God Exists

[arunshanker]

Share:

Facebook X (Twitter) LinkedIn WhatsApp Email Share Link

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.

Science itself is about questioning you bet I do Scientific progress rest on falsification falsifiability or refutability is a quality or characteristic of a scientific hypothesis or theory.
Science evolves by questioning and changes and improves upon itself due this questioning
Science is about doubt. This is the most basic principle in science, for every scientist. Always doubt your results, doubt what you see, doubt what you get, and try to refute your own results. For believers, doubt is forbidden. There is no doubt in God.
In science, theory requires evidence. A theory can be refuted and replaced by another theory, given the evidence suggest it. In religion, no evidence is needed and there is only one theory that cannot be refuted nor replaced.
There is not question of faith in science as you can faith means ( I have said that in earlier posts )"We only speak of faith when we wish to substitute emotion for evidence" There is no role for emotion in science
Science is flexible, undergoing changes and paradigm shifts all the time. One day you think you are right, you think that you know something, and the next day you learn that you were wrong. In religion, there is no change, and never will be. There is no room for paradigm shifts, because it means loss of faith.
You said "So If you think the the ways of science themselves are above questioning there are people who would disagree." True I myself disagree just as I said above science itself is about questioning

 

[suraju06]

Hi Arunshankar,

Sruti and just follow it dont probe

In other words what is said is "don't waste time probing what is available in sruti to reinvent the wheel"

Cheers.

 

[sravna]

Science itself is about questioning
Science evolves by questioning and changes and improves upon itself due this questioning
Science is about doubt. This is the most basic principle in science, for every scientist. Always doubt your results, doubt what you see, doubt what you get, and try to refute your own results. For believers, doubt is forbidden. There is no doubt in God.
In science, theory requires evidence. A theory can be refuted and replaced by another theory, given the evidence suggest it. In religion, no evidence is needed and there is only one theory that cannot be refuted nor replaced.
There is not question of faith in science as you can faith means ( I have said that in earlier posts )"We only speak of faith when we wish to substitute emotion for evidence" There is no role for emotion in science
Science is flexible, undergoing changes and paradigm shifts all the time. One day you think you are right, you think that you know something, and the next day you learn that you were wrong. In religion, there is no change, and never will be. There is no room for paradigm shifts, because it means loss of faith.

Science and religion address totally different issues. Whereas Science tries to probe the physical world which requires physical evidence as substantiation ,on the other hand religion is concerned with things eternal, matters that you would need to know and can follow anytime, anywhere.

Religion thus needs very deep understanding of the reality, but it would suffice for science to have a shallower understanding and by that very fact opens itself to questioning of the already established facts whereas religion does not. The latter needs stability of its knowledge.

You just cannot impose the methodologies of one over the other.

 

[sarang]

one word answer, yes, for those who follow sanatana dharma. It is not necessary that everyone has to believe and follow. when asaduddin owasi of hyderabad refuses to discuss quran's credentials in a tv interview, all rationalists, communists and atheists simply nod and swallow air.

It is like saying it is Sruti and it has been revealed and it is old don’t ask questions just believe it

 

[arunshanker]

Science and religion address totally different issues. Whereas Science tries to probe the physical world which requires physical evidence as substantiation ,on the other hand religion is concerned with things eternal, matters that you would need to know and can follow anytime, anywhere.

Religion thus needs very deep understanding of the reality, but it would suffice for science to have a shallower understanding and by that very fact opens itself to questioning of the already established facts whereas religion does not. The latter needs stability of its knowledge.

You just cannot impose the methodologies of one over the other.

I dont agree in fact it is other way round but it would suffice for religion to have a shallower understanding or no knowledge at all ( just agree to what is said and have faith ) Science concerns progress and religion concerns blind faith

 

[arunshanker]

one word answer, yes, for those who follow sanatana dharma. It is not necessary that everyone has to believe and follow. when asaduddin owasi of hyderabad refuses to discuss quran's credentials in a tv interview, all rationalists, communists and atheists simply nod and swallow air.

Exactly there are many religions and many Gods so that each one can have ones own and just not question if you question you are thrown out

 

[arunshanker]

Hi Arunshankar,



In other words what is said is "don't waste time probing what is available in sruti to reinvent the wheel"

Cheers.

