God Exists

[subbudu1]

Share:

Facebook X (Twitter) LinkedIn WhatsApp Email Share Link

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!

I thought my statement was clear. Never mind. If you for instance sell yourself to an idea like humans having descended from divine beings, then your research will be in that effort, you would be involved in countering all evidences held against your view. This might be self destructive as , at the end of the day, despite your best possible efforts, your work goes into oblivion. On the other hand if you were a sceptic , your mind is free not tied down by something. You might look for something and try deriving conclusions never known before to human mind. It is then that you become a pioneer.

As far as the rest of what you say, I have said the same thing in different words. Thank you.

 

[sravna]

Shri Nara,

Shri Subbudu posed this question before:

Originally Posted by subbudu1:

"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.""

Here is my reply to that question again:

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. I am also ruling out self creation as it is paradoxical Therefore first cause necessarily has to beyond space and time. Understand that you cannot say how God could have created himself? because what I am saying here is that God is beyond the notion of creation because he is beyond the notion of time. That which is beyond the above notions is what I call God and definitely exists given the reasons for the impossibilities of alternative hypotheses.

 

[subbudu1]

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.

There are lot of things I agree here. Events define Time. Sravna make note, that for something to exist outside the domain of time, it simply has to exist before events started occuring period. There is no other compulsion. So there is no need to worry about cause-effect argument. I think it is more an argument used by theists. And over a period of time atheists have responded to it.

What is the cause-effect argument of theists. If this world is complex there must be an intelligent designer! This is the statement which was picked up by the atheists and attacked. The question raised was -" Since you O theist say that somebody must be behind everything in the world, then who was before that somebody" I dont see this as a valid argument which either the theists or atheists could use.So Barani I am in line with your last statement but I also see that argument as the nemesis of theists. It is the theists who take more recourse to the cause -effect argument.

However I can step forward and say,that if events could occur at any point of time then there should be no reason to presume that events have a beginning. This would be lend support to the steady state theory. However I add, that I am equally open to the big bang theory where there was a first event.


When there were no events, no cause no effect existed and hence no time. It is as simple as that. This cannot be extended to the argument that at such a time when no cause/effect existed,the presence was intelligence. There cannot be an uneventful intelligence . One can argue on that basis that intelligence could not have existed before events started occurring.

Time as you say is just a concept revolving around events. What is being looked out for is a concrete argument that , at the point when no events occurred in the Universe ( possible as per our Puranas ), there could have been no matter or even if it did it should have existed as a companion to this intelligence - the brahman.

The brahman with his companion becomes a kind of vishistadvaita and brahman without this companion matter becomes advaita. Both these premises need to be proven until then it is better that these subjects are put in front of God's idol and covered with a white or an yellow cloth, and god is worshipped so that a sudden inspirational idea dawns upon the worshipper. In such situations, it is possible that one day when the cloth is opened, a fully completed commentary on brahmasutras stands up before one's eyes .

Just kidding folks wrt to my previous statement, this idea crossed my mind while I was thinking about this subject. By all means go ahead and read the books but please make sure to read it , only after initiation from someone and make sure whether you are a brahmin. Only then you should read it.

Sorry friends once again for my satire, I stop it here. These arguments are not meant as a disrespect to either a sacred book or specific individuals here or elsewhere, but a satire on our own attitudes

 

[DrBarani]

I also see that argument as the nemesis of theists. It is the theists who take more recourse to the cause -effect argument.

Personally I think "if god exists who created god (e.g. give me a cause for god)" is the poser from Atheists. The Theists are willing to accept a Timeless entity that transcends space and time, without assigning a cause. Atheists are not willing to accept a Timeless entity and wanting a cause for its existence. Therefore, I see atheists being a bit illogical there if they ask any infinitely recursive question using time axis. However, I do have a difference with how Sravna attempts to define a Cause and Effect situation, but I see he was driven to that corner by atheists wanting him to use that argument.

 

[subbudu1]

Personally I think "if god exists who created god (e.g. give me a cause for god)" is the poser from Atheists. The Theists are willing to accept a Timeless entity that transcends space and time, without assigning a cause. Atheists are not willing to accept a Timeless entity and wanting a cause for its existence. Therefore, I see atheists being a bit illogical there if they ask any infinitely recursive question using time axis. However, I do have a difference with how Sravna attempts to define a Cause and Effect situation, but I see he was driven to that corner by atheists wanting him to use that argument.

