God unlimitedly complex?

[theist]

 

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.

 

Yes that is the standard offered by the gross scientists although they don't always follow it.

 

 

Theist, do you think the Brahman effulgence can be logically understood as the basis of our manifest material universe?

Well yes. That is what some some scientists have come to understand apparently through their own investigations and methods.

 

 

And are you suggesting that God/Krishna can’t fully understand His own greatness, i.e., that this is a limitation of His omniscience?

Yes but then He also understands His own greatness. We cannot limit the Lord to having only one mindset at a time.

 

As Krishna the boy in Vrndavan playing with the gopis and cowherds He needn't think of Himself as God the Almighty. He can become immersed in the rasa of His devotee right along with that devotee, and not that He has to pretend to be immersed while always being conscious that He is God.

 

Yet at the same time He is fully aware of himself as God Almighty as Visnu at all times.

 

And while Krishna is playing ignoring His Supreme Power, and Visnu is fully cognizant of the same,a Krishna as Lord Caitanya can be fully immersed in separation from Krishna in the mood of Radharani.

 

In this way the Lord can be amazed at His own greatness while always understanding how great he is.

 

The Lord houses all contradictions perfectly and harmoniously. We can never pin the Lord down and capture Him with the rope of our logic. We can never have enough rope for the task. Logic can only take us so far or it can be said that it is logical that God is always beyond our logic to know or understand.

 

 

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)

Then it comes to what Godel meant by a living entity? Anyway such speculation can never apply to God.

[melvin]

 

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.

 

Where logic ends, knowledge of God begins.

[primate]

 

Where logic ends, knowledge of God begins.

You actually can't say that. You can say, "when logic ends knowledge ends". But to say, "when logic ends knowledge of God begins", you must first come up with a definition of knowledge that is different from the usual scientific definition, i.e., we know something when a formal (logical) theory exists about it, which is in any way consistent with known empirical reality as well as with any (as yet) unknown empirical facts about it..

[sant]

If you dont mind let me answer that to you.

years ago if you told people that we could talk to a person who lives hundreds of miles away from you then they would laugh because due to their logic They were right.But graham bell changed this and now thanks to his grace we use telephones to talk to people far and near.

So as baba says logic comes from the amount of knowledge we have.

 

But god as the vedas say is above the mind then how can you bind him by logic.

[primate]

 

So as baba says logic comes from the amount of knowledge we have.

 

No. Philosophy or logic always precedes knowledge. We see a phenomenon; we don't understand it; we think about it and make a mental model of it; we test this model in reality; and we decide whether or not our logical model is valid. Only then, we have knowledge..

[melvin]

 

You actually can't say that. You can say, "when logic ends knowledge ends". But to say, "when logic ends knowledge of God begins", you must first come up with a definition of knowledge that is different from the usual scientific definition, i.e., we know something when a formal (logical) theory exists about it, which is in any way consistent with known empirical reality as well as with any (as yet) unknown empirical facts about it..

 

I`m just redefining what Theist has already said. That knowledge of God can never be discerned by mental or mathematical theories or even transcendental logic. It`s only when logic or thinking stops that we begin to know God. He reveals Himself to us only if we believe what He says in the Vedic scriptures. Quantum physicists don`t accept the Truth found in Srimad Bhagavatam or Bhagavad-gita. They`d rather use mathematical formulas and computerized models in knowing the Truth. Such endeavor is a waste of time and money. They`d rather spend billions of dollars in sending satellite probes to outer space than using these resources to feed billions of hungry souls. Why the US government continue to fund these scientific programs to me defies logic.

[sant]

 

No. Philosophy or logic always precedes knowledge. We see some phenomenon; we don't understand it; we think about it and make a mental model of it; we test this model in reality; and we decide whether or not our logical model is valid. Only then, we have knowledge..

No but how did you decide which model youre going to use or what type of experiment to do.Isnt it based on the amount of knowledge you already have.

[theist]

Logic points to God but God cannot be found purely through logic, He is self revealing. He gives the intelligence that points to Him and the path best to seek Him out and then graces the seeker with revelations of Himself as he likes.

[melvin]

 

No. Philosophy or logic always precedes knowledge. We see a phenomenon; we don't understand it; we think about it and make a mental model of it; we test this model in reality; and we decide whether or not our logical model is valid. Only then, we have knowledge..