What if I invent the magnetic rails by questioning it frightens the Dogmaitic that the dogma may be proved wrong so the order is that dont probe if you probe you may find the truth and that will a problem for us

 

[arunshanker]

Science and religion address totally different issues.

I agree totally to this

 

[suraju06]

What if I invent the magnetic rails by questioning it frightens the Dogmaitic that the dogma may be proved wrong so the order is that dont probe if you probe you may find the truth and that will a problem for us

That is being presumptive. Truth is truth. It can not mean different things to different people-magnetic levitation to one and movement on wheels to another. Are u not dogmatic to presume such outcomes?

 

[zebra16]

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

Hello,

Speaking of dogmas, I would like to have your inputs to the averments you have made, especially the two dogmas which have been reproduced in bold fonts above.

To the best of my knowledge we study "Sruti" to understand it... and Adi Sankara in one of his bhashyas has stated "that even if 100 Sruti statements say fire is cold, it does not become so". I can give reference to the bhashya, if there be need for it. So Adi Sankara did not consider that Sruti is valid, in the areas in which it is not a "pramANa".

So, what is the source or authority for these two statements? Secondly are you open to change your views when evidence to the contrary is presented, or are you dogmatic to the averments made by you?

 

[amala]

In some ways I agree with Mr Arun in that religion or God is faith. Just that. Its not logic. Thats why its called faith. Trust. நம்பிக்கை (nambikai) in Tamizh covers both faith and trust, i believe. When you don't have hard evidence/proof, you have faith/trust whether in people, relationships or God and yes it is emotive, obviously.

Truth can be subjective too. Thats why when i speak sometimes I do say this is my truth, rather than the truth.

 

[arunshanker]

That is being presumptive. Truth is truth. It can not mean different things to different people-magnetic levitation to one and movement on wheels to another. Are u not dogmatic to presume such outcomes?

I am not dogmatic I am exactly the opposite open to change Sruti is dogmatic you cannot change sruti can you
I am presuming an outcome that itself shows I am not dogmatic I am open I feel that there can be many outcomes
looks like you did not get me

 

[arunshanker]

Hello,

Speaking of dogmas, I would like to have your inputs to the averments you have made, especially the two dogmas which have been reproduced in bold fonts above.

To the best of my knowledge we study "Sruti" to understand it... and Adi Sankara in one of his bhashyas has stated "that even if 100 Sruti statements say fire is cold, it does not become so". I can give reference to the bhashya, if there be need for it. So Adi Sankara did not consider that Sruti is valid, in the areas in which it is not a "pramANa".

So, what is the source or authority for these two statements? Secondly are you open to change your views when evidence to the contrary is presented, or are you dogmatic to the averments made by you?

"that even if 100 Sruti statements say fire is cold, it does not become so". Great, No wonder Adi Sankara was a great person
I dont know the authority I only assumed seems I am wrong and the fact that I wrong here make me happy because the two statements are not correct and that in my understanding enhances the value of sruti because we can study it and also question it

 

[arunshanker]

In some ways I agree with Mr Arun in that religion or God is faith. Just that. Its not logic. Thats why its called faith. Trust. நம்பிக்கை (nambikai) in Tamizh covers both faith and trust, i believe. When you don't have hard evidence/proof, you have faith/trust whether in people, relationships or God and yes it is emotive, obviously.

Truth can be subjective too. Thats why when i speak sometimes I do say this is my truth, rather than the truth.

Thanks I may be right or wrong at least somebody sees my point of view here in this thread

 

[ShivKC]

Truth can be subjective too. Thats why when i speak sometimes I do say this is my truth, rather than the truth.

though every thing in the world looks subjective,at the outset, but its not really so. That's one reason for the growth of science and religion, which, both looked beyond the subjective truth, and stretched their hand towards the pursuit of ultimate truth.

for, eg, science doesnt relied on the subjective truth, that we all are living in the same time line, but moved forward to define TIME as a main scale for any EVENTs, thanks to Einstein.

Religion doesnt relied on subjective truths of Egyptians or Ancient Dravidians, that, once you die, what ever is kept along with the dead body in the burial ground, is that what their asset to be carried along for the next life..they pursued further towards the ultimate truth.

