God Exists

[ShivKC]

Share:

Facebook X (Twitter) LinkedIn WhatsApp Email Share Link

thanks arun for the attempt. finally it came from your own words , "The proof of these hypothesis is contested with peers, reviewed and refereed and most importantly tested for repeatability and only then it is accepted in science"

so, i experienced god, contested with billions, who also agreed, repeatablity of experiencing god was consitent for 5-10 millenia. so where you see the problem here?. except that here we talk about experiencing/feeling/sensing (if not you call it as an assertion) and in your term you talk about laws (and you agreed no need for physical /visible proof). what is the difficulty in accepting one's experience as proof?

did darwin shown any physical proof? no. he just relied on natures evidence, and the way the majority of living beings behaved, documented it, and set a theory. would you agree if i call darwin's claim as an assertion? no. why can the same analogy/logic/evidence used by darwin, be used in proving god?

now coming to the proof at CERN. i think you missed my point in neil bohr eg. if he got to show an atom under microscope to darwin/sage/aristotle, they only would have made him a laughing stock, saying 'oh, that's a cinema slide', cos non of them even knew to define an equation for elliptical path. to make darwin understand what borh model is, firstly, bohr has to study, basic maths, then atom, then QM and then only he can understand. the situation of atheists are in similar position. without learning /understanding or experiencing god, how can you reject him.

so bohr only can rely on peer support-vouch/, as you rightly said.. then, if in science one is permitted to rely on expert opinion/peer evidence, why not the same rule be applied in accepting god's evidence?

what i exactly want to arrive here is, you need to have a specific set of approach to debate on the existence of god. you cannot use a thermometer to measure velocity!

see if you could glance through some of those posts around no .100 to 700. it would give some insight to what im talking about.

btw, i enjoy responding your posts.

 

[arunshanker]

thanks arun for the attempt. finally it came from your own words , "The proof of these hypothesis is contested with peers, reviewed and refereed and most importantly tested for repeatability and only then it is accepted in science"
so, i experienced god, contested with billions, who also agreed, repeatablity of experiencing god was consitent for 5-10 millenia. so where you see the problem here?. except that here we talk about experiencing/feeling/sensing (if not you call it as an assertion) and in your term you talk about laws (and you agreed no need for physical /visible proof). what is the difficulty in accepting one's experience as proof?

Science does not accept experience as proof as it differes from person to person. Why have not them published the proof and repeatability in a reputed scientific journals

(and you agreed no need for physical /visible proof)

I talked about detection and repeatable detection

did darwin shown any physical proof? no. he just relied on natures evidence, and the way the majority of living beings behaved, documented it, and set a theory. would you agree if i call darwin's claim as an assertion? no. why can the same analogy/logic/evidence used by darwin, be used in proving god?

Darwin did a scientific study with scientific methods

consitent for 5-10 millenia

What about before that
Actually if God has been proved by scientific means we would not be having this discussion now

now coming to the proof at CERN. i think you missed my point in neil bohr eg. if he got to show an atom under microscope to darwin/sage/aristotle, they only would have made him a laughing stock, saying 'oh, that's a cinema slide', cos non of them even knew to define an equation for elliptical path. to make darwin understand what borh model is, firstly, bohr has to study, basic maths, then atom, then QM and then only he can understand. the situation of atheists are in similar position. without learning /understanding or experiencing god, how can you reject him.

I talked about educating them in a scientific way I said about short course with questioning, answering and discussing session to sensitise them that is if they are interested and actually the situation of atheists is not similar, I think the atheists are asking for scientific proof that can be peer reviewed by peers and refereed according to acceptable scientific practices,which I guess is difficult, but actually Bohr proving his hypothesis is not all that difficult as it science and not theology (where there is rigidity and dogma) can you understand what I am trying to say. Proving Borh's hypothesis and proving existence of God is not the same as What Bohr did is science and God is yet to proved scientifically. Theologically you can talk about experience but science asks for much more. I draw you attention to this link Scientific method - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia please do have a look. Like I said God has not yet been proved by the following the above method. I guess I have been clear enough.

