Does God exist?

[charlebs]

Yes! Ofcourse! The last verse in Gita is a proof that he exists. Please read my interpretation of last verse --- titled in BhagavatGita section as Last verse -- proof that God exists. Let me what you think. I hope it does not make you angry that I came up with my own meaning.

meditating upon sentences and words can also be enlightening sometimes.

[wundermonk]

rcscwc: Could you or anyone else direct me to a source where I could read up on this?
Thanks.

Some preliminary ideas about the Nyaya school of thought can be gleaned from here.

Atheistic schools of thought have had a long history within Indian philosophy. The materialistic Lokayata/Charvakas are probably the best known of them. Unfortunately we dont have a lot of details about their philosophy - probably because of the following reasons:

(1)the materialistic philosophy was discarded over time in favour of other Vedantic philosophies - we Indians like to argue just about everything and Vedantic philosophers like Sankara, Ramanuja, Madhavacharya and others went from place to place debating and convincing others about their POV.

OR

(2)vedantic philosophy/practitioners engaged in cruel destruction and killing of materialistic people and their books. (I am reading an extreme left-wing Marxist/communist book that stretches details to absurd limits to try and convince readers that it was indeed this that happened) I dearly hope us Vedantins didnt have to kill a fellow human-being in order to ensure continued practice of our philosophies. If that indeed happened, it is condemnable.

What we know of these philosophies is only via its refutation by Vedantic/Jain/Buddhist scriptures. The Lokayatakas were probably influential during their times to invite refutations from nearly ALL Dharmic philosophies in one form or another. Madhavacharya, in his Sarva-Darsana-Sangraha, attempted to explain and refute the Lokayata philosophy.

[Sahasranama]

(2)vedantic philosophy/practitioners engaged in cruel destruction and killing of materialistic people and their books. (I am reading an extreme left-wing Marxist/communist book that stretches details to absurd limits to try and convince readers that it was indeed this that happened) I dearly hope us Vedantins didnt have to kill a fellow human-being in order to ensure continued practice of our philosophies. If that indeed happened, it is condemnable.

I don't think that this is what happened. Preserving teachings is done through a sampradaya. Since most of the lokayatas theories were already refuted, there was no one left to carry on this sampradaya. I know atheists will love to believe that they were prosecuted, but this is unlikely since even Dharmakirti, a Buddist, was not prosecuted for saying:

वेद प्रामाण्यं कस्य चित् कर्तृवादः स्नाने धर्मेच्छा जातिवादाव लेपः|
संतापारंभः पापहानाय चेति ध्वस्तप्रज्ञानां पञ्च लिङगानि जाड्ये||

Believing that the Veda are standard (holy or divine), believing in a Creator for the world,
Bathing in holy waters for gaining punya, having pride (vanity) about one's caste,
Performing penance to absolve sins,
Are the five symptoms of having lost one's sanity.

It is just speculation on the atheist part to say that the Charvakas were prosecuted by brahmanical Indians. It fits in their romantic view of atheism.

[wundermonk]

It is just speculation on the atheist part to say that the Charvakas were prosecuted by brahmanical Indians. It fits in their romantic view of atheism.

Possibly quite true. It was not my intention to portray the impression that there was prosecution. Just that communists/marxists tend to push that line a lot. Of course they have their own agenda - and that agenda requires all of us to bow down to craftsmanship, give up usage of machines, give up usage of currency, go back to the barter system and listen and follow like robots what the 0.0001% of the population that constitutes the Politburo can concoct in their minds alone. Anyway discussion of communism/Marxism can be taken up on a different thread.

That there are different strands of philosophies that are all included within the umbrella of Sanatana Dharma is in itself a proof that Vedantins didnt engage in violent bloodletting that characterizes nearly every other major philosophy in the world.

[Sahasranama]

Possibly quite true. It was not my intention to portray the impression that there was prosecution.

Yes, I know that it wasn't your intention. I am just adding some reasons why it would be unlikely. I have also read these claims on atheists blogs, but they seem to be making this stuff up and are not relying on historical sources.

[maxpsycho]

Hi Rudy,

Perhaps I can offer a slightly different take on this question from the rest of the members here as I am an atheist.

Just to clarify the term (as I've met countless people who erroneously think that atheism is a belief system) - atheism is simply a lack of belief in a supernatural deity or faith system. It means I have studied the "magic" scriptures, I have heard the arguments (transcendental experiences, the ontological argument, fine-tuning of the universe, beautiful sweet strawberries etc etc) and I have found the supernatural claims to be ridiculous.

First of all I would like to point out that neither a believer nor a non-believer can give you evidence for or against the existence of a creator.

