Ananta Sesa Posted July 7, 2009 Report Share Posted July 7, 2009 Atheists say that God, to exist, must be unlimitedly complex, since He must be more complex than the universe itself...is that argument true? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
primate Posted July 7, 2009 Report Share Posted July 7, 2009 Atheists that say God must be more complex than the universe itself, seem to have a remarkably deep understanding of theistic reality. They appear to acknowledge the (Vedic) notion that God is the ultimate cause of all causes, who controls everything. However, they don’t seem to grasp the idea that our material world is only a fraction of absolute reality, and that it’s therefore not a problem at all for God (absolute reality) to be more complex than our material universe. Furthermore, we know from mathematical chaos theory that even extremely simple systems can produce complex infinite self-similar order or structure (see e.g., Mandelbrot set - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia) So, the fundamental principle (God) that underlies the universe, can actually be infinitely more simple than manifest reality.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blue.ray.child Posted July 7, 2009 Report Share Posted July 7, 2009 No, because it is based on the assumption that "God" is an organism or single entity that must have evolved over time. It's really just a rehash of Christianity's version of "God" regurgitated and presented in atheistic/evolutionary terms. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blue.ray.child Posted July 7, 2009 Report Share Posted July 7, 2009 The atheist definition of God differs quite significantly from that of the Veda's. Their definition is that God must have evolved to become extremely complex, like one of Darwin's organisms evolving over eons of time. On the other hand, the Veda's notion is that God exists outside of time and space and exists within and as all things. Here's an excerpt from the Upanishads: "That which makes the tongue speak but which cannot be spoken by the tongue--that alone is God, not what people worship. That which makes the mind think but which cannot be thought by the mind--that alone is God, not what people worship. That which makes the eye see but which cannot be seen by the eye--that alone is God, not what people worship. If you think that you know God, you know very little, all that you can know are ideas and images of God." -- The Upanishads Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theist Posted July 7, 2009 Report Share Posted July 7, 2009 Atheists say that God, to exist, must be unlimitedly complex, since He must be more complex than the universe itself...is that argument true? Yes as far as it goes. But why would an atheist say that? God by definition must be capable of more complex thought then it took to develop the universe since His intelligence can have no limit. This just shows there is no way for us to totally figure out God. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ananta Sesa Posted July 7, 2009 Author Report Share Posted July 7, 2009 Here's an excerpt from the Upanishads: "That which makes the tongue speak but which cannot be spoken by the tongue--that alone is God, not what people worship. That which makes the mind think but which cannot be thought by the mind--that alone is God, not what people worship. That which makes the eye see but which cannot be seen by the eye--that alone is God, not what people worship. If you think that you know God, you know very little, all that you can know are ideas and images of God." -- The Upanishads Really nice quote! Do you happen to know in which of the Upanishads? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theist Posted July 7, 2009 Report Share Posted July 7, 2009 Atheists that say God must be more complex than the universe itself, seem to have a remarkably deep understanding of theistic reality. They appear to acknowledge the (Vedic) notion that God is the ultimate cause of all causes, who controls everything. However, they don’t seem to grasp the idea that our material world is only a fraction of absolute reality, and that it’s therefore not a problem at all for God (absolute reality) to be more complex than our material universe. Furthermore, we know from mathematical chaos theory that even extremely simple systems can produce complex infinite self-similar order or structure (see e.g., Mandelbrot set - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia) So, the fundamental principle (God) that underlies the universe, can actually be infinitely more simple than manifest reality.. This is very interesting. It seems that just as God is both smaller than the smallest and bigger than the biggest He is also the most complex and the most simple. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