 

Mental models aren`t perfect. To test these models in reality is surreal since what we know to be reality is an illusion. So, how`d we know these logical models arrived at are valid when the mental models to begin are speculative? The result or knowledge taken from these models are conclusions shotful of holes. They easily sink to the bottom when confronted with the reality stated in the Vedas.

[primate]

 

Mental models aren`t perfect. To test these models in reality is surreal since what we know to be reality is an illusion. So, how`d we know these logical models arrived at are valid when the mental models to begin are speculative? The result or knowledge taken from these models are conclusions shotful of holes. They easily sink to the bottom when confronted with the reality stated in the Vedas.

When you say: "mental models are not perfect", you have got a point. There is indeed no way to prove that any theory about physical reality is absolutely true. However, a mental model can be extremely accurate, such as: when I put my hand in fire, it will be quite painful. Most people will take that as absolutely true knowledge.

 

Most scientific models are much more complex than that. Yet, the currently most advanced mathematical models of physical reality (i.e., general relativity and quantum mechanics) have proven to be amazingly accurate in both their explanatory power and predictive power; even to the extend that many believe that reality is actually non-different from these models. Thus, when you say: "the result or knowledge taken from these models are conclusions shotful of holes", you are very wrong.

 

Now, I explained that the model of reality that I have in mind is both strikingly compatible with the knowledge in the Vedas, as well as with contemporary scientific models. Thus, when you say: "they easily sink to the bottom when confronted with the reality stated in the Vedas", you are again very wrong, and you are actually saying that you don’t understand or care about science, and/or you didn’t read or understand my previous posts, and/or you have some unreasonable adverse attitude towards science and the scientific method, which I would think is quite a remarkable state of mind for a physician..

[primate]

 

Logic points to God but God cannot be found purely through logic, He is self revealing. He gives the intelligence that points to Him and the path best to seek Him out and then graces the seeker with revelations of Himself as he likes.

Yes. That makes sense. There is a limit to what can be logically explained or understood. I guess consciousness (or God) is that limit. And absolute truth might simply reveal itself within our tiny human consciousness..

[melvin]

 

When you say: "mental models are not perfect", you have got a point. There is indeed no way to prove that any theory about physical reality is absolutely true. However, a mental model can be extremely accurate, such as: when I put my hand in fire, it will be quite painful. Most people will take that as absolutely true knowledge.

 

My View: Not from people with Hansen`s disease(leprosy).

 

Most scientific models are much more complex than that. Yet, the currently most advanced mathematical models of physical reality (i.e., general relativity and quantum mechanics) have proven to be amazingly accurate in both their explanatory power and predictive power; even to the extend that many believe that reality is actually non-different from these models. Thus, when you say: "the result or knowledge taken from these models are conclusions shotful of holes", you are very wrong.

 

My View: Accurate from man`s material point of view not God`s.

 

Now, I explained that the model of reality that I have in mind is both strikingly compatible with the knowledge in the Vedas, as well as with contemporary scientific models. Thus, when you say: "they easily sink to the bottom when confronted with the reality stated in the Vedas", you are again very wrong, and you are actually saying that you don’t understand or care about science, and/or you didn’t read or understand my previous posts, and/or you have some unreasonable adverse attitude towards science and the scientific method, which I would think is quite a remarkable state of mind for a physician..

 

 

My View: There are diseases, Primate, physicians can`t cure using the

most sophisticated medical tools known to mankind but can

be done simply by a sincere prayer to God.

 

 

 

[theist]

 

Yes. That makes sense. There is a limit to what can be logically explained or understood. I guess consciousness (or God) is that limit. And absolute truth might simply reveal itself within our tiny human consciousness..

 

Yes. Now let's consider a little more deeply on your statement which we both accept. For the absolute truth to reveal itself to us is a choice on the part of that absolute truth.

 

There is no mechanism that we have, gross or subtle, that can force the absolute truth to reveal itself.

 

 

Making a choice to act or not to act is contradictory to the idea of the absolute truth being a void or just static undifferentiated light energy as the impersonalists propose and we all know as Brahman.

 

That choice comes from beyond the Brahman.

 

Therefore to gain knowledge from the Absolute Truth we need to receive it on the terms set by the Absolute Truth. He is also free to just give this knowledge to someone even if they don't live up to those terms. This is call Krishna kripa, Krishna's special mercy.

 

 

Yes, ours is a humble position. The Absolute Truth can reveal Himself to us or not. It behooves us to approach Him in a humble state of mind.

