God Exists

[sravna]

Share:

Facebook X (Twitter) LinkedIn WhatsApp Email Share Link

Dear Shri Nara,

Sorry for intruding in your conversation with Shri.KRS. But your denigration of what are called beliefs is not agreeable to me on rational grounds. Giving importance to beliefs is at worst a double edged sword. Any one can say what he wants and get away with it. But see the other side. The sense of mind being more evolved than the physical senses its truth is likely to be correct when even physical evidence seems to contradict it. Because for a perceptive mind, there is a way around the evidence which others may not perceive.

So let us not trash all unsubstantiated opinions as useless. Certain facts do not lend themselves to physical support and hence need to be taken on faith. People of unquestionable intellect have vouched for the existence of a supreme being and as such cannot be dismissed easily especially on questionable yardsticks. Personally I do not see any problem with that belief and there are really perverse beliefs that warrant the real scrutiny of people who call themselves rational.

 

[ShivKC]

welcome sravana here in to this thread.. i remember the good times when you and dr.barani were here, few months ago.

 

[KRS]

Dear bro Nara Ji,

You said:

We all are born atheists, i.e. no idea that there is even a construct called god. Then, people come along and insist there is ommacchi. Not knowing any better we nod our head and act as told. This is a form of child abuse on an intellectual level.

This is the crux of the issue. You assert that we are all born atheists - again this is an assumption that belies the great arguments going on about Innatism or a 'Tabla Rosa' of a new born. This is not at all a settled question in Science and again, it is your belief.

Looking at this from the human evolution stand point, as I have said before, the atheists are a minority and their numbers roughly corresponds with other minority deviations from the majority attributes of the humans. So, your position from the minority viewpoint saying that an attribute of the majority is irrational and illogical when both can not be verified by science does not really hold true, in my opinion.

It is immaterial whether the existence of a personal God is proved. It is enough that a believer believes in it's existence for him/her as this is beyond the material, existing in the metaphysical. This is why, as I have said, neither proposition can be proved by today's science. And I believe by tomorrow's science either.

I understood what you were saying. But just that I do not agree with it based on the above.

Perhaps as Sri Prasad1 Ji says, it is about time we agree to dis agree and move on.

Regards,
KRS

 

[sravna]

welcome sravana here in to this thread.. i remember the good times when you and dr.barani were here, few months ago.

Dear Shiv,

It seems like "men may come and men may go but God Exists forever" !

 

[Nara]

...This is the crux of the issue. You assert that we are all born atheists - again this is an assumption that belies the great arguments going on about Innatism or a 'Tabla Rosa' of a new born. This is not at all a settled question in Science and again, it is your belief.

Dear brother KRS, Tabla Rosa is not about whether there is an innate understanding or recognition of a metaphysical agent. It is not difficult to show that our faith about a particular god is man-made, not innate. If it is innate, then all children must develop the same kind of faith irrespective of where they are born.

What is innate to babies is to trust the care giver as that endows a survival advantage. So, if the caregiver says ommaachi will poke your eyes if you don't drink the milk, the child believes that. This innate nature leads to belief in the particular god that the parent and environment exposes the child to. The very fact children grow up with a faith to which they are exposed in one way or another and do not grow up on their own to have a uniform theistic experience across the board from all corners of the world, shows religion and the gods they pray to are man-made constructs.

Also, I think you are avoiding an important question I raised. This discussion is not about some abstract concept of god. You have a particular god in your mind, Shiva, or Vishnu or Jesus, etc. Everybody who is arguing against me sports deep faith in one of these gods. My point is, to believe in such a god is irrational for the reasons I have stated often. This is the point for which there is never a straight answer from anybody. It is all about not being able to prove the negative.

Alright, let me pose a question to the Hindu folks, the Christians say you will be consigned to eternal hell if you don't accept Jesus as your savior, go through baptisim, or some such thing. Do you believe in this? Why not, science has not proved this is not so? So, if I say I don't beleive in this hell fire nonsense, then, applying your logic, I am being irrational.

So, your position from the minority viewpoint saying that an attribute of the majority is irrational and illogical when both can not be verified by science does not really hold true, in my opinion.

Minority or majority is irrelevant. If you come out and declare there is a personal god who listens and answers prayers, then it is up to you to provide the proof. If you do I will believe, until then I go about my business free of any unfounded belief. Refusing to believe in what you assert based on nothing more than your faith is not another belief.

There is no need for me to prove there is no god, just as I have no need to prove an invisible pink unicorn (IPU) does not exist. If you say science has not proved that an IPU does not exist and therefore, those who reject a belief in IPU are just as irrational as those who believe in its existence, then all I have to say is, yes, we ave to agree to disagree.

