God Exists

[tbs]

Share:

Facebook X (Twitter) LinkedIn WhatsApp Email Share Link

hi
if Ekalavya can learn archey without guru....just blessing from him....its purely a self realisation,,,,,by 2 paths....SAGUNA UPASANA..

NIRGUNA UPASANA.......its like 2 party system of USA.....bottom line...debt controll.....

regards
tbs

 

[Nara]

Please instead of saying these are just conjectures and assertions try to give your reasons if you reject my arguments.

Sravna, let me try and deconstruct your presentation. The text highlighted in blue italics is yours.

• God is seen as spiritual -- When you say "seen" you seem to tacitly admit this God is a conjecture -- perhaps this is a slip. Anyway, given I reject the proposition "God Exists", how can you expect me to accept your claim "God is spiritual" just on the authority of your claim?
• ... and hence fits with the space time transcended reality -- why? why must this asserted spiritual being exist outside time and space. Given what you claim below, this appears to be convenient and self-serving assumption to try and avoid the problem of who created the creator god. But, even so, the problem does not go away, please see below.
• Time transcended reality need not have a cause. That there is a reality that transcends Time is an assertion. But to claim that entity need not have a cause since it transcends time is another baseless assertion. Why is this so? We have only your word for it.
• But universe is made of matter which requires space and time. Hence matter needs to exist within those dimensions and hence requires a cause. This is what you need to prove for the proposition "God Exists" to be accepted. What you offer -- matter in time and space must have a cause -- is not proof, just your opinion. With due respect, I have more confidence in Stephen Hawking's statement that a god is not necessary for the universe to manifest. BTW, according to VA Vedanta, matter also exists without any cause, they claim tathva triyam -- Chit, Achit, and Ishwara all three are uncaused!!!

These are the reasons why I am unable to accept your argument as anything more than assertions and conjectures.

Cheers!

 

[kunjuppu]

hi
if Ekalavya can learn archey without guru....just blessing from him....its purely a self realisation,,,,,by 2 paths....SAGUNA UPASANA..

NIRGUNA UPASANA.......its like 2 party system of USA.....bottom line...debt controll.....

regards
tbs

tbs,

how will you put dronacharya's cutting of eklavya's thumb? equivalent to declaring bankruptcy or a default on payment. from the usa?

 

[Nara]

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.

Ravi, what humans are trying to do is understand the world around us as much as possible. Thanks Ravi for bothering to respond to me, I don't have anything new to add.

Cheers!

 

[tbs]

tbs,

how will you put dronacharya's cutting of eklavya's thumb? equivalent to declaring bankruptcy or a default on payment. from the usa?

hi K
may be temporary default....may not be bankruptcy...LOL

regards
tbs

 

[renuka]

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.

Shiv,

I will tell you what taste better.When I first saw the username of someone here I was laughing out here cos it carries a *&^%$ meaning in Cantonese(a chinese dialect).

 

[sravna]

Thanks Shri Nara for responding with reasons.

Sravna, let me try and deconstruct your presentation. The text highlighted in blue italics is yours.

• God is seen as spiritual -- When you say "seen" you seem to tacitly admit this God is a conjecture -- perhaps this is a slip. Anyway, given I reject the proposition "God Exists", how can you expect me to accept your claim "God is spiritual" just on the authority of your claim?

OK let me now just say that I am just trying to prove that a spiritual being exists.

• ... and hence fits with the space time transcended reality -- why? why must this asserted spiritual being exist outside time and space. Given what you claim below, this appears to be convenient and self-serving assumption to try and avoid the problem of who created the creator god. But, even so, the problem does not go away, please see below.

I have in my earlier posts given the definition of spiritual and in what sense I use it. It contrasts with material and something that transcends it.

• Time transcended reality need not have a cause. That there is a reality that transcends Time is an assertion. But to claim that entity need not have a cause since it transcends time is another baseless assertion. Why is this so? We have only your word for it.

