Re: Proving Brahman to an Atheist!
The problem is, Brahman does have attributes, if by Brahman you mean the entity described in the Upanishads. Whether described as "purusha," "AkAsha," "tejas," "prANa" or any number of other myriad labels, the most straightforward understanding of these statements is that this is an entity who ensouls all other entities, supports all other entities, has consciousness and many other attributes. Well, the very idea of supporting and maintaining all other entities is itself an attribute. As is consciousness.
An entity without attributes cannot be described, much less exist. The atheist in your hypothetical conversation is correct - an entity cannot exist and not exist. This sort of double-speak would be a major hole in your argument, and seems to implicitly accept that an entity without attributes cannot exist. Also, the "neti neti" line of reasoning merely emphasizes His boundless, transcendental nature - He is not confined or defined merely by the observable universe around us - this does not mean that He has no attributes or that He does not exist.
Philosoraptor
"Wise men speak because they have something to say. Fools speak because they have to say something." - Plato
Bookmarks