It is immaterial whether the existence of a personal God is proved. It is enough that a believer believes in it's existence for him/her as this is beyond the material, existing in the metaphysical. This is why, as I have said, neither proposition can be proved by today's science. And I believe by tomorrow's science either.

Nor has today's science proved the proposition there exists an IPU, and I am pretty confident tomorrow's science won't also. So, if we are to apply your logic, this proposition that an IPU exists must enjoy the same degree of respect as any other proposition for which there is preponderance of evidence, but not fully proven.

I reject this tendency for people to make this false equivalency between theism and atheism. One is faith and the other is rationality, two non-intersecting spheres.

Cheers!

---

Every opinion based on scientific criticism I welcome. As to prejudices .. to which I have never made concessions ... “Segui il tuo corso, e lascia dir le genti.” -- Karl Marx

 

[ShivKC]

one may find very often this simple question when countering atheists 'show me god, i will believe it.. show me Krishna, i would buy all your statements'.

few months ago, this particular question was well answered by Dr.Barani , saying ,"show me X-ray to my nacked eyes, i would believe it'. a man in andaman islands once said..

the thing is, we need to set the specs, parameters and measuring scale, to detect x-ray and further proceed to convince it.

here, the atheists have to draw a set of definition/specs about god, and then may ask ways to prove god, like how X-ray is proved, though human eye can never see it.

if that's difficult, then, they should accept the definition as set by theists, and go in search of god, based on theists own specification about god.


otherwise it will end up like this. a theist may say, 'com'on here is my laptop, and its todays god, havent you seen it, my friend?.. on what basis or norms, atheists are going to disprove this claim?. so there should be common norm or specs to define god, and setting that, each one can attempt to prove or disprove. otherwise, it will be like using a thermometer to weigh vegetables!

if atheists dont want to accept the definition of god as set by atheism, its free for atheists to define what god should be, and what kind of proofs they expect, and put then back the questions on theists to prove it. that seems to be fair deal.

 

[Nara]

....Sorry for intruding in your conversation with Shri.KRS.

Dear sravna, you are always welcome, so are others.

But your denigration of what are called beliefs is not agreeable to me on rational grounds. Giving importance to beliefs is at worst a double edged sword. Any one can say what he wants and get away with it. But see the other side. The sense of mind being more evolved than the physical senses its truth is likely to be correct when even physical evidence seems to contradict it. Because for a perceptive mind, there is a way around the evidence which others may not perceive.

There is an adage in Tamil and I am sure you have heard of it, காதால் கேட்பதும் பொய் கண்ணால் பார்ப்பதும் பொய் தீர விசாரிப்பதே மெய். Personal experiences are notoriously unreliable.

So let us not trash all unsubstantiated opinions as useless.

I agree, opinions must not be trashed just because they are unsubstantiated. We have to take into account available evidence, logic, etc. The theists have had thousands of years to substantiate this thing called god, and they have god, the all power entity, on their side, and yet they have managed to come up with nothing better than unsubstantiated personal testimony. Now we are at a point when it is not unreasonable to trash this particular unsubstantiated opinion as useless.

Certain facts do not lend themselves to physical support and hence need to be taken on faith. People of unquestionable intellect have vouched for the existence of a supreme being and as such cannot be dismissed easily especially on questionable yardsticks. Personally I do not see any problem with that belief and there are really perverse beliefs that warrant the real scrutiny of people who call themselves rational.

People of unquestionable intellect have been shown to be wrong. Asking for verifiable evidence is not a questionable yard stick. I do agree perverse beliefs must be scrutinized and exposed, there is lot of those. This is being done by people devoted to scientific methods everyday. However, this does mean rejecting faith in god is just another belief, equally irrational as faith in god.

Cheers!

---

Every opinion based on scientific criticism I welcome. As to prejudices .. to which I have never made concessions ... “Segui il tuo corso, e lascia dir le genti.” -- Karl Marx

 

[Yamaka]

one may find very often this simple question when countering atheists 'show me god, i will believe it.. show me Krishna, i would buy all your statements'.

few months ago, this particular question was well answered by Dr.Barani , saying ,"show me X-ray to my nacked eyes, i would believe it'. a man in andaman islands once said..

the thing is, we need to set the specs, parameters and measuring scale, to detect x-ray and further proceed to convince it.

here, the atheists have to draw a set of definition/specs about god, and then may ask ways to prove god, like how X-ray is proved, though human eye can never see it.

if that's difficult, then, they should accept the definition as set by theists, and go in search of god, based on theists own specification about god.


otherwise it will end up like this. a theist may say, 'com'on here is my laptop, and its todays god, havent you seen it, my friend?.. on what basis or norms, atheists are going to disprove this claim?. so there should be common norm or specs to define god, and setting that, each one can attempt to prove or disprove. otherwise, it will be like using a thermometer to weigh vegetables!

if atheists dont want to accept the definition of god as set by atheism, its free for atheists to define what god should be, and what kind of proofs they expect, and put then back the questions on theists to prove it. that seems to be fair deal.