It is not an assertion. I have shown how the alternatives are not possible. Please refer back to my earlier posts

• But universe is made of matter which requires space and time. Hence matter needs to exist within those dimensions and hence requires a cause. This is what you need to prove for the proposition "God Exists" to be accepted. What you offer -- matter in time and space must have a cause -- is not proof, just your opinion. With due respect, I have more confidence in Stephen Hawking's statement that a god is not necessary for the universe to manifest. BTW, according to VA Vedanta, matter also exists without any cause, they claim tathva triyam -- Chit, Achit, and Ishwara all three are uncaused!!!

Matter alone cannot exist without a cause. The proof is the notion of beginningless time is not possible.

btw, VA doesn't deny the concept of God.

 

[N.R.Ranganathan]

Oh God !

Please come down and show yourself. This is the only way to prove your
existence !!!

 

[tbs]

Oh God !

Please come down and show yourself. This is the only way to prove your
existence !!!

hi NR Sir
i like it............the only way.....


regards
tbs

 

[renuka]

Yes we will all sing Amazing Grace!!!

‪Il Divo - Amazing Grace‬‏ - YouTube

 

[tks]

Oh God !

Please come down and show yourself. This is the only way to prove your
existence !!!

I am right here, why fear!!!

 

[N.R.Ranganathan]

But the problem is when God comes, no one recognises HIM except a
few realized men. This happened to Lord Rama. Lord Krishna, a
sampoorna avatar, suffered the same fate. Just go back to itihas and
see how many people recognised Rama and Krishna !

 

[sravna]

Sravna, let me try and deconstruct your presentation. The text highlighted in blue italics is yours.

• God is seen as spiritual -- When you say "seen" you seem to tacitly admit this God is a conjecture -- perhaps this is a slip. Anyway, given I reject the proposition "God Exists", how can you expect me to accept your claim "God is spiritual" just on the authority of your claim?
• ... and hence fits with the space time transcended reality -- why? why must this asserted spiritual being exist outside time and space. Given what you claim below, this appears to be convenient and self-serving assumption to try and avoid the problem of who created the creator god. But, even so, the problem does not go away, please see below.
• Time transcended reality need not have a cause. That there is a reality that transcends Time is an assertion. But to claim that entity need not have a cause since it transcends time is another baseless assertion. Why is this so? We have only your word for it.
• But universe is made of matter which requires space and time. Hence matter needs to exist within those dimensions and hence requires a cause. This is what you need to prove for the proposition "God Exists" to be accepted. What you offer -- matter in time and space must have a cause -- is not proof, just your opinion. With due respect, I have more confidence in Stephen Hawking's statement that a god is not necessary for the universe to manifest. BTW, according to VA Vedanta, matter also exists without any cause, they claim tathva triyam -- Chit, Achit, and Ishwara all three are uncaused!!!

These are the reasons why I am unable to accept your argument as anything more than assertions and conjectures.

Cheers!

When I replied to this post earlier I didn't read it carefully. I was going through it again and Shri Nara, see the sentences in bold. You actually did it again. You just dismiss all of my arguments as just assertions. Are you so fond of the word assertion ?

 

[renuka]

Dear Nara,

you wrote;

Originally Posted by Nara

• But universe is made of matter which requires space and time. Hence matter needs to exist within those dimensions and hence requires a cause. This is what you need to prove for the proposition "God Exists" to be accepted. What you offer -- matter in time and space must have a cause -- is not proof, just your opinion. With due respect, I have more confidence in Stephen Hawking's statement that a god is not necessary for the universe to manifest. BTW, according to VA Vedanta, matter also exists without any cause, they claim tathva triyam -- Chit, Achit, and Ishwara all three are uncaused!!!

Dear Nara,

I didnt want to interrupt you and Sravna as I have been following the debate closely and see points from both sides.
But I couldnt help noticing that you tend to lean on VA Vedanta for some of your arguments in Forum and VA Vedanta is not supposed to exists too if we go by the Atheist school of thought.
But at the end of the day you sound like an Advaitin cos whatever anyone says is just "Neti Neti" for you.

 

[sravna]

Shri Nara,

I present my arguments in a different way.

Argument 1

Premise 1: We are at Present
Premise 2: We reached the present time from the past
Conclusion: Time should have a beginning

Argument 2:

Premise: Time has a beginning (from argument 1)
Conclusion: The theory that universe has been existing forever and therefore needs no cause is false.

