Is God an atheist?

[Guest guest]

Pamho, agtSP!

 

>> >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?

 

That''s not the point. The fact is that if God exists as an almighty being

then we allow the possibility for such a contradiction to exist. If God is

almighty then both A and not-A can be true in the same context, which is a

violation of the law of contradiction.

 

The atheist will say that if a concept (like "God") produces such

contradictions then such a concept is false - it doesn't exist. We say, on

the other hand, that some things (like Krishna) can exist. And there is

nothing in logic that tells us that something can not be beyond the laws of

logic.

 

That is one of the differences between an atheist and a theist.

 

>>> >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.

 

Maybe not. But to me it's obvious that it's a violation of the law of

contradiction, which we also find in nyaya sastra (viruddha). Therefore

almightyness violates the laws of nyaya logic also.

 

>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.

 

But I don't know if that a contradiction. The question is: Is it possible

for an object to be 100% in one place and at the same time not be 100% in

that same place? Or: Can an object be 100% A and at the same time 100%

not-A?

 

Can that be made logical be adding more dimensions? Can you give an example?

 

>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.

 

I agree that we shouldn't just agree to their definitions. But in this case

(discussing the law of contradiction) I don't see any problems with their

definition.

 

>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.

 

I agree totally with that.

 

I think, though, that we should keep in mind that it's nice to say to an

atheist that EVEN if we accept your premises theism is a more rational

position than atheism. And Prabhupada also ordered us to preach on their

term, for example be using the scientific method and logic.

 

>> >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.

 

Can you please show me how it's possible?

 

>> 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.

 

I this case I mean spiritual sound vibration when I say sabda-pramana!

 

>> 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.

 

Yes, it's not illogical to say that there's an intelligence behind the

universe, but Krishna's nature violates the laws of logic. If it didn't the

intelligence could, at least in theory, understand Him.

 

>>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.

 

But the existence of a thing is not the same as that things internal

nature.It might be logical that trancendence exists, but that doesn't mean

that trancendence is internally logically coherent. If it violates the laws

of logic then the thing is illogical. But that doesn't mean it can't exist,

it just means it's outside the laws of logic.

 

>> >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?

 

Well, material science operates with many dimensions - some theories 12 or

something. But my question is this: How does many dimension make

almightyness logical?

 

>> >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.

 

Well, I guess that somethings are a contradiction to both us and the

atheists, because our material intelligence operates according the some

laws. But we just accept that something materially illogical and

contradictory can exists. And that such things can be non-contradictory

in God. Gods nature is an example of a thing that is contains things which

are contradictory from a material perspective, and which we can't

understand. Therefore some atheists say He can't exist, because they believe

that the laws of logic are universal. But we know they are not, so we have

no problem that Gods nature is contradictory seen from a material

perspective.

 

>> 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.

 

That might be true. But if that it true that just shows that the law of

contradiction doesn't even apply to all of our universe. But the question

still remains: Can we understand these so called contradictions with our

intelligence? We might understand they exist, but that doesn't mean we

understand their contradictory nature.

 

>> 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.

 

So how can many dimensions make almightness non-contradictory?

 

>> almightyness leads to contradiction.

 

>Only if you are an atheist.

 

I doubt that!

 

>> >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.

 

But that doesn't change my point: That if Krishna exists then both A and

not-A can be true in the same context. And Brahma says He can't understand

Krishna fully.

 

Which behavior does Brahma exhibit that is contradictory to us?

 

>>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.

 

Physical laws and the laws of logic are not the same. The problem is that if

A and not-A can be true in the same context then everything breaks down,

because "yes" can also mean "no". Everything could be both true and false at

the same time.

 

- and it actually can, because Krishna can make it so if He want's. But our

material intelligence can't work with such contradictions in a meaningfull

way, because the material intelligence depends on the law of contradiction.

This is my understanding at least.

 

>> 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.

 

Only if we disagree with their terms

 

>> >That's right. He can't be understood by material intelligence,

 

So He's illogical (materially), because He's not logical, materially

speaking. There might be some higher logic (internal consistency) which is

very different from the way the material intelligence works. There

difinitely is.

 

>>> 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.

 

I mean be the intelligence that is comprised of and working under the laws

of nature. Krishna has eight material energies. I'm referring to the

intelligence as the 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.

 

>Of course.

 

So that means He violates the laws of logic and therfore He illogical.

"Illogical" just means "outside logic", but that doesn't mean He can't

exist.

 

>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.

 

he atheistic argument is not primarily about the existence of God. First

they point out that God is outside logic (illogical), for example by

containing qualities that are contradictory to the laws of logic (the law of

contradiction. That's their first premise. Their second premises (which we

don't accept) is that anything with is violating the laws of logic can

either 1) not possible exist or 2) is unintelligible (nonsense), like saying

"fgjhdjhdbvdrr!" It doesn't mean anything. We disagree with such premises.

After using one of these premises the atheist argues that God doesn't exist

or is nonsense - a word that has no cognitive meaning.

 

Ys, AKD