God Exists

[Brahin]

Share:

Facebook X (Twitter) WhatsApp Email Share Link

Dear Brahin,

After reading all that you have copy-pasted I can only say this-about the original attempt and not the copy-pasting effort- that it is a laboured attempt at trivialising a serious belief system. And what a miserable failure!!!

Nope! nothing is a failure.See everyone got to read the word God Exists so many times in what ever I pasted starting from 1st post.
Its like a Naamavalli.

 

[Haridasa Siva]

One of the simplest examples is

"I am a Liar"

This statement cannot be proven as True or False in Binary Logic. Nor can it be shown to be circular argument using the same set of rules. Such paradoxes exist only in 2-state logic. There are other logical frameworks that do not have this situation and they cannot be divided into subsets of 2-state logic either. Therefore, while 2-state logic is very good for old computer type analysis, not good to solve complex problems. That is why Quantum Computing became a modern field.

What Sravna has said, supported by Dr. is true. I recollect a court sequence from the Tamil movie, "Vaideeswaran". The hero is accused of committing an offence and the prosecutor puts him questions and wants only an yes or a no as an answer. When the hero tries to explain, the prosecutor says, "Say only "yes" or "no"". To prove the point that "yes" or "no" are not always the logical answers, the hero asks the prosecutor, "Have you discontinued the habit of taking bribe?" and asks him to answer this question with "yes" or "no". The hero substantiates that the prosecutor can not prove that he was never taking bribe by answering "yes" or "no" to his question. So, logic does have limitations.

 

[Haridasa Siva]

Some quotes on God. (Both theists and atheists can pick up what suits them!)

“What we are is God's gift to us. What we become is our gift to God.” - Eleanor Powell

“God whispers to us in our pleasures, speaks to us in our conscience, but shouts in our pains: It is His megaphone to rouse a deaf world” – C.S.Lewis

“God, to me, it seems, is a verb, not a noun, proper or improper.” - Richard Buckminster Fuller

“If there were no God, it would have been necessary to invent him.” – Voltaire

“God makes three requests of his children: Do the best you can, where you are, with what you have, now” - African-American Proverb

“We turn to God for help when our foundations are shaking, only to learn that it is God who is shaking them.” - Charles C. West

“Can a mortal ask questions which God finds unanswerable? Quite easily, I should think. All nonsense questions are unanswerable.” – C.S.Lewis

“I don't try to imagine a God; it suffices to stand in awe of the structure of the world, insofar as it allows our inadequate senses to appreciate it” - Albert Einstein

 

[renuka]

Nope! nothing is a failure.See everyone got to read the word God Exists so many times in what ever I pasted starting from 1st post.
Its like a Naamavalli.

Dear Brahin,

Nice to see all the funny posts you put.You know we need more guys like you in forum cos you have a good sense of humor and also seem to be having varied interests.
Serious guys are so boring!!!

 

[Haridasa Siva]

Ref.: Post 75 by Yamaha It is heartening to note your human gesture. As a matter of fact, one does not necessarily have to believe in God if one has one’s own value system. No amount of prayers can help one in anyway if one does not heed to the voice of the fellow human beings. Of the donations I have made to various temples, except for two, the rest are all for anna dhaanam. I believe in Bharathis’s words:
வயிற்றுக்குச் சோறிட வேண்டும் இங்கு
வாழும் மனிதர்க்கெல்லாம்
One can not be chanting “slokas” when a fellow human needs help (Remember the scene from the Tamil movie, “உன்னால் முடியும் தம்பி”).