Argument 3:

Premise: Anything needs to exist to create something
Conclusion: Self creation is not possible

Argument 4:

Premise 1: Universe did not create itself or spontaneously appear (from argument 3)
Premise 2: Universe did not exist forever (from argument 2)
Conclusion: Universe was created by something.

Argument 5:

Premise 1: Time and space came into being when universe was created
Premise 2: Universe was created by something (from argument 4)
Conclusion: There is a timeless entity

Shri Nara, I call this timeless entity as God

 

[C RAVI]

But the problem is when God comes, no one recognises HIM except a
few realized men. This happened to Lord Rama. Lord Krishna, a
sampoorna avatar, suffered the same fate. Just go back to itihas and
see how many people recognised Rama and Krishna !

Well said Shri N.R.Ranganathan,

This world, especially the world in this yoga is very funny. Here due to human advancements, that it self is purely by the grace of God, Humans tend to prove that they are the achievers, they are exploring and trying to understand the world that some how came into existence with some sort of set rule, mechanism, concepts etc. And humans are just trying to be better to understand this world and tape its resources. They fail to realize that how and why such intelligent forces are existing and that we are just trying to explore them and the fact that we humans are nothing before the super natural intelligence.

Humans, with their expanded knowledge, understanding and achievements, tend to fix up their mind with the assertive consideration that, there is no God. Just because it's we who, with our hard work and research, invented many medicines to cure diseases, discovered many things to have today, this sophisticated, hi-tech technological world. We are the creator of better survival and there is nothing called a creator, creating us, governing us and observing us.


But as far as I am concerned, the term atheist is only for our ignorantly brilliant brains. There is nothing called atheism. It's just that we humans have coined with our ignorant brilliant brain to differentiate our ideologies, belief and opinion about God. A group with upholding atheism are playing their own constructive part of God's rule, with sheer determination to explore the hidden intelligence. They just have a different idea of upholding humanism. A god mix of theism and atheism is playing a constructing role.

We just tend to get hurt with our ignorant soul, and tend to challenge each other with our ignorantly brilliant brains to prove, who is right and who is wrong with the concept of "God".

There is no ending for such debates on "God" when both theist and atheist can put forward many arguments much effectively and with much clarity.

"GOD" is realizing reality and not picturizing story. "GOD" is acceptance and not fabrication. "GOD" is realistic by itself and not scientific by complex evaluations.

The "Soul" got to realize on its own as per the rule of the nature and no modulation can help realizing practically in this world of technological orientation.

Even if a person accepts the concept of God upon briefing/teaching by fellow theists/guru etc, one has to accept truly and realize with his/her consciousness.

 

[renuka]

But the problem is when God comes, no one recognises HIM except a
few realized men. This happened to Lord Rama. Lord Krishna, a
sampoorna avatar, suffered the same fate. Just go back to itihas and
see how many people recognised Rama and Krishna !

Yes I agree and the 1st to recognize these Divinities were nearly always woman.
How can we forget Shabari,Ahalya,Gopikas.
Our beloved Poorna Avatar Lord Krishna till today is not spared comments from
even the Theist camp.
The problem lies in us that we expect God to be in some well demarcated geographical region and not actually be in our very Breath..Soham..

 

[C RAVI]

Shri Nara,

I present my arguments in a different way.

Argument 1

Premise 1: We are at Present
Premise 2: We reached the present time from the past
Conclusion: Time should have a beginning

Argument 2:

Premise: Time has a beginning (from argument 1)
Conclusion: The theory that universe has been existing forever and therefore needs no cause is false.

Argument 3:

Premise: Anything needs to exist to create something
Conclusion: Self creation is not possible

Argument 4:

Premise 1: Universe did not create itself or spontaneously appear (from argument 3)
Premise 2: Universe did not exist forever (from argument 2)
Conclusion: Universe was created by something.

Argument 5:

Premise 1: Time and space came into being when universe was created
Premise 2: Universe was created by something (from argument 4)
Conclusion: There is a timeless entity

Shri Nara, I call this timeless entity as God

Well presented Shri Srvana..

