God Exists

[guruvayurappan]

Share:

Facebook X (Twitter) LinkedIn WhatsApp Email Share Link

ther is alwys the other side for each and every one .it is relative theory.if you say some one rich some body will be richer you thing positively other wise poor if you have negative thinking. dark means light less poor means less money victory/defeat.hill mean some where hollow if you are praised as intelligent,you are better informed compared to other s present in the scene

 

[sangom]

the fact that the body dies,but not the soul which is god.if you see your soul you see god.thats the enlightening part of every scripture every religion as is available.its so simple yet difficult to grasp.aham brahmasmi,tat tva masi,ayam athma brahmam.....so on

A 'body' does not die, it is a person who dies. On death something happens and the body becomes 'dead' like a log. So it is said by religions that there was a soul which made the body alive and made it capable of doing all that it could do, and that the said soul gets out of the body when death happens.

If we take a television set which has gone 'phut', will we say, on a similar note, that the tv waves which were activating the set have left the set for ever? I feel 'life' must be a similar phenomenon; the body which was capable of continuously receiving the Life energy, becomes incapable of doing so and goes "phut". The Life energy is still there around that dead body as also working in all the living persons; only one "life set" becomes inoperative.

 

[prasad1]

It is a matter of identification. If "I" am the body then I die, but if "I" am identified with the what you call life force and I choose to call by what ever name I wish, then the body died and I did not.

The 'life force', or soul, or Brahman is always alive never dies. Just as space never disappears(except may be in a black hole), but can be contained in a pot. So when pot is broken the pot space just merges back in the general space pool.

Bhagavat Gita Sloka 2.23 says:

Text 23​

nainam chindanti shastrani
nainam dahati pavakah
na cainam kledayanty apo
na sosayati marutah​

Translation​

The soul can never be cut to pieces by any weapon, nor burned by fire, nor moistened by water, nor withered by the wind.

Vedanta says, ‘You are chaitanya’, Chaitanya means, awareness or consciousness. I am aware of my body, the mind, the intellect. I am basically awareness through which everything is seen, everything is objectified, known and perceived. Therefore ‘aham’ which means ‘I’ is pure consciousness, pure awareness or chaitanya.

 

[Nara]

Dubbya Bush may be a true Christian.

Who is a true Christian has become an issue in the Kentucky gubernatorial race, with a Hindu twist. This Republican sounds very much like Hindutva politicians complaining about appeasement of Muslims in India for political purposes. For more, click here.

 

[nannilam_balasubramanian]

Body & Soul

It is a matter of identification. If "I" am the body then I die, but if "I" am identified with the what you call life force and I choose to call by what ever name I wish, then the body died and I did not.

The 'life force', or soul, or Brahman is always alive never dies. Just as space never disappears(except may be in a black hole), but can be contained in a pot. So when pot is broken the pot space just merges back in the general space pool.

Bhagavat Gita Sloka 2.23 says:

Text 23​

nainam chindanti shastrani
nainam dahati pavakah
na cainam kledayanty apo
na sosayati marutah​

Translation​

The soul can never be cut to pieces by any weapon, nor burned by fire, nor moistened by water, nor withered by the wind.

Vedanta says, ‘You are chaitanya’, Chaitanya means, awareness or consciousness. I am aware of my body, the mind, the intellect. I am basically awareness through which everything is seen, everything is objectified, known and perceived. Therefore ‘aham’ which means ‘I’ is pure consciousness, pure awareness or chaitanya.

You have nicely brought out an interesting piece of information to know. Generally the fear of death overshadows the lives of all human beings. It is quite natural irrespective of the age, whether one has enjoyed happiness or lived happily from all quarters. Human soul is just caged/enveloped by a human body and death is just release of the soul according to one's karma.

 

[renuka]

Dear Sangom,

You wrote :

The Life energy is still there around that dead body as also working in all the living persons; only one "life set" becomes inoperative.

yes you are right...Life Energy is very much present even in a dead body as in a living body but the operating set that is the Astral Body has left the physical body hence the Life Energy cant function and animate the body.

 

[wrongan]

Dear Sangom,

You wrote :

yes you are right...Life Energy is very much present even in a dead body as in a living body but the operating set that is the Astral Body has left the physical body hence the Life Energy cant function and animate the body.

--- Very excellent .I cannot reach your height.
" Thamaso jyothir gamaya"

 

[renuka]

--- Very excellent .I cannot reach your height.
" Thamaso jyothir gamaya"

Dear wrongan,

I got that info from this..I have posted it many times before but I dont mind posting it again.