[melvin]

 

 

 

Yes, ours is a humble position. The Absolute Truth can reveal Himself to us or not. It behooves us to approach Him in a humble state of mind.

 

 

Wrong, Theist. The Absolute Truth also reveals Himself when He`s approached by one with a combative mood in the case of Nrsimha Vs Hiranyakasipu as Death persona. Patience is more correct when approaching Him in a humble state of mind if we want God to reveal His real Self to us in Lord Caitanya Vs Sarvabhauma Battacharya as The Guru.

[theist]

Well we will have to agree to disagree Melvin.

[sant]

Primate maybe i messed up in the earlier post.Im not saying that by logic you cant discover something.Ill give an example.Remember when

In school youve had heard about the formula of bodmas.

Now if you were in second grade and you would have been given-

6 × (5 + 3) You might calculate it by

 

 

6 × (5 + 3) =30 + 3=

 

33

 

 

 

 

but right answer will be

 

 

6 × (5 + 3) =6 × 8=

 

48

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Now earlier when you were in al lower grade and had not learnt bodmas you answered by applying your own logic based on what you had learnt and what knowlegde you have.By your logic it seems correct since youve learnt only how to add subtract and the importance of order is not known to you.But only after learning more about bodmas then only you can find the correct answer.

 

So this proves that logic is based on what you already know.

I do remember a line that a scientist had said- that if god can exist without a cause even then the universe can exist without a cause.

By logic he is correct.

BUt what will happen if you decide to beleive in no god with that logic.

 

Some things are beyond logic.

Take another one- The omnipotence paradox suggests that the concept of an omnipotent entity is logically contradictory, from considering a question like: "Can God create a rock so big that he cannot lift it?" or "If God is all powerful, could God create a being more powerful than himself.

 

Courtesy

www.mathsisfun.com/operation-order-bodmas.html -

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Existence_of_God

 

 

JAI RAM

[primate]

Sant, your example of the order of arithmetic operations, only shows that to arrive at a correct answer, you have to apply the rules correctly. Mathematics in itself is not knowledge, it's just a logical system of rules that we agree upon. That's not knowledge per se. When we apply the rules, we get knowledge, e.g., 6 x (5 + 3) = 48.

 

Another example: suppose we have a variable number of boxes, each containing 8 objects. How many boxes (n) do we need to get a total of 48 object? At this point you don't have that knowledge. To solve the problem, you define a logical model: n = 48 / 8. You apply the rules of arithmetic and arrive at the answer: n = 6. Now you know you need 6 boxes. Thus, logic precedes knowledge. To test if your model is correct, you can take six boxes and count the total number of objects in them.

 

Yet another example: you first have to learn the letters of the alphabet in order to learn to read. The letters of the alphabet do not contain knowledge in themselves. Even the ensuing ability to read is not knowledge in itself. Although it can be said to be based on knowledge of the letters of the alphabet, the ability to read is just a skill. Now, suppose you have a book you didn't read. At this point you have no knowledge of the contents of the book. Only after you apply your reading skills to all the sentences in the book, you will have knowledge of its contents. So, again, logic precedes knowledge. And what if you didn't understand the overall meaning of the book? Then you must read the book again and apply the rules of language correctly to its overall contents. When you finally understand, you will have knowledge of the meaning of the contents of the book. Again, the application of logic (linguistics) preceded that knowledge.

 

Knowledge always implies a question. This can be an abstract question (e.g., how much is 6 x [5 + 2]?) or a practical question (e.g., how many boxes of 8 objects do I need to get 48 objects?). To answer a question, we always apply a form of logic to obtain the answer. The answer can even be an abstract logical construct or analogy. Nevertheless, logic per definition precedes knowledge and not vice versa.

 

I agree with you that some questions are beyond certain logical answers, so that it seems we can't obtain the specific desired knowledge. However, there is basically no way of telling whether this is due to a limitation or flaw in our applied logic, or to the fact that the answer is fundamentally unknowable. For example, consider the statement: "this statement is false". Does it mean that the statement is true or false? The statement is neither true nor false, so the answer to the question is unknowable. This is clearly a limitation or flaw of language, which allows for such meaningless statements. Likewise the question "if God is all powerful, can God create a being more powerful than himself?" is meaningless. The answer can neither be yes or no.

 

Now, the philosophical challenge is to find a formal logical description of reality, that only allows for true statements about reality to be derived from it. Such a model would be absolutely true. That is not to say, however, that such a model would also be an absolutely complete model of reality. As I mentioned earlier, according to Gödel's incompleteness theorem, there can never exist a complete system of formal logic that allows all true statements about itself to be derived from itself. Therefore, it seems that Absolute Truth is fundamentally unknowable by any logical means..

