God Exists

[Yamaka]

Share:

Facebook X (Twitter) LinkedIn WhatsApp Email Share Link

"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!" -Subbudu1 wrote.

Very well said... Thanks.

Cheers.

 

[sravna]

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.

Because the only other possibility is to assume that the first cause existed within time but time itself had no beginning. This wouldn't make sense because time would not seem to move. Therefore first cause necessarily has to beyond space and time and being the first cause has to be conscious and intelligent.

.

 

[Yamaka]

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!

Some men created Organized Religions and their Gods to control, dominate and to exploit the Society and the unsuspecting innocent people, period, IMO.

Man can now create humans by cloning! God is not required!


"Why did Gods create us this poor and downtrodden, Samihala?" - Puthupatti Residents.

 

[subbudu1]

Consciousness and Unconsciousness - Two divergent approaches to explain cause of universe

We in this forum and the same is applicable outside us follow one or the other divergent approaches and there is the ambivalent side of course.

To the early man consciousness was taken for granted. Consciousness was seldom questioned in a way for explaining its root from matter. Matter itself was more mysterious and could think?

However today we still have proponents of the consciousness theory. What is the difficulty we have no evidence of consciousness outside some kind of living matter. It is almost like consciousness is a consequence of living matter. Infact people will say that this is what distinguishes living from the non living. The consciousness of the lower organisms is far more elementary than humans. If it was as high then it would be self evident. So it is lower and approaching zero somewhere. Now in the past people believed in ghosts. Today also they do, photos also exist. Has anyone seen a ghost no, but they have always heard of someone who has seen one. So in total there is no kind of consciousness outside living matter and hence never detectable- this would be an obvious conclusion. If consciousness is proven to exist independant of matter today then only the question arises whether or not it existed in the same way yesterday.

Unconscious theory of matter does no such presuppositions , it has seen that there is nothing but matter which seems to be the cause of everything, therefore it looks for the origin of matter, jumping ahead without bothering on consciousness.

The consciousness theory could still be right but if there is one single evidence that consciousness exists outside the realm of matter, leave alone time, it will be a tough contender. Until then it will refuse to come out of religious texts into the mainstream science.

 

[C RAVI]

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,

Dear Shiv,

For atheists, all our explanations are bogus...We also could accept that the proof of God is "We exist". But atheists are saying that, out of our blind belief and illusion we make such claims...

So I feel, why not to put questions the other way and see how assertive atheist are and what they could understand out of those questions...

I still hope that sh. Nara would give his replies for my one question to him (YES or NO, pertaining to possibilities of turning impossibilities into possibilities in future by humans).

 

[subbudu1]

Because the only other possibility is to assume that the first cause existed within time but time itself had no beginning. This wouldn't make sense because time would not seem to move. Therefore first cause necessarily has to beyond space and time and being the first cause has to be conscious and intelligent.

.

The essential problem with this approach that you are presupposing something(consciousness ) to be the first cause and outside the bounds of time when that has not been explained how it is beyond time and outside limits of material effects. There is just no proof that consciousness exists outside a certain subset of material effects and further is not bound by time. This is the central problem and is not an obvious solution to a tougher problem.

 

[sravna]

Dear Shri Subbudu,

Let us first agree whether first cause being beyond time is the only solution for who created god puzzle. If you agree on that consciousness can be said to exist independent of matter. I have given my reasons for why that is indeed the only possibility. It is now up to you to give your reasons why it cannot be so?

 

[sravna]

The essential problem with this approach that you are presupposing something(consciousness ) to be the first cause and outside the bounds of time when that has not been explained how it is beyond time and outside limits of material effects. This is the central problem and is not an obvious solution to a tougher problem.

I am not presupposing but I am inferring consciousness because the first cause has to be conscious. Consciousness cannot exist in us if first cause is denied that. It is also only consciousness because it is outside space and time.