 

[arunshanker]

Dear ShivKC
Science is a dynamic body of knowledge that changes and welcomes change. It welcomes dissent in dissent is also a factor that contributes to progress in science so long as "the scientific method is followed". In fact the dynamism is what drives science so science welcomes questioning and accepts change where as religious theology and the topic of God is static and does not welcome change in fact the very tenet of religion survives on this static rigid and dogmatic character, it does not welcome dissent it shuns dissent. Like I said in a post elsewhere -in religion one cannot question much.
In very simple terms -Bohr's hypothesis is science (proof follows the scientific method) and the topic of God is not science

 

[ShivKC]

Science does not accept experience as proof as it differes from person to person. Why have not them published the proof and repeatability in a reputed scientific journals

I talked about detection and repeatable detection
Proving Borh hypothesis and proving existence of God is not the same as What Bohr did is science and God is yet to proved scientifically. Theologically you can talk about experience but science asks for much more. I draw you attention to this link Scientific method - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia please do have a look..

arun, you may get annoyed for few repeated posts and round abouts from me. i'm attempting to explain what PROOF means and the 'norms of accepting a proof/evidence'. i may take few more posts in this context, with the same way, bear with me. thanks for staying with the conversation.


if scientific proof is all perfect, then why scientific proof of copernicus took a booting in front of Newton, who was also subsequently proved wrong by einstein. so, where is the validity/locus standi of proof. is this mode of accepting one scientific proof as right for sometime, and after sometime, prove the same proof as wrong? in this base, do you agree with me, this scientific pattern of 'validating proof' itself may have a flaw and its relative in nature too.

also, in this context, why do you expect another one to follow your mode of validating a proof, which itself seems to be dynamics and self contradicting. with the contradiction i have give, would you agree to the simple logic, that , scientific proof is not a perfect way of defining proof, cos once accepted as proof is getting later turned out to be false.. isnt it something pricking.

upon your anwer, will take a small round about MAYA concept.. lets have some interesting round about discussions, until the water settle down.

 

[arunshanker]

if scientific proof is all perfect, then why scientific proof of copernicus took a booting in front of Newton, who was also subsequently proved wrong by einstein. so, where is the validity/locus standi of proof. is this mode of accepting one scientific proof as right for sometime, and after sometime, prove the same proof as wrong? in this base, do you agree with me, this scientific pattern of 'validating proof' itself may have a flaw and its relative in nature too.

I think you got it now that is what I was trying to say science is open to change and is dynamic so long as the scientific method is followed. Copernicus, Newton and Einstein all followed the scientific method. Actually the universality or the singularity of the scientists you mentioned was debated either extended or minimised their laws still stands " they did not take a booting or were proved wrong ( we still study the Newtons laws) only the temporal and spatial applicability and its universality and singularity was modified. In fact that is what is science it just keeps improving.

 

[sangom]

Somtime back,I was listening to a religious discourse by Shri.Haridasa about
orissa legend Jayadeva.,I remember to have heard that God himself wrote two verses (when Jayadeva was not in the house)which Jayadeva wanted to write but hesitated to write and took 'Pazhaya Amuthu"from the hands of Smt.Jayadeva.
Can any one explain who could have written the two verses apart from 'GOD'.
PS:- I am a believer in the existense of"God".I took his special permission for this post.

Shri Krishnamurthy Sir,

Namaskarams. I might have taken your post above as just a "teaser" but since I know that you are very sincere in whatever you post, I thought I should give you the agnostic's view about the supposed writing by God to which you refer.

The generally heard story (legend) is that while writing the 19th. gītam, starting "vadasi yadi...", jayadeva came to the point of describing the intimate love play between Radha and Krishna, where he wrote "smara garala khaṇḍanaṃ mama śirasi maṇḍanaṃ dehi tava pallavamudāram|", meaning, "to cut off the poison of cupid, kindly place your tender feet on my head...". But then Jayadeva got a doubt whether he had written some sacrilegious lines and went to take his bath. Krishna came in the form of Jayadeva and completed the verse, "jvalati mayi dāruṇo..."etc. and additionally wrote praising Jayadeva "jayati padmāvatīramaṇa jayadevakavi bhāratī bhaṇitam atiśātam||" thus completing the gītam.



In line with this legend, the devout who recite the Gitagovindam raise their voice to a crescendo when singing these portions.

If anyone believes this story, as you also seem to, nothing can change that belief. But for a person like me who was not an agnostic when I first heard this legend, there seemed to be something essentially not "computing" as they say now.

Jayadeva was a "sahajiya". The Vaishnava-Sahajiya cult became popular in 17th century Bengal. It sought religious experience through the five senses. The divine relationship between Krishna and Radha (guises of the divine masculine and divine feminine) had been celebrated by Chandidas (Bangla: চন্ডীদাস) (born 1408 CE), Jayadeva (circa 1200 CE) and Vidyapati (c 1352 - c 1448) whose works foreshadowed the rasas or "flavours" of love and devotion explored by Chaitanya (1486–1534). The two aspects absolute reality were explained as the eternal enjoyer and the enjoyed, Kṛṣṇa and Rādhā conceived of as ontological principles of which all men and women are physical manifestations, as may be realised through a process of attribution (Aropa), in which the sexual intercourse of a human couple is transmuted into the divine love between Kṛṣṇa and Rādhā, leading to the highest spiritual realisation, the state of union or Yugala. The element of love, the innovation of the Vaiṣṇava Sahajiyā school, is essentially based on the element of yoga in the form of physical and psychological discipline.[11]