But at the same time, the vast majority of the people (like me) need a mentor in life who can be trusted at all times. Unfortunately, human beings are not our natural choice since we know their (wicked) nature. So, we look to God for comfort. We can confide anything in Him (perhaps for the simple reason that he does not exist in physical form and so he can not betray us – how silly?!). So, we don’t have to have any fear in Him. The Christians however believe in the saying, “Fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom” (Psalm 111:10). I don’t think everyone praying to God is asking for favours from Him. I, for example, pray to Him for the mere sake of it. It teaches me humility. It mends me. So, when I pray, I often thank Him for having given me the opportunity to pray Him; for having filled my mind with His thoughts (read noble thoughts). We need His blessings even to worship Him (“அவன் அருளாலே அவன் தாள் வணங்கி” from சிவபுராணம் ) So, the prayer itself is a favour. What other favour does one need? I hate asking Him for material favours. I believe that as the Creator, He knows what to do, when to do, where to do, whom to do and how to do. As I have mentioned earlier in this thread, I pray to God for comfort and humility. My philosophy of God is perhaps inspired by two books. 1. A Christian book (don’t remember the title now) where the author states something like this: “Every Sunday, people go to Church with a “to-do” list and pray Him to grant them their wishes. They believe that there is someone sitting in the church waiting to hear their moaning and to wipe off their worries. Such people do not realize God”. The other book is by Swami Vivekananda. His words in that book were something like this: “An atheist is thousand times better than a theist who worships God only for favours”. I take the philosophies from our film songs as well. See the following examples:
1. Example that He is dependable (comfort):
ஆண்டவன் அரிய நெஞ்சில் ஒரு துளி வஞ்சமில்லை
அவனன்றி எனக்கு வேறு ஆறுதல் இல்லை.
("நல்லவர்க்கெல்லாம்....." from the movie "தியாகம்")

2. Example that He is the Master and He is the ultimate (humility):
நாயகன் மேலிருந்து நூலினை ஆட்டுகின்றான்
நாமெல்லாம் பொம்மைஎன்று நாடகம் காட்டுகின்றான்
காரணம் ஏதுமின்றி காட்சியை மாற்றுவான்
("எல்லோரும் சொல்லும் பாட்டு...." from the movie "மறுபடியும்")

 

[Brahin]

Dear Brahin,

Nice to see all the funny posts you put.You know we need more guys like you in forum cos you have a good sense of humor and also seem to be having varied interests.
Serious guys are so boring!!!

Dear Renu and Amala(for clicking like)

I am flattered.I am not serious types,I am fun loving only and sometimes I can be very naughty also.LOL

 

[Haridasa Siva]

Dear Renu and Amala(for clicking like)

I am flattered.I am not serious types,I am fun loving only and sometimes I can be very naughty also.LOL

When I saw two women supporting your stand, I wanted to shout, "Brahin, take care". Now that you say you could be VERY naughty sometimes, I want to tell the women the same.

 

[sravna]

People who insist on logic, more often than not seem to be influenced by the way something is presented. The same message if said in a informal style doesn't normally get across. Rigor is necessary but only in academic settings because we want to convey exactly what we have in mind and do not want to be misunderstood. In other settings it is just enough to grasp the gist of what one says and proceed.

To the above people logic seems to be more in the form than in the content.

 

[DrBarani]

People who insist on logic, more often than not seem to be influenced by the way something is presented. The same message if said in a informal style doesn't normally get across. Rigor is necessary but only in academic settings because we want to convey exactly what we have in mind and do not want to be misunderstood. In other settings it is just enough to grasp the gist of what one says and proceed.

To the above people logic seems to be more in the form than in the content.

Frequently the self-styled rationalists assume they are the masters of logic, so it becomes necessary to alert them that the power of rational analysis is not their monopoly and that such an analysis doesn't always yield a conclusion in their favour.

 

[C RAVI]

People who insist on logic, more often than not seem to be influenced by the way something is presented. The same message if said in a informal style doesn't normally get across. Rigor is necessary but only in academic settings because we want to convey exactly what we have in mind and do not want to be misunderstood. In other settings it is just enough to grasp the gist of what one says and proceed.

To the above people logic seems to be more in the form than in the content.

Sri Sarvana,

What you have stated, I agree fully. I believe in same and such belief and understanding differs from people to people (as you have notified).

The problem is with a psychological make up of understanding and acceptance, with which one wants to assert things visibly and constructively, within a stipulated time span.

For example -

One wants to know and get the results physically and constructively, as per the following sequence/incident..

- By mistake I cut the Apple into two. I need to join the parts into one within another 15 minutes, before my Dad finds this only one apple in 2 halves.

A person tries to explain the boy that, apples once been cut into pieces would change its color and as well can not be rejoined to make it one in full. This is the nature. This is beyond humans capacity to change its physical form as orginal as before.

For this, the boy says, I don't need your explanations and excuses please! I want to make the apple as how was it before, as 1 full fruit. If you say it's impossible, than prove me as how it’s impossible?

 

[C RAVI]

Frequently the self-styled rationalists assume they are the masters of logic, so it becomes necessary to alert them that the power of rational analysis is not their monopoly and that such an analysis doesn't always yield a conclusion in their favour.

