Next atheistic argument (2)

[Guest guest]

> The Freewill Argument

> for the Nonexistence of God

> By Dan Barker

 

Even human free will has nothing to do with knowing future choices:

knowing the future doesn't prevent one from free choices now. This

happens to everyone with a bit of karma knowledge. He knows the

outcome of his actions but unfortunately not every time can act for

his own good.

 

Krishna who knows everything arranges for a "state of uncertainty"

thru His lila-sakti, Yogamaya. By accepting the existence of Lord's

lila the rest of the argument fails.

 

 

"When we think of Krsna's opulence, we see the paradoxes. He is the

master, yet He’s subordinate to His devotees. He’s inconceivable, yet

He allows us to know Him. In the Third Canto of the Srimad-Bhagavatam,

the great devotee Uddhava expresses bewilderment at Krsna's being

unborn yet apparently being born, at Krsna's being fearless yet

leaving Vrndavana out of fear of Kamsa. The contradictions are

bewildering, and Uddhava’s separation from such a wonderful Krsna also

bewilders him. And of course, the nondevotees are bewildered because

they cannot accept Krsna with His apparent paradoxes. Their mundane

morality can never accommodate the inconceivable opulence of Krsna."

(Satsvarupa Das Gosvami, Wonderful Krsna, BTG #34-05, 2000)

 

There is no use trying to eliminate Krishna thru contradictions since

'in Him all contradictions are reconciled'. (SB 6.9.36)

 

I feel extremely inadequate to comment on Krishna's life. This is a

topic for acaryas. I can't but wonder how can be someone so bold and

talk about Krishna's abilities without knowing Him ever so little.

 

Krishna's will is absolute - His wishes are automatically fulfilled by

His saktis. His activity, lila, is controlled by His saktis, esp.

Yogamaya, and for its smooth course He's allowing Himself to be

controlled by Them and at the same time also controls Them. This is

acintya (incomprehensible). The whole lila logic is incomprehensible

even to liberated beings, what to speak of matter-conditioned beings.

 

At the same time, Krishna is the Lord of Time, or Time Personified. So

the idea of Him not knowing the future is absurd.

 

Even if His lila more or less repeats in various universes, this is

His free will - not that someone else dictates Him.

 

Krishna appears in unlimited forms and each of this form has a

slightly different nature. Therefore His nature is unlimited.

 

When Mr. Barker says "Perhaps a more modest deity can be imagined: one

that is not both personal and all-knowing, both all-knowing and

all-powerful, both perfect and free", he is expressing the Theodicy

position replacing personal God with Gnostic demiurge.

 

Barker: "But until a god is defined coherently, and then proven to

exist with evidence and sound reasoning, it is sensible not to think

that such a being exists."

 

This is possible thru the Vedas. Theoretical thinking of God as a

concept is not enough, as He's beyond thought. One needs a direct

experience of Him.

 

Mr. Barker simply created a strawman God and then refuted his

existence. He speaks about 'Christian' God he read about but obviously

and unfortunately didn't have much experience with. (Why then he

became a preacher?) He probably implies there are other G/gods, not

understanding that there can be only one Supreme Being, who is

Acintya.

 

> Dan Barker is PR Director of the Freedom From Religion Foundation,

> and author of Losing Faith In Faith: From Preacher To Atheist.

 

Again, this shows that both imperfect theology and imperfect

understanding of perfect theology leads to atheism. But nowadays there

are even atheistic priests, Mr. Barker...

 

PS: This again convinces me that we should also focus on theological

weaknesses. That's what the atheists attack.

 

ys Jan