is He beyond time
First of all if you meant Atheist by non-theists then the question is wrong again the Atheist says there is no God then where is the question of God being beyond time

 

[prasad1]

What constitutes as "proof"?

 

[renuka]

I said faith is "We only speak of faith when we wish to substitute emotion for evidence"

I said forcing one idea without logic by just saying it is true it is true several times is ""The tendency to seek distraction and relief from realities, esp. by seeking entertainment or engaging in fantasy"

I disagree..no one is using Faith to escape on technical grounds.That makes it sound like being dishonest.

No one is forcing the idea of God on anyone.
It comes naturally to most of us like how a baby takes it's first breath.

When there is no doubt to start with why do we need to prove to anyone God exists?

Just becos man did not discover Gravity before Isaac Newton did..that did not mean that we could walk off a cliff and still not fall.
It is not as if Gravity came into action only after it was discovered.

or why make it so complicated..before Chris Columbus went on his famous trip that did not mean that America did not exist isnt it?


What the mind does not know does not translate to "it does not exist".

Since you are looking for evidence..my advise to you is keep looking!!LOL

 

[renuka]

What constitutes as "proof"?

Proof is when we found the answer to what we are looking for.

When we can't find answers...it's simple..we just say It does not exist!

 

[renuka]

First of all if you meant Atheist by non-theists then the question is wrong again the Atheist says there is no God then where is the question of God being beyond time

Exactly!! When the Atheists say there is NO GOD then why all the questions from them asking for evidence that God exists?

 

[arunshanker]

I disagree..no one is using Faith to escape on technical grounds.That makes it sound like being dishonest.

No one is forcing the idea of God on anyone.
It comes naturally to most of us like how a baby takes it's first breath.

When there is no doubt to start with why do we need to prove to anyone God exists?

Just becos man did not discover Gravity before Isaac Newton did..that did not mean that we could walk off a cliff and still not fall.
It is not as if Gravity came into action only after it was discovered.

or why make it so complicated..before Chris Columbus went on his famous trip that did not mean that America did not exist isnt it?


What the mind does not know does not translate to "it does not exist".

Since you are looking for evidence..my advise to you is keep looking!!LOL

Again you are not logical
I did not say that you are using "to escape on technical grounds" Please read again I said faith is We only speak of faith when we wish to substitute emotion for evidence
I said you trying to escape proof by just saying repeatedly it is true it is true
Who said Newton found gravity do you think so Gravity is a force that exits and is mathematically and physically provable The expalantion of gravity has changed over time as Physicists study it the understanding of it has evolved
Please understand gravity was not discovered it was understood in terms of physics
Try and make a logical case
You making an Irrelevant appeal which attempt to sway the listener with information that, though persuasive, is irrelevant to the matter at hand. There are many different types of irrelevant appeal, many different ways of influencing what people think without using evidence. In addition you are making wrong analogy
You are forcing an idea by saying "This is the Truth the whole Truth and nothing but the Truth."
if you are not forcing you should say "This is the Truth for me the whole Truth for me and nothing but the Truth for me".

 

[arunshanker]

Exactly!! When the Atheists say there is NO GOD then why all the questions from them asking for evidence that God exists?

Atheists say there no God because there is no evidence of God
So the burden of proof for the proving the existence of God lies with the one who say God exists

 

[renuka]

Again you are not logical

You are forcing an idea by saying "This is the Truth the whole Truth and nothing but the Truth."

if you are not forcing you should say "This is the Truth for me the whole Truth for me and nothing but the Truth for me".

Let me answer each statement.

1)Again you are not logical

Logic depends on the angle you are viewing it from.
Just say an image falls on your blind spot..can you say it does not exist?

So same way..my logic is falling on your blind spot hence appears illogical.

2)if you are not forcing you should say "This is the Truth for me the whole Truth for me and nothing but the Truth for me".


LOL!! is this accepted in the court of law when one takes Oath to speak the Truth?

As far as I know the standard accepted is ""This is the Truth the whole Truth and nothing but the Truth."
Isn't it plain logic here?

 

[renuka]

Atheists say there no God because there is no evidence of God.

OMG that means Atheists are so fickle minded?

You mean to say if tomorrow someone finds "evidence" that God exists there will be mass conversion to Theism?

 

[renuka]

So the burden of proof for the proving the existence of God lies with the one who say God exists

Why should there be a burden to prove anything to anyone?

I myself exists..do I need to yell to the whole world from on top of the hill "Hey world..Renuka exists!!"

People who know me know I exist.
People who do not know me..for them I do not exists.(but that does not mean I do not exist)

So same with God.

 

[arunshanker]

OMG that means Atheists are so fickle minded?

You mean to say if tomorrow someone finds "evidence" that God exists there will be mass conversion to Theism?