Vaisnava-Sahajiya is a synthesis and complex of traditions that, due to its sexual tantric practices, was perceived with disdain by other religious communities and much of the time was forced to operate in secrecy. Its literature employed an encrypted and enigmatic style. Because of the necessity of privacy and secrecy, little is definitively known about their prevalence or practices.[12] (Sahaja - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia)

Jayadeva is reportedly from the Sani sect of temple dancers and he institutionalized the Devadaasi system. "In Gitagovinda Krishna tells Radha that formerly she as Laxmi chose Him as her consort on the sea shore on the occasion of Samudra Manthana. As a result of this incident Siva swallowed poison out of despair."
(Orissa Review January 2004................)
The philosophy of sahajiya vaiṣṇavas wasdeveloped later into Achintya Bheda Bheda Tatwa, so ably propounded by Raya Ramananda and accepted and immortalized by Sri Chaitanya, Pancha Sakha and the Shad Goswamis.

In subsequent periods, gīta govindam was proscribed in the entire Kalinga kingdom by later rulers as being profanity but again resurrected and allowed to flourish under still later rulers. Its popularity in Trivandrum started during the 1950's and womenfolk were particularly fond of "radha kalyanam" being performed with singing of Ashtapadi and it thus caught the popularity which is seen now.

Chaitanya did not quite go along with the explicitly sexual description of the Radha-Krishna relationship as believed by the sahajeeyas but as stated earlier, Chaitanya's achintya bhedaabheda was influenced by the sahajeeya cult's notion.

The sahajeeyas as essentially followers of tantric cult, believed in sexual intercourse between man and woman as the easiest method to attain spiritual realisation. Their practices were not approved by the society in general and hence they used subtle signs and encrypted (coded) communication for practising their cultic rituals. Ashtapadi or gita govindam is also viewed as a manual in coded words which gives the essence of the sahajeeya tenets.

In the light of the above, I tend to view the legend of the God Himself coming to complete the writing of the love-play which He had with Radha and also praise Jayadeva, as a simple eulogisation so that the proscribed book could be made holy and therefore sacred and acceptable to the believing minds. According to the followers of Chaitanya and the Gaudeeya Vaishnavas, Krishna the eternal enjoyer and Radha the eternal enjoyed constantly and without beginning or end act out their enjoyment and that is what actuates the universe!

Since "belief" is not, in general, allowed to be controlled by rational thinking, belief can take people to ludicrous and ridiculous levels also. For example, the followers of Chaitanya in Bengal were so brainwashed into believing that they have to imagine themselves to be like Radha so that their aspiration for God realization would be genuine, that these people used to dress themselves in womens' dress and also observe three days of "asuddha" every month on the belief that they, as genuine Radhas, will have menses also!

Whether on the mundane or, for that matter, on the higher esoteric plane, "belief" without the control of reason will result only in such senselessness, and that is one plus point of being an agnostic.

 

[arunshanker]

scientific proof is not a perfect way of defining proof, cos once accepted as proof is getting later turned out to be false.. isnt it something scientific proof is not a perfect way of defining proof, cos once accepted as proof is getting later turned out to be false.. isnt it something pricking..

Actaully it is not "pricking" on the contrary it is invigorating and motivating so that new scientists try and find new things by following the scientific method"

cos once accepted as proof is getting later turned out to be false.. isnt it something scientific proof is not a perfect way of defining proof,

Actually science has temporal dynamism in fact science encourages to disprove the accepted. for this you should know the difference between evidence and proof. science is empirical and deals with nature as it exists. The primary criterion and standard of evaluation of scientific theory is evidence, not proof. Scientific knowledge is tentative and provisional, and nothing is final. There is no such thing as final proven knowledge in science. The currently accepted theory of a phenomenon is simply the best explanation for it among all available alternatives. So here the "temporal aspect of science comes into play" Copernicus. Newton and Einstein presented better alternatives. binary evaluation are not present in science like a Yes or No. everything in science is just a theory and is never proven only that there is supporting evidence but on the other hand maths is different Prime Number Theorem is the same always. I encourage you to check this link Scientific evidence - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[ShivKC]

I think you got it now that is what I was trying to say science is open to change and is dynamic so long as the scientific method is followed.

