Is God an atheist?

[Guest guest]

Dear Jahnu Prabhu! Pamho, agtSP!

 

>> >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.

 

Well, if all contradictions actually exist in Krishna, then His internal

potency can also both be sat and asat - without contradiction. At least He

has to power to make it like that if He want's.

 

>> >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.

 

But the fundamental principles in modern logic and nyaya sastra are more or

less the same as far as I can see. Nyaya sastra also mentions the fallacy of

contradiction, viruddha, which is the exact same principle. To me it's

obvious that you can't talk of anything being logically or empirically true

or false if you don't accept this principle - The Law of Contradiction.

 

>> 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.

 

That means that He can both do it and not do it at the same time, which is a

violation of material logic. Therefore it's not undertandable to the

material mind, which can't accomodate such contradictions. It has to be

understood by sabda-pramana. This is my understading.

 

Krishna is beyond the intelligence, which means that He is illogical seen

from a material viewpoint. To be trancendental means to be illogical like

that - not understandable by logic. However, everything not understandable

by logic is not trancendental. It might as well be nonsense.

 

>> 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.

 

How can it be logical if there's more dimensions?

 

>> 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?

 

Well, it's both in nyaya sastra and material logic. And if we don't accept

it then we can't etablish anything to be true or false. The word

contradiction doesn't even make sence if this principle doesn't exist, but

Prabhupada uses it a lot and he critizises atheists and the like when they

are using contradictory arguments. Even Lord Caitanya was an expert in nyaya

and in navya nyaya and used it all the time. Prabhupada also said that one

is an animal if he doesn't agree to logic, and he says that the best devotee

argues with logic. But logic ceases to exist if the law of contradiction is

taken away, because then we can't etablish anything as being false. 2+2 can

be 4 and 5 at the same time. This word "yes" can also mean "no" etc.

 

But the principle of contradiction is of course not universal, because

Krishna is trancendental to it. He can accomodate material contradictions in

a noncontradictory way.

 

Because almightyness means that God can do all sorts of contradictory

things, then it means that the word God becomes contradictory from a

material viewpoint. And that it what I meant when I was saying that

almightyness leads to 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.

 

But even Brahma admits that he is unable to understand Krishna fully, isn't

it? Almightyness means that both A and not-A can be true in the same

context, which is a violation of both nyaya logic and modern logic. I don't

think our material intelligence can accomodate such contradictions, like we

can't fully understand the acintya-bhedabheda philosophy because it's

contradictory for our tiny material intelligence. Prabhupada says, however,

that only one who strictly follows the bhakti-yoga path can understand it,

but then it's not understood by our material intelligence, but with

spiritual intelligence through revelation. But even that can't accomodate

Krishna fully.

 

>> 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.

 

I never read in sastra that almightyness is understandable by material

intelligence?? We can understand something about it, but not all the

unlimited material contradiction it can create - unless we understand it

with something else than logic.

 

>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.

 

Yes, I tried it many times.

 

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

>God.

 

OK! I'll write another letter to you and the forum asking you 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.

 

True!

 

Looking forward to your answer Prabhu!

 

Ys, AKD