Actually Barani , if you come to think of it. As per big bang, time begins . Let us look at the time axis which begins from the 0 point there is only movement in one direction from the 0 point and the axis cannot be stretched behind the 0 point since 0 is the beginning of this axis. At this 0 point is the primordial material blob of unknown variables in temp., size, property, energy etc. That is all that is there at Big Bang.

Why is there a need to get confused by the need to fit in with a time axis infinitely behind the 0 point. There is no need. Time at 0 is frozen as it were due to the very uneventfulness of universe. There was but a moment before the first event was set into motion and this was called the 0 point in time. There is no need to speculate and talk of an infinite period before the first event and ask the unnecessary question, who or what something was doing before the 0 th moment. The question does not arise. There was neither cause nor effect as effect is an event. At 0 moment no cause no effect existed and hence one need not worry about whether cause and effect were the same.

 

[C RAVI]

Actually Barani , if you come to think of it. As per big bang, time begins . Let us look at the time axis which begins from the 0 point there is only movement in one direction from the 0 point and the axis cannot be stretched behind the 0 point since 0 is the beginning of this axis. At this 0 point is the primordial material blob of unknown variables in temp., size, property, energy etc. That is all that is there at Big Bang.

Why is there a need to get confused by the need to fit in with a time axis infinitely behind the 0 point. There is no need. Time at 0 is frozen as it were due to the very uneventfulness of universe. There was but a moment before the first event was set into motion and this was called the 0 point in time. There is no need to speculate and talk of an infinite period before the first event and ask the unnecessary question, who or what something was doing before the 0 th moment. The question does not arise. There was neither cause nor effect as effect is an event. At 0 moment no cause no effect existed and hence one need not worry about whether cause and effect were the same.

Where is the 0 th point? Can we identify the start point of cause and effect?

 

[DrBarani]

Actually Barani , if you come to think of it. As per big bang, time begins . Let us look at the time axis which begins from the 0 point there is only movement in one direction from the 0 point and the axis cannot be stretched behind the 0 point since 0 is the beginning of this axis. At this 0 point is the primordial material blob of unknown variables in temp., size, property, energy etc. That is all that is there at Big Bang.

Why is there a need to get confused by the need to fit in with a time axis infinitely behind the 0 point. There is no need. Time at 0 is frozen as it were due to the very uneventfulness of universe. There was but a moment before the first event was set into motion and this was called the 0 point in time. There is no need to speculate and talk of an infinite period before the first event and ask the unnecessary question, who or what something was doing before the 0 th moment. The question does not arise. There was neither cause nor effect as effect is an event. At 0 moment no cause no effect existed and hence one need not worry about whether cause and effect were the same.

That is the first lesson in astronomy class. However, the issue raised by researchers, and remains unsolved, is what triggered this big bang. If something remains in equilibrium then an external perturbation is required to move out of it. That is the proven theory of phase transitions. Hence, the argument isn't about the what was in equilibrium, it is about what external factor caused the perturbation.

In a simple example: consider snow on a mountain. Tranquil peaceful and uneventful. If some human goes near that mountain and simply shouts "Hello!", the whole thing collapses and an avalanche begins. Thus, a perturbation is required to disrupt an equilibrium.

My observation is.... the problem with theist-atheist argument isn't even about God. It is about the set of rules by which they want to argue. Often they end up challenging their assumptions. Until both sides agree to the same set of rules, they cannot arrive at an agreement.

 

[subbudu1]

However, the issue raised by researchers, and remains unsolved, is what triggered this big bang.

Thats too early to say when there is nothing yet that can fully explain the phenomenon. However one cannot say that Big bang was trigerred in one moment. You are aware that .99999999 to infinity as similar to 1 as it is different. Which means that there is a tendency to be same as 1 but yet there is tendency to look different. This is the situation as we go earlier and earlier in age till a point where universe had grown into the size of a football, at that age and before that age as well there was some activity. So if we keep retracing no matter how further we go back , we still have to forever go back and we would see the universe eventful. We almost seem to be come to 0. but even as if we step back we dont reach 0. I think this is what happens as we try retracing backwards. The 0 is a position but it probably never occurred in the universe, there was always a time, always a moment, always an event.

I would say that all these are best hypothesis but there is reasonable ground to believe that matter has come from a bang somewhere in the universe, point being of no consequence today, consider relative motion.

What I find objectionable is to presuppose consciousness which is bound by time and which is within the realm of matter and speak about it as a replacement for a situation and circumstance which we have no complete explanation yet, and further claim that it can be used to explain concepts which go beyond time and matter.