Copernicus, Newton and Einstein all followed the scientific method. Actually the universality or the singularity of the scientists you mentioned was debated either extended or minimised their laws still stands " they did not take a booting or were proved wrong ( we still study the Newtons laws) only the temporal and spatial applicability and its universality and singularity was modified. In fact that is what is science it just keeps improving.

dear arun, its true that we both got each other, now! i'm slowly inching towards you, from my circular path

there are enough eg in history,about the mode of scientific validation, which proved the previous scientifically accepted one as totally wrong (or) both as true (wave theory).

A)once a law totally proved wrong with the previous claim, i can also claim that the method of validation used by science can also, not be a perfect fool proof methodology.

B)once both conditions are allowed to exist, then it cannot be a TRUTH, cos, there can be only one truth and another has to be false.(logical fallacy). again that validation method used in wave theory is wrong, by logic

with the same tone, if we move to religion, you have questioned, science allows you to question and change where as religion doesnt. its very much true, god's existence cannot be changed, because the believers claim that 'its the ultimate truth' and upon this premise, it doesn't allow one today to prove a 'gods law' and then get defeated by yesterday day, to prove wrong as 'no-gods-law' by merely utilizing the methods of scientific evaluation and questioning, which itself is not a fool proof method, which we concluded mutually with the copernicus eg.

with this, i drive to the point. to evaluate the 'existence of god' the methodology of scientific validation (just alone) cannot be used. there are lot more ways like logical/reasoning/philosophy/mathematics/ultimates/infinity etc are all should used.

above all , experiencing and understanding Iswara, is the ultimate proof one can get, easily, straight in front of your eyes. as simple as it is, you don't need any need for electron microscopes and particle accelerators.

 

[arunshanker]

dear arun, its true that we both got each other, now! i'm slowly inching towards you, from my circular path

there are enough eg in history,about the mode of scientific validation, which proved the previous scientifically accepted one as totally wrong (or) both as true (wave theory).

A)once a law totally proved wrong with the previous claim, i can also claim that the method of validation used by science can also, not be a perfect fool proof methodology.

B)once both conditions are allowed to exist, then it cannot be a TRUTH, cos, there can be only one truth and another has to be false.(logical fallacy). again that validation method used in wave theory is wrong, by logic

with the same tone, if we move to religion, you have questioned, science allows you to question and change where as religion doesnt. its very much true, god's existence cannot be changed, because the believers claim that 'its the ultimate truth' and upon this premise, it doesn't allow one today to prove a 'gods law' and then get defeated by yesterday day, to prove wrong as 'no-gods-law' by merely utilizing the methods of scientific evaluation and questioning, which itself is not a fool proof method, which we concluded mutually with the copernicus eg.

with this, i drive to the point. to evaluate the 'existence of god' the methodology of scientific validation (just alone) cannot be used. there are lot more ways like logical/reasoning/philosophy/mathematics/ultimates/infinity etc are all should used.

above all , experiencing and understanding Iswara, is the ultimate proof one can get, easily, straight in front of your eyes. as simple as it is, you don't need any need for electron microscopes and particle accelerators.

Did you read my previous posts
and also please check this link Falsifiability - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Most importantly science does not talk about truth

 

[arunshanker]

with this, i drive to the point. to evaluate the 'existence of god' the methodology of scientific validation (just alone) cannot be used. there are lot more ways like logical/reasoning/philosophy/mathematics/ultimates/infinity etc are all should used.

Yes methodology of scientific validation cannot be used also logical/reasoning/mathematics/ also cannot be used to "evaluate the 'existence of god' I dont know what is "ultimates/infinity" Like I said earlier unlike science maths is static
Philosophy and theology may be can be used
is it to "evaluate the 'existence of god', Prove the "existence of god" or evidence of the "existence of god" you are talking about because each will is difference in itself

 

[arunshanker]

dear arun, its true that we both got each other, now! i'm slowly inching towards you, from my circular path

Are we
Why take the circular path
I am trying to be straight

 

[tbs]

hi
god exists.....from an army point of view.............


As a serving army officer, I never stop marveling at the gullibility of our
countrymen to be provoked with alacrity into virulence in the name of
religion.

I have never heard the word 'secular' during all my service -- and yet, the
simple things that are done simply in the army make it appear like an island
of sanity in a sea of hatred.

In the army, each officer identifies with the religion of his troops. In
regiments where the soldiers are from more than one religion, the officers
-- and indeed all jawans attend the weekly religious prayers of all the
faiths.

How many times have I trooped out of the battalion mandir and, having worn
my shoes, entered the battalion church next door?

A few years ago it all became simpler -- mandirs, masjids, gurudwars and
churches began to share premises all over the army. It saved us the walk.

Perhaps it is so because the army genuinely believes in two central 'truths'
-- oneness of god and victory in operations. Both are so sacred we cannot
nitpick and question the basics.