primate Posted July 7, 2009 Report Share Posted July 7, 2009 Any philosophy that doesn’t culminate in the immediate experience of the absolute Reality aka the absolute Truth aka Brahman aka God, is but a vain pastime. Absolute Reality contains both subject and object, i.e., experiencer and experienced. And everything we subjectively experience in this empirical world, has an objective ontological basis in Brahman. That is to say, whenever we experience something in this world, we are in reality experiencing Brahman or God; not in its absolute aspect, to be sure, but in one of its particular self-revealing phenomenal forms. The absolute aspect of God has been described through the ages by mystics of all religious - and philosophical schools, as the unity or oneness experienced in a subject-less state of consciousness (e.g., Samadhi), in which all complexity and differentiation within the phenomenal world, including ones own sense of being, is ultimately unified in the absolute Truth of indeterminate existence. This fundamental nothingness or void, is simultaneously infinitely simple in its aspect of oneness, and infinitely complex in its infinite self-manifestations in our subjective - or relative reality. (see e.g., The concept and reality of existence - Google Books) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sambya Posted July 7, 2009 Report Share Posted July 7, 2009 god is complex to us because we are limted in our capabilities . god has laid out a beautiful and perfect plan for the universe . but we being so small and so insignificant cannot understand it and get stuck . therefore from human perspective god is complex . he is also complex from viewpoint of philosophy . but to a bhakta he is simplest of all . as he is infinite he can be said to be both complex and simplest at the same time !! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sephiroth Posted July 8, 2009 Report Share Posted July 8, 2009 Atheists say that God, to exist, must be unlimitedly complex, since He must be more complex than the universe itself...is that argument true? Yeah, that could be true. Humans can never understand God completely (as much as we like to). We can only perceive Him through His attributes. Therefore, we cannot actually understand how God is but create a picture of God in our Mind. Furthermore, who said that this is the only Universe out there? There could be countless Universes, overlooked by God. In that context, God could always be Unlimitedly Complex. Perhaps, all we should be happy about is that He is there and He watches over us. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gHari Posted July 8, 2009 Report Share Posted July 8, 2009 Indeed, God is certainly much more complex than this silly world. With but a tiny fragment of His splendor He manifests all we can perceive. So the atheists are right - at least about that. Of course His complexity and greatness are far beyond us to imagine. Only our vanity will dare to write words on a page. But what else can we do? Krsna is so great, that the challenges of the atheists are but comic relief anymore. Yet they are reaching out to us desperately, indirectly asking that we help them understand. Their belligerence is simply the frustration they experience, either from misunderstanding or from lust's unfulfilled attachment. It is their good fortune that somehow or other they are asking us - they can only know, from someone who knows. Let us treat them as we would like to have been treated ourselves in our arrogance and ignorance, before we grasped the bigger picture of eternal life and love. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theist Posted July 8, 2009 Report Share Posted July 8, 2009 Nice perspective gHari. Hate atheism but love the so-called atheist and help if possible. Actually there are no atheists, mayavadi's demigods or demons. Every spiritself is a devotee. Some remember, some are in a state of forgetfllness and others like us are trying to change and come to rememberance. Just a crazy dream/nightmare. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blue.ray.child Posted July 8, 2009 Report Share Posted July 8, 2009 Really nice quote! Do you happen to know in which of the Upanishads? Hello Ananta. Yes, this translation originates from the Kena Upanishad. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
primate Posted July 8, 2009 Report Share Posted July 8, 2009 This is very interesting. It seems that just as God is both smaller than the smallest and bigger than the biggest He is also the most complex and the most simple. My guess is that God being simultaneously smaller than the smallest and greater than the greatest, as well as being simultaneously one with and different from the material creation (like the sun and the sunshine), and God being simultaneously simplest and most complex (like a singular chaotic system), may all be (more or less) valid and related conceptualizations of the Absolute Truth. Personally, as you might know, I am particularly intrigued by this mathematical chaos analogy of absolute reality, because (apart from its quantum physical implications) it seems to provide a formal theory of various religious concepts, including the (Vedic) notion that the simplest possible system can be infinitely creative. A singular point in a state-space (smaller than the smallest), can produce infinite evolving structure (greater than the greatest) in each of infinitely many different