God Exists

[subbudu1]

Share:

Facebook X (Twitter) LinkedIn WhatsApp Email Share Link

Dear Subuddu,

You said:


Well I guess then we Hindus have protection from Blasphemy by the famous saying "Ekam Sat Viparah Bahuda Vadanti"

We do and that statement just indicates that in the Vedas it is believed that one form can take many forms does not mean that the one form itself is a projection of no-form

 

[DrBarani]

Here lies the problem. People, rationalists, refuse to accept HIM as a designer.

I accept him as a very smart guy/girl who remains mysterious and defies our common beliefs. If he didn't exist, we must invent him just to keep our curiosity alive!

 

[renuka]

We do and that statement just indicates that in the Vedas it is believed that one form can take many forms does not mean that the one form itself is a projection of no-form

One form itself is a projection of the "What is Beyond Description".

 

[tks]

Looking for Isvara in all the wrong places

Here lies the problem. People, rationalists, refuse to accept HIM as a designer.

It has been hard to keep up with the number of posts in this thread.
In trying to follow this thread, let me say this respectfully - there are great descriptions here and there coupled with seriously flawed models.
Rather than go through what is right and where the paradoxes are let me share the following.
Feel free to critique.

There is an old song that is appropriate quote here in my view - 'looking for love in all the wrong places' .

In the same sense there are many that are 'looking for Isvara in all the wrong places'
To search at the right place, we have to get past a few myths

1.Myth 1: There is an external world and an internal world with our body acting as a demarcation point.

All information about our body, sense organs and universe is actually collected as mental events in what we perceive as brain (another mental item) which are further operated upon by other 'non-external' stored patterns of experience. It is all series of mental event that is being realized by the Subject. It is hard to separate 'what is happening out there' from what is perceived which is affected by our stored patterns of past experience. In that sense everything that one experiences are the mental events. The subject-object differentiation that one feels is really an experience

2. Myth 2: One appearing many is a assertion and not in scientific

In fact we know almost anything we see is described in terms of elementary particles and their interaction. The string theory is an attempt to reach ultimate unification of all the 'forces' seen. A few elementary particles in various arrangements have resulted in appearing as many diverse items in the universe. If there is unification one day - a single concept such as strings is then perceived as many. In Upanishads, even the Subject and Object differentiation is appearance of One and only Brahman.

2. Myth 3: It is hard to experience the state of one-ness by us.

In fact, every night when we have deep sleep without dreams we experience loss of subject identity and all ideas of universe (object). The experience of time has stopped and there is only "I" undifferentiated in terms of subject-object experience. However in deep sleep there is ignorance. Realizing this one-ness while not in deep sleep is Self-realization

It is impossible to prove existence of anyone since they are all mental events.
The only 'item' that requires no proof is our own existence as "I" that reveals all the mental events (wakeful state or dream state) as experience. It is not possible to understand the nature of this subject "I" that reveals all the mental events with any of our sense organs or any other logic processing capacity because it is this "I" that makes all those 'visible' in the first place. We need another means of knowledge to understand the nature of "I" but existence of "I" is unquestioned.

So if someone wants to search for Isvara it is silly to go search for them in the collection of mental events (Universe as experienced) but rather understand that the 'experiencer' is really the Isvara.

So if someone thinks Science has the answer then consider this. Imagine a scientist wearing a white coat looking though a machine (microscope) to see if there is Isvara that can bedetected! You have to say Isvara can never be found on the other end of the machine when 'HE or She' is manifest in the One looking through the machine!!

So the only proof if 'God exist' is to know that "I" exist!

I have provided a very 'loose' description of what is in Upanishads using my own words coupled with some of the descriptions in Adi Sankara's Lord Dakshinamurthi Stotram

 

[C RAVI]

1) Why Humans came into existence?
2) Why humans got the best formation of body and the capacity to manage on ground, air and water?
3) What is in human brain alone, that helps rational thinking, logic, intelligence etc to explore the hidden intelligence of the universe?
4) Why no other living beings could not have such special brains like that of humans?
5) Animals are trained and tamed by humans. But why there exist no other living beings to train humans and tame them?
6) Is there any unseen intelligence that is training and taming humans? If YES what that power is and if NO, is there any proof?