Dear Shiv:

Good point.

That's why I always give the three important characteristics or "details of definition" in my posts like- A Theist is

1. Believing in the IDEA of a Super Natural Agent who is mostly in the form of a Human Being (like Jesus, Rama, Krishna, Muruga etc) who controls ALL activities of ALL living beings including ALL humans ALL the time.

2. Believing in the IDEA of the usefulness or utility of constant prayers, poojas and bhajans in praise of this SNA, and asking for favors in his/her daily life.

3. Believing in the IDEA of Poorva Janma Karma (all the 3 are for Hindus, and the 2 above for Abrahamic religion followers).

I would expect the Theists who write about "God Exists" must answer and prove these three points, if they are truly interested.

I maintain the view that Atheism is not a religion in itself... it's just a repudiation of ALL three points raised above.

Also, I now realize that Theists will stick to their Belief because of the very entrenched emotions with

TRADITION and/or FEAR and/or simple SUPERSTITION, period.

Atheists must accept this and walk away, perhaps to highlight the Impact of FATALISM propounded by Gods, Spirits, Ghosts and Religion on the Prosperity of India.

That's what Y is doing these days!

Cheers.

 

[KRS]

Dear bro Nara Ji,
I am now thinking that you do not seem to grasp what I am trying to say. Probably it is because, I have not been articulate enough. Let me try one more time. My response is in blue:

Dear brother KRS, Tabla Rosa is not about whether there is an innate understanding or recognition of a metaphysical agent. It is not difficult to show that our faith about a particular god is man-made, not innate. If it is innate, then all children must develop the same kind of faith irrespective of where they are born.
This is not what the theory of Innatism or nativism claim. However, again, you are assuming something apriori, without understanding the nature of 'belief in God', which I would roughly translate in to 'spirituality'. This attribute of a human being, like other inherent attributes such as need for communication, need to procreate etc., in my opinion is ingrained in the fundamental make up of a human being. Like the need for Communication expresses itself in acquisition of a native language, so does the need for spirituality express itself with the native religion. This is why. your assumption to dismiss the concept of innatism is wrong.

What is innate to babies is to trust the care giver as that endows a survival advantage. So, if the caregiver says ommaachi will poke your eyes if you don't drink the milk, the child believes that. This innate nature leads to belief in the particular god that the parent and environment exposes the child to. The very fact children grow up with a faith to which they are exposed in one way or another and do not grow up on their own to have a uniform theistic experience across the board from all corners of the world, shows religion and the gods they pray to are man-made constructs.
This is the nature versus nurture theory. Almost everyone nowadays accept that there is influence of both when a child is growing up. Again, yes, religions are man made constructs in the sense that languages are man made constructs. Just like languages are only a tool for communication, so are the religions the languages to express a person's innate spirituality.

Also, I think you are avoiding an important question I raised. This discussion is not about some abstract concept of god. You have a particular god in your mind, Shiva, or Vishnu or Jesus, etc. Everybody who is arguing against me sports deep faith in one of these gods. My point is, to believe in such a god is irrational for the reasons I have stated often. This is the point for which there is never a straight answer from anybody. It is all about not being able to prove the negative.
I thought I answered this question many times, but you seem to not like my answer, without giving me a reason why. Shiva, Rama, Yahweh, Allah and Jesus are all the symbols of the impersonal entity called God - at least we should agree on this. And a personal God is the most accessible to a human mind, than an impersonal Deity. This is why even the monotheistic religions that abhor what they call as 'idol' worship, assign 'human' qualities such as goodness etc. to their Gods. Now for a human being this need for expression of the spirituality comes in many ways. Prayer is one of them. To ask why do you need to pray is akin to asking a person why do you need to write poetry in a language - wouldn't just writing in text enough?