 

[subbudu1]

Dear Shri Subbudu,

Let us first agree whether first cause being beyond time is the only solution for who created god puzzle. If you agree on that consciousness can be said to exist independent of matter. I have given my reasons for why that is indeed the only possibility. It is now up to you to give your reasons why it cannot be so?

Dear Sravna I cant presuppose that there was a first cause. The steady state theory is still alive .

Let us start with this agreement that there is a possibility that there is a first material(including energy ) cause for all materials.Now let us proceed based only on this statement.

 

[sravna]

Dear Sravna I cant presuppose that there was a first cause. The steady state theory is still alive .

Let us start with this agreement that there is a possibility that there is a first material(including energy ) cause for all materials.Now let us proceed based only on this statement.

The steady state theory has to be rejected because of the notion of infinite time which is not possible because time has moved on to our present which would not have occurred if it had no beginning..

 

[ShivKC]

Dear Sravna I cant presuppose that there was a first cause. The steady state theory is still alive .

Let us start with this agreement that there is a possibility that there is a first material(including energy ) cause for all materials.Now let us proceed based only on this statement.

lets go in your own way.. lets say, if there is a first material or first energy, there is always a human quest or scientific quest, how the first energy/matter was formed and who made it? please attempt to answer this, sure you will take a nose dive to our old argument.

again, in another post i read, you were brushing aside time/space argument. its true, one can purely rely on philosophical mode, which may not be appealing to scientists.

for any argument which needs to be constructed in an understandable way in line with science, we need to take this time=space=cause in to account.

otherwise we cannot engage in a discussion with an atheist, who ask the proof of god in a scientific way. this is what dr.barani is attempting all though. for you, please choose a platform by which you want to present your argument. pls dont mix up both.

 

[ShivKC]

Some men created Organized Religions and their Gods to control, dominate and to exploit the Society and the unsuspecting innocent people, period, IMO.

Man can now create humans by cloning! God is not required!


"Why did Gods create us this poor and downtrodden, Samihala?" - Puthupatti Residents.

that was just a bantering, and no way connected to the serious discussion which is going on here.

anyways, i'm not denying, that man can always create humans, or for that matter, made a dead man walk in future.. its all possible with the god given brain.

but can a man create another dog, without the using god given Mass or Energy? can your man make something from nothing, ie, without using mass and energy?

if so, as per the definition claimed here by atheists, that particular man would definitely be a god.

 

[tks]

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.

Sri ShivKC - This view is not mine - it is from the Upanishads!
Thanks for your comments.

If someone is serious - whether they are Hindus or Muslim or self proclaimed Atheist or someone who is afraid of revealing their religious identity - I would be happy to engage and answer if I have the knowledge to share or learn from them if they have something useful to teach me. In other words, we need people who are mature, respectful with a well developed sense of integrity for an honest debate.

Regards

 

[Yamaka]

"but can a man create another dog, without the using god given Mass or Energy? can your man make something from nothing, ie, without using mass and energy?"

So far, man has cloned dozens of animals! Man has enormous knowledge to do anything including cloning himself and others!

I asked the Title Companies here, "Do you think God owns any mass - movable or immovable - properties or Energy companies?"

They said, "None".

Yes, that's the truth! Is this a banter? Not really... Lol

 

[nachi naga]

when we think in liner progressio there is first cause or a beginning.when its cyclic in nature,that which has no beginning nor end,then we experiance the advaitha.its actually simple but we humans make things complex sometime but not all the time.my understanding is because of body attachment we confine ourselves and limit ourselves,the true liberation lies in the fact that we are spirit souls having a body,performing our karmas brought about in physical life.we have been existing as bodies in past life ,present life and future life forms too.an never ending cycle.god is the karana as well as the effect for the affect.god is having the this huge sea of life forms animate as well as inanimate,we are one within the lord not seperated at all but have this illusion of being seperated owing to ignorance.

 

[Nara]

..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.

Ravi, this is what I am asking you to do, instead you are saying it is not tough to understand. I submit to you, it is tough to understand and I promise you, it is not because of lack of trying on my part.

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.