 

[N.R.Ranganathan]

Dear sri tks,

Upanishads are quoted, bashyams are quoted, Adi Sankara's works are quoted
and what have you , all.

But the Rationalists say -

Well, these are just treatises, theories found in the books. No, I can't accept it.

Please provide me proof in terms of mathematical equations and theorems,
physical laws proving all your arguments step by step or prove it in a lab.

Then the route of self-enquiry of Bhagawan Ramana is quoted. Experiencing is
the sine-qua-non to see God within and not experiments it is pointed out.
This again is not convincing.

Passages from Vedas are pointed out. Again, no science in it.

How do you prove God's existence ?

God is in everything from ant to Brahma running through them like a thread and
joining them all. He is inside you, inside me, inside everyone, inside every
creature , according to Adi Sankara in Manisha Panchakam ( sorry ! I am again
leaning on Adi Sankara ). He is not some external object which can be seen or
described or brought before you tied with a rope.

You will have to experience Him. There is no other way to see HIM.

 

[tks]

Dear sri tks,

Upanishads are quoted, bashyams are quoted, Adi Sankara's works are quoted
and what have you , all.

But the Rationalists say -

Well, these are just treatises, theories found in the books. No, I can't accept it.

Please provide me proof in terms of mathematical equations and theorems,
physical laws proving all your arguments step by step or prove it in a lab.

Then the route of self-enquiry of Bhagawan Ramana is quoted. Experiencing is
the sine-qua-non to see God within and not experiments it is pointed out.
This again is not convincing.

Passages from Vedas are pointed out. Again, no science in it.

How do you prove God's existence ?

God is in everything from ant to Brahma running through them like a thread and
joining them all. He is inside you, inside me, inside everyone, inside every
creature , according to Adi Sankara in Manisha Panchakam ( sorry ! I am again
leaning on Adi Sankara ). He is not some external object which can be seen or
described or brought before you tied with a rope.

You will have to experience Him. There is no other way to see HIM.

"You will have to experience Him. There is no other way to see HIM"
What I tried to convey in the last post is that Isvara can only be discovered in the self of the person in their mind.
The books are not necessary - I only quoted to show they are not ideas I made up but my understanding of the books.

The discussion in that post 554 was not meant to prove or quote any scriptures to prove anything. Rather it is trying to make a case where to look for existence of Isvara and that is in one's mind and that it can never be found anywhere else. A concept of proof is meaningless when one discovers something for oneself

Regards

 

[renuka]

Dear Dr Barani,

Need your help here.Is this true? A friend told me that Subatomic Particles can travel back in time and he quoted some Wheeler-Feynman absorber theory.
Can you shed some light here?

 

[DrBarani]

Dear Dr Barani,

Need your help here.Is this true? A friend told me that Subatomic Particles can travel back in time and he quoted some Wheeler-Feynman absorber theory.
Can you shed some light here?

There is no evidence or proof for it. It is based on an unproven assumption that electromagnetic equations are fundamental laws of universe (valid under time-reversal), but EM is not a fundamental law of the universe. Only conservative fields provide a space for fundamental laws. EM is not a conservative field. Gravity is a conservative field. The meaning is, entropy laws are valid in EM field, which force time in only one direction. That is as far as I understand.

 

[renuka]

There is no evidence or proof for it. It is based on an unproven assumption that electromagnetic equations are fundamental laws of universe (valid under time-reversal), but EM is not a fundamental law of the universe. Only conservative fields provide a space for fundamental laws. EM is not a conservative field. Gravity is a conservative field. The meaning is, entropy laws are valid in EM field, which force time in only one direction. That is as far as I understand.

Thank You Dr Barani.

 

[N.R.Ranganathan]

Dear Renuka,
I gave you the link to the book Yoga vasistha and modern thought by Dr. B.L.
Athreya. Go through it. Or please read the story of Leelavathi in yoga vasistha
where this concept is explained.

 

[renuka]

Dear Renuka,
I gave you the link to the book Yoga vasistha and modern thought by Dr. B.L.
Athreya. Go through it. Or please read the story of Leelavathi in yoga vasistha
where this concept is explained.

Dear sir,

Ok I will... I havent gone through it yet.I will soon.
Thank you.

