God Exists

[DrBarani]

Share:

Facebook X (Twitter) LinkedIn WhatsApp Email Share Link

Fair enough I accept that statement and that I am implicated by it as I have already said so earlier. Notwithstanding my different stands with Sravna, and my critiscism or sarcasm, I have not had anything worse than an argumentative relationship with him, thanks largely to a behavior of patience by Sravna. I have much to disagree with him but a lot of praise for his perseverance and tirelessness.

Sravna I hope you make note of it, that this was an uncontrolled burst of my views when I read your theory of numeral one and its gradual progression towards God. If there is any more distaste left in you, after this, I apologize , sincerely and whole heartedly.

Frankly, I don't think you should be upset about your own funny post to Sravna either.

I enjoyed your post giving titles to his theories. It was a creative piece of work. You should be proud. Not regret. I am certain Sravna also enjoyed that post. He is a gem of a person who can see it with his spiritual eyes!

 

[sravna]

Dear Shri Subbudu,

I would have not made such provocative comments even if I do not understand anything that the author says and if even I consider it nonsense. There needs to be some civilty in the way disagreements are expressed and I thought that was missing in that post.

And folks, I think instead of spending the energy on such digressions I think we should focus on the topic as I think there is still scope for fresh perspectives.

 

[C RAVI]

Dear Shri Subbudu,

I would have not made such provocative comments even if I do not understand anything that the author says and if even I consider it nonsense. There needs to be some civilty in the way disagreements are expressed and I thought that was missing in that post.

I am glad to prove myself right with my thoughts, about your ideologies..

 

[subbudu1]

Dear Shri Subbudu, I would have not made such provocative comments even if I do not understand anything that the author says and if even I consider it nonsense. There needs to be some civilty in the way disagreements are expressed and I thought that was missing in that post. And folks, I think instead of spending the energy on such digressions I think we should focus on the topic as I think there is still scope for fresh perspectives.

I do understand that Sravna as I agree that one does not have one's eyes open to everyone's feelings unless it is pointed out by someone. It is ironical that it has to happen only when you notice somebody else doing parody/mockery or whatever. But I agree that we all need to be sensitive to other's feelings and limit critiscism within context

 

[Nara]

.. If Nara himself is convinced it is not an intention to imitate him, I am ready to fully apologize

Dear Subbudu sir, You have nothing to apologize for. As you note, this is not the first time, and it may not be last time, the mocking continues. As I have stated many times in this forum, I have a thick skin, I can take it.

Cheers!

 

[Nara]

I do not know what is the use of numbers game here. "Overwhelming 80% (scientists) are non-believers". So, ipso-facto, they (80% bracket) are correct?

If such numbers game is to be applied to theists and atheists, theists have won hands down without lifting even the little finger.

Dear narayan sir, I will be the last person to cite majority as proof of the validity of an opinion. If you go back and review you will see that a claim was made that majority of scientists were believers. This was in response to that, nothing more.

Cheers!

 

[Nara]

so much talked about middle finger, and people are not convinced with the context.. how about this post dug from archives.. this context must be ok, i think.
.

ShivKC, I normally try to stay a safe distance away from you, but this time, I have to respond as you have scored a hit. Yes, I did use the term, but not against anyone in the argument. Further, "I" did not flip anybody. Even if I want to apologize there is no aggrieved person to apologize to.

On the contrary, in this instance, it was deliberate, addressed to those on the other side of the argument. You may chose not to see the difference, but I am satisfied there is a big difference.

Thank you ....

 

[subbudu1]

Dear narayan sir, I will be the last person to cite majority as proof of the validity of an opinion. If you go back and review you will see that a claim was made that majority of scientists were believers. This was in response to that, nothing more.

Cheers!

I have this to say here is that what is meant by the word believer is different in different countries. In India a believer is anyone who believes in a little bit about religion and worships god to his liking. So it is possible that a person who does not wholeheartedly believe in Gita and other texts, is still considered a hindu by many people. However,In more orthodox and fundamentalist groups within India there is a difference in definition.