so called phase-projections of its infinite (chaotic) trajectory. Ultimately, in such a model, nothing actually exists but a dimensionless (void) point. However, when we plot the position of the point (e.g., on a computer screen) at regular phases or intervals or harmonic frequencies, the infinite order or structure that is present in the chaotic oscillation becomes manifest. Now, if it is assumed that this point is infinitely conscious, then our individual consciousness may be a particular infinitesimal fraction of this total consciousness, which is tuned to a particular harmonic frequency (Om) or phase-projection or universe. Moreover, nothing will exist from the perspective of this singular point or total consciousness, whereas from the perspective of our fractional (ignorant) consciousness, our entire universe is real. Nice.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theist Posted July 8, 2009 Report Share Posted July 8, 2009 Moreover, nothing will exist from the perspective of this singular point or total consciousness, whereas from the perspective of our fractional (ignorant) consciousness, our entire universe is real. Nice.. I can't follow mathematical examples primate Sorry. However this sounds way off. In fact it is just a scientific approach to impersonalism as I hear it. From the perspective of the impersonal conception of the brahman nothing exists but from the conditioned souls level of perspective everything (the universal manifestation) is seen. From the Vaisnava's perspective this is not nice but another definition of hell. The Vaisnava is specifically concerned with viewing life from the perspective that lies beyond the Brahman, which includes the material manifestation, The brahman and Krishna. Leaving Krishna out of the picture is like leaving the sweetness out of sugar. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
primate Posted July 8, 2009 Report Share Posted July 8, 2009 I can't follow mathematical examples primate Sorry. However this sounds way off. In fact it is just a scientific approach to impersonalism as I hear it. From the perspective of the impersonal conception of the brahman nothing exists but from the conditioned souls level of perspective everything (the universal manifestation) is seen. From the Vaisnava's perspective this is not nice but another definition of hell. The Vaisnava is specifically concerned with viewing life from the perspective that lies beyond the Brahman, which includes the material manifestation, The brahman and Krishna. Leaving Krishna out of the picture is like leaving the sweetness out of sugar. You understood my post #2, in which I stated that extremely simple mathematical systems can produce complex infinite order or structure, which indicates that the fundamental principle (God) that underlies the universe, can actually be infinitely more simple than manifest reality. My last post was an attempt to further explain how a mathematical chaos analogy of reality also indicates how God can be simultaneously smaller than the smallest and greater than the greatest. Finally I tried to explain how such a model indicates how our material reality can be the product of ignorance, and how absolute reality can be absolute oneness. You must admit that this is quite nice, although I understand that the specific mathematical concepts involved are somewhat over your head. Anyway, this mathematical analogy isn’t less personal than, for example, the Sun analogy. Does the Sun have personality? Moreover, a chaos analogy indicates how our partial material consciousness can be part and parcel of total consciousness in absolute oneness. And since our individual consciousness is obviously personal, absolute oneness must ultimately be personal. Actually (according to the chaos model) it must be the complete, total, or supreme Person. I further understand that you have difficulty accepting that absolute oneness is void or nothingness. Yet, as I stated in my post #8, this is how many philosophers and mystics have described and experienced absolute reality. A chaos analogy of reality, clearly indicates how such a void can be understood. That is not to say, however, that in reality this nothingness or void is impersonal. By now, I agree with you that a supreme Person must somehow exist 'beyond' this void (see above). And He certainly exists beyond the scope of any mathematical chaos theory of reality. Nevertheless, the overall analogy explains remarkably many extremely complex religious concepts in terms of an extremely simple mathematical model, which I think is very nice.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