Alright, let me pose a question to the Hindu folks, the Christians say you will be consigned to eternal hell if you don't accept Jesus as your savior, go through baptisim, or some such thing. Do you believe in this? Why not, science has not proved this is not so? So, if I say I don't beleive in this hell fire nonsense, then, applying your logic, I am being irrational.
Again, this question is akin to asking a French person, if he/she appreciate English over French (discounting here the French Chauvinism!). This is why it is called 'faith' that is unique to each religion/culture.

Minority or majority is irrelevant. If you come out and declare there is a personal god who listens and answers prayers, then it is up to you to provide the proof. If you do I will believe, until then I go about my business free of any unfounded belief. Refusing to believe in what you assert based on nothing more than your faith is not another belief.
As I have said, there is no need to prove anything, because nothing can be proved in this realm based on your requirement of proof. Since you can not prove your hypothesis either, both ASSUMPTIONS are based on belief. At least the theists have the concept of a Super Natural entity on their side to at least explain the notion/validity of a personal God. Atheists even do not have that as a support to their belief.

There is no need for me to prove there is no god, just as I have no need to prove an invisible pink unicorn (IPU) does not exist. If you say science has not proved that an IPU does not exist and therefore, those who reject a belief in IPU are just as irrational as those who believe in its existence, then all I have to say is, yes, we ave to agree to disagree.

Nor has today's science proved the proposition there exists an IPU, and I am pretty confident tomorrow's science won't also. So, if we are to apply your logic, this proposition that an IPU exists must enjoy the same degree of respect as any other proposition for which there is preponderance of evidence, but not fully proven.
A perfect straw man argument. We know that there must be a Super Natural Force or a deity that must exist for the cause of Universe. There is no such kernel of truth what so ever with a IPU. I appreciate your skill at this constructing a strawman that looks almost real!

I reject this tendency for people to make this false equivalency between theism and atheism. One is faith and the other is rationality, two non-intersecting spheres.
I understand why you would keep on repeating this - because without such a belief that rationalism underpins yout belief of atheism, your whole argument will collapse on it's face. It is very interesting to note that it is the ateists who always clamor for proof from a theist, while a theist don't even bother. I have already shown why an agnostic's position is logical and
rational against a theist logic, while the atheist's position is illogical and irrational. Sorry.

Cheers!

---

Every opinion based on scientific criticism I welcome. As to prejudices .. to which I have never made concessions ... “Segui il tuo corso, e lascia dir le genti.” -- Karl Marx

Regards,
KRS

 

[Nara]

Dear brother KRS, I don't expect people of faith to give it up just because I am free from it. I don't expect you to give up your spirited defense of faith as you see fit because I disagree with you. But that is not the point why I rejoined this topic in this thread. At this point of time in this thread, all I wanted to point out was the false equivalency that rejecting religious faith is also a faith.

Last week one of Bill Maher's guests insisted that atheism is also a religion. This is the reason Bill Maher addressed this canard this week. Since there are a lot of people who make the same claim here as well, i.e. atheism is a belief system, I wanted to share the humorous piece here.

I reject this irrationality of false equivalency. Not being able to disprove the existence of an invisible pink unicorn is not equivalent to not being able to prove the existence of an an invisible pink unicorn, they simply are not equivalent. In a world where reason has a role this must be self evident without having to be repeatedly defended.

Cheers!

---

Every opinion based on scientific criticism I welcome. As to prejudices .. to which I have never made concessions ... “Segui il tuo corso, e lascia dir le genti.” -- Karl Marx

 

[sravna]

Dear Shri Nara,

People have not been able to directly show evidence for the existence of God till now because it is not possible to do that. Since God is spiritual in nature he cannot be verified in the same way as a scientific hypothesis can be verified. It is through your mind that you grasp such reality. So just as I agree a mind is capable of trash you need to appreciate that it is capable of grasping profundity just like the concept of God. Don't you think the most profound truths of even science possess a sense of beauty about them? When something is naturally appealing IMO it indicates that your mind is in touch with reality though sometimes it may not be possible to perceive such reality through the senses.

 

[nannilam_balasubramanian]

God exists

Dear Shri Nara,

People have not been able to directly show evidence for the existence of God till now because it is not possible to do that. Since God is spiritual in nature he cannot be verified in the same way as a scientific hypothesis can be verified. It is through your mind that you grasp such reality. So just as I agree a mind is capable of trash you need to appreciate that it is capable of grasping profundity just like the concept of God. Don't you think the most profound truths of even science possess a sense of beauty about them? When something is naturally appealing IMO it indicates that your mind is in touch with reality though sometimes it may not be possible to perceive such reality through the senses.