In the context of average American society a believer is a person who believes in the Bible and Jesus Christ, and this translates to similar definitions for other religious people in the context of America. This seems to be more or less the standard kind of definition. But if one has to do that one has to believe the entire story of genesis and the miracles of christ and has to believe in unscientific explanations of world phenomena as listed in Bible, quran or the puranas . How would you be able to do that as a Scientist? But the Hindus and Buddhists find a way. They ignore the passages of unscientific statements as distortions and live in the world of Vedanta and meditation.

In case of those Scientists who actually believe in the puranas and Bible, their survival depends on their belief that lot of things said in the religious texts are metaphors even when there is no intention to make it look like one. I remember reading the interview of the earlier seer of Kanchi - Sri Chandrashekarendra Saraswati to a Japaneese person, who wanted to know if Puranas are meant to be metaphoric. His answer was it must be taken literally. This I feel is an honest answer rather than making wild speculations and producing imaginary readings based on cosmology and modern ideas!

 

[sravna]

Dear Shri Subbudu,

There is no need to apologize.

Folks, let us try to refrain from indulging in personal attacks. If one disagrees with somebody and has no counterarguments let that person not say anything. Let's try to focus on content only.

 

[Nara]

....I did all to substantiate God exists. [....]

If you could scientifically prove the possibilities of all the above impossibilities, I shall join you to debate against theists.

Ravi, I fail to see how human frailty and limitations of science and technology substantiates the existence of God. Please explain further.

Cheers!

 

[ShivKC]

=Nara;87054 Yes, I did use the term, but not against anyone in the argument. Further, "I" did not flip anybody. Even if I want to apologize there is no aggrieved person to apologize to.

On the contrary, in this instance, it was deliberate, addressed to those on the other side of the argument. You may chose not to see the difference, but I am satisfied there is a big difference.

Thank you ....

NARA====She wants to give the middle finger to the man made rules and I support her 100%.

sir, I thought to let this go. since you wrote , let me share few words.

sentiments are person dependent, and here in India, you can often see people showing middle fingers in live telecast. Since you condemned dr.barani's joke, here i share my view.

yes, dr.barani's post talked of showing middle finger to the 'Atheists' not directed to any single person,and was not definitely targeted at you. in your own words of justification, even if he wants to apologize, there is no aggrieved individual, for dr.barani to apologize to.

its the same, in your case too, sadly, even the smiley was missing. but you are slightly tricky with the grammatical usage "Third Person Singular, passive voice". in your case, middle finger was shown to man made rules, for which if I were to sensitize this issue(not but),that, it could even imply that the middle finger was shown to holy men/god men/ who made those rules, which might drastically hurt many orthodox as per indian value system. sadly again, that middle finger was shown to dead-people, whom we address them always with respect in our culture.

the rule of the game remains the same.

shall we let it go, and move to the topic?

 

[DrBarani]

s
shall we let it go, and move to the topic?

It upsets me a lot more when someone tells me "your God doesn't exist!" than if they show some finger to me. I demand apology now! For everytime someone said "god doesn't exist", apology is a must! --- see, I am not smiling! --- We must let it go as soon as the offenders apologize!

 

[ShivKC]

any ways, some how, the pending question is 'who created the god? who was the cause for god? i would attempt in different ways, and let atheist pick whats understandable to them and place their rebuttal

1) when god himself defined as the first cause, when why need a cause for him. its like asking 'Cause for a cause' or what is the temperature of the temperature?

2) past cannot stretch back into infinity:- atheist may refute this foundation claim to falsify the below one, though mathematics/science.



if so, rather past must have had a beginning. if past was infinity, then this universe itself could not have been existing now, and would have caught up in the very future. if one agrees to this, then the universe has a beginning then there must be something outside it that brought it into existence, and we call that as god and first cause.