In fact, sometimes the army mixes up the two! On a visit to the holy cave at
Amarnath a few years ago I saw a plaque mounted on the side of the hill by a
battalion that had once guarded the annual Yatra. It said, 'Best wishes from
-....- battalion. Deployed for Operation Amarnath.

On another instance, I remember a commanding officer ordered the battalion
maulaviji to conduct the proceedings of Janamashtmi prayers because the
panditji had to proceed on leave on compassionate grounds. No eyebrows were
raised. It was the most rousing and best-prepared sermon on Lord Krishna I
have ever had the pleasure of listening to.

On the Line of Control, a company of Khemkhani Muslim soldiers replaced a
Dogra battalion. Over the next few days, the post was shelled heavily by
Pakistanis, and there were a few non-fatal casualties.

One day, the junior commissioned officer of the company, Subedar Sarwar Khan
walked up to the company commander Major Sharma and said, "Sahib, ever since
the Dogras left, the mandir has been shut. Why don't you open it once every
evening and do aarti? Why are we displeasing the gods?"

Major Sharma shamefacedly confessed he did not know all the words of the
aarti. Subedar Sarwar went away and that night, huddled over the radio set
under a weak lantern light, painstakingly took down the words of the aarti
from the post of another battalion!

How many of us know that along the entire border with Pakistan, our troops
abstain from alcohol and non-vegetarian food on all Thursdays? The reason:
It is called the Peer day -- essentially a day of religious significance for
the Muslims.

In 1984, after Operation Bluestar there was anguish in the Sikh community
over the desecration of the holiest of their shrines. Some of this anger and
hurt was visible in the army too.

I remember the first Sikh festival days after the event -- the number of
army personnel of every religious denomination that thronged the regimental
gurudwara of the nearest Sikh battalion was the largest I had seen. I
distinctly remember each officer and soldier who put his forehead to the
ground to pay obeisance appeared to linger just a wee bit longer than usual.

Was I imagining this? I do not think so. There was that empathy and caring
implicit in the quality of the gesture that appeared to say, "You are hurt
and we all understand."

We were deployed on the Line of Control those days. Soon after the news of
disaffection among a small section of Sikh troops was broadcast on the BBC,
Pakistani troops deployed opposite the Sikh battalion yelled across to
express their 'solidarity' with the Sikhs.

The Sikh havildar shouted back that the Pakistanis had better not harbour
any wrong notions. "If you dare move towards this post, we will mow you
down."

Finally, a real -- and true -- gem.... Two boys of a Sikh regiment battalion
were overheard discussing this a day before Christmas. "Why are we having a
holiday tomorrow?" asked Sepoy Singh. "It is Christmas," replied the wiser
Naik Singh. "But what is Christmas?" "Christmas," replied Naik Singh, with
his eyes half shut in reverence and hands in a spontaneous prayer-clasp, "is
the guruparb of the Christians."


coutesy www.keralaiyers.com


regards
tbs

 

[DrBarani]

In 1984, after Operation Bluestar there was anguish in the Sikh community over the desecration of the holiest of their shrines. Some of this anger and
hurt was visible in the army too.

The desecration was done by sikh radicals who converted the golden temple into a terrorist safe haven. Apparently that is not being admitted at all. The country should be put above a belief about "holy temple". The troops who went into Golden Temple removed their boots and tried to adhere as much as possible to the sanctity of the temple. Many of them died in the attack. The most appropriate reaction should be to honour those Soldiers who died, not the terrorists. In fact, the Soldiers restored the Sanctity of the Golden Temple!

 

[tbs]

hi drB sir,
this is somebody's experience.....even though i retired from army.....i quoted from our brethern website....im not claiming that everythig

is correct....

regards
tbs

 

[suraju06]

The desecration was done by sikh radicals who converted the golden temple into a terrorist safe haven. Apparently that is not being admitted at all. The country should be put above a belief about "holy temple". The troops who went into Golden Temple removed their boots and tried to adhere as much as possible to the sanctity of the temple. Many of them died in the attack. The most appropriate reaction should be to honour those Soldiers who died, not the terrorists. In fact, the Soldiers restored the Sanctity of the Golden Temple!

Yes. We have no regret whatsoever about the Blue Star Operation. But we certainly regret the Hindu-sikh riots of Delhi. We would apologise to every sikh in India for that and do repairs in whatever way we can. This is India speaking.

 

[DrBarani]

Yes. We have no regret whatsoever about the Blue Star Operation. But we certainly regret the Hindu-sikh riots of Delhi. We would apologise to every sikh in India for that and do repairs in whatever way we can. This is India speaking.