The most interesting, and I find the most seductive, theological argument you will hear from a believer about the existence of a God is usually some variation of the fine-tuning argument. For example, that the beauty, of the sunrise and sunsets, is evidence for a creator, or something along the lines of how is it that the earth is exactly the right distance from the Sun; everything seems to be finely tuned for us - well many of these are simply non sequiturs because all that a sunrise or a sunset proves is that planets are in motion. The simplest refutation of the fine-tuning argument is to remind ourselves of just a few facts - one, what we see as finely tuned really is pure chance. Let's take the example that NayaSurya presented in his comment earlier -

Rudy...I can not answer this question for you.
In a billion years how could a perfect strawberry come to be upon this realm, so perfectly beautiful...and for us to taste and eat?

Well you see what this poster is conveniently forgetting, is the larger percentage of vegetation on this planet that is not perfectly beautiful or edible and largely poisonous. Similarly, when we look at the idea that among all these spinning rocks there is one, ours, that is at the right distance to allow life, we are forgetting that it is only in these circumstances that life CAN begin; we have millions if not billions of examples of planets where life cannot begin precisely because they are not in the "Goldilocks zone". We are presuming that there exists a creative force that could decide on whether life should start on a planet or not - this presumption must be discarded if we are to truly understand how life came about.

So when we look at this and retrospectively remark that we're here due to divine providence, we are forgetting that for billions of years before our planet even formed, there were millions of galaxies that came into existence and were obliterated, millions of planets and stars formed and destroyed much like the fate of our own galaxy which is on a collision course with the Andromeda Galaxy. How can this in any way be convincing as evidence that this planet was fine tuned for us? If anything, life on this planet has adapted to the environmental changes of this planet, which is usually on a climactic knife-edge. Think about it; parts of our own planet are either much too hot or much too cold for vegetation or life to sustain. Is this really fine-tuning?

As I pointed out, I would not be able to give you evidence that God does not exist, just as a believer could not give you evidence that God does exist.

So here, you must decide what your starting premise is. I find that, when confronted by any claim, the starting premise should always be the null hypothesis. Let me illustrate with an example; if your best friend was to come running toward you in the street, and frantically explained to you that he/she had seen a ghost around the corner, and he dragged you along with him/her, and when you reached the location of the alleged apparition, you could not see anything, what would be your conclusion - you could either decide that your friend definitely did see a ghost, or you could decide that your friend was under a misapprehension (or if it was my friend, he just probably had one to many hash brownies and was now seeing ghosts).

My starting position to this situation would be that there is no such thing as a ghost as there is no evidence for such an entity and so if my friend could not back up his claim that what he saw really was a ghost, then I would have to conclude that, although he may be convinced that he's seen a ghost, he is mistaken. Even if I witnessed an apparition when he took me to see it, I would still have to exhaust every possible rational explanation before I could consider it as a sign of the supernatural.

Now what your starting premise usually is, is definitely affected by your upbringing and prior experiences; for example if you are brought up to believe that ghosts really do exist, and are surrounded by others, children and adults, who believe that ghosts exist, and have heard hundreds of personal anecdotes surrounding this idea, chances are that the lack of the ghost around the corner would not deter you from believing in your friend's tale either. (And obviously in this case, a ghost ride in an amusement park is clearly not a good idea for you either).

So in a nutshell, most of the ideas around the existence of God and the truth claims of religions are quite deeply influenced by your upbringing and your surroundings. I am not doubting personal euphoric transcendental experiences that one may have; there's just simply no reason to correlate these numinous experiences with anything supernatural.

In a nutshell, I would summarise it to this; as there is no evidence of the existence of God, there is no reason to believe that God exists.

Hope that helped.

Mayank

[Adhvagat]

Hello Max, I think this understanding of consciousness and how life biologically manifests should be less anthropocentric, a beautiful creation is not just a beautiful flower (as by our judgement) or a plant we can eat, I'd start with something as simple (and amazingly complex) as a single cell.

I'd also like to ask why do you give so much credit to the rational analysis of life, life is not only based on rationality, most part of our lives are decided by a) unconscious effects onto our conscience and b) emotions.

No one choses to pursue their path of life based on cheer rationality and cold anaylis, well, at least not those in a healthy state of mind I hope!

Considering that the psyche is the one and only proof of the matters of the soul, how can you conclude that God does not exist or that a Ghost does not exist when a friend, that used the same organ that you use to perceive everyday world (the psychic organ), perceived God or ghost? Considering it's hard to admit, scientifically, that exists anything separated from consciousness, since without consciousness even if there was something, how could it be perceived? And by whom?

Without consciousness there would, practically speaking, be no world, for the world exists as such only in so far as it is consciously reflected and considered by a psyche. Consciousness is a precondition of being.

Upbringing and surroundings can mold how a psychic content manifests, but the same contents are always present, be it a primitive indigenous or an extremely rational scientist, one fear ghosts the other has panic attacks.