One can give many instances with respect to the existence of God. But it all depends
on one's absolute faith. Do we always believe that Truth exists. Some say I do not
believe. When one is not a guilty person and found guilty and if he/she is arrested and remanded,
he try's to put the actual fact for justice before the Judge. If the Judge realizes the actual truth,
he releases the person with complete freedom. We define God to be like this. Since we conceive
Him/Her to be either of Lord Shiva or God Kamakshi in our mind and pray and they come to our
rescue in times of crisis. Then we believe God exists. For Some people God is not there and they
feel the belief is unnecessary and for them too, when troubles arise, they pray to someone and
get relieved from them. For them, then the God exists and then onwards they feel that God
is necessary. Do we give beauty to the flowers naturally. Only God could have given it and
made them beautiful. Then we feel God exists. Some people enter into moral arguments.
Once a person is put into umpteen problems in the Office for no fault of his/her, they try
to seek a moral relief. Someone suggests them to go to such and such Temple God and pray for 48
days and do puja without break. The person changes his/her mind and trusts in religious faith
and does the same. Once they become religious, then they feel God exists. A child says that
My Mummy, Daddy, GrandMa, GrandFa and Guru/Teacher told me that God exists, therefore I
believe God exists. Some people while going to sleep, pray that tomorrow should be a good day
and things should materialize his according to his/her desire. Because they believe God exists.
Even a person, who is betting on the Race Course pray to the God for getting wealth, for him
God exists. The story can continue unending .......

Balasubramanian
Ambattur

 

[ShivKC]

for an atheist, to come out of their 'just another belief tag', an ideal stand would be to claim 'i don't know if god exists'.

the moment they claim that 'god doesnt exists' the burden of proof shifts equally on both the theist/atheist side, and in the absence ability to provide evidence, both can only take shelter under 'belief system'.

and the catch here is , once atheist say, 'i dont know', then they loose the right to question theism.

 

[renuka]

for an atheist, to come out of their 'just another belief tag', an ideal stand would be to claim 'i don't know if god exists'.

the moment they claim that 'god doesnt exists' the burden of proof shifts equally on both the theist/atheist side, and in the absence ability to provide evidence, both can only take shelter under 'belief system'.

and the catch here is , once atheist say, 'i dont know', then they loose the right to question theism.

Well for us Theist..even if we are not able to prove to Atheists that God exists..we can always say "Ignorance is Bliss"...so somehow we always experience Ananda(Bliss) and Bliss(Ananda) is surely the Truth(Sat) felt by our Consciousness(Cit)

 

[nannilam_balasubramanian]

A child was asked recently in a Satsang whether his mother would actually
know what is inside a closed box. Just 3 1/2 years old baby in his muzhalai
language, mentioned that his mother and Ammachi knows what is inside. They
all further, on curiosity asked that little child, he instantly said that it is
Ammachi's chain. The children start understand everything from the age of 5
onwards and start chanting small small slokas along with the mother. An awareness
of God is thus created.

The existence/prevalence of belief/trust across all Cultures might be mainly due to
unique functioning of mind on such issues which are discussed aloud in the Community.
It is not a material and it will be very hard to test in a Laboratory to prove the
existence to the naked eye.

Balasubramanian
Ambattur

 

[renuka]

A child was asked recently in a Satsang whether his mother would actually
know what is inside a closed box. Just 3 1/2 years old baby in his muzhalai
language, mentioned that his mother and Ammachi knows what is inside. They
all further, on curiosity asked that little child, he instantly said that it is
Ammachi's chain. The children start understand everything from the age of 5
onwards and start chanting small small slokas along with the mother. An awareness
of God is thus created.

The existence/prevalence of belief/trust across all Cultures might be mainly due to
unique functioning of mind on such issues which are discussed aloud in the Community.
It is not a material and it will be very hard to test in a Laboratory to prove the
existence to the naked eye.

Balasubramanian
Ambattur

Dear sir,

Each and every post you write makes me smile..there is so much truth and love in your words.

 

[nannilam_balasubramanian]

Dear sir,

Each and every post you write makes me smile..there is so much truth and love in your words.

Thank you very much Madam. It is HIS blessings and desire/command.

Balasubramanian
Ambattur

 

[Yamaka]

Dear Shri Nara,

People have not been able to directly show evidence for the existence of God till now because it is not possible to do that. Since God is spiritual in nature he cannot be verified in the same way as a scientific hypothesis can be verified. It is through your mind that you grasp such reality. So just as I agree a mind is capable of trash you need to appreciate that it is capable of grasping profundity just like the concept of God. Don't you think the most profound truths of even science possess a sense of beauty about them? When something is naturally appealing IMO it indicates that your mind is in touch with reality though sometimes it may not be possible to perceive such reality through the senses.