The Delhi riots were carried out by the political thugs. We don't have to apologize for them. Just capture the criminals and put them on public trial, bring justice. That includes the mute Police who refused to act to prevent the heinous crimes against innocent people.

But IG assassination that lead to riots was not immediately after the Bluestar operation.

Sikhs have been one of the graceful and majestic people in India. It was wrong to play politics with them. They have sacrificed a lot for this country. I will side with them any time if I have to choose between them and the politicians in Delhi.

 

[C RAVI]

With Science, Maths, Physics, Chemistry and Technology, Humans have indentified and determined the following -

1) Science is evolving stage by stage and exploring more, would achieve more.

2) Technology is evolving and offering more sophistication and advancements, would do more.

3) Our explorations are based on proof on common grounds, human understanding & acceptance.

3) Our Scientific findings and affirmations are subject to debates, corrections and finding the ultimate result, welcoming cross questionings.

4) Our technologically driven rational brain is free from unproven "FAITH IN GOD" and thus could come out with sophisticated living standards.

5) Our scientific rational brains are free from bogus concepts of "MAYA", "KARMA" & "BRAHMA". Thus we could have democratic law and order as humans- by the humans, for the humans, to the humans, because we have evolved to live a civil life.

6) With the subject of Astronomy, Meteorology & Seismology we could know that the natural topographical changes over the time and the natural calamities are just the natural process of the Universe.

7) With the subject of the Biology, we could explore the natural process of living organisms, including their structure, function, growth, origin and evolution. And that, all the living organisms have "SELFISH GENES".

8) With this subject of Biology, we could also understand that, Human's "SELFISH GENE" is unique of its kind, that can choose to lead a life of forgery and betrayal OR life of righteousness and justice OR take the middle path and live the life, to fulfill the needs, by using all the methodologies, from time to time.

9) With the concept of Logic, we could determine that, we can achieve anything from time to time, as our brains would keep evolving.

10) With the subject of Psychology, Hypnotics & Magic, we could know clearly that, Humans can understand Humans, can control humans and can eye wash humans. So "WE HUMANS" are better evolved species in natural course of time. We can do anything as we wish, we can change anything as we wish and we can twist anything to prove anything.

Having achieved many Possibilities of Once Impossibilities, inventing something New, that never ever been thought of and gaining full control of human survival (under standard natural rule (life/death/day/night etc), Humans could affirm and CONCLUDE that, their is nothing called Supernatural Power/GOD, that is observing us and guiding us.

The group of Humans, who could believe in the above conclusion are called Atheist, offering real life/scientific evidence and the Enlightement to fellow humans in order to get out of unreasonable concept of "FAITH IN GOD".


THEISTS - Theists are those who could conclude thousands of years before, that - "Aham Brahmasmi" - I am "Brahman" and I have the universal responsibilities (Love, Care, Peace, Harmony and better life in this physical world). I am part and parcel of the Universal creation of the Supreme Power/GOD.

I have the responsibility to lead a civil and satisfied life of Maya in this physical world of dynamism and uncertainties. "I" will contribute towards fulfillment of any sort (Moral/ethical/scientific/technological) that would be of no harm. But still "I" is not "I" in total.

"I" is a combination of "I AM SELFISH" & "I AM SELFLESS". A "SELFISH ATTITUDE" for "SELFLESSNESS" AND "SELFLESSNESS" for a "SELFISH ATTITUDE", is the balanced form of survival in this physical world, being a part and parcel of "BRAHMAN". IMO. As such, try to achieve - "AHAM BRAHMASMI".

"BRAHMAN"/"GOD" is all omnipresent, omniscient, omnipotent, in the form of Humans, other living creatures, trees, plants, flowers, rocks, sands, hills, water, air, fire, cosmic elements, chemicals, light, frequency, Electicity/Current, Senses, Sin, Righteousness, Mantra, Tantra, Sound, Vibrations, Certainties, Uncertainties etc..etc. AND Spiritual energies leading to understanding, realizations and acceptance of "BRAHMAN/GOD", while surviving this Physical World of Maya, carrying "SELFISH GENES".

This understanding, realization and acceptance of the ultimate truth/supreme power/God, is the outcome of the realization of "Aham Brahmasmi", having achieved Righteousness amidst the challenges of fraudulent and sinful deeds of "SELFISH GENES".

We 100% Theists are thus holding on the "FAITH IN GOD", having experienced personal realization of the Supremo (during the course of certainities, uncertainities, uncontrollable/unreasonable/unjustifiable positive and negative eventualities, nature's demonstrations of Miracles, joy, sufferings, meditation etc..e.tc), through Spiritual energies/vibrations, in our attempts to achieve "Aham Brahmasmi", balancing "I AM SELFISH" & "I AM SELFLESS".