 

[N.R.Ranganathan]

Dear tks,
Please dont feel amiss. I presented the case of rationalists and the way they think.

 

[ShivKC]

Dear Renuka,
I gave you the link to the book Yoga vasistha and modern thought by Dr. B.L.
Athreya. Go through it. Or please read the story of Leelavathi in yoga vasistha
where this concept is explained.

i intentionally abstained from quoting scriptures,adi shankaras debate etc, just because, the atheist out here would out rightly reject them as an intuition or some old scripts worth not debating with modern day science..

my view is here to question them in their own way of thoughts, but they failed to answer the basic questions posed in their way, esp, time/space/logic/maths. Dr.barani too did a wonderful job, by giving taste of their own medicine.

rats had a field day, with anti brahminisms for quite long with the three some, with one out of show now. i can only feel, they are not in to it, except throwing some antics of EVR/antibrahmin counters, but when it comes to god, and debating in line with philosophical questions, they are not groomed yet.. rather, they never anticipted this hot thread. my regards always remain with Dr.barani, sravana on this, for their intellectual questions.

in nutshell, ask those atheists, what they mean by TIME... they would only refer to Atomic Clock, but fail miserably, that TIME as a record gap of sequence..Thats why they failed to counter many of the important posts.

 

[ShivKC]

Oh God !

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

sir, this contradicts your own previous post ( I liked that very much).. if you got to put your hands on shoulder with god and introduce HIM to atheists, Hey, This Is Mr.GOD... they would not believe it..

so its time for us to conceptualize God and get countered with atheists.

 

[DrBarani]

i intentionally abstained from quoting scriptures,adi shankaras debate etc, just because, the atheist out here would out rightly reject them as an intuition or some old scripts worth not debating with modern day science..

my view is here to question them in their own way of thoughts, but they failed to answer the basic questions posed in their way, esp, time/space/logic/maths. Dr.barani too did a wonderful job, by giving taste of their own medicine.

rats had a field day, with anti brahminisms for quite long with the three some, with one out of show now. i can only feel, they are not in to it, except throwing some antics of EVR/antibrahmin counters, but when it comes to god, and debating in line with philosophical questions, they are not groomed yet.. rather, they never anticipted this hot thread. my regards always remain with Dr.barani, sravana on this, for their intellectual questions.

in nutshell, ask those atheists, what they mean by TIME... they would only refer to Atomic Clock, but fail miserably, that TIME as a record gap of sequence..Thats why they failed to counter many of the important posts.

Yes, time is an empirical metric. Most of the questions posed here on "cause and effect" "origin" etc are built on that weak premise. The only way to go to a time independent realm through science would be to look at unperturbed Static WaveFunctions. There can be many, infinite types, continuum wavefunctions and yet no event happening (no wavefunction collapse). That might be the state of the Universe before Big Bang, and quite close to the definitions in Upanishads and perhaps a few other scriptures.

 

[tks]

Dear tks,
Please dont feel amiss. I presented the case of rationalists and the way they think.

Sri Ranganathan -

I know you were trying to summarize some of the points of the so called 'rationalists'.
In my view there are really no rationalists here since they would be rational

In my view, we have psedo-rationalists who are actually stuck in a script and are trying to be 'logically illogical' or illogically logical' - you can have a pick.

It is like talking to a person of blind faith like a 'born again Christian' who cannot afford to deviate from a script .
Some of the arguments presented here by some (theists) in my view are rational and some are 'made up' by people's own creative capacity! Those that are made up and do not have basis in well established, well debated, and time-tested Upanishads tend to exhibit flaws upon examination. Though the premise may be correct in these ideas that are made up, the reasons are not. The opposing side have been excellent in pointing out these flaws in my view.

Being a skeptical person is a healthy thing in my view. Otherwise 'when terrible things happen to self-described good people ' the belief system formed by suspension of reason will fall apart.

I have come across Atheists who are in the field of science and are very rational. I find it is easier to have a logical conversation with such people and easier to reach a consensus. It is easier to come to recognize where one must agree to disagree with such people.