Dear Sravna:

The first half of your post here is the TRUTH: "People have not been able to directly show evidence for the existence of God till now because it is not possible to do that. Since God is spiritual in nature he cannot be verified in the same way as a scientific hypothesis can be verified."

This is what the Rational Secular minds have been saying all along... and most of the Believers resisted... and I must thank you for the guts you have to have come out of the crowd and say the OBVIOUS.

Why the Believers then so recalcitrant about their Gods, Spirits, Ghosts and Religion?

I posit that it's because of the INERTIA, and the indoctrination they were subjected to since 1500 BC in India.

Therefore, I say it is

The TRADITION or/and the FEAR and/or Superstition that sustain the Gods and Ghosts in this world.

It's all because of pure psychological NEED.

But Science, Engineering & Technology (SET) will succeed eventually in removing this psychological deficit, IMO.

Wait & watch.

Cheers.

 

[Nara]

Dear Shri Nara,

People have not been able to directly show evidence for the existence of God till now because it is not possible to do that. Since God is spiritual in nature he cannot be verified in the same way as a scientific hypothesis can be verified. It is through your mind that you grasp such reality. So just as I agree a mind is capable of trash you need to appreciate that it is capable of grasping profundity just like the concept of God. Don't you think the most profound truths of even science possess a sense of beauty about them? When something is naturally appealing IMO it indicates that your mind is in touch with reality though sometimes it may not be possible to perceive such reality through the senses.

Dear sravna,
Mind is capable of lot of things, but all that it can imagine need not be reality. What cannot be verified must remain as unverified personal experience. What you call spiritual, I call delusion, unwitting perhaps.

I see a double standard here. My friend Y is arguing elsewhere that fatalism arises from religion and it is at the root of poverty in India. One of the arguments against his thesis was that it is just a coincidence, even the rich believe in fatalism. I agree. Further, if you back in history you would see civilizations believing in fate reached great economic success. The fatalism of Islam was not an impediment for the Mogul empire to be the word's richest one, not to mention other great Islamic empires. A decidedly religious empire of Raja Raja Chozan is considered the golden age. While there is much to be desired about religion, historical evidence leaves no doubt, fatalism is not at the root of widespread poverty we see in India today.

I would like a similar rational and logical approach for your proposition on god. Nobody can definitively say much about an abstract god, I have never claimed that such force does not exist with 100% certainty. My position on such an entity is that with the available evidence there is no need to posit such an entity. If you want to, then that is fine.

But when it comes to gods like Jesus, Murugan, Parvati, Rama, Krishna, with elaborate scripture and rituals, then one is required to provide positive proof. If they serve as mere symbolic representation then that would mean they are not real, but just a convenience. Not many think like that. All theists think of the gods of their religion are real, even the advocates of nirguna brahman argue the relative reality of these gods.

To this I want to apply the same rationality test that was rightly applied to Y's arguments. But, if you say it is spiritual and therefore must be exempted, then, you go your way and I mine.

Cheers!

---

Every opinion based on scientific criticism I welcome. As to prejudices .. to which I have never made concessions ... “Segui il tuo corso, e lascia dir le genti.” -- Karl Marx

 

[sravna]

Dear Shri Nara,

My question is why should physical evidence be necessary to pass the test of rationality? Why not mere coherent arguments? If you say that the theists are not able to substantiate their claim of God by evidence, I would say the atheists have a similar problem as they cannot explain the creation of universe. You here fail your own test because you have a fundamental problem with your yardstick. So your yardstick itself being questionable how can you reject everything not satisfying it?

Dear sravna,
Mind is capable of lot of things, but all that it can imagine need not be reality. What cannot be verified must remain as unverified personal experience. What you call spiritual, I call delusion, unwitting perhaps.

I see a double standard here. My friend Y is arguing elsewhere that fatalism arises from religion and it is at the root of poverty in India. One of the arguments against his thesis was that it is just a coincidence, even the rich believe in fatalism. I agree. Further, if you back in history you would see civilizations believing in fate reached great economic success. The fatalism of Islam was not an impediment for the Mogul empire to be the word's richest one, not to mention other great Islamic empires. A decidedly religious empire of Raja Raja Chozan is considered the golden age. While there is much to be desired about religion, historical evidence leaves no doubt, fatalism is not at the root of widespread poverty we see in India today.

I would like a similar rational and logical approach for your proposition on god. Nobody can definitively say much about an abstract god, I have never claimed that such force does not exist with 100% certainty. My position on such an entity is that with the available evidence there is no need to posit such an entity. If you want to, then that is fine.