3) god is defined beyond time and space. its for atheists to prove that something exists beyond time and space


some eg, to make it easy for readers to comprehend.


If I say, that I had just counted down from infinity to zero, starting with “infinity minus zero” and carrying on until I reached “infinite minus infinity, i.e zero, they one would easily say,my claim is wrong. this kind of approach is outrightly rejected here by atheists, when attempted by dr.barani.

let atheists make this simple claim... the past is finite or infinite?

but please dont put the paradoxes again.. well in advance, let me put the standard atheists paradox..if god is so powerful, who made all these prabhanjam, why not he create another on so so big, that god cant lift it

 

[DrBarani]

any ways, some how, the pending question is 'who created the god? who was the cause for god?

Perhaps one wants to know how God is defined to begin with, before trying to question his attributes and origin.

Different people have different definitions.

My definition is a bit mathematical.

He is a SuperSet "S" of all tangibles and intangibles, which includes the NULL set.

One can look at different subsets of this SuperSet and draw his/her own conclusions. Atheists tend to look at the NULL set and claim he doesn't exist. What they are actually seeing is God's ability to appear as nonexistent NULL set, not the notexistence of SuperSet.

 

[sravna]

any ways, some how, the pending question is 'who created the god? who was the cause for god? i would attempt in different ways, and let atheist pick whats understandable to them and place their rebuttal

1) when god himself defined as the first cause, when why need a cause for him. its like asking 'Cause for a cause' or what is the temperature of the temperature?

2) past cannot stretch back into infinity:- atheist may refute this foundation claim to falsify the below one, though mathematics/science.



if so, rather past must have had a beginning. if past was infinity, then this universe itself could not have been existing now, and would have caught up in the very future. if one agrees to this, then the universe has a beginning then there must be something outside it that brought it into existence, and we call that as god and first cause.

3) god is defined beyond time and space. its for atheists to prove that something exists beyond time and space


some eg, to make it easy for readers to comprehend.


If I say, that I had just counted down from infinity to zero, starting with “infinity minus zero” and carrying on until I reached “infinite minus infinity, i.e zero, they one would easily say,my claim is wrong. this kind of approach is outrightly rejected here by atheists, when attempted by dr.barani.

let atheists make this simple claim... the past is finite or infinite?

but please dont put the paradoxes again.. well in advance, let me put the standard atheists paradox..if god is so powerful, who made all these prabhanjam, why not he create another on so so big, that god cant lift it

Let's see what is the atheists position on the following that Shiv asks:

1. Is cause needed for something beyond space and time? or Does such a creator need to be created?
2. How can past stretch back to infinity and if not how can the world have existed without cause?

 

[ShivKC]

dr.barani, most of the mathematical proponents are mainly used to disprove the paradoxes of atheists as well as set in line with to counter the infinite powerful nature of Brahma.

i happened to read some of them through euclidean , non-euclidean geometry on this subject.. though could understand it fairly well, dont want to set argument based on it, cos im not that good in that subject, and things have long forgotten.. see if you could give it a try.

 

[subbudu1]

Theory of Causes - Does the observation that everything around us have a cause imply that the first cause also has a cause? To prove that assumption we need to establish it via induction as at this point we dont have means to know the cause beyond a level N.

So let us see if we can have to establish induction as a notion, is it feasible. If so what are the rules of this game? Having said that if we cannot prove using an induction approach what are the other ways you can prove that anything which has a cause , its cause must also have a cause. My take is that this notion of primordial cause cannot disproven neither proven today.

There is one other thing to add a primordial cause even if it exists may not even fit in with current concept of religionists. It may be a stateless , unconscious seed/original matter(whose properties are unknown) for all future matter. Is it probably the inspiration for a sleeping Vishnu legend- the story at the beginning of creation.