The arguments presented so far are all assertions and conjectures of one type or another. sravna keeps saying the creator god is outside time and space and therefore does not need prior cause. Why is this so, he offers nothing but his intuition as authority.

Others have said there are logical paradoxes, that there are infinite series of numbers that converge to a finite number, that science is inadequate to answer many questions. In what way this proves the proposition is never even considered.

Upanishads mostly contain inane stuff including silly creation stories -- conceded, not quite as silly as the biblical ones -- but quite silly nevertheless, going to elaborate lengths to define elements such as thanmathrai, mahath, ahankaram, etc., as part of creation, none of which has any basis in reality. Whatever little interesting speculations we find in them are so vague that many great and revered scholars have arrived at diametrically opposite interpretations. So, the elusive truth about the existence of God is extremely unlikely to be found in the Upanishads, unless you have a birth based reverence to them, then of course they contain pearls of wisdom waiting to be unlocked.

So, Ravi, I agree with you that many have made lot of presentations, but, for the reasons stated above, my considered opinion is, none of these many presentations speaks to the proposition "God Exists" in anyway that is in the least bit persuasive.

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

I have no idea what amazing things human ingenuity can produce. We are at the cusp of figuring out how to grow various body parts from our own stem cells. Some thinkers now predict that soon human knowledge would have advanced enough that we can live for hundreds, even thousands of years by getting our body parts replaced as they wear out. So, it is impossible to give a definitive YES or NO answer, even though I can say men will never get pregnant, why would they, even if it became feasible? Be that as it may, all this does not still have anything to do with the proposition "God Exists".

I request you once again Ravi, please address the proposition "God Exists" directly, and give your best supporting arguments.

Cheers!

 

[nachi naga]

its so child like when i read atheist arguments of no god.its like saying the atheist were born denying copulation of a man sperm and female egg.just because atheist did not witness his/her creation,they will deny the co-creators of man and woman.

 

[tks]

Sri Nara -

In Post #441 you say "none of which have any basis in reality".

1. Can you provide a precise definition of what you mean by "Reality"
2. Can you given an example that provide 'Basis'

If you dont want to answer tough questions or engage I fully understand

 

[tks]

"but can a man create another dog, without the using god given Mass or Energy? can your man make something from nothing, ie, without using mass and energy?"

So far, man has cloned dozens of animals! Man has enormous knowledge to do anything including cloning himself and others!

I asked the Title Companies here, "Do you think God owns any mass - movable or immovable - properties or Energy companies?"

They said, "None".

Yes, that's the truth! Is this a banter? Not really... Lol

I know one of the persons in Title company - He asked me - "Who is this @#$&^%& who keeps calling and asking if God owns any mass. What makes him do that?" I was speechless! Lol.

 

[Nara]

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

Subbudu sir, I must admit, I don't quite understand what you are saying, but that is my problem not yours.

There is a lot of talk pitting some notion of god against science. Such a comparison is, IMO, meaningless. Science is a process of inquiry, one that tries to make sense of the physical world. It is value-neutral. Scientists are first and foremost, skeptics. Science is everything a god is not.

We do have scientists who keep their faith and inquiring mind in separate compartments. This requires a high degree of tolerance for cognitive dissonance, some seem to manage it. But, even they have not found anything significant and useful from their faith, all their contributions to human understanding is from the rational compartment, not the faith compartment.

Cheers!

 

[DrBarani]

Let me repeat in different words what I said before.

For "cause and effect" to exist, they must be ordered along a time axis, which automatically assumes Time is an independent variable outside the bounds of argument. This is already known to be flawed even in normal old school science. Time is not an absolute variable. It is merely a metric mapped to events. Events are real and fundamental and they take place in time independent manner. Events DEFINE Time. And then we use some of those events to order other events. It is this system we call as Time.

The Universe is a TimeLess system. Narrow compartments of this Universe may be used conveniently for some local Time metric, but in the totality there is no Time. Big Bang, Expansion of visible universe etc are Localized events.