Mathematicians are still on the pursuit of the ultimate zero and infinity.

Physics and Chemistry havent yet finished their fight in defining the Ultimate Zero in terms of Deg Celsius or Deg K, be it the highest hot temperature than sun OR the lowest freezing temperature.

So, i agree with you, truth is relative. Truth itself is a relative term, if one wants to call it so..

But there is an another term in English, called as Ultimate Truth.. The whole human race is on the pursuit of it, till today!

 

[sangom]

After quite a long time I received an e-mail notification advising me that there is a pm to me in tbf. That made me visit the forum and to my great surprise I found this thread going strong even now!

I feel it is appropriate to look for the "God concept" within each one of us because such advices have been given by many respected persons like Arunagiriyar, and (I think) Ramalinga Adigalar, Ramana Maharishi and last but not the least (may be the greatest of all) Adi Shankara himself. But unfortunately, due to reasons which are not yet clear, even Adi Shankara's advaita became dwaita in its widespread practice.

GOD is what manifests in the entire universe as the phenomenon of life, activating individual physical bodies - from the microscopic to the macroscopic - and may be life forms not yet known to MAN. It is this very life which makes us believe ever so many things and creates thereby, the illusion that this physical universe is for real. For creatures which are dead, including humans, we do not know whether this universe exists. May be it all appears to have been a mirage or dream.

The thing which manifests as LIFE (which I equate with GOD) is one and the same in all living creatures. But no two lives are identical even approximately except that each life is defined by two fixed markers— Birth & Death. Experiences are outcome of Karmas. Each life modifies the accumulated Karmas either beneficially or adversely and this Karma accumulation prompts a new birth.

In my humble view Adi Shankara's advaita was this but it was couched in a different language suitable to the great Acharya's times and so far we have not really gone deep into it, though there have been very many learned and animated discussions about it.

Let us try to control and modify our Karmas - mano vāk kāya - and seek the mercy of the GODHEAD residing within each of us so that, at least as a first step, let us realize the truth in the following prayer:

sarvastaratu durgāṇi sarve bhadrāṇi paśyatu |
sarvassadbuddhimāpnotu sarvassarvatra nandatu ||

sarve bhavantu sukhinassarve santu nirāmayāḥ |
sarve bhadrāṇi paśyantu mā kaścid duḥkhabhāg bhavet ||

durjjanassajjano bhūyāt sajjanaśśāntimāpnuyāt |
śānto mucyeta bandhebhyo muktaścānyān vimocayet ||

 

[suraju06]

Hi Arun,

I am not dogmatic I am exactly the opposite open to change Sruti is dogmatic you cannot change sruti can you
I am presuming an outcome that itself shows I am not dogmatic I am open I feel that there can be many outcomes
looks like you did not get me

Are you not trying to make a virtue of changeability? Sruti cannot be changed: may be because it reveals truth not relative to time, and for that reason alone it appears to be shunned by you. I think I understand perfectly well what all you are saying.

 

[prasad1]

In some ways I agree with Mr Arun in that religion or God is faith. Just that. Its not logic. Thats why its called faith. Trust. நம்பிக்கை (nambikai) in Tamizh covers both faith and trust, i believe. When you don't have hard evidence/proof, you have faith/trust whether in people, relationships or God and yes it is emotive, obviously.

Truth can be subjective too. Thats why when i speak sometimes I do say this is my truth, rather than the truth.

Truth can not be subjective. If you relate the word Satyam with Truth then truth is always the changeless.
Sri Sankaracharya sums up the entire message of Vedanta in three
crisp aphorism like sentences. They are :


(a) Brahma Satyam, (b) Jagat Mithya, and (c) Jivo Brahmaiva naparah.


Brahman is the all pervasive life principle, consciousness. Not the conditioned consciousness which manifests at the level of brain, but 'that' which exists before & inspite of the manifestation too.Not 'consciousness of something', but the very conscious principle as such. Contrary to what some people believe that 'life' is a product of some chemistry, the Upanishads thunder that Consciousness is that which is the ultimate truth, the timeless & transcendental reality.
Brahma Satyam. The word satya means that which exists in all the three periods of time. Past, present & future. That which transcends time, and is thus timeless. That which exists at all times, that which cannot be effaced by time.