But when it comes to gods like Jesus, Murugan, Parvati, Rama, Krishna, with elaborate scripture and rituals, then one is required to provide positive proof. If they serve as mere symbolic representation then that would mean they are not real, but just a convenience. Not many think like that. All theists think of the gods of their religion are real, even the advocates of nirguna brahman argue the relative reality of these gods.

To this I want to apply the same rationality test that was rightly applied to Y's arguments. But, if you say it is spiritual and therefore must be exempted, then, you go your way and I mine.

Cheers!

---

Every opinion based on scientific criticism I welcome. As to prejudices .. to which I have never made concessions ... “Segui il tuo corso, e lascia dir le genti.” -- Karl Marx

 

[Yamaka]

Dear sravna,
Mind is capable of lot of things, but all that it can imagine need not be reality. What cannot be verified must remain as unverified personal experience. What you call spiritual, I call delusion, unwitting perhaps.

I see a double standard here. My friend Y is arguing elsewhere that fatalism arises from religion and it is at the root of poverty in India. One of the arguments against his thesis was that it is just a coincidence, even the rich believe in fatalism. I agree. Further, if you back in history you would see civilizations believing in fate reached great economic success. The fatalism of Islam was not an impediment for the Mogul empire to be the word's richest one, not to mention other great Islamic empires. A decidedly religious empire of Raja Raja Chozan is considered the golden age. While there is much to be desired about religion, historical evidence leaves no doubt, fatalism is not at the root of widespread poverty we see in India today.

I would like a similar rational and logical approach for your proposition on god. Nobody can definitively say much about an abstract god, I have never claimed that such force does not exist with 100% certainty. My position on such an entity is that with the available evidence there is no need to posit such an entity. If you want to, then that is fine.

But when it comes to gods like Jesus, Murugan, Parvati, Rama, Krishna, with elaborate scripture and rituals, then one is required to provide positive proof. If they serve as mere symbolic representation then that would mean they are not real, but just a convenience. Not many think like that. All theists think of the gods of their religion are real, even the advocates of nirguna brahman argue the relative reality of these gods.

To this I want to apply the same rationality test that was rightly applied to Y's arguments. But, if you say it is spiritual and therefore must be exempted, then, you go your way and I mine.

Cheers!

---

Every opinion based on scientific criticism I welcome. As to prejudices .. to which I have never made concessions ... “Segui il tuo corso, e lascia dir le genti.” -- Karl Marx

Dear N:

I see your point on my "Theory of FATALISM and Poverty in India".

Granted, the issue is very complex and has multiple variables...

Still, I consider the God-derived FATALISM in India as the prime reason for the economic backwardness (if there is any! you may not this in the first place??) there. Unless we root out this FATALISM in the Indian psyche it will be very hard to make tangible progress to match the Red Chinese (the so-called the Godless Communists) across the border in the NE.

I know you may not like it...

Anyway, that's my hypothesis.

Take care.

Cheers.

 

[Nara]

My question is why should physical evidence be necessary to pass the test of rationality? Why not mere coherent arguments?

Dear sravna, just presenting coherent argument is not sufficient. Suppose that one starts with an assumption there is a city under the sea called Atlantis. Then presenting an argument based on this delusional premise can never be considered rational irrespective of how coherently it is constructed. Such an argument is no more rational than one that is outright incohrent.

If you say that the theists are not able to substantiate their claim of God by evidence, I would say the atheists have a similar problem as they cannot explain the creation of universe.

This is the "you too" canard I have been talking about. The thiests are making specific claims of their god and what that god is all about. For these claims to be taken seriously as rational, you have to provide evidence.

When faced with an inability to provide a rational explanation for a given phenomenon, admiting the inability is not irrational. When you don't have an evidence based explanation, the rational thing to do is to say you don't have an explanation, simply making up some evidence free speculative explanation is irrational.

You here fail your own test because you have a fundamental problem with your yardstick. So your yardstick itself being questionable how can you reject everything not satisfying it?

sravna, your yard stick seems to be, one has to come up with an explanation even if you have no clue whether it is true or not. That is not the yard stick of a rational person.

Cheers!

---

Every opinion based on scientific criticism I welcome. As to prejudices .. to which I have never made concessions ... “Segui il tuo corso, e lascia dir le genti.” -- Karl Marx
​

 

[Jaykay767]

Hi Nara/Yamaka,

Agreed that unless we see the divine force & interact with them, you cannot prove the existence.