While I do not claim to know for sure what causes pseudo-atheists to argue the way they do, I can venture to guess that they may have origins in one of the human emotions - guilt and/or hurt. I have known people who 'got angry & hurt' with God after a terrible and unexpected tragedy stuck and always go out of their way to denigrate all traditions as a way to get back at this merciless God. This includes people who have had serious issues with their own father

There are some who feel guilty not being able to keep up with strict rules imposed on them while growing up and feel the freedom by denouncing all of these ideas all together. By always putting down the traditions there is a way to rationalize the guilt away. These are rationalists - rational lies

Regards

 

[ShivKC]

Yes, time is an empirical metric. Most of the questions posed here on "cause and effect" "origin" etc are built on that weak premise.

Dr.Barani, just curious.. why that would be a weak premise to set the arguments based on Time-Cause-Effect.. eager to learn some thing new from you on this day...frankly, i was more in to it, with a mind set, i admit.

 

[DrBarani]

Dr.Barani, just curious.. why that would be a weak premise to set the arguments based on Time-Cause-Effect.. eager to learn some thing new from you on this day...frankly, i was more in to it, with a mind set, i admit.

It is OK to use time in a world where it is applicable. For example, in this world (or universe) that we see, the objects are known as Fermions. (They obey Fermi-Dirac Statistics). To know what a Fermion is, it is easy - Two fermions don't occupy the same energy state. Two of us can't be sitting in the same spot, so that makes us two Fermions. In a Fermion world, when objects collide, they exchange energy and momentum. This leads to entropy. The increase in entropy can be used as a measure of Time. Once we agree we live in a Fermion world, we cannot reverse Entropy. Therefore, we are constrained in a Unidirectional Time World. In this system it is OK to use Time, since we know it is going in one direction.

But non-Fermion Worlds are possible. For that matter Photon is a Boson (Bosons obey Bose-Einstein Statistics). Bosons aren't bound by this Fermi Clock. That is why time never moves when you go at velocity of light (Special Relativity).

in a time-reversible domain cause can become an effect... So, it won't be possible to say which event came first - chicken or egg.

So, it is important to know when to invoke this "Time" argument. When one says "Cause and Effect" they are already arranging it in some Time axis. That is valid only in an already existing Universe. That cause-effect question is not valid in pre-Big Bang Universe.

 

[ShivKC]

dr.barani, thats a great learning from you.. 100 salutes.. wish i can press 100 likes to your post no 569

i am only worried, how to counter Nara/Yamaka/subbudu, in line with their own way of understanding. i tried to address it, in their own language of understanding. let me watch for some time, you taking on them... my three cheers to you , and i will always be on your side, sir.

 

[C RAVI]

Dear Shiv,

God has been well conceptualized from time immemorial till today and up to this moment. If God has only that much potential like any object, technology etc to be laboratory tested, verified and authenticated with universal acceptance, today we would have not had a group called "ATHEIST".

If at all God can be placed before us scientifically and offered to each human on this Earth, it would simply mean the collapse of this physical world.

We humans with our rational thinking, logic and intelligence can make "n" numbers of questions, analyze, do research and get to know the power of hidden energy, formulate a concept/technology and improve our standard of living. But can never prove GOD in the same order.

It's purely a matter of understanding, acceptance, realization, personal experience and personal liberation.

If humans could not achieve what they want for their personal life, tend to scream and complain about GOD and determines God doesn’t exist. Like wise, if humans could achieve what they want for their personal life with their hard work and succeed, tend to declare God doesn't exist. If humans could explore the hidden intelligence gradually and achieve technological advancements, they tend to declare that they are the only cause for others to offer a great world to live in and that "GOD" is nothing but a paradox and theist are blinded with superstitious belief and that they are in dark with self hypnotism

Dear Shiv, personally I don't believe at all that "GOD" can be made to accept and realize by atheists and honestly declare their acceptance before us (theists).

 

[DrBarani]

i am only worried, how to counter Nara/Yamaka/subbudu, in line with their own way of understanding. i tried to address it, in their own language of understanding. let me watch for some time, you taking on them... my three cheers to you , and i will always be on your side, sir.

Thank you.

Subbudu is making a reasonable effort at a meaningful debate. I am not sure about other two (neither their reasoning nor the motive appears genuine to me), so I have stopped those threads.

