View Full Version : Question and Answer: Thoughts?

13 December 2011, 05:27 PM
Skeptic: Where is the evidence that we are indeed one with God?

Myself: First, I would ask you something. What is it with this insistence of knowing evidence for something like the being of God and our spiritual oneness with him? Please know that I am serious. Evidence, I believe, exists, and it is worthwhile to look into. But your problem (and many other's problem) is in your fixation on a reason, a precise and exact determination as to the truth of something that cannot be sought in a way as this. Why not grant a certain proposition, that God exists and we are one with him, at least tentatively. Then, see if other facets of your life, your experience and your knowledge cohere with such a view. Before you at least try to do that you are, quite frankly, not interested in truth as it exists alone and by itself, but in your a priori concepts and investment into a certain rigid way of thought. You are interested in getting what you need for your money's worth. You are trying to make truth your own possession and filing it off into a discrete and precise category with what you already know.


Does anyone have any thoughts here? Do you think I answered the skeptic the right way? Some might say this is a cop-out.

13 December 2011, 10:46 PM
Namaste Kismet,

While I feel your response to the posed question has great merit for exposing a fallacious premise on the skeptic's part, I am also asking: Is this skeptic an atheist? Dvaitin? Agnostic? My own response would depend in a sense upon this context.

Interestingly enough, while pondering your post, I found myself re-examining the two-question subtitle of this "Science and Religion" section as well... a valid clarifier toward the type of discussion, but the inclusion of "or" makes it moot- the first, "Can Science alone answer all questions?" My short answer is "No". Science cannot address any question that is metaphysical in nature.

"Can only Religion provide the ultimate truth?" Again, my short answer is "No". For me, the ultimate Truth exists intrinsically within, of, and yet beyond, any observable physical being or manifestation, or any framework, concept, or system that can be defined, expressed, or comprehended- including this very definition of ultimate Truth itself! (don't forget this is a devotee of She whose name means "unreachable" writing this;))

I can only hope that wiser heads than mine reply to your post, and drown out my donkey's braying:rolleyes:


14 December 2011, 12:13 AM
As JaiMaaDurga says, it isnt clear who the skeptic is - Dvaitin, Nyaya, atheist, etc.

I will assume the skeptic is an atheist.

Firstly, to the atheist I would ask what exactly is your version of why we are here and how things came about. The theist is tired of having to defend his arguments against the negative destructive dialectic of the atheist. Let the atheist put forth his arguments in support of his position and let the theist, for a change, be given a chance to poke holes in his theory.

Secondly, if pushed, I will respond to the atheist that the best proof I have for the necessity of God, is an emotional proof. Belief in God is emotionally satisfying for me and it doesnt harm those around me for I am not keen on "spreading" my faith. So, I believe in God. I dont care whether you believe in God or not. I think Kismet's response in the OP is similar to this.

Thirdly, God cannot be equated to a Pink Unicorn because God is a metaphysical concept while the Pink Unicorn is not. God is in possession of infinite divine, spiritual and blissful attributes while a Pink Unicorn is not. You may endow your Pink Unicorn with infinite divine, spiritual and blissful attributes but that would amount to simply renaming the term God with Pink Unicorn.

14 December 2011, 08:19 AM
Namaste everyone,

I think that was a pretty apt answer, Kismet. An important aspect to this topic is that God must be experienced personally in order for us to know Him - experience is beyond normal empirical evidence. To think of it from a scientific point of view, by the mass-energy equivalence, we know everything around us is a manifestation of energy. Assuming that the law of conservation of energy is true, we are all part of that same infinite field of energy. Same can be said for the newly arising view that everything, even existence itself is consciousness. Putting it together, it's not much different from the Advaitic view that God is everything.

And also, we can experience this Oneness by the union of body and mind via yoga and meditation. Of course, opponents will claim that it's just an artifact of the brain, which yet remains to be proved. I am rather hesitant to use the emotional comfort argument because it would empower the classic claim that God is just a figment of imagination invented by man out of the deeply rooted psychological need of self-protection, but I agree that comparing God (in SD) to dragons and unicorns is a fallacy. We can only put to these to rest after personally experiencing God, Who is ultimately beyond material proofs.

Just my two rupees. :)

14 December 2011, 04:38 PM
Thank you, all, for your very fruitful responses.

The skeptic by the way is a general sort of atheist/agnostic scientifically-minded materialist sort. He has slight theistic tendencies, but I think his position amounts to a type of vague fideism. My position is somewhere between that of his, and a straight-out evidenced-based approach.