However it does seem to fair enough that such a notion is not entertained by some, as the general observable fact is that everything has to have a cause and that cause is just a set of material phenomenon and not something supernatural. And as a scientist if you already sell yourself to preexisting unproven statements coming from religious texts, then how can you discover something new?

On the otherhand moderate sceptism may help you get some ideas, some prior knowledge of materials not known today,which can be used for further development at a quicker pace. Here why should you redo a job already done before? I am sure many of the facts regarding celestial motion has already become inspiration for further probing by scientists of the earlier era. Similarly a few things like Neem and a few things in Ayurveda are getting highlighted through modern methods. The knowledge was there, but the reasons are probably much better known than atleast a few centuries earlier.

 

[DrBarani]

And as a scientist if you already sell yourself to preexisting unproven statements coming from religious texts, then how can you discover something new?

That is not a valid comparison. In Science we propose problems, design methodology and anticipate a solution, all within a set of rules. It is like playing Cricket with Cricket rules. That doesn't mean we can't play football. We play football when we go there and follow those rules of that game.

There is a subtle line between science and philosophy. Science only deals with observables. Uncertainty principle covers the limits of those observables. Schrodinger's cat example is used to explain that unknowns will remain unknowns if not observed. Thus, it is a preset rule in Science that only observables are within its scope. In philosophy you can use thought experiments, imaginations and creativity. Science will tell you nothing can travel faster than light. I can show you shadow can travel faster than light. Do you know both are right and why?

 

[sravna]

Theory of Causes - Does the observation that everything around us have a cause imply that the first cause also has a cause? To prove that assumption we need to establish it via induction as at this point we dont have means to know the cause beyond a level N.

So let us see if we can have to establish induction as a notion, is it feasible. If so what are the rules of this game? Having said that if we cannot prove using an induction approach what are the other ways you can prove that anything which has a cause , its cause must also have a cause. My take is that this notion of primordial cause cannot disproven neither proven today.

There is one other thing to add a primordial cause even if it exists may not even fit in with current concept of religionists. It may be a stateless , unconscious seed/original matter(whose properties are unknown) for all future matter. Is it probably the inspiration for a sleeping Vishnu legend- the story at the beginning of creation.

However it does seem to fair enough that such a notion is not entertained by some, as the general observable fact is that everything has to have a cause and that cause is just a set of material phenomenon and not something supernatural. And as a scientist if you already sell yourself to preexisting unproven statements coming from religious texts, then how can you discover something new?

On the otherhand moderate sceptism may help you get some ideas, some prior knowledge of materials not known today,which can be used for further development at a quicker pace. Here why should you redo a job already done before? I am sure many of the facts regarding celestial motion has already become inspiration for further probing by scientists of the earlier era. Similarly a few things like Neem and a few things in Ayurveda are getting highlighted through modern methods. The knowledge was there, but the reasons are probably much better known than atleast a few centuries earlier.

Dear Atheists,

The idea that something is caused implies it is happening within the framework of time. So if the cause itself is to be uncaused it has to exist outside the bounds of time. Why cannot you accept this simple explanation? Or in other words do you have an effective counter for this argument?

 

[C RAVI]

Ravi, I fail to see how human frailty and limitations of science and technology substantiates the existence of God. Please explain further.

Cheers!

Ayya,


It is not so tough to have a understanding that human fraily and limitations of sceince and technology and the impossibilities of exploring concepts to turn impossibilities into possibilities, as of now; can not on its own substantiates the existence of God.

Many of us have presented as how the existence of God can be explored as an individual by ourself. There are lots of posts in this angle. As the matter of fact, God is not something that can be laboratory tested and accepted of his existence. And the same were counter argued as silly, ridiculous, illogical etc.

Thus I asked if impossibilities can be turned into possibilities by our sceince and technology.

Ok. Let me ask you one question...

Do you have the belief and confident that, if not now, in future human with the help of science and technology, will achieve the following -

1) Helping women, by enabling men conceive and deliver baby?
2) When ever we need, we can hold Sun for 24 hours?
3) We can create/produe a totally new veriety of plant/flower/fruit etc.?
4) Can we hold time, rewind and fast forward?