We 100% Theists are enjoying the charm of such spiritual energies, with the understanding and acceptance of GOD and the sophistication of the technological world.

 

[gopaindu]

In my opinion, nature is another form of God. The reasons are, the nature of the universe is not same in all places i.e. unique and God is also unique. If calamities like floods, drought, earthquake, volcanoes,etc. are called natural because no plausible explanation can be given for their occurrence in particular places. at particular time, but sporadic. Further, such calamities can only be predicted through modern technology but can not be averted. So, GOD Exists.rajaji48

 

[sarma-61]

Sri Sarma -

Welcome, I thought you left and stopped reading the forum messages.

First, let me tell you in categorical terms that I have not realized anything (yet)

I am a student like everyone else is.

Shri tks sir,

I am unable to view the forum regularly because of personal circumstances. So, kindly excuse me if I disappear now and then.
Thank you for your kind explanations.

Some question this notion of God and in my view that is healthy. It is easy to question but harder to come up with answers that is consistent and cogent.

If we tended to make up over own things we either become a confused person hopelessly trying to retrofit a 'greatness and infallibility' to a set of ideas we don't understand clearly or we end up declaring that there is no such thing (calling themselves Atheists or Agnostics which sounds a bit better).

I tend to agree with all that you say, as an ordinary brahmin by birth. But the cases cited in this thread (http://www.tamilbrahmins.com/general-discussions/6948-
some-silly-childish-selfish-amoral-atheists-agnostics.html) about great and intelligent people not being believers in God and religion, creates some doubts in my mind as to whether the agnostics and atheists are, after all, so very intelligent; if so, they must also be having clear ideas and we should not take them to be confused fellows holding lunatic notions like "God does not exist". If God is really there, would not He turn these atheists and agnostics into mentally deranged people for keeping such wrong ideas and, more important, the disrespect shown to God? What is your opinion on this?

By continuing our study of Upanishads which do not require us to believe anything - unlike other great religious theologies - our notion of God is replaced by notions of Isvara (which is in my view is not a good translation of God). This notion does not require one to believe Iswara unconditionally (which means suspending all our reasoning faculty). Instead it requires us to *understand* Iswara since the notion is not the childhood notion anymore.

We do need Shraddha (faith until later ratified by understanding) and must really want to get the knowledge, otherwise it is not accessible. When one gets it, there is no need for proof because your realization is the proof. However this realization is not some kind of experience. If you solve a problem by better understanding we feel that the knowledge suddenly made the problem go away or made us look at a
problem differently. It is like the famous Eureka moment but it is not mystical.

I have been told and have also read in books that to clearly understand any of our scriptures, including the inner meanings of the Puranas, the first requirement is that the learner should have absolute, unquestioning TRUST in the scripture and also the teacher, (I suppose this is what you mean by the word “Shraddha”) and that the teacher should be regarded as equal to GOD. So, I find it difficult to accept your statement to the point that "our study of Upanishads which do not require us to believe anything - unlike other great religious theologies". My teacher (though he may not be good as per your criterions) whom I respect fully, says that the very word "Upanishad" is used in several places to mean secret teaching, i.e., that which is learnt by going and sitting (very) near the teacher and that many things in the upanishads are, therefore, secret. Like for example the utterance of the liberated
jivaatma saying that "I eat those who do not give annam". You have still also not explained this. The first part viz., "ahamannam, ahamannam, ahamannam, ahamannaadou, ahamannaadou, ahamannaadou, ahaggslokakrt, ahaggslokakrt, ahaggslokakrt" are expressions of wonder and thrill is explained by AdiSankara himself from the preceding "haaavu, haavu, haavu" and the repetitions thrice also He says, is to emphasize that wonder. But it is only when coming to "annam adantam aadmi" that the wonder stops and a serious statement starts. Again when the jiva exclaims "aham visvam bhuvanam abhyabhavaam! suvarna jyotee:" we can again take
that it has mingled with the Brahman, though the sudden change from "aham" in the first part to "nah" in "suvah nah jyoteeh" is somewhat puzzling and raises a doubt whether the liberated soul becomes somewhat conceited at the last stage as to refer to itself as "we".

The ideas of Jivatma, Paramatma are but feeble attempts by various authors to explain the gaining of knowledge but in the process end up confusing many people. Some people like to use 'self' and one with capital 'Self' and add to the confusion. There is but only one Atma.

I dont like to go into depths of discussions here in a forum for several reasons. It is hard to get all these teachings even when one is sincere and spends large amount of effort. A forum posts is but a feeble attempt. And in this part of the Discussion forum anyone can make foolish and denigrating comments and out of respect to such teachings I dont like to go into depths.