 

[DrBarani]

Thats too early to say when there is nothing yet that can fully explain the phenomenon. However one cannot say that Big bang was trigerred in one moment. You are aware that .99999999 to infinity as similar to 1 as it is different. Which means that there is a tendency to be same as 1 but yet there is tendency to look different. This is the situation as we go earlier and earlier in age till a point where universe had grown into the size of a football, at that age and before that age as well there was some activity. So if we keep retracing no matter how further we go back , we still have to forever go back and we would see the universe eventful. We almost seem to be come to 0. but even as if we step back we dont reach 0. I think this is what happens as we try retracing backwards. The 0 is a position but it probably never occurred in the universe, there was always a time, always a moment, always an event.

Well, in general, physics worries about major event changes. Minor, inconsequential changes aren't considered as theory making events. For example, electrons are always on a move in a crystal. Does that mean the Crystal keeps changing every moment? Crystal is generally considered static (in big picture). What causes the transition in a crystal? (or any static medium). It is the point of inflexion in its manifestation. That event-triggering force must come from outside or the crystal was not in equilibrium in the first place (as in radioactive isotopes).

In any case, I think the way God is defined, Universe is a child's play for God, and formation or destiny of observable universe is in no way will impact this definition, or prove a timeless entity. We are giving way too much weight to Universe in trying to understand, define or disprove God. The physical shape of "Brahman" in one single Universe isn't the major property of the "Brahman". This is like an elephant and five blind men, one of them holding to its trunk and saying there is elephant and another holding its tail saying it is only a snake. Concept of God is an envelope of all tangibles (like physical universe) and intangibles (outside our scope of observables).

 

[sravna]

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.

Dear Shri Barani,

The whole point is that time as an unquestionable power is not valid. That you cannot say that there exists nothing other than the cause-effect scenario. I see nothing wrong in the argument that says time is experienced only in the physical world and is therefore only a perception but in the reality of spiritual world there is no time. That there should exist such a timeless spiritual reality is my argument.

 

[Brahin]

I find in the universe so many forms of order, organization, system, law, and adjustment of means to ends, that I believe in a cosmic intelligence, and I conceive God as the life, mind, order, and law of the world.

I do not understand my God, and I find in nature and history many instances of apparent evil, disorder, cruelty, and aimlessness. But I realize that I see these with a very limited vision, and that they might appear quite otherwise from a cosmic point of view. How can an infinitesimal part of the universe understand the whole? We are drops of water trying to understand the sea.

I believe that I am the product of a natural evolution. The logic of evolution seems to compel determinism, but I cannot overcome my direct consciousness of a limited freedom of will.

I believe that if I could see any form of matter from within, as I can see myself through introspection, I should find in all forms of matter something akin to what in ourselves is mind and freedom.
[h=3]Source(s):[/h]Will Durant, from the NPR website podcast, "This I believe".

 

[Nara]

... I think it is more an argument used by theists. And over a period of time atheists have responded to it.

Precisely. The arguments theists propose for a creator god boils down to two main points, (i) all effect must have a cause, and (ii) the universal constants so precisely dialed for universe to manifest. Both points have major problems.

Taking (i), if all effects must have a purposeful cause, then god must have a cause as well. If god need not have a cause, then universe to manifest there need not be a cause.

Folks, conjectures and imponderables are not proof of anything, at best we can only say we don't know and we may never know. This is not a solid basis to develop elaborate belief systems like religion.

narayan sir, there is no need to say there must be an intelligent designed. Why?

Cheers!

 

[C RAVI]

Dear Shri Barani,

The whole point is that time as an unquestionable power is not valid. That you cannot say that there exists nothing other than the cause-effect scenario. I see nothing wrong in the argument that says time is experienced only in the physical world and is therefore only a perception but in the reality of spiritual world there is no time. That there should exist such a timeless spiritual reality is my argument.

I share the same views, Shri Sravna.

Spiritual reality exists without time frame. Time span is only for this physical world as an illusion. Time and time zones have been framed just based on astronomy for this physical world .

Outside the physical world, that is in spiritual world everything is "Soonyam". There is no distinguishing factors. A single truth exists, a single power exist, a single rule exists. Without variations, without confusions the supernatural intelligent power exists. It has no start and no end. It has no form and no limits. It has no time bounding and it has no barring element.

And it rules the whole form of living, that itself is an illusion..And in that illusive existence, everything is illusive. When the soul could realize the illusiveness of survival, gets detached from illusive affiliations and could reach the state of "Soonyam", merges with the "Spiritual World", that is all pervasive as "Soonyam", beyond space and time.