The usage and the belief are all preocupation of mind. The usage and belief may change and we would stick to the truth when the right time strikes. Because as you used to say, in this physical world everything is time bound.

I have observed many a times. For some humans, some usage and presentation of one's belief differs from time to time, place to place and with people to people. This idea also is a preocupation of mind.

Basically "You can make a person understand who wants to know. But you can't make a person understand who has determined, not to know".

 

[subbudu1]

Argument 1

Premise 1: We are at Present
Premise 2: We reached the present time from the past
Conclusion: Time should have a beginning

Argument 1 is already broken off by BG which says God and Arjuna were always there.
Conclusion 1- This means God is an entity, Arjuna is an entity both these entities were existing. Since they were existing they could not have come out from an undifferentiated something because then they would always have been there. If these multiple identities had come out from a single identity, then the identity called Arjuna had a beginning. So in effect Arjuna and Krishna as separate entities were always there as per BG
Conclusion 2 - The statement always there implies that there was no beginning to awareness. This means that time has no beginning as per BG

So this contradicts your assumption Sravna. I dont know what else to say. Just because we reached somewhere from somewhere else does not mean that we started our journey somewhere.

All your arguments fall off on this one piece.

Folks as per hinduism time has no beginning. We contradict our puranas when we say that. As per Hinduism and Vishnu Purana, as an example- Mahavishnu starts the creation process by giving birth to Brahma. Before this creation process, there was another Brahma and another Universe. Brahma created the invisible and visible worlds. Then the visible and invisible worlds finally fall off and get destroyed . Once they get destroyed the night time of Vishnu begins he is asleep and then after some time elapse ( specified in years by our puranas) a new Brahma comes forth. The new brahma then starts activities again, then pralaya, then a new Brahma , then pralaya, then a new Brahma, then pralaya, then a new Brahma- There is no end according to Hinduism. As these are all listed down in measurable number of years. Hence according to Hinduism Time has no beginning.

If people are unwilling to accept that time is infinite they are contradicting BG and making up their own new Purana. May be to the list of 18 Puranas we can add a new one .

 

[sravna]

Argument 1 is already broken off by BG which says God and Arjuna were always there.
Conclusion 1- This means God is an entity, Arjuna is an entity both these entities were existing. Since they were existing they could not have come out from an undifferentiated something because then they would always have been there. If these multiple identities had come out from a single identity, then the identity called Arjuna had a beginning. So in effect Arjuna and Krishna as separate entities were always there as per BG
Conclusion 2 - The statement always there implies that there was no beginning to awareness. This means that time has no beginning as per BG

So this contradicts your assumption Sravna. I dont know what else to say. Just because we reached somewhere from somewhere else does not mean that we started our journey somewhere.

All your arguments fall off on this one piece.

Folks as per hinduism time has no beginning. We contradict our puranas when we say that. As per Hinduism and Vishnu Purana, as an example- Mahavishnu starts the creation process by giving birth to Brahma. Before this creation process, there was another Brahma and another Universe. Brahma created the invisible and visible worlds. Then the visible and invisible worlds finally fall off and get destroyed . Once they get destroyed the night time of Vishnu begins he is asleep and then after some time elapse ( specified in years by our puranas) a new Brahma comes forth. The new brahma then starts activities again, then pralaya, then a new Brahma , then pralaya, then a new Brahma, then pralaya, then a new Brahma- There is no end according to Hinduism. As these are all listed down in measurable number of years. Hence according to Hinduism Time has no beginning.

If people are unwilling to accept that time is infinite they are contradicting BG and making up their own new Purana. May be to the list of 18 Puranas we can add a new one .

Shri Subbudu,

You should differntiate between timelessness and time being infinite. They are diametrically opposite notions. The confusion arises because when you say something is always there it is assumed to be existing in time. When hinduism says something is always there it should taken to refer to timeless existence.

 

[renuka]

Dear Subbudu,

Time only comes into play when there is an event.I am not saying that the clock stands still but we have to remember that this phenomenal world is just a projection or superimposition on the underlying Reality and any phenomenon is an event hence time comes into play.Its just like this..when the projecter is on the movie plays when its off we dont realize the movie.