If you are thinking of Truth as the observed facts, that depends on the observer and the circumstances. That is the conditional facts, which is subjective.

 

[C RAVI]

Truth can not be subjective. If you relate the word Satyam with Truth then truth is always the changeless.
Sri Sankaracharya sums up the entire message of Vedanta in three
crisp aphorism like sentences. They are :


(a) Brahma Satyam, (b) Jagat Mithya, and (c) Jivo Brahmaiva naparah.


Brahman is the all pervasive life principle, consciousness. Not the conditioned consciousness which manifests at the level of brain, but 'that' which exists before & inspite of the manifestation too.Not 'consciousness of something', but the very conscious principle as such. Contrary to what some people believe that 'life' is a product of some chemistry, the Upanishads thunder that Consciousness is that which is the ultimate truth, the timeless & transcendental reality.
Brahma Satyam. The word satya means that which exists in all the three periods of time. Past, present & future. That which transcends time, and is thus timeless. That which exists at all times, that which cannot be effaced by time.

If you are thinking of Truth as the observed facts, that depends on the observer and the circumstances. That is the conditional facts, which is subjective.

Very well said, Shri Prasad!!!!

 

[renuka]

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

Not really sir..you see that's why I placed the word "EVIDENCE" in inverted commas..cos you see only one section of society needs "EVIDENCE"..the rest of us just KNOW IT!.

Have you see that song I'm Sexy and I know It?

It's something like that...We just know it!

Hey nice debating with you.

 

[renuka]

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

We are talking about Existence here.
Existence includes everything from the smallest to the biggest.

So my post is still very well within the realms of Logic.

 

[renuka]

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

Dear Arun ji,

I did not say that "Thou should not question..Thou should just accept it".

All I said is "This is the Truth,The Whole Truth and Nothing but the Truth"

You see Truth is the Truth but it is up to us to accept it or reject it.

So at no one time I said "Just accept it and do not question"

We Hindus do not have the "Baa Baa Black Sheep Syndrome" and just say "Yes Sir Yes Sir Three Bags Full" to everything and anything.

Sanathana Dharma is all about logic,questions and answers.

The Geeta itself is in Q and A form.

The Upanishads too are mostly in Q and A form.

In fact Sanathana Dharma should be the interest of any Logician.

 

[renuka]

Since this is the most active thread now...I am pasting this here.

I do not know if the image will show up.

It is about Veda Sourabha 2012

 

[arunshanker]

Truth can not be subjective. If you relate the word Satyam with Truth then truth is always the changeless.
Sri Sankaracharya sums up the entire message of Vedanta in three
crisp aphorism like sentences. They are :


(a) Brahma Satyam, (b) Jagat Mithya, and (c) Jivo Brahmaiva naparah.


Brahman is the all pervasive life principle, consciousness. Not the conditioned consciousness which manifests at the level of brain, but 'that' which exists before & inspite of the manifestation too.Not 'consciousness of something', but the very conscious principle as such. Contrary to what some people believe that 'life' is a product of some chemistry, the Upanishads thunder that Consciousness is that which is the ultimate truth, the timeless & transcendental reality.
Brahma Satyam. The word satya means that which exists in all the three periods of time. Past, present & future. That which transcends time, and is thus timeless. That which exists at all times, that which cannot be effaced by time.

If you are thinking of Truth as the observed facts, that depends on the observer and the circumstances. That is the conditional facts, which is subjective.

Agreed that this is according to Sri Sankaracharya and the vedanta

 

[arunshanker]

Dear Arun ji,

I did not say that "Thou should not question..Thou should just accept it".

All I said is "This is the Truth,The Whole Truth and Nothing but the Truth"

You see Truth is the Truth but it is up to us to accept it or reject it.

So at no one time I said "Just accept it and do not question"

We Hindus do not have the "Baa Baa Black Sheep Syndrome" and just say "Yes Sir Yes Sir Three Bags Full" to everything and anything.

Sanathana Dharma is all about logic,questions and answers.

The Geeta itself is in Q and A form.

The Upanishads too are mostly in Q and A form.

In fact Sanathana Dharma should be the interest of any Logician.

That is what I am trying to get at