Also most TB readers are silent readers and rarely call out comments even when they are by someone from another faith wanting to denigrate these teachings.

As you correctly observed the literal translation of most of this teaching is meaningless and silly. Knowledge of Sanskrit is not enough to understand this. In this post I tried to explain why the correct context is important.

Though I would personally feel that if we have ( and there is) a valid , logical and satisfactory explanation, why should we feel afraid of some other religionists denigrating it (we can then always reply to them convincingly, can't we?), if you do not feel like giving your explanation in the open forum, kindly send the same to me by PMs. This is a humble request.

You need to find a teacher who knows more than Sanskrit in my humble opinion.

The reality is that it is not so easy. And my teacher has been honest enough to admit his ignorance and that makes my reverence to him stronger. (He could have misled me by giving some imaginative explanations, you see.) Therefore, I will once again request you to explain the words "annam adantam aadmi" as also why the mostly liberated jivaatma which starts expressing its wonderment with "I" or aham, suddenly switches over to "nah" when it refers to the splendour of the Sun (suvah nah jyoteeh).

 

[DrBarani]

If God is really there, would not He turn these atheists and agnostics into mentally deranged people for keeping such wrong ideas and, more important, the disrespect shown to God? What is your opinion on this?

Why do people think God must be like Aurangzeb who says "if you don't bend over before me I will punish you!"? That is a very poor argument to question the properties of God especially after falsely attributing a bad property to God.

 

[arunshanker]

about great and intelligent people not being believers in God and religion, creates some doubts in my mind as to whether the agnostics and atheists are, after all, so very intelligent; if so, they must also be having clear ideas and we should not take them to be confused fellows holding lunatic notions like "God does not exist". If God is really there, would not He turn these atheists and agnostics into mentally deranged people for keeping such wrong ideas and, more important, the disrespect shown to God? What is your opinion on this?

Why do people think God must be like Aurangzeb who says "if you don't bend over before me I will punish you!"? That is a very poor argument to question the properties of God especially after falsely attributing a bad property to God.

Mr sarma firstly you have said “agnostics and atheists” agnostics don’t say or have notions likes "God does not exist".
An ideal God is one who is omniscient and all forgiving to the extent that He/She even forgives dissent and disbelief. One would not want a spiteful God. And what’s more is like Dr. Barani has said – It is about the God we are talking why should we jump to the properties of Him/Her

 

[Nara]

...An ideal God is one who is omniscient and all forgiving to the extent that He/She even forgives dissent and disbelief.

Arun, if this is the character of an "ideal" god, then, considering the facts of human existence, the case for the existence of god is hopelessly weak. As I have done previously in this web site, I would like to cite one of the ancient Greek atheists, Epicurus.

“Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?

​

It is interesting to note that Epicurus, having rejected to entertain the notion of god, was one of the most compassionate Greeks. From Wiki:

"He regularly admitted women and slaves into his school and was one of the first Greeks to break from the god-fearing and god-worshiping tradition common at the time, ....."

​

Cheers!

p.s. I admire your patience

 

[arunshanker]

Arun, if this is the character of an "ideal" god, then, considering the facts of human existence, the case for the existence of god is hopelessly weak. As I have done previously in this web site, I would like to cite one of the ancient Greek atheists, Epicurus.

“Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?

​

It is interesting to note that Epicurus, having rejected to entertain the notion of god, was one of the most compassionate Greeks. From Wiki:

"He regularly admitted women and slaves into his school and was one of the first Greeks to break from the god-fearing and god-worshiping tradition common at the time, ....."

​

Cheers!

I guess Is he both able and willing but prbly there is this anti God too working against Him/Her

p.s. I admire your patience

Thanks actually I am an on and off here in this forum I keep up with posting for may be a week then I am off cant stand this for more than that.

 

[Nara]

I guess Is he both able and willing but prbly there is this anti God too working against Him/Her...

Ha, you just doubled the problem .

If there is an equally powerful antigod, even then, to be safe, it is best to stay out of the way of both of them, no?

Cheers!

 

[sravna]

I wonder why atheists deny the existence of God. Certainly it is not based on proof. Then it has to be:

1) Since they think there is no proof of God, they just say we do not need a God
2) Some people are basically wicked. They fear God because they would not be able to get away with immoral and wicked deeds.
3) The world is wicked therefore a benevolent God cannot be controlling it.
4) Any other reason?

The problem is if people believe in (1) and (3) they would be drawn towards (2). They may become functionally wicked even though not inherently wicked. The concept of God should not be erased from human memory because it acts as a substitute for conscience in those who lack it.

I am of the view that conscience is the voice of God and ego is the voice against God.