A good read on this transition on how psychological contents changed their presentation based on our surroundings is this one: http://www.amazon.com/Flying-Saucers...6934641&sr=8-2

I'm not sure you've read it, but it's a great read.

Om

[NayaSurya]

Rudy...I can not answer this question for you.

Many many years ago I was very much devoted to a nameless form of Shiva...and though I had never seen proof of such existence I knew it to be so. In a billion years how could a perfect strawberry come to be upon this realm, so perfectly beautiful...and for us to taste and eat?

This was my only proof for many years, the simple things around us...the sunrise and sunset...such a miracle each day. That this rock spins with life abounding...this is a miracle despite the science I know is behind it.

But even this is not proof for you or an answer. Over time, discovering for ourselves can we know and understand this answer completely.

This time, happily came for me...I wasn't seeking it as I was very comfortable with the miracle of the strawberry as my proof.

You see I can tell you that I have seen things which positively prove that there is something beyond what these faulty senses can define. I have seen it, and I know it...and will never doubt it.

But what of you? Can you believe this Truth spoken from one who is nothing more than a name online for such an important Truth?

It means I have studied the "magic" scriptures, I have heard the arguments (transcendental experiences, the ontological argument, fine-tuning of the universe, beautiful sweet strawberries etc etc) and I have found the supernatural claims to be ridiculous.

First of all I would like to point out that neither a believer nor a non-believer can give you evidence for or against the existence of a creator.

Well, that's millions of miles away from my post, I can see where mine would be selected as an example.

The most interesting, and I find the most seductive, theological argument you will hear from a believer about the existence of a God is usually some variation of the fine-tuning argument. For example, that the beauty, of the sunrise and sunsets, is evidence for a creator, or something along the lines of how is it that the earth is exactly the right distance from the Sun; everything seems to be finely tuned for us - well many of these are simply non sequiturs because all that a sunrise or a sunset proves is that planets are in motion. The simplest refutation of the fine-tuning argument is to remind ourselves of just a few facts - one, what we see as finely tuned really is pure chance. Let's take the example that NayaSurya presented in his comment earlier -



Well you see what this poster is conveniently forgetting, is the larger percentage of vegetation on this planet that is not perfectly beautiful or edible and largely poisonous.

I am a she...and I am aware of the millions of plants not available for us to eat. I am also aware of the fact that none of them had to be fit to eat and we wouldn't be having this conversation right now....as we would have never propagated this earth without ones that were.

I find simple...and I really want to stress that... It's a simple miracle we are here. Be it science or God, the fact we've made it this far is a miracle to me.

As I pointed out, I would not be able to give you evidence that God does not exist, just as a believer could not give you evidence that God does exist.

So here, you must decide what your starting premise is. I find that, when confronted by any claim, the starting premise should always be the null hypothesis. Let me illustrate with an example; if your best friend was to come running toward you in the street, and frantically explained to you that he/she had seen a ghost around the corner, and he dragged you along with him/her, and when you reached the location of the alleged apparition, you could not see anything, what would be your conclusion - you could either decide that your friend definitely did see a ghost, or you could decide that your friend was under a misapprehension (or if it was my friend, he just probably had one to many hash brownies and was now seeing ghosts).

My starting position to this situation would be that there is no such thing as a ghost as there is no evidence for such an entity and so if my friend could not back up his claim that what he saw really was a ghost, then I would have to conclude that, although he may be convinced that he's seen a ghost, he is mistaken. Even if I witnessed an apparition when he took me to see it, I would still have to exhaust every possible rational explanation before I could consider it as a sign of the supernatural.

Now what your starting premise usually is, is definitely affected by your upbringing and prior experiences; for example if you are brought up to believe that ghosts really do exist, and are surrounded by others, children and adults, who believe that ghosts exist, and have heard hundreds of personal anecdotes surrounding this idea, chances are that the lack of the ghost around the corner would not deter you from believing in your friend's tale either. (And obviously in this case, a ghost ride in an amusement park is clearly not a good idea for you either).

So in a nutshell, most of the ideas around the existence of God and the truth claims of religions are quite deeply influenced by your upbringing and your surroundings. I am not doubting personal euphoric transcendental experiences that one may have; there's just simply no reason to correlate these numinous experiences with anything supernatural.

In a nutshell, I would summarise it to this; as there is no evidence of the existence of God, there is no reason to believe that God exists.

Hope that helped.

Mayank

You, yourself have no evidence that God exists, therefore you have no reason to believe that It exists. But that doesn't mean We don't.

I have said this many many times on here...belief is like a solo science experiment that you can not recreate for others. Everyone has beliefs, even atheists...they are just not "Religious beliefs".

There are political beliefs...and even parental beliefs...even belief that other religious beliefs are "ridiculous" as you stated...is a belief.