I just want to know "YES" or "NO" from your side. Atleast this much is enought for me, as of now.

 

[ShivKC]

Theory of Causes - Does the observation that everything around us have a cause imply that the first cause also has a cause? To prove that assumption we need to establish it via induction as at this point we dont have means to know the cause beyond a level N.

So let us see if we can have to establish induction as a notion, is it feasible. If so what are the rules of this game? Having said that if we cannot prove using an induction approach what are the other ways you can prove that anything which has a cause , its cause must also have a cause. My take is that this notion of primordial cause cannot disproven neither proven today.

.

sh.subbudu, frankly, i couldnt grasp your stand. will try to pick up few lines and present my view. as you think, we are not taking any religiosity approach here to prove god. that falls under faith system, and if we take that argument, then there will be no further discussion with atheists, cos every thing can be shoved under the faith system and we dont need to open a thread here. .. here the questions are posed to try all aspects of maths, science,philosophy to prove existence of god.

your question , first cause also has a cause? how do you state that. it can be approached with the following ways.

1) literal: when the god himself is conceived as 1 st cos, then you are asking another first cause. may be you can try to prove there exists is a Zero cause, or (-1) cause. thats a reasonable approach. please give it a try.

2) Scientific: Cause is a term. its related to momentum/second law of thermodyamics, and all these formula would drastically will fail, you say cause is beyond time-space. If can you have doubt about this claim, i can share a detailed post. I can quote Stephen hawking, who proved, TIME had a beginning which implies Cause had a beginning. tomorrow, a device could be invented to push the universe a Km away, a long lever with sufficient fulcrum can make that CAUSE. but since god is beyond time-space, and being the first cause, no cause can move/tilt him,and no cause can have effect on god.

3)Mathematical: Dr.Barani had shared some good posts, in line with the earlier statements.

3) Philosophical: many a philosophers have attempted to answer this Cause-Time-Space, which can be used to prove the existence of god.

 

[ShivKC]

1) Helping women, by enabling men conceive and deliver baby?
2) When ever we need, we can hold Sun for 24 hours?
3) We can create/produe a totally new veriety of plant/flower/fruit etc.?
4) Can we hold time, rewind and forward?

I just want to know "YES" or "NO" from your side. Atleast this much is enought for me, as of now.

sh.ravi, i think that may be a suicidal argument. with science all these could be possible. tomorrow, it can even make a dead man walk!

but, all this would happen, but only though god's manifestation, cos he holds every thing, what man should do and should not. first lets prove the existence of god, then after explain them, how god can do wonders though human beings,

 

[tks]

any ways, some how, the pending question is 'who created the god? who was the cause for god? i would attempt in different ways, and let atheist pick whats understandable to them and place their rebuttal

1) when god himself defined as the first cause, when why need a cause for him. its like asking 'Cause for a cause' or what is the temperature of the temperature?

2) past cannot stretch back into infinity:- atheist may refute this foundation claim to falsify the below one, though mathematics/science.



if so, rather past must have had a beginning. if past was infinity, then this universe itself could not have been existing now, and would have caught up in the very future. if one agrees to this, then the universe has a beginning then there must be something outside it that brought it into existence, and we call that as god and first cause.

3) god is defined beyond time and space. its for atheists to prove that something exists beyond time and space


some eg, to make it easy for readers to comprehend.


If I say, that I had just counted down from infinity to zero, starting with “infinity minus zero” and carrying on until I reached “infinite minus infinity, i.e zero, they one would easily say,my claim is wrong. this kind of approach is outrightly rejected here by atheists, when attempted by dr.barani.

let atheists make this simple claim... the past is finite or infinite?

but please dont put the paradoxes again.. well in advance, let me put the standard atheists paradox..if god is so powerful, who made all these prabhanjam, why not he create another on so so big, that god cant lift it

ShivKC -

Let me provide the view of Upansihads as I understand them.