Dr.Barani,

A layman's understanding, a logical man's understanding and a philosophical man's understanding and explanations are all been substantially echoed to tell, God exists / Existence of God can not be ruled out.

Now I am waiting for Ayya's practical response, as you have requested Ayya in your post #81, to mathematically disprove God.

 

[Nara]

It was an effort to open your mind to possibities. You did make the statement "god can't be proven" and I negated that statement.

DrBarani, you are repeating the same made up statement. I never said, "god can't be proven therefore ... ". If you want to repeat this canard, I have to insist that you provide a post reference where I said that.

I have already explained my position and the reasoning for it. It is up to you and others, who think I am wrong, to show why I am wrong. Instead you guys are making ad hominem statements.

Those who make a positive claim, like there exists a god, have the responsibility to prove the validity of that statement. It is not up to me prove the negative of that statement. If that were so, then I can make an equally silly statement, like flying celestial tea pot, and demand that it be proven wrong.

BTW, logical paradoxes do exist. These paradoxes do not prove anything. If you guys think it does, then it is fine.

Cheers!

 

[Nara]

....
Now I am waiting for Ayya's practical response, as you have requested Ayya in your post #81, to mathematically disprove God.

Ravi, I took another look at post #81 to figure out who this Ayya is, and realized it was yours truly. Do you have to mock me like this? It is alright, mock me all you want, but still none of you guys have said anything to dent my presentation.

Ravi, as I have stated already, the ones who make a claim, like God Exists, the title of this thread, have the obligation to show the validity of it. This is fundamental. For example, suppose that I tell you that there is an invisible pink unicorn and then demand that you have to disprove it, what would you say?

It would be better if we stick to the topic, no need to try to "open my mind", or mock me.

Cheers!

 

[DrBarani]

DrBarani, you are repeating the same made up statement. I never said, "god can't be proven therefore ... ". If you want to repeat this canard, I have to insist that you provide a post reference where I said that.

I have already explained my position and the reasoning for it. It is up to you and others, who think I am wrong, to show why I am wrong. Instead you guys are making ad hominem statements.

Those who make a positive claim, like there exists a god, have the responsibility to prove the validity of that statement. It is not up to me prove the negative of that statement. If that were so, then I can make an equally silly statement, like flying celestial tea pot, and demand that it be proven wrong.

BTW, logical paradoxes do exist. These paradoxes do not prove anything. If you guys think it does, then it is fine.

Cheers!

you made a claim that "supernatural creator is illogical" by which you implied a supernatural creator didn't exist because your Logic told you so. Therefore, you invoked your logic to assert that a supernatural creator doesn't exist. Are you denying that you made that attempt? I jumped into the thread in a serious way because the word Logic was brought into the scene.

You can't measure temperature with a ruler. You need a different gauge, thermometer. Same way, your binary logic is not sufficient for you to make those arguments you made. I asked you to pick up another measuring gauge which you refuse to do so.

Yes, logical paradoxes exist. You said they do not prove anything. I say they do prove something... they prove that chosen logical framework is incapable of solving those paradoxes and that we need a superior logical structure. Such structures do exist, for those wishing to delve into.

 

[sravna]

Shri Nara,

I have made this point before. Let me try to put it differently. Physical observation and personal experience are two ways of proving something. You reject the latter because it varies from person to person. But that is exactly the reason it should be given more credence, the reason is it indicates an evolving feature in humans and so varies among them unlike the sense organs which are equally developed in them. So I would give more credence to my intutive understanding than to the evidence I observe in the physical world because it is a better means to knowledge.

Also, what you are asking is to explain the higher knowledge in the terminology of lower knowledge. Instead I suggest that we develop our own measure to find out the quality of higher knowledge or intuition.

 

[C RAVI]

Ravi, I took another look at post #81 to figure out who this Ayya is, and realized it was yours truly. Do you have to mock me like this? It is alright, mock me all you want, but still none of you guys have said anything to dent my presentation.

It would be better if we stick to the topic, no need to try to "open my mind", or mock me.

Cheers!

Much to my surprise, for the first time, the usage of "Ayya" is found to be disrepectful and considered mockery on a person.

"Ayya" is a most honorable and high order salutation offered to highly matured and dignified personalities, irrespective of age, education, intelligence and financial status.

I allways stick to the topic and post my comments with my full honesty.

