Is God an atheist?

[Guest guest]

> >One of the definitions of God is that He sac-chit-ananda. If He is sat,

> >how can he not exist?

>

> Because all contradictory things exist in Him. Therefore God is both sat

> and asat at the same time, but in God it's just not a contradiction. It's

> only a contradiction from the material perspective.

 

That may be, but we also have to understand HOW God is asat. And the asat

aspect of God is the material world. Krishna is never transformed from sat

to asat, but His energies are.

 

> What about mayavadis? Don't they believe that the brahman-effulgence has

> all contradiction in it - in harmony? But anyway, the atheists can't use

> this argument, because they don't know about or believe in God.

 

The mayavadis cannot explain how, if Brahman is one without duality (no

contraditctions), illusion arises. Their only explanation is to say that the

illusion doesn't exist, it's just an illution. Go figure. Therefore

Prabhupada said that if you can make any sense out of mayavadi philosophy

you are in trouble.

 

> >It is not as long as you accept almightyness. If you don't accept God's

> >almightyness it is a c ontradiction, but if you accept that God is

> >almighty there is nothing illogical about it.

>

> As I see it, if you accept allmightyness you accept logical

> contradictions, because allmightyness violates the "principle of

> contradiction" which is one of the three principles that logic is based

> upon. The principle of contradiction states that a given object can't both

> be A and not-A in the same context.

 

I have a different standpoint. I refuse to accept logic as defined by

atheists. Their very definitions are based on illogic. See, I don't need

atheists to tell me what's logical. If I want to know logic at least I take

it from the nyaya sastra.

 

> Now, let's take the example of "Can God create a stone He can't lift?" If

> God can create such a stone, then He can't lift it, and then He's not

> almighty. And if He can't do it, then He's not almighty. Therefore,

> whether we answer "yes" or "no" then we end up saying that "if God is

> almighty then He's not almighty", which is a violates of the "principle of

> contradiction" in which an object can't both be A (in this case almighty)

> and not-A (in this case not-almighty) in the same context. And we

> obviously also violates it if we say "yes" and "no" at the same time,

> because then God would both be able to lift the stone and not lift the

> stone in the same context.

 

If you buy into atheistic logic you run into all kinds of problems like

that, but if you accept that God is almighty it's no problem for Him to do

whatever He likes. We say that Krishna is everexpanding, so logically, he

can create a stone which is so big He can't lift it (althought, why would He

even do that in the first place), and the next moment, because He has

expanded, He can lift it, but since He exists beyond time He do both things

simultaneously. To me this is completely logical.

 

> This is of course seen from the material perspective. From the spiritual

> perspective the "principle of contradiction" doesn't hold, because Krishna

> can both have the quality A and not-A in the same context in everything he

> so desires.

 

Exactly. Even from a material perspective God can do whatever He likes at

the same time, because He is almighty. The materiel perspective is much

broader than the puny 3 dimensions we perceive from our standpoint. That's

what we have to insist on when we discuss with atheist. There is absolutely

no reason to feel compelled to accept their definitions of anything neither

material or spiritual.

 

> Yes! In God the contradiction exist in harmony which means that there's no

> contradiction at all. But from the material point of view, as I see it,

> there's a contradiction, as described above.

 

It's not even a contradiction from a material standpoint if you accept that

there are more than three dimensions in the material world. The only way it

is a contraditiction is in a 3-dimensional space.

 

> Prabhupada actually says, as far as I can see, that these are

> contradictions given to us as a hint about Krishna's acintya-shakti. From

> the ordninary, that means the material, point of view these are actually

> contradictions, because they explicitly contradicts the "principle of

> contradiction." But, as Prabhupada also writes, these are not

> contradictions for Krishna, because He can accomodate such contradictions

> in an ucontradictory manner.

 

That's right. But you have to ask yourself, who has invented the principle

of contradiction?

 

> What I'm trying to say is that for the material intelligence, which relies

> upon material logic, God is, in many ways (for example in His

> almightyness), contradictory.

 

I dispute that. Even our material intelligence is so puny compared to the

demigods' material intelligence.

 

> Therefore God can't be fully understood by

> material logic. However, we can understand Gods acintya-shakti (at least

> we can understand it more) when we rely upon sabda-pranama.

>

> This is how I see it!

 

That's right. He can't be understood by material intelligence, but my point

is that even material experience is so much broader than what we experience

now, and I think it is a mistake to accept the modern definitions of either,

logic, material or anything else for that matter. These have already been

defined in the Vedas. Even the Vedic atheists like Jaimini and Kanada are so

much more intelligent than modern atheists and their ridiculous ideas and

definitions.

 

For instance, in the beginning when I was discussion with atheists and they

asked for proof of God, I cited all the usual, classical observations in the

world that are obvious to an intelligent person as proof of God. But it is

simply a waste of time, because they have no intelligence. Now when they ask

for proof of God, I counter, I can prove God, but first you have to tell me

what you will accept as proof. You will be amazed how baffled they become by

that. Just try it next time someone asks for proof of God and see what

happens. If they are a little intelligent they will say something like, I

will accept as proof some empirical, verifiable evidence. Then you just go,

like what? Give me an example of what kind of empirical, verifiable evidence

you will accept. That completely stomps them.

 

We can try it as an exercise and see what happens. Try and ask me to prove

God.

 

As far as I am concerned, we don't discuss with atheists to convince them,

we discuss with them to reveal how uintelligent and ignorant they are.

 

ys, jdd