Is God an atheist?

[Guest guest]

> >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.

 

To me it is completely logical that an almighty being exists, and that He

can act in ways that violates the manmade laws of logic. In fact, I would

expect no less from a Supreme being.

 

> 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.

 

Exactly. That's my point.

 

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

 

Good.

 

> >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.

 

I am not sure about that.

 

> >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?

 

In three dimensional space it seems impossible, but if we accept that even

material space contains more than three dimensions, it is highly possible

for an object to occupy two spaces at the same time. Think about the earth,

for instance. To our three dimensional observation it appears as a globe

floating in space, to the inhabitants of Svargaloka and the lokas or

dimensions beyond it appears like a vast plane 4 billions miles in diameter.

 

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

> example?

 

See above. A demigod could be standing right next to you, and be invisible

to you, or appear as something else. The example Sataputa das gives is that

of flatland. Imagine a being who lives in two dimensions. His world is

completely flat. There is no dimension of hight. If, say a fly, were to land

on his plane, it would just appear as six dots, where its legs touches his

flat world. This is of course a crude analogi, and doesn't even hold water,

because you could argue, that with no hight how could you even observe six

dots? A dot has to be observed from above. But it gives an indication of how

a lower dimensional being will not be able to observe a higher dimensional

being unless the higher dimensional being somehow makes himself availabel

for observation.

 

> >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.

 

I do. because it sucks you into their limited paradigm. One time the

disciples told Prabhupada that he couldn't really use as an argument that

Sunday comes before Monday to illustrate that the sun is further away than

the moon, to which Prabhupada replied that he was ready say any damn thing

to rattle the atheists and the scientists. My point is that we should use

the same techniques as the atheist. They always question everything we say,

and demand proof and definitions, so we should do the same to them. We

should never defend ourselves, we should attack them and demand proof of

anything they say.

 

> 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.

 

I agree, of course. We should not appear stupid. To defeat the enemy we have

to know him. But we should never get sucked in by them or their definitions.

Atheists always demand that any discussion be on the basis of their

paradigm, but we refuse that.

 

> >Not if you incorperate more than 3 dimensions.

>

> Can you please show me how it's possible?

 

Sadaputa Prabhu has talked a lot about this in his lecture series Origins.

He gives the example I gave above with flatland. Another example he gives is

that of a ball falling through flatland. To the inhabitants of flatland it

would appear as a dot that gradually would grow bigger and bigger and

smaller and smaller as it was falling through their universe. My personal

speculation is that each of the 14 lokas represent a dimenension, so that

there are 14 dimensions in the universe. Sadaputa has likened it to a stack

of records (old fashioned vinyl records) on top of eachother. Each record

revolve at different speeds representing different spheres of time.

 

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

 

Ok, but literally shabda praman simply means receiving receiving knowledge

through aural reception from authorities. Modern atheists receive all their

knowledge that way, and we should point it out to them.

 

> >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.

 

By intelligence you can understand that there is a God, but the knowledge of

who that God is and what He wants you have to receive through shabda praman.

That is clear. But we don't speak to atheists about WHO God is, because they

are not interested in that. Therefore, in my opinion, there is no need to

agree with the atheists that God is beyond logic. God's identity is beyond

logic, but it is not beyond logic that there is a God, and that He is

almighty and omnipresent. We should stick to that. In fact, the very

definition of God is that He is almighty and omnipresent, and there is

nothing illogical about that defintion.

 

> 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.

 

I agree. My point is that there is nothing illogical about transcendence

being beyond logic.

 

> >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?

 

Because if there are more than three dimensions it is not a problem for an

object to occupy the same point of space at the same time. Even in your mind

you can be many places at the same time.

 

> >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 those laws are vastly more complex and encompassing than what is

accepted in material science. Also not everyone has the same degree of

material intelligence. Atheists eg. have a very low degree of material

intelligence, and there is no need to discuss anything on their level.

 

> But we just accept that something materially illogical and

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

> in God.

 

My point is that even materially they can be non-contradictory. It depends

on your degree of intelligence and understanding of the world.

 

> 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.

 

Not necessarily. I simply refuse to accept the limited atheistic

understanding of material or anything else.

 

> 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.

 

It also doesn't mean we can't. A demigod or a siddha can obviously

understand much more than we, and they are still material. If you apply your

mind and intelligence to HOW it makes sense, you can reach a much deeper

understanding than if you just accept the modern definition or understanding

of what is logical. For instance, if we speculate (philosophically of course

that the 14 lokas are different dimensions each revolving with a

different time or speed, then, if a yoga by some process like entering

Ganges steps from, say, bhumandala (which is rotating at a certain speed) up

to the svarga plane, which is rotating at a slower speed, and then comes

down again, then he will have travelled in time or he will have been able to

enter Ganges and come up 10 minutes later 500 km down the river. Do you see

what I mean?

 

> >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?

 

See above.

 

> >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.

 

That's true. I take it, you mean that if Krishna does NOT exist then... etc.

That may be true, but why would we consider that option or even entertain it

in our discussions with atheists?

 

> Which behavior does Brahma exhibit that is contradictory to us?

 

Before he has even finished his morning shower, you have been born and died

a million times on earth. He lives for 3.11.04 trillion years. Doesn't that

contradict our notion of time here on earth?

 

> >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.

 

Not in an absolute sense, of couse, but in a relative sense it can. What is

true here, for instance that you only live for a hundred years, is not true

in Svarga.

 

> - 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.

 

What law of contradiction, defined by whom?

 

> >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

 

But we basically disagree with all their terms We should basically refuse

to argue with them on the basis of the paradigm they have established.

 

> >> >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.

 

Yes, but what do you mean by material? We have a much broader understanding

of material than the atheists have.

 

> >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.

 

But that is much broader than what we understand now. Brahma has a much

broader material intelligence than earthlings have. And even on earth not

everyone has the same capacity for intelligence.

 

> 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.

 

So when they argue like that, they show that they are not logical. They are

not even making an argument, they are merely making assertions. We shouldn't

treat their assertions as if they were logical arguments. It is simply not

logical to state that everything in existence must be within the

intellectual grasp of atheists. So many phenomena even within our power to

observe, like consciousness, the mind, feeling, thinking and willing are

beyond their logic.

 

ys, jdd