 

[nachi naga]

A 'body' does not die, it is a person who dies. On death something happens and the body becomes 'dead' like a log. So it is said by religions that there was a soul which made the body alive and made it capable of doing all that it could do, and that the said soul gets out of the body when death happens.

If we take a television set which has gone 'phut', will we say, on a similar note, that the tv waves which were activating the set have left the set for ever? I feel 'life' must be a similar phenomenon; the body which was capable of continuously receiving the Life energy, becomes incapable of doing so and goes "phut". The Life energy is still there around that dead body as also working in all the living persons; only one "life set" becomes inoperative.

sangom sir,what is this 'something happens' ?this something i define as athma aka soul.as long as the driver is inside,the body works.the driver is the soul.otherwise its like a car without a driver.going nowhere,simply rot and detoeriate.

 

[ShivKC]

Is it a "scientific" statement to say that science can/may explain everything?

no.no.no , that is also statement of faith!!

 

[sangom]

sangom sir,what is this 'something happens' ?this something i define as athma aka soul.as long as the driver is inside,the body works.the driver is the soul.otherwise its like a car without a driver.going nowhere,simply rot and detoeriate.

Dear NN,

I said so because there are many beliefs about that "something", not always as simple as a car & driver. Pl. see posts 1656 to 58 above.

 

[sangom]

Is it a "scientific" statement to say that science can/may explain everything?

no.no.no , that is also statement of faith!!

Kindly furnish the post under reference; not so much "moTTai" pl.

 

[Mayuram V.Sankaran]

The world of opposites and contradictions that we witness in the natural phenomena and also, in our lives make us wonder about the existence of God. This situation is perhaps augmented by the fact that God does not choose to interact with us directly or indirectly in meaningful ways. Just as we witness both a semblance of order and also, disorder in natural phenomena and in our lives,we both believe in the existence of God and also,doubt the same at times.

 

[sangom]

The world of opposites and contradictions that we witness in the natural phenomena and also, in our lives make us wonder about the existence of God. This situation is perhaps augmented by the fact that God does not choose to interact with us directly or indirectly in meaningful ways. Just as we witness both a semblance of order and also, disorder in natural phenomena and in our lives,we both believe in the existence of God and also,doubt the same at times.

For a child, anything has to have a creator without which it could not have been created. But when even people like us, with some amount of scientific and general knowledge, the question that arises is, is it always necessary to have a creator for anything and everything? What if the universe is without beginning and end and also self-supporting? Should we compulsorily impose a creator on the universe?

If we begin thinking in this way, the need for a "god" disappears.

Further, suppose all these we see, the universe with its opposites, contradictions, order and what not, all are just our mental impressions certified by our sense organs as true, (like the concept of maayaa in advaita) and not really existing, will it not mean that we are ourselves the creators and thus lead to "aham brahmaasmi" or "tat tvamasi"? Again, a God is not necessary here, unless one wants to follow Adi sankara and his guidelines for acquiring brahmajnaana and mukti, etc.

 

[ShivKC]

For a child, anything has to have a creator without which it could not have been created. But when even people like us, with some amount of scientific and general knowledge, the question that arises is, is it always necessary to have a creator for anything and everything? What if the universe is without beginning and end and also self-supporting? Should we compulsorily impose a creator on the universe?

If we begin thinking in this way, the need for a "god" disappears.

the problem here is, when an adult interprets god-creator in the same way like a child.

when we interpret this question in an adulthood, we need to use the term, 'cause' or 'causality', and ponder over, who is the cause for this earth? and who is the first cause for all?, ie, an event leads to second event, and here first even becomes the cause for the second. this philosophical term 'event' is what defined as 'time' in science. if one could work through these angles, there is a godhead comes putting an end to this infinitesimal events, who has to be beyond event, cause and time.

i think this point was discussed many a times, but give it a try, through philosophical approach.

 

[prasad1]

Even in science you can not create something from nothing, as far as we know today.

Before the big bang, scientists believe, the entire vastness of the observable universe, including all of its matter and radiation, was compressed into a hot, dense mass just a few millimeters across. This nearly incomprehensible state is theorized to have existed for just a fraction of the first second of time.