 

[C RAVI]

Shri Nara,

I have made this point before. Let me try to put it differently. Physical observation and personal experience are two ways of proving something. You reject the latter because it varies from person to person. But that is exactly the reason it should be given more credence, the reason is it indicates an evolving feature in humans and so varies among them unlike the sense organs which are equally developed in them. So I would give more credence to my intutive understanding than to the evidence I observe in the physical world because it is a better means to knowledge.

Also, what you are asking is to explain the higher knowledge in the terminology of lower knowledge. Instead I suggest that we develop our own measure to find out the quality of higher knowledge or intuition.

Perfect!!!!!!

 

[DrBarani]

that is exactly the reason it should be given more credence, the reason is it indicates an evolving feature in humans and so varies among them unlike the sense organs which are equally developed in them. So I would give more credence to my intutive understanding than to the evidence I observe in the physical world because it is a better means to knowledge.

Actually, I would give Equal treatment to both externally stimulated senses And our ability to perform Thought Experiments. As far as I see, both send signals to the same compartment in the brain, and therefore, it makes no difference if an experiment is real or imaginary, as long as the experiment is consistent and leads to the same conclusion. For that matter, most scientists conduct thought experiments, convince themselves it will work and only then they do laboratory experiment to prove it for others. In the long term I believe it may be possible to record those thought experiments and dispense with laboratory ones!

 

[DrBarani]

Here is one proof of God...

Proof of God!

Ok, somebody said this thread was getting serious... lets change it!

 

[Nara]

you made a claim that "supernatural creator is illogical" by which you implied a supernatural creator didn't exist because your Logic told you so.

Don't assume what I implied, to assume is to make an ass - out of - u - and - me. You may have the right to do so out of you, but not out of me. Now it is clear that what you stated as my words is complete fabrication.

What I said was to presume a supernatural creator leads the logical fallacy of infinite regress. In response you just claimed, not so, further assuming I am locked into what you call as binary logic. Your word is not proof by itself.

I stated my position clearly in post #78. To summarize, in a technical sense, i.e. a negative (e.g. god does not exist) cannot be definitively proved. Therefore, the correct logical and rational position to take is one of agnosticism. However, in our day-to-day life, as a matter of practicality, the logical and rational way to fashion one's life is that of an atheist.

If you wish to discuss this further, please present your arguments without making assumptions about what I may or may not have implied. If in doubt please ask me and I will try my best to clarify.

Yes, logical paradoxes exist. You said they do not prove anything. I say they do prove something... they prove that chosen logical framework is incapable of solving those paradoxes and that we need a superior logical structure. Such structures do exist, for those wishing to delve into.

If you have access to some superior logical structure that will resolve the logical paradoxes, then please try to publish it in some reputable journals or scientific magazines, then it will get the scrutiny such claims must pass through before it can be accepted.

Cheers!

 

[Nara]

...."Ayya" is a most honorable and high order salutation offered to highly matured and dignified personalities, irrespective of age, education, intelligence and financial status.

Ravi, respectful epithets can be sued in a sarcastic way to mock. In an impersonal medium as the internet it is not easy to tell. I still feel you did not intend it the way you now claim, but I will certainly give the benefit of doubt and take your word for it as is.

Cheers!

 

[C RAVI]

Ravi, respectful epithets can be sued in a sarcastic way to mock. In an impersonal medium as the internet it is not easy to tell. I still feel you did not intend it the way you now claim, but I will certainly give the benefit of doubt and take your word for it as is.

Cheers!

Thank you for your kind gesture and good sense of reciprocal in a positive spirit.

I have not used “Ayya” in negative sense. I have considered you a worthy to be dignified with the highest respect and salutation of "Ayya".
Since you as a highly competent and practical person and some of the members equal to your caliber or some what acceptable to the level of your caliber are mocking on my motive and sense of clicking "Like" as a sort of foolishness or immaturity or ridiculous and considering them as a misleading factor (as if, because of this, they are losing their balance and changing their views and confused as whom to support and whom not to, irrespective of what they believe, know and understand, in order to debate), despite my clarification, I assumed that, you people are great personalities who knows what, how and for whom to click “Like”, I decided to honor you.

Since, IMHO you are the top personality among other members, I have decided myself to address you with higher salutation – “Iyya”. Especially because you could get to our attention, Renu’s observation on this point in another thread and expressing to me, but you failed to get my reply to her in that thread itself, to your attention.

IMHO, people who don’t get carried away with stupid replies are great personality and deserve the highest salutation.

