Is God an atheist?

[Guest guest]

> >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.

 

Of course, He can do it if He wants, but why would a being who is eternally

full of supreme bliss and knowledge want to not exist?

 

> >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.

 

In nyaya you will find no mention of that almightyness is a contradiction.

It is true in three dimensional space an object can not occupy two locations

at the same time, but if we add more dimensions it can. So if we accept that

where is the contradiction? That's what I mean by not accepting atheistic

logic. They demand that any discussion be on the basis of empirical science,

but I think our job is to not let ourselves be trapped by that. I simply

refuse to accept their basic paradigme which is that everything can be

explained in terms of the physical laws as they know them.

 

For instance, in discussing, say, about space, we should not be afraid of

saying that, according to the Vedas, the universe is only 4 billion miles in

diamter and that it has only one sun. When they then say that this is a

ridiculous concept since we now now that it is not true, because there are

stars that are billion of light years away, we counter, that this is just a

belief they have. In fact, they don't know how big the universe is, they

just belive what they have been told by other atheists.

 

> >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.

 

Not if you incorperate more than 3 dimensions.

 

> Therefore it's not undertandable to the

> material mind, which can't accomodate such contradictions.

 

It's not hard to understand if you accept that there are more than three

dimensions.

 

> It has to be

> understood by sabda-pramana. This is my understading.

 

Of course. Everything, even material science, has to be understood by sabda

praman. The atheist go to school and learn by sabda praman. For instance, no

atheist know how big the universe is, or whether the stars are suns or not.

They just believe what they have learnt in school. It is a matter of which

authority you choose to accept.

 

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

> from a material viewpoint.

 

I don't buy that. It is for instance completely logical that there is a

higher intelligent direction in the universe. We cannot know WHO that

intelligence is by logic, but we can know it is there by logic. Bhaktivinode

Thakur says that you can reach the to the level of understanding the

impersonal brahman by logic and intelligence.

 

>To be trancendental means to be illogical like

> that - not understandable by logic.

 

That's not correct. It is completely logical that there is transcendence.

 

>However, everything not understandable

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

 

That's right. The thing about atheists is that they don't accept logic. If

they did, they couldn't remain atheists. To be an atheist means to reject

logic, because it is logical that God exists.

 

> >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?

 

If there are three dimensions why not four or five or fourteen? What's the

illogic about more than three dimensions?

 

> >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.

 

So it comes down to that we don't accept the contradictions that the

atheists accept. We have logic on our side, they don't. What is a

contradiction to an atheist is not a contradiction to me.

 

> 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.

 

Krishna can do anything. But even lesser beings (jivas like the demigods)

can act in contraditory ways. It is logical that a being like Brahma doesn't

operate under the same limitations as we do.

 

> 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.

 

No it doesn't. Not if you accept that the material world is not limited to

three dimensions. And that it what I mean by saying that I refuse to discuss

God, the meaning of life, and transcendence on the basis of an atheistic

paradigme. The atheistic paradigme is highly illogical.

 

> almightyness leads to contradiction.

 

Only if you are an atheist.

 

> >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.

 

As far as I have understood, this is not correct. Brahma, for instance, due

to his extremely long span of life, can come to earth and act in ways that

to us may seem contradictory, but they are not seen from his point of view.

 

I

> don't think our material intelligence can accomodate such contradictions,

 

Mine can. I have no problem accepting contradictions in my mind. They don't

disturb my intelligence, because I don't accept the atheistic paradigme that

everything is explainable in terms of the known physical laws. Even within

our experience, things like consciousness, feelings, thinking, intelligence,

awareness, etc. cannot be explained in terms of physical laws.

 

> 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.

 

That is true. But my point is that we should refuse to argue with the

atheists on their terms.

 

> >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??

 

What do you mean by material intelligence? We have a much broarder

understanding of material than the atheists. They understand material to be

only physical, we understand that material includes the psychic level.

 

>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.

 

Of course. But we are not trying to convince the atheists of Krishna. As far

as I am concerned our job should be to attack the very basis of their

paradigme. Of course you can't understand who God is by logic, but you CAN

understand that there is a God. So when they argue that the concept of God

is illogical, we have to point out that this is not true. There is nothing

illogical about the existence of an almighty being. It is only because

atheists demand to be stuck in their atheistic paradigme, that it seems

illogical.

 

> Looking forward to your answer Prabhu!

 

Ok, lets have a fight I am sure you will be the most intelligent atheist

I ever met.

 

ys, jdd