So please, do not take my strawberry example as proof of God...as I said...for years in my childhood....I was satisfied with the visual things around me as proof. Only as a analytical adult did I begin to ask questions and seek answers to the things I experienced.

Just as I have never seen a man land on the moon with my own eyes....I have to accept some know this is a fact and have experienced it....and so I ask for this same courtesy of my own experiences.

Just because I do not have the same beliefs as you, does not mean I do not wholly and 100% respect and appreciate Atheists. My best friend is an Atheist who is dying of cancer...and all of these years we have had a loving devoted friendship despite our different views of this world.


I am at your feet Mayank...

[maxpsycho]

Hello Max, I think this understanding of consciousness and how life biologically manifests should be less anthropocentric, a beautiful creation is not just a beautiful flower (as by our judgement) or a plant we can eat, I'd start with something as simple (and amazingly complex) as a single cell.

I'd also like to ask why do you give so much credit to the rational analysis of life, life is not only based on rationality, most part of our lives are decided by a) unconscious effects onto our conscience and b) emotions.

No one choses to pursue their path of life based on cheer rationality and cold anaylis, well, at least not those in a healthy state of mind I hope!

Thanks for your reply Pietro; I hope I was not so poor as to advocate a strictly clinical approach to life. I certainly hold certain things sacred, like the love of parents for their children, landscape, art, music and the truth to name a few. I would certainly not want anyone to be devoid of emotion or passions, and hope that I have not demonstrated myself to be a mindless robot as you stipulate.

However I would take this opportunity to draw the distinction between emotional and the irrational. I do think that I am quite emotional (one of the moments I'm not very proud of would be crying when Mufasa dies in the Lion King ). But I don't think that being emotional merits the right to either unwarranted respect, or unwarranted respect for emotional philosophies. I do think that rationality is very important, precisely because emotional decisions, at least in my experience, end up being the ones that we regret. Having said that, I am not making an attempt to pit rationality against emotions; I think both come part and parcel of being human. I just don't see the connection between emotions and believing without evidence.

I do, by the way, think that the single cell is a remarkable thing, and that attempts to understand the origin of the cell will take more time than perhaps in my lifetime, to affirm. But again, just because I'm afraid of the uncertainty attached to the origin, deciding that there was a creator involved without any evidence seems to me a little intellectually dishonest.

Considering that the psyche is the one and only proof of the matters of the soul, how can you conclude that God does not exist or that a Ghost does not exist when a friend, that used the same organ that you use to perceive everyday world (the psychic organ), perceived God or ghost? Considering it's hard to admit, scientifically, that exists anything separated from consciousness, since without consciousness even if there was something, how could it be perceived? And by whom?

My first clarification would have to be that I perceive the everyday world through my five senses, and no psychic organ whatsoever. And my question is precisely this, what is your basis for believing that there is a "soul" and that the psyche is the one and only proof of the matters around it (you will have to elaborate on this idea further, as this sentence seems to go right past my bat I'm afraid). As I mentioned, I conclude that a ghost or a god does not exist even if my friend swears to having witnessed it, because there are many other explanations, much simpler and natural, that can account for this experience. He could have been having a hallucination, he could have been fooled by a person in a white cloak, he could have seen a white cloak gliding through the air by a powerful wind, or the easiest explanation, he could just be lying. Therefore unless all these explanations come up as completely falsified, there is no reason to start believing that the situation has reached the realm of the supernatural.

Upbringing and surroundings can mold how a psychic content manifests, but the same contents are always present, be it a primitive indigenous or an extremely rational scientist, one fear ghosts the other has panic attacks.

I'm not sure I completely understand what you mean by "psychic content" but I think your point above works more in my favour, in that it explains that yes we have many fears (fear of the dark is something that almost all humans share), and yes the brain works to create patterns even where they may not be. And yes, people across the ages have had problems with their mental states, but that does not in any way prove that phenomena such as ghosts exist. It is, as is quite clear from your statement, an issue of the brain.

A good read on this transition on how psychological contents changed their presentation based on our surroundings is this one: http://www.amazon.com/Flying-Saucers...6934641&sr=8-2

I'm not sure you've read it, but it's a great read.

Om

I haven't had the pleasure of reading this book yet, but I will add it to my reading list. Thank you for sharing this.

Mayank

[NayaSurya]

I wanted to come back and share a story about my third oldest son, he is 4 out of our 8...so the middle child. This very Sunday, my oldest son and I were talking about beliefs, he is also an Atheist, and a sophomore in college. So my third oldest son comes to me as me and this son are talking about beliefs and says "I don't believe in God at all either." My reply was "GOOD! You should never take anothers word as your own truth!" I encouraged him to find his own Truth of this world.

In my heart I believe, no one should take my experiences as as their own proof. I mean this so wholly...that it applies even to these ones I love so dearly. It made me proud of him to be such an independant thinker.