Exactly most definitely there will be conversion
Now but you have given yourself away by saying that "if tomorrow someone finds "evidence" that God exists
which implies that there is no evidence today

 

[arunshanker]

Why should there be a burden to prove anything to anyone?

I myself exists..do I need to yell to the whole world from on top of the hill "Hey world..Renuka exists!!"

People who know me know I exist.
People who do not know me..for them I do not exists.(but that does not mean I do not exist)

So same with God.

You are getting more and more far away from logic now don't make irrelevant and unconnected analogies
The talk is not about your existence or gravity or America

 

[arunshanker]

Let me answer each statement.

1)Again you are not logical

Logic depends on the angle you are viewing it from.
Just say an image falls on your blind spot..can you say it does not exist?

So same way..my logic is falling on your blind spot hence appears illogical.

2)if you are not forcing you should say "This is the Truth for me the whole Truth for me and nothing but the Truth for me".


LOL!! is this accepted in the court of law when one takes Oath to speak the Truth?

As far as I know the standard accepted is ""This is the Truth the whole Truth and nothing but the Truth."
Isn't it plain logic here?

Logic is plain and simple and the same there are no angles for logic
Nobody is talking in the court of law here we talking about logic by simply saying the that you are telling the truth you don't prove anything
you are just convincing your own mind
There is no "your logic and my logic" logic is the same for everyone
Try this "Just say an image falls on your blind spot..can you say it does not exist?"
The spot exists but can be seen by other ways so there is no problem there
"This is the Truth the whole Truth and nothing but the Truth."
Isn't it plain logic here? No where is the proof just saying it is the truth several times does not constitute proof

 

[sarang]

My humble opinion is western logic cannot give a conclusive answer to 'indian god' because it is applicable to the visible universe and to what can be derived with human intelligence. To prove or disprove god, we have to accept srutis. Our tarka rules are different from aristotlean logic.

 

[sravna]

Logic has its limitations. It is the intuition that is supreme. Logic is mere ordering of your intuition and is more a means to communication. The deeper the intuition is, the sturdier your logic seems. So in a sense Renuka is right as tomorrow my deeper intuition can find holes in your logic. Only the mechanics of logic doesn't change, though the logic itself may.

 

[arunshanker]

My humble opinion is western logic cannot give a conclusive answer to 'indian god' because it is applicable to the visible universe and to what can be derived with human intelligence. To prove or disprove god, we have to accept srutis. Our tarka rules are different from aristotlean logic.

You mean there are several Gods "Indian God" "American God" if that is the case what does the Indian God consider others as
"because it is applicable to the visible universe and to what can be derived with human intelligence" does it mean we need more than"human intelligence" to know the Indian God
As I see Indians are humans
Logic is simple human reasoning applicable everywhere not just to westerners
Sruti is listening and it is supposed to be revelations
My question is who revealed these and why is that we should not question these revelations
Sruti implies that
You should not doubt it
You should not ask for evidence
You should not study it
You should not propose a change in it
Which means it is pure dogma It is authoritative and not to be disputed, doubted, or diverged from, by the practitioners or believers.
How can one accept such a thing
It is like saying it is Sruti and it has been revealed and it is old don’t ask questions just believe it

 

[arunshanker]

Logic has its limitations. It is the intuition that is supreme. Logic is mere ordering of your intuition and is more a means to communication. The deeper the intuition is, the sturdier your logic seems. So in a sense Renuka is right as tomorrow my deeper intuition can find holes in your logic. Only the mechanics of logic doesn't change, though the logic itself may.

I did not disagree with the fact that if you find holes in my logic I will not accept it
I am open to change but Renuka says is dogmatic just accept what I say dont ask questions and just like you say "It is the intuition that is supreme" and intuitive mind will ask questions but dogma does not allow questions and is not open to change
It is like saying " it is true it is true it true" dont ask any questions
We also use intuition to get new ideas of all kinds, to generate novelty and make innovations, but dogma does not allow that it says it is Sruti and just follow it dont probe

 

[sravna]

I did not disagree with the fact that if you find holes in my logic I will not accept it
I am open to change but Renuka says is dogmatic just accept what I say dont ask questions and just like you say "It is the intuition that is supreme" and intuitive mind will ask questions but dogma does not allow questions and is not open to change
It is like saying " it is true it is true it true" dont ask any questions
We also use intuition to get new ideas of all kinds, to generate novelty and make innovations, but dogma does not allow that it says it is Sruti and just follow it dont probe

Do you question scientifically established facts and knowledge? I bet you don't . The reason, surprisingly for you, is FAITH. You have total faith in the scientific process starting from its premises, its methodologies etc etc. BTW, can you prove such premises and methodologies are not questionable? You cannot.

In the same way, a large number of people totally trust the wisdom of our ancestors and follow it without questioning.

So If you think the the ways of science themselves are above questioning, there are people who would disagree.