I will also give an example..a Moment can be different from Time.
For example its 7.15pm here when I am typing this but its a different time for you at your place when you are reading it but the moment remains the same.
Time differs but the moment remained the same.
So isnt time also just a perception?

 

[DrBarani]

\
Time differs but the moment remained the same.
So isnt time also just a perception?

There is no such thing as absolute time. There are only Clocks and they record events using their own set of rules.

 

[subbudu1]

Dear Subbudu,

Time only comes into play when there is an event.I am not saying that the clock stands still but we have to remember that this phenomenal world is just a projection or superimposition on the underlying Reality and any phenomenon is an event hence time comes into play.Its just like this..when the projecter is on the movie plays when its off we dont realize the movie.

I will also give an example..a Moment can be different from Time.
For example its 7.15pm here when I am typing this but its a different time for you at your place when you are reading it but the moment remains the same.
Time differs but the moment remained the same.
So isnt time also just a perception?

There are differences in definition of time in science and puranas.
The scientific definition of time which is a term used to measure in terms of events.

The puranic definition talks of time as a cycle a wheel which moves on and on and even when all worlds have ceased to exist. The puranic writers did not peep into the future when describing time. They did not know advaita will come some day in the future. Although puranas might have been continuously edited, they were majorly written down in a book, with concrete shape during the Gupta times. What is talked in BG and puranas is relative view of time, just as relative view of length, height and motion. It does not talk about time itself being just a perception- No where I mean no where I have read that in BG since my days as a 14 year old.
The reason this difference is significant is that time continues to move during Vishnu's sleep. If Vishnu had a clock he would have noticed the time elapsed because the time of Vishnu's sleep is given in specific number of years. So it is not a moment but it is an extended period of time.

It is the western scientists like Hawkins, I am certain he is not the first one, who have started the theory that time had a beginning , of course it is similar to their Biblical concept of everything having just one beginning.

Over a period Hindus have always been reinterpreting their scriptures in tune with scientific works. If it was Newton first then it was Einstein, then Heisenberg and then Stephen Hawkins. While Science is able to completely revise its understanding Hindus revise their understanding of their own scriptures in tune with science. The scriptures however remain the same. So this concept of time has a beginning is lifted of and programmed into our minds by the new age interpreters so much so that we fail to realize that Hinduism never espoused the cause of time with a beginning.

Even recently there was a program in discovery / high school introduction to Hinduism where a westerner repeats the age old view of Hinduism- He says hinduism talks about endless cycle of time.
This is what is in our puranas.

 

[subbudu1]

I will also give an example..a Moment can be different from Time.
For example its 7.15pm here when I am typing this but its a different time for you at your place when you are reading it but the moment remains the same.
Time differs but the moment remained the same.
So isnt time also just a perception?

I think you are confused. This is the relative experience of change of events. That is all. We are two different observers and our experience is different. The events happen whenever and wherever they need to happen. Our perception is the perception of time, it is not time itself. I look out at the seashore from my window. I then wear a colored glass and get a different effect. The place I look at has not changed only I have changed my observation means. Time , just like an object exists on its own. It is perceived by you and me. Does not mean time, and places are just perceptions. This confusion has arisen due to over-reading of advaita. I am not sure if even Adi-Shankara made such comments about time.

 

[DrBarani]

I think you are confused. This is the relative experience of change of events. That is all. We are two different observers and our experience is different. The events happen whenever and wherever they need to happen. Our perception is the perception of time, it is not time itself. I look out at the seashore from my window. I then wear a colored glass and get a different effect. The place I look at has not changed only I have changed my observation means. Time , just like an object exists on its own. It is perceived by you and me. Does not mean time, and places are just perceptions. This confusion has arisen due to over-reading of advaita. I am not sure if even Adi-Shankara made such comments about time.

Actually, without an observer, an event never occurs. That is Quantum Mechanics. Occurrence of an event is called Wave Function Collapse. Read up on Schrodinger Cat. Hence Time doesn't run on its own. There is no absolute time.