Hence, "what caused some effect" implicitly accepts Time as an unquestionable Power. If Atheists question God on "Cause" they automatically assume Time as God that cannot be challenged.

 

[zebra16]

Hello,

Currently interesting discussions are going on in vadavali group of yahoo groups on Evolution Vs. Vedic Creation, which touches the aspect of creator God also. Interested members may google for info or can join the group here: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/vAdAvaLi/

Regards,

narayan

 

[zebra16]

I have no idea what amazing things human ingenuity can produce. We are at the cusp of figuring out how to grow various body parts from our own stem cells. Some thinkers now predict that soon human knowledge would have advanced enough that we can live for hundreds, even thousands of years by getting our body parts replaced as they wear out. So, it is impossible to give a definitive YES or NO answer, even though I can say men will never get pregnant, why would they, even if it became feasible? Be that as it may, all this does not still have anything to do with the proposition "God Exists".

I request you once again Ravi, please address the proposition "God Exists" directly, and give your best supporting arguments.

Cheers!

Sri Nara Sir,

I completely concur with you on what amazing things human ingenuity can produce.
Science has proven that life-generating organic molecules can develop spontaneously, but only with the intervention of an intelligent designer. But even before scientists or humans in general knew about these things, life generating organic molecules were developing spontaneously. Who is the intelligent designer or creator there, is the question.

Regards,

narayan

 

[C RAVI]

So, Ravi, I agree with you that many have made lot of presentations, but, for the reasons stated above, my considered opinion is, none of these many presentations speaks to the proposition "God Exists" in anyway that is in the least bit persuasive.


I have no idea what amazing things human ingenuity can produce. We are at the cusp of figuring out how to grow various body parts from our own stem cells. Some thinkers now predict that soon human knowledge would have advanced enough that we can live for hundreds, even thousands of years by getting our body parts replaced as they wear out. So, it is impossible to give a definitive YES or NO answer, even though I can say men will never get pregnant, why would they, even if it became feasible? Be that as it may, all this does not still have anything to do with the proposition "God Exists".

I request you once again Ravi, please address the proposition "God Exists" directly, and give your best supporting arguments.

Cheers!

Well said Shri Narayan...This is what I was attempting to make sh. Nara understand..

Sri Nara Sir,

I completely concur with you on what amazing things human ingenuity can produce.
Science has proven that life-generating organic molecules can develop spontaneously, but only with the intervention of an intelligent designer. But even before scientists or humans in general knew about these things, life generating organic molecules were developing spontaneously. Who is the intelligent designer or creator there, is the question.

Regards,

narayan

Ayya,

My basic motive of asking you 7 different questions to explore the possibilities of truning the impossibilities into possibilities by science and technology, were just to convey "God Exists". Through your posts on the topic, I could well understand that you can't accept existence of God unless it's been proved "Black & White". My motive of asking you questions were to help you analyse, realize and make some attempts towards the perspective other than yours on the concept of "GOD".


Ayya,

One Armed Forces Indian Doctor (Medical officer) is under his research work to cure cancer altogother without any side effects through umbilical cord blood. Organ transplants are carried out successfully by physically transiting the organs from one hospital to another within a stipulated time. Couple of months before a kidney and a heart was transported to another hospital in 30 minutes and was transplanted into the patient. Medical science is advancing, technology is booming. Humans would for sure achieve many advancements, the success of which we may now be skeptical.

Humans may succeed transplanting artificial organs in patients, replacing the worn out natural organs. May happen so or may not.

But, do you accept that, human intelligence are nothing but exploring the hidden/unexplored energies, techniques, production and reproduction of cells? Do you accept that human explorations are time bound and periodically in a slow pace only, humans could achieve so for and would continue at achieve? Do you accept that humans/many scientist, doctors are astonishing the mechanism of human body systems from head to toe? Do you accept that many machines were designed considering the intelligent designing of human body functions?

Ayya,

Humans are learning from what already existing. Humans are not making anything new out of their own. Humans are trying hard to unearth many hidden intelligence.

 

[renuka]

Where is Sravna today?