[sant]

 

Sant, your example of the order of arithmetic operations, only shows that to arrive at a correct answer, you have to apply the rules correctly.

So you need to have knowledge about the rules.

 

 

The mathematician Benjamin Peirce called mathematics "the science that draws necessary conclusions

 

SO doesnt this makes maths knowledge.

 

You apply the rules of arithmetic and arrive at the answer: n = 6. Now you know you need 6 boxes.

Here you yourself say tha you have to apply The rules of mathemathics ,so you already have the knowledge of the rules.

Im aint saying that through logic you cannot get to know more knowledge by testing, experiments etc.

Im just saying that just like in your maths problem your mind will solve and find the answer based on the knowledge it possess.

Now you are going to apply some logic that krishna cannot be basis of brahman since brahman is etc. etc. but that is because you have limited knowlede about brahman.

Though that is a different thing both are beyond mind and intelligence..

Just take another example.

 

 

Bhoothnath - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

ANother example-

Just take the mind of a five year old child.Now

he is scared of going to dark room because he had heard some ghost story from his brother, so his mother just to remove his fear will say that there is no such things as ghost and there are only devtas.Now because he believes in his mother, in his mind he has decided that ghosts dont exist.

And now even if he sees a ghost he will not beleive that it is a ghost but consider it a devta since his logic is that ghosts dont exist which come from the knowledge that his mother has given him.

[primate]

 

 

So you need to have knowledge about the rules.

 

No. Ultimately the rules are self-sufficient. They don’t need you to apply them. You can use a computer to calculate the answer for you. Then you would still have the answer or the knowledge, but without (necessarily) knowing the rules.

 

 

SO doesnt this makes maths knowledge.

 

No. What Peirce says here, is that a correct application of the rules of mathematics will necessarily lead to a true conclusion or true knowledge. This implies that the rules are leading. Thus, logic precedes knowledge..

[primate]

 

…

Now you are going to apply some logic that krishna cannot be basis of brahman since brahman is etc. etc. but that is because you have limited knowlede about brahman.

Though that is a different thing both are beyond mind and intelligence.

…

 

I already came back from that conclusion. I still think the term "basis of Brahman" is not appropriate, but since logic doesn't apply to God or Absolute Truth, language doesn't apply either. Thus, any formal logic and terminology will ultimately be incorrect in describing the relation between impersonal Brahman and Krishna..

[gHari]

"Can God create a rock so big that he cannot lift it?"

 

Srila Prabhupada was asked this question. His answer was: "Krsna can create a rock He cannot lift ..... then He would lift it".

[primate]

..

[theist]

Still hung up on the word basis primate? In one of your posts you admitted krishna was the foundation of Brahman if I remember correctly. Well foundation is a synonym for basis.

 

But if you accept foundation then that is good enough.

[primate]

 

Still hung up on the word basis primate? In one of your posts you admitted krishna was the foundation of Brahman if I remember correctly. Well foundation is a synonym for basis.

 

But if you accept foundation then that is good enough.

Well, I'm sure that words and language and logic are ultimately inappropriate to describe the relation between Krishna and impersonal Brahman, because it would always suggest something that cannot be proven within the particular applied formalism. However (as you acknowledged), the Brahman effulgence is within the range of logical understanding, and (as I acknowledged) Krishna is not. So there is a fundamental ontological difference between Brahman and Krishna. Whatever this is, cannot be formally described. But for all practical purposes, you may say: Krishna is the basis or foundation or rest of Brahman. I no longer have a serious problem with that..

[melvin]

 

Well we will have to agree to disagree Melvin.

 

When there`s an agreement it means it`s a closed deal. That both have reached a consensus and approval on a subject discussed either lengthily or briefly. That`s why there are threads losing steam earlier because all who participated in the exchange agreed with no more questions asked from the thread starter. However, there are threads that go the distance because the participants find interest in the subject being presented.

 

When a thread appears animated members and guests are driven to visit and share their own or group views in order to agree or disagree. If the majority agrees or disagrees then there`s no point in continuing the discussion. The thread is closed UNLESS THERE`S A VALID DISSENTING OIPINON to keep it open. Why is the game of Golf only have 18 holes? It`s to make sure that players won`t find other holes to sink their balls into.