melvin Posted July 8, 2009 Report Share Posted July 8, 2009 Mathematical equations or models in describing the Absolute Truth is still material to me, Primate. Only a transcendental mathematical equation or model can describe in full the Absolute Truth. Thus the saying, " It takes a thief to know one(a thief ).":) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theist Posted July 8, 2009 Report Share Posted July 8, 2009 Primate to say I somewhat understand the math example is being generous to me. Thanks . Actually I took my cue from the conclusion you offered,.That somehow I understood. Yes this is a popular concept that is gaining acceptance in the scientific world through such books as the Tao of physics which I tried to read but gave up on) and such books. It is good in one sense that some scientists are seeing beyond the gross material veil and that is nice when compared to being stuck in the old strictly mechanistic view of existence. But it is not a necessary step that the scientists must. They can still remain in the scientific discipline and immediately understand that there is a Personality behind it all. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
primate Posted July 9, 2009 Report Share Posted July 9, 2009 Yes! You finally understand. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theist Posted July 9, 2009 Report Share Posted July 9, 2009 Oh I have understood this little thing for quite sometime primate. So since you agree there is a Supreme Being that is Personal behind both the cosmic manifestation and the brahman effulgence you should present yourself as a theist and help others into the theistic conception. You are very intelligent and articulate so take it as your duty and do some karma/bhakti yoga for Krishna. This will make Krishna very happy with you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
primate Posted July 9, 2009 Report Share Posted July 9, 2009 Thank you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
greatt Posted July 9, 2009 Report Share Posted July 9, 2009 Atheists that say God must be more complex than the universe itself, seem to have a remarkably deep understanding of theistic reality. They appear to acknowledge the (Vedic) notion that God is the ultimate cause of all causes, who controls everything. However, they don’t seem to grasp the idea that our material world is only a fraction of absolute reality, and that it’s therefore not a problem at all for God (absolute reality) to be more complex than our material universe. Furthermore, we know from mathematical chaos theory that even extremely simple systems can produce complex infinite self-similar order or structure (see e.g., Mandelbrot set - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia) So, the fundamental principle (God) that underlies the universe, can actually be infinitely more simple than manifest reality.. Now thats what i call i really cool ubercool post Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
primate Posted July 9, 2009 Report Share Posted July 9, 2009 Mathematical equations or models in describing the Absolute Truth is still material to me, Primate. Only a transcendental mathematical equation or model can describe in full the Absolute Truth. Thus the saying, " It takes a thief to know one(a thief ).":) Mathematics and, for that matter, general logic, are not material, Melvin. Just like we can mentally imagine anything outside actual material reality, we can also mentally define any formal logic. Mathematics simply is a very successful formal logic or language. Many mathematical constructs happen to accurately describe relevant aspects of our material reality; ranging from basic arithmetics and Newton’s classical laws of physics, to Einstein’s general relativity theory and quantum mechanics. Chaos is yet another mathematical construct or model or theory, which I personally think might accurately describe and explain the fundamental quantum nature of reality in relation to our manifest material universe. I agree with you, however, that consciousness or God can only be fully explained and understood by 'transcendental logic'.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theist Posted July 10, 2009 Report Share Posted July 10, 2009 Mental is also consider material, subtle matter, but still matter. God can never be understood by the jivas even by transcendental logic. He is not static and is ever increasing. Krishna blows His own mind when He thinks about how great He is. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
primate Posted July 10, 2009 Report Share Posted July 10, 2009 Yes. Logic is of the subtle mind. As such, logic can transcend our (non-subtle) material world and provide theoretical knowledge about reality which cannot be obtained directly by empirical means or perceptual observations. However, any theory about reality must ultimately have a verifiable or testable objective basis in our empirical world, in order to be considered a scientific theory and not just philosophical speculation. Theist, do you think the Brahman effulgence can be logically understood as the basis of our manifest material universe? And are you suggesting that God/Krishna can’t fully understand His own greatness, i.e., that this is a limitation of His omniscience? In fact, there exists a logical argument that no conscious entity can have complete knowledge of itself. According to Kurt Gödel's incompleteness theorem, there can never exist a complete system of formal logic that allows all true logical statements about itself to be derived from itself. (see e.g.: Gödel's incompleteness theorems - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.