I would love to call you “Ayya” with all due respect. If you still feel that it’s a mockery on you and you don’t want me to address you that way, I would for sure accept your request to avoid calling you “Ayya”. Otherwise of which my usage of “Iyya” would just be reflecting my wrong motive.

So, please confirm from you side whether I can call you as “Ayya”. Otherwise, I would take your silence as acceptance of my usage.

 

[DrBarani]

Dear Sir, I have reproduced your claims here

a supernatural creator deity is illogical because it leads to who created this deity -- an infinite regress. If the counter argument is that humans don't have the required perception, then I say, alright, in that case we can only be agnostic, i.e. we can never answer this question definitively.

You assertion about agnotism is a result of counterargument, not as a result of your original argument claim about "superior creater is illogical". You have reasserted it several times in different manners (e.g. "Logic 101"). I have pointed out that your Logic System is flawed.

You may have the right to do so out of you, but not out of me. Now it is clear that what you stated as my words is complete fabrication.

Your exact words have been reproduced. There was no fabrication.

What I said was to presume a supernatural creator leads the logical fallacy of infinite regress.

I have disputed that Logic and explained more than once that such a self-referential argument with infinite regression is the limitation of binary logic.

In response you just claimed, not so, further assuming I am locked into what you call as binary logic.

Your own statement about "illogical" is a manifestation of Binary Logic. You used Binary Logic. You cannot escape out of it with denials.

I stated my position clearly in post #78. To summarize, in a technical sense, i.e. a negative (e.g. god does not exist) cannot be definitively proved. Therefore, the correct logical and rational position to take is one of agnosticism. However, in our day-to-day life, as a matter of practicality, the logical and rational way to fashion one's life is that of an atheist.

You cannot fudge atheism and agnotism when convenient. You can't even conclude that agnotism is the answer by using a paradox because the whole Logic system is flawed.

Regarding "practical" there are those who practically perceive God too. Therefore, practically one can be a believer or a nonbeliever or agnotistic or atheist, but that has nothing to do with the logical paradox you presented. You simply cannot draw any conclusion from the paradox! It is completely wrong to claim that "one can at best be agnost because I cited a paradox".

If you have access to some superior logical structure that will resolve the logical paradoxes, then please try to publish it in some reputable journals or scientific magazines, then it will get the scrutiny such claims must pass through before it can be accepted.

I have earlier given several pointers (keywords) in the post mentioning Nash Equilibrium. etc Yes, there are already published papers in peer-reviewed journals for many decades. They haven't reached your study books and that isn't my fault.

Don't assume what I implied, to assume is to make an ass - out of - u - and - me.

Kindly avoid such angry outbursts to keep certain decorum in the forum. From my side, I will be happy not to point out flaws in your argument, if you insist upon it.

 

[tks]

Dear Sir,
.
.
.


Kindly avoid such angry outbursts to keep certain decorum in the forum. From my side, I will be happy not to point out flaws in your argument, if you insist upon it.

Sri DrBarani -

Given this set of exchanges seem to be one among many let me share my thoughts. I would not unconditionally agree to not point out flaws when that happens in debates

1. If someone claims to follow Atheism or Agnosticism or whatever 'ism' - it is their right. However they have to recognize that their conclusions are based on a system of 'faith'. One may say they are logical or proclaim that they are rationalists and that they arrived to their current thinking (read as belief) by being honest and by careful analysis. This is not denied and is true for every person that follow an established tradition of religion. Often many who proclaim being logical are the first one to demonstrate illogical reasoning in such forums by being faithful to a system of binary logic and their own personal bias. They simply do not know what they do not know. I have respect for their 'faith' even if they claim theirs is the only reasoning based on logic. I would challenge them if they want to denigrate belief systems of other people of faith. In that case it is necessary to point out the logical flaws as service to the community especially if they insist on denigrating even non-faith based teachings (e.g., Upanishads) without having spent the due diligence to learn the materials in a proper setting.

2. In my 4 months or so here I have also come across very few who do not reveal their true (religious) identity but are here to denigrate traditions or teachings of Hinduism or Vedic teachings. Again that behavior is a low integrity behavior and needs to be called out when that happens.

I find your debating style refreshing!

 

[Brahmanyan]

For me, my existence is the proof of existence of God (X factor !). If I don't exist God also does not exist for me.


Brahmanyan,
Bangalore.