Before that let me make a couple of points.

1. Being Skeptical is healthy and until an issue is resolved to our satisfaction we cannot and should not accept any explanation. You seem to have been sincere in trying to get an answer as to 'who created God'.

2. As I said in one of my posts I am convinced *for most part * there are really no atheists here - just pseudo-atheists and 'game players' who are locked up in their own script and like every other people of 'faith' they play games wanting to hold onto their beliefs, form 'gangs' when 'manufactured outrage' is needed now and then.

Let me restate the question: If God created the universe and all of us , who created God, then who created that entity and so on?

Answer: To get a complete answer you have to take up full study, but here is a feeble attempt to explain this in few words. The question has a built in assumption that ' Effect is separate from the Cause' - in other words this 'God' (I like the word Isvara) is separate from you and this Jagat (universe or multi-verse). Upanishads say this assumption is flawed.

Effect is the Cause! There is no infinite regression. That is why You (effect) are Brahaman (Cause), The Jagat (Effect) is Brahman (Cause). Note that the relationship asserted is "IS". That is why Upanishads assert there is ONLY Brahman. We do not have the idea of Many Gods, it is not even one God but ONLY GOD.

Proof of existence of Isvara: Proof that you exist which I hope is self evident!

This will obviously raise other questions but they are beyond the scope of answering this question. For example, are the Taliban, serial killers, etc are all caused by Brahman - Answer is Yes!

But answers to those will take lot more study - the point of the forum such as this is to get initial interest so one can pursue such studies independently.

There is a question that needs to answered before undertaking any study since such endeavor can consume a life time almost. Why should one study this since it does not solve any of our day to day problems? Unless there is absolute clarity here it is not possible to be sincere and pursue this fully.

Please ask other questions within the context of 'who create God'?

Regards

 

[ShivKC]

The question has a built in assumption that ' Effect is separate from the Cause' - in other words this 'God' (I like the word Isvara) is separate from you and this Jagat (universe or multi-verse). Upanishads say this assumption is flawed.

Effect is the Cause! There is no infinite regression. That is why You (effect) are Brahaman (Cause), The Jagat (Effect) is Brahman (Cause). Note that the relationship asserted is "IS". That is why Upanishads assert there is ONLY Brahman. We do not have the idea of Many Gods, it is not even one God but ONLY GOD.

Proof of existence of Isvara: Proof that you exist which I hope is self evident!

sh.tks, im extremely impressed with this approach. ie, god is defined as effect& cause.

I would request you to pose this good view, to our atheists here and convince them for their question 'who created Isvara"..

you gave a good perspective sir.

 

[subbudu1]

Dear Atheists,

The idea that something is caused implies it is happening within the framework of time. So if the cause itself is to be uncaused it has to exist outside the bounds of time. Why cannot you accept this simple explanation? Or in other words do you have an effective counter for this argument?

So if the cause itself is to be uncaused it has to exist outside the bounds of time, why should that be so. It is an assumption that you make in the absence of data.

Stephen hawkins says Time had a beginning. What is there before time had no need for explanation as it was frozen to a point. Why did that frozen point exist and how come it came into existence? It is just the way it is a dense blob whose very nature caused a sudden activity. It needs no further explanation seems more believable than a thinking moving presence which is actually caused by the nature of matter.

There are other theories as well such as the Steady state theory which hold that universe never really started with a blob it was always in some state or the other. Why would that be so, same reason, nature of matter as it exists.

Time is just a factor that we use to measure some activity. Why make it a big deal and look for a conscious presence that exists outside its bounds. When there was activity there was matter when there was no activity there was matter. How difficult to accept that in comparison to believing consciousness existed before time and after time began as well. That something or the other existed right from the beginning is known. There need be no need to make it a conscious factor without evidence.