 

[sravna]

Taking (i), if all effects must have a purposeful cause, then god must have a cause as well. If god need not have a cause, then universe to manifest there need not be a cause.
Cheers!

Please Shri Nara, I request you to directly respond to the following point:

There is a difference between God not required to have a cause and universe not required to have a cause. The difference is God is seen as spiritual and hence fits with the space time transcended reality. Time transcended reality need not have a cause. But universe is made of matter which requires space and time. Hence matter needs to exist within those dimensions and hence requires a cause. Please look at my previous post to you to see why I consider the existence of timeless reality as definite. Please instead of saying these are just conjectures and assertions try to give your reasons if you reject my arguments.

 

[zebra16]

double like

Just saw this in Sri subbudu's post of today: Nara and Nara like this

Just curious to know how "two likes" are registered from a single person? Any idea?

Regards,

narayan

 

[sravna]

Where is Sravna today?

Renuka, I am back

 

[renuka]

Renuka, I am back

Missed you yaar!!!

 

[renuka]

Just saw this in Sri subbudu's post of today: Nara and Nara like this

Just curious to know how "two likes" are registered from a single person? Any idea?

Regards,

narayan

Ok we will test this out now.I will open 2 windows and click like 2x for your post Zebra and will let you know if double like occurs.
will test it now.
BRB

 

[renuka]

Dear Zebra,
Not possible, I just tried this.

may be its a different computer system or something.

 

[DrBarani]

Dear Zebra,
Not possible, I just tried this.

may be its a different computer system or something.

Well, I think that proves God, since he allows atheists to like "twice"! May be Sisubala Syndrome in action!

 

[ShivKC]

Dear Zebra,
Not possible, I just tried this.

may be its a different computer system or something.

press one like here, and one more LIKE in facebook.. there u go, with 2 likes

 

[ShivKC]

Taking (i), if all effects must have a purposeful cause, then god must have a cause as well. If god need not have a cause, then universe to manifest there need not be a cause.
!

glad, to know, that you pitched in with a reasonable question after these so long 400 posts.. i welcome it.

First of all, its better you need to get explained about the word 'CAUSE'. its more a term which goes in tandem with laws of physics and philosophy.a police men need a cause to prove the case (philosophical) and a truck moves by cause of engine (physics) and a displacement and acceleration is seen in truck ( time & space).

but the question posed by theists is who is the first cause? it goes on from movement of truck>gravity>rotation of earth>universe galaxy etc etc.. who could be the first cause..

scientists could very well define galaxy. who is the cause for galaxy.. and for that matter you define your own x, y, z beyond it..im not taking God here, we are only talking here about first cause..if you prove first cause is nothing or infinite, then you have a point to talk.. leave alone Time & Space now..

may be you could set your arguments based on that........ on pure scientific terms,from there I can take on..Just leave the term cause here..

I rephrase it.. what would be the CAUSE for universe? (leave alone god here)?

Caution: if you say, there dont need a cause, then you are making a suicidal argument, which i can prove wrong the laws of Thermo Dynamics/ Second law of motion..if you say, cause is 'infinite' and there are many causes beyond universe as infinite, then , there is good chance you may be proved wrong by mathematician like dr.barani.. these are my pre ample!


Ps: This not that an easy to job to answer these intellect questions, like how you and the threesome (now two some, since one is axed) ridiculed brahmins and customs, with all those research papers/scholarly writings,.. saying goes,rats had a field day out there!! (but once upon a time!).... and many were silent spectators for a while. How come you have not quoted here the great atheist philosophers like Hume/Spinoza etc, like how you used to ridicule brahminism. sir you really got to work it out burning midnight oil, to have a discussion in this real intellectual discussion. we are not discussing here about EVR..

 

[Yamaka]

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.

Is "@#$&^%&" in Vedas or Upanishads? Is it Sanskrit? Lol.... Lol

 

[ShivKC]

Is "@#$&^%&" in Vedas or Upanishads? Is it Sanskrit? Lol.... Lol

oh boy, thats not in good taste!

and doesnt convey any message..(rather kiddish and spamming).. lets atleast keep this thread a meaningful place to have a healthy debate. I would welcome you here , first. thank you sir.

 

[talwan]

The existance of God can only be realised individually.Kandavar vindadhillai.Vindavar Kandadhumillai.God Makes people realise him through different means.He exists in the form of Dharma,Love,Service to the Need,Edhetcha(At His Wish)Anukgrha etc.

Alwan