Same was said about time travels talked at length in our Vedas. They were assumed to be fantastic tales etc.. they were proved by Einstein by his theory of relativity.

so just becos the existence of God is not proven today by science does NOT mean it will not be proved tomorrow by Science.

if we were in 18th century, we would be arguing that time travel is humbug. So your arguments are not based on facts unless you prove conclusively that God does not exist.

Science is an exact subject, becos you cannot prove it, does not mean God does NOT exist.

you need to prove that "God does not exist" by explaining creation & showing some evidence to substantiate it !!

Cheers,
JK

 

[Yamaka]

Hi Nara/Yamaka,

Agreed that unless we see the divine force & interact with them, you cannot prove the existence.

Same was said about time travels talked at length in our Vedas. They were assumed to be fantastic tales etc.. they were proved by Einstein by his theory of relativity.

so just becos the existence of God is not proven today by science does NOT mean it will not be proved tomorrow by Science.

if we were in 18th century, we would be arguing that time travel is humbug. So your arguments are not based on facts unless you prove conclusively that God does not exist.

Science is an exact subject, becos you cannot prove it, does not mean God does NOT exist.

you need to prove that "God does not exist" by explaining creation & showing some evidence to substantiate it !!

Cheers,
JK

Hi JK:

How are you?

Since this Thread affirmatively asserts "God Exists", it becomes imperative for the Believers to prove it or try a plausible RATIONALE. If they can't, that's fine with me.

But asking the Atheists to prove the negative "God Doesn't Exist" is totally absurd, in my view.

Again, I have to define what exactly I oppose in this realm of the IDEA of God..

If you define "God as the FORCE in Nature", I am 100% with you, for I am a Naturalist too.

I am opposing -

1. The Belief that God is the Super Natural Agent in the form of a Super Human Being like Jesus, Rama, Krishna etc.

2. The persistent urge to worship this SNA as a way of bribing HIM to curry favors for the daily life of the Believers.

3. The Belief of the Poorva Janma Karma.

Because, all of this is the FICTION of some men who wrote the Puranas, Koran and Bible (& other Books on God).

There is a profound and cataclysmic consequence of this Belief in God: That's the FATALISM: "Kadavul Giveth and Man Taketh" "All events in this world are Pre-Ordained, Nothing can be changed by humans".

I posit that this MINDSET of God-derived FATALISM is the root cause of economic backwardness in India.

I am not talking about what Einstein said, or what the force that created the condition leading to the Bing Bang etc. etc. That's the province of Scientists to delineate... this is not what the average Believer in India thinks about daily. His/her God is either Rama, Krishna, Shiva, Muruga, Jesus or an unknown face for a Muslim etc. etc.

More later...

Cheers.

 

[sravna]

Dear sravna, just presenting coherent argument is not sufficient. Suppose that one starts with an assumption there is a city under the sea called Atlantis. Then presenting an argument based on this delusional premise can never be considered rational irrespective of how coherently it is constructed. Such an argument is no more rational than one that is outright incohrent.

This is the "you too" canard I have been talking about. The thiests are making specific claims of their god and what that god is all about. For these claims to be taken seriously as rational, you have to provide evidence.

When faced with an inability to provide a rational explanation for a given phenomenon, admiting the inability is not irrational. When you don't have an evidence based explanation, the rational thing to do is to say you don't have an explanation, simply making up some evidence free speculative explanation is irrational.

sravna, your yard stick seems to be, one has to come up with an explanation even if you have no clue whether it is true or not. That is not the yard stick of a rational person.

Cheers!

---

Every opinion based on scientific criticism I welcome. As to prejudices .. to which I have never made concessions ... “Segui il tuo corso, e lascia dir le genti.” -- Karl Marx
​

Dear Shri Nara,

You say that an argument needs to have verifiable premises. But even in science you have what are called axioms. You take them to be granted. So you need to start with some premise which may not be verifiable. And anyway, why should admitting inability be more acceptable than offering an alternate yardstick ? That inability only indicates that there is a fundamental problem in the way you validate your hypothesis. A better test would be the just the yardstick of predictability. So even if I use one or more parameters in my hypothesis which are intangible or not physically verifiable, if I am able to accurately predict the future state, wouldn't that be enough than insisting everything should be physically verifiable?

For example I may hypothesize the existence of harmonising energy, an energy which is not destructive but harmonising in nature thus reducing the disharmony of energy or matter it comes across with. For example it may reduce the force of physical energy when it acts on it. Let us say that I am not able to show physical evidence of such energy but still my hypothesis should be valid if someone, say, using his mental power is consistently able to reduce the force of physical energy. Don't you agree?