Origins of the Universe, Big Bang Theory Information, Big Bang Facts, News, Photos -- National Geographic

The science still believes in this hypothesis.
Would you call that initial mass as datum. Everything originated from that mass. No one knows how that mass was created. So what do you call that caused that original mass? Can we call it Brahman (ADvaita), God, or any other name. So that is the creator of everything we know. Is it the Abrahmic concept of GOD, i do not think so. But this creator of this mass meets my definition of GOD. My GOD is subtle, all pervasive, but not an activist God. It may not meet the definition of someone else's God.

 

[guruvayurappan]

dear sangom !
i like your post#1664. that is why it is said you love your self (your body and soul )where god is present in yourself.erukkum edathai vitu ellatha edam theydi voduvathen ?
cheers
guruvayurappan

 

[sangom]

S/Shri Shiv, Prasad, Appan,

The Big Bang Theory (BBT) has not yet been 'proved' but is the tentative hypothesis which is currently held on to by most scientists, perhaps. There are some valid criticisms of and objections to BBT also. Alternative hypotheses are also suggested.

That said, why and how is it that we are "able to" put an end to causality and the consequent infinite regression, the moment there is the presumption of 'a godhead, who has to be beyond event, cause and time' as Shri Shiv states? Is it not due to our mind/brain having been conditioned right from childhood to think this way? Suppose there is a dimwit (like myself) who says, 'what caused this godhead?', and 'what caused that which caused that godhead' and so on, the infinite regression will very much become relevant, will it not? So, dear Shiv, it is religious indoctrination which helps in "putting an end to this infinitesimal events", as you say and it is not because of any rationally convincing argument.

If that godhead happens to be viewed as some anthropomorphic entity, we will then have to reckon with the infinite lineage of that human-like god through his parents and grandparents and so on. Hence, only religious gullibility can accept a godhead without a cause, or swayambhoo; philosophy may not, in the absence of the blind faith granted by religion, accept such a 'first cause', it will be more intellectually acceptable to consider an everlasting universe — it will be ādimadhyāntarahitaṃ, without beginning, middle or end just like the abstract concept of viṣṇuḥ (that which has spread everywhere, not the human-looking godhead with 4 hands).

BBT only says that we humans who are controlled by and subject to time dimension, cannot know anything about the universe before the BB; it does not say that the universe did not/could not have existed before the BB event. (It is something like a movie starting abruptly with a terrific bomb explosion. We are shown only from that point of time. Here again, much emphasis has been placed on the redshift and cosmic background radiation, to arrive at the BBT and it is possible that alternative theories will be able to explain these observed phenomena. For example, an expanding universe does not necessarily require a big bang because we are not talking here of any explosion but expansion like that of a universe-sized rubber balloon which is being pumped continuously—may be by the creator godhead as per Shri Shiv!) So, Shri Prasad, your statement that "scientists believe, the entire vastness of the observable universe, including all of its matter and radiation, was compressed into a hot, dense mass just a few millimeters across. This nearly incomprehensible state is theorized to have existed for just a fraction of the first second of time." revolves around the verb "believe" in the first sentence, but for which they have no authority from BBT itself. It is a "belief" which cannot be proved at all if BBT is correct. If that subtle mass as you put it, needs a creator, we once again go into asking who created that creator of the subtle mass and so on, ad infinitum. You are free to hold whatever notion of god satisfies you but the relevant point is that then you are contradicting the first sentence of your post#1666, viz., "Even in science you can not create something from nothing, as far as we know today." and discarding this when you come to the creator of the pre-BB subtle mass. Hope you see the weakness of the logic. God as per religion cannot thus be fitted easily into science, imho.

Shri Appan,

To realize god's presence in one's self is the most difficult thing and perhaps all of hindu religion and philosophy tries, in vain, to confuse and complicate this.

 

[happyhindu]

If we begin thinking in this way, the need for a "god" disappears.

I suppose this means, instead of praying to god, we must get the kids to work hard and inculcate a naturalist, rational approach in looking for answers. Before getting the kids to do so, the parents have to change gears, change direction, and try to drive a new road first. Not so easy (the willingness to let go of familiarity and try something new may not exist in some)....

Nice post sir.

 

[ShivKC]

I suppose this means, instead of praying to god, we must get the kids to work hard and inculcate a naturalist, rational approach in looking for answers. Before getting the kids to do so, the parents have to change gears, change direction, and try to drive a new road first. Not so easy (the willingness to let go of familiarity and try something new may not exist in some)....