Subbudu is not convinced that quantum mechanics is how world behaves. I guess he is more of a Einstein disciple (which isn't a bad thing), but as far as I read, quantum mechanics has been presented in only one way in all text books and journals, so that is what I know, but not the numerous internet opinions about it.

The take home message from Quantum Mechanics is only one thing - you can't make any concrete statements about any event (on time axis) without also substantiating the error in your measurement. Thus, the measurement and error combo describe an event completely. And the lowest error you can go is limited by Planck's constant. Though we know this from basic engineering subject, the QM prescription is applicable to anything in the Universe, including what constitutes an "Event". There are no "integral events". Events are described only with certain accuracy and error. Often we ignore the error component in real world and assume that event took place completely.

Some say Quantum Mechanics is a weak theory because it doesn't prove anything "definitely". I say that QM is the most powerful theory because it shows both the capabilities and limitations of what we can measure and understand. In that sense I consider it a complete theory.

My way of dealing with debaters is, to begin with, make sure they are on the same platform as where I stand, with respect to the rules of the game. Are they talking about time in the same manner I do? Are they agreeing that there are better knowledge tools in science today than what was there 100 years ago? (e.g. quantum mechanics, mathematical logic, linear algebra, Field theories etc). Once they arrive close to where we are, it becomes easier to exchange ideas. Otherwise, one keeps fighting over the rules going in circles.

 

[Yamaka]

dr.barani, thats a great learning from you.. 100 salutes.. wish i can press 100 likes to your post no 569

i am only worried, how to counter Nara/Yamaka/subbudu, in line with their own way of understanding. i tried to address it, in their own language of understanding. let me watch for some time, you taking on them... my three cheers to you , and i will always be on your side, sir.

To my part, I have already articulated several times that

Theists are either driven by FEAR and/or TRADITION and/or Superstition that they follow the non-existent Gods. My physician Dr. AH, MD - an orthodox Jewish person concurred with this view.

They have their Spiritual Leader Dr. tks here... I hope under his leadership Theists will go to their Heaven! Lol.

One thing I want to tell Dr. tks:

I did not have any problem with my father or mother growing up (when at about age 20, I walked away from all Superstition and FEAR of Gods)... his assumptions about me are FALSE, period.

Peace.

ps. I would love to engage with you on other subjects like Economy, Indian Politics etc on other Threads, for I believe we can NEVER be on the same page as far as God and Superstition is concerned... Cheers.

 

[tks]

To my part, I have already articulated several times that

Theists are either driven by FEAR and/or TRADITION and/or Superstition that they follow the non-existent Gods. My physician Dr. AH, MD - an orthodox Jewish person concurred with this view.

They have their Spiritual Leader Dr. tks here... I hope under his leadership Theists will go to their Heaven! Lol.

One thing I want to tell Dr. tks:

I did not have any problem with my father or mother growing up (when at about age 20, I walked away from all Superstition and FEAR of Gods)... his assumptions about me are FALSE, period.

Peace.

Y -

There is no heaven - it exists only in biblical religions and is meaningless (eternal aspects that is).
Secondly, I am not a theist - I explained that I am not a believer in more than one posts.
Upanishads - forget Nara's rants based on literal translation - teach you about 'fearlessness' and explains what causes Fear.
Vivekananda has lectured that it is better to be a rank atheist than to be theist out of fear..

I am sure you had healthy relationship with your parents if you say so. You have proactively shared a lot about you but still cannot comment on (voluntarily) what religion you were raised. Since you say you have given that up what is the hesitation? You dont have to share but I still cannot understand the hesitation.

Also what makes you say 'nasty things' about any religious beliefs? If you are content with your understanding and are at peace with your decisions and you have had no issues with your parents then what makes you jump in now and then and say things that could be hurtful to others (not to me)

Only if you feel comfortable you can respond

drtks

 

[Yamaka]

"I am sure you had healthy relationship with your parents if you say so. You have proactively shared a lot about you but still cannot comment on (voluntarily) what religion you were raised. Since you say you have given that up what is the hesitation? You dont have to share but I still cannot understand the hesitation." -- Dr.tks

Sir:

Please start a new Thread: "Our Early Life etc." Let people start sharing their lives.. and I will jump in to give mine.

I am looking for a context to write about it... for most people would consider it totally boring and/or unnecessary or some such thing.

That's all...

Take care.