Nice post sir.

not clear about the stand here? if you are talking about rational and logical approach, i have a good argument to says, with the absolute god, there can never be existin' a logic and ratioalism..

would appreciate, if you could engage here.. thanks in advance

 

[prasad1]

Sir Sangom,
I am going to say something that might be construed as insensitive, but it is not.
I really do not care if some one else believes, as to what I believe. I do not need another human being for my belief system. Similarly I do not expect you need my support for your belief system.

Having said that I want to state that everything is based on some belief. You would not have any science if you did not have a "belief". Even a scientist has to believe in existence or absence of some hypothesis to explore and research.
Even you believe that you have a point. So everyone has to have a belief. So we are all believers after all.

 

[Yamaka]

My two-cents on this - I have written extensively on this and earned the wrath of many people here! Lol.

1. People always bring Science into discussions of God and Faith. I only reiterate the point that Science is opposite of God and Faith:

Yes, Science starts with a Hypothesis, then proceeds to Test it by Experimentation, then the Results are discussed openly, and finally the Results are accepted AFTER independent confirmation by other Scientists living anywhere in the world.

Can this be possible in the realm of God and Faith. No. Because it's simply a Belief by a group of people.

2. Some people claim that God and Religion brings Altruism and Happiness to our lives.

Not necessarily. Altruism and Happiness could come to anybody whether he/she is a Believer or not.

It depends on the Personality of the individual built over eons of time. The idea of a God has nothing to do with this particular Personality.

3. Some people claim that at least God and Religion gives HOPE to people who are in hopeless situation.

Maybe.. very transiently. It does not SOLVE the hopeless situation at all, unless the person in that hopeless situation works towards solving it by hard thinking, planning and working.

This leads to the billion people who are trapped in Abject Poverty in India (these are the people w/o even a high school education; these people have low or no skills in this early 21st Century of Knowledge driven economy).

Most of these people say, "Aandavan Ippudithan engalai Padachan... God CREATED us like this to suffer.... Avan Ninacha Ellam Nadakkum...If HE decides all things will happen"

This is the intended or unintended consequence of this God & Religion which is what bothering me the most... They are the people of whom "Yaarukkaha Azhuvan Yamaka?"

What's the Solution to bring this billion people out of this mindset of God & Religion and the consequent Abject Poverty?

Talk about this per se.. please!
Cheers.

 

[sangom]

Sir Sangom,
I am going to say something that might be construed as insensitive, but it is not.
I really do not care if some one else believes, as to what I believe. I do not need another human being for my belief system. Similarly I do not expect you need my support for your belief system.

Having said that I want to state that everything is based on some belief. You would not have any science if you did not have a "belief". Even a scientist has to believe in existence or absence of some hypothesis to explore and research.
Even you believe that you have a point. So everyone has to have a belief. So we are all believers after all.

Shri prasad,

I know I am dull-witted but to me it looks as though if someone is not bothered about what others think about his own beliefs, the minimum such person ought to do is not to share his belief system in any forum, actually, with nobody at all. Since you have not only actively participated in the discussions here and spelt out some part at least of your belief system vide posts #1653, 1666 etc., and having recorded many "likes", your present stand of "I don't care" reminds me, sorry to say, of some category who resort to such tactics when confronted, and nothing more than that. I feel you will think deeply and revise your strategy for forum participation to that of an educated and grown up adult.

I do not expect anyone's support for my belief system but I feel I will benefit much from listening to (reading) the various povs and discussions.

Since you don't need any support I stop giving my views on any further point which may be there in your above post.

 

[sangom]

sangom sir,what is this 'something happens' ?this something i define as athma aka soul.as long as the driver is inside,the body works.the driver is the soul.otherwise its like a car without a driver.going nowhere,simply rot and detoeriate.

Dear nn,

I have given the religious view of 'soul' or atma and the driver getting out of car. But I feel it can also be viewed equally logically that it is a case of 'body beyond repair' which is no longer capable of receiving, converting, filtering, amplifying and giving out audio &video outputs as it used to.

 

[sangom]

Is it a "scientific" statement to say that science can/may explain everything?

no.no.no , that is also statement of faith!!

Shri Shiv,

Once again this does not give any clue as to the original post. I don't even know whether it was mine.

Still, science may explain everything is not "faith" of the religious variety; it is a statement of one's hope perhaps.

If someone says "science can explain everything" that is plain wrong; but it does not immediately mean that religion comes in - it is plain inability of the current state of scientific knowledge. It is like saying,"my son, studying in the KG cannot explain differential equations"; this does not mean that this child will do so through prayers or divine chants, nor does it mean that the child will never be able to explain differential equations.