Srila Prabhupada 100k audio file Sudarsana Button Bar Links FAQ Feedback Text Search Index What's New?
[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]

We can't Solve the Problem Without Considering God


>Madhudvisa dasa        (madhudvisa@krishna.org) wrote:

>: parlea@jolt.mpx.com.au (Andrew Parle) wrote:

 

>: >I know of no evidence that God exists and see no necessity for Her

>: >to exist... and it is not from lack of looking, either.

 

>: It's a different sort of looking and a different sort of proof. It is true

>: that the Supreme Personality of Godhead, the Absolute Truth is not like a

>: material object that can be known by sense perception or experimental

>: knowledge. But that does not mean God can not be known. However He doesn't

>: reveal Himself to the athiests. So we have a slight problem. If one is an

>: athiest no matter how hard he looks he won't see God... But God is there

>: nonetheless. He is eaisly seen by His devotees.

 

>Catch-22!

 

>I suspect we are talking about God in a different sense. I think Scott

>was talking about a classic deity in the Hebrew/Christian tradition,

>who is rather like a human (has personality, thoughts, feelings, etc)

>and vast supernatural powers. Do I have that right, Scott?

 

It's the same God we are both talking about... There is only one God. We call Him

Krishna, which means "The all attractive person". So it is a nice way to describe

God. He has all the attractive qualities in full, all knowledge, all fame, all

strength, all beauty and all renunciation... We are made in the image of God so

God is also a person, like father like son, but He is the Supreme Person, He is



unlimited, whereas we are limited, small... So Krishna has two hands, two legs, a

very beautiful face... He likes to play the flute and the beautiful vibration

coming from His flute is unbelievably attractive...

 

>Whereas I am not sure _what_ Swami is talking about.

 

The same thing...

 

>Also, Swami, it is incorrect to assume that I was an atheist while

>I was looking for God. In fact, I became an atheist because my

>search for God was fruitless.

 

One has to be very fortunate to find God. But your search is not over. Otherwise

you would be in a different newsgroup... :-)

 

>What I found instead was not a manifestation

>of Absolute Truth, but rather the opposite.

 

Relative truth is the opposite to Absolute Truth and everyone has found that...

That is not a very good qualification. Because you haven't found the Absolute

Truth yet doesn't mean it doesn't exits. Actually relative truth is a perverted

reflection of the Absolute Truth...

 

>: But even atheists can perceive the "self", the "consciousness" that might

>: be a start. We can also put forward scientific theories based on the

>: consciousness...

 

>I _think_ you are implying that since science cannot explain the

>phenomenon of consciousness, that this indicates that God exists.

 

No. There are many atheistic philosophies that explain consciousness in a more-or-

less logical way... [Buddhism for example and there are many others in India...

They have everything, even expert atheists too...]

 

>I disagree, because I see no reason that science has to explain

>_everything_

 

Science only deals with relative truth. It is incapable of dealing with absolutes.

It can't substantiate the statement "water is wet" because one can't postulate an

experiment in which it could be proved that "water is not wet"... But because

science can't prove it that doesn't mean "water is not wet"...

 

Science can't deal with "facts" because if something is a "fact" you can't form an

experiment to "prove" it.

 

And the scientists [to my surprise] don't even claim they are describing

"reality". They form models that model reality. They make no claims that their

models reflect reality. In reality the system may operate quite differently but if

the model predicts the outcomes it is "good science"...

 

I just lost your statement something like "I don't know is a perfectly valid

answer for a scientist to give..." I agree with this but one doesn't see it too

often. It seems to me almost any question one places before the scientists, even

if they have no way of finding the answer [eg: how the universe was created] they

will give you an answer anyhow...

 

> but also because introducing a supernatural

>entity does not solve the problem but makes it worse

 

You can't solve the problem without considering God...

 

>since one then has to explain the supernatural entity.

 

You can't explain something beyond your sense perception... You have to take His

word for that... That is faith and faith can also come from a scientific study of

the universe... That is the end of all paths of acquiring knowledge [faith in

God].

 

>: >Now it is logically possible that such evidence could arise tomorrow

>: >in which case I would cease to be an atheist. In the meantime, I



>: >think the burden of proof is on the believer.

 

The evidence is available in the Bhagavad-gita, the Bible, the Koran... But will

you accept it... It's a different sort of evidence. It means to accept an

authority and get the knowledge from him. If you can find a perfect authority you

can get the prefect knowledge. This is the descending process of acquiring

knowledge. You use it also, that's what schools and universities are about...

students accepting knowledge from an authority... So if you can find a perfect

spiritual authority you can get perfect knowledge about everything...

 

 

>: There is no need to prove it... We know it... And the proof of God has to

>: be experienced. But atheists don't want to experience God...

 

>Well, I can't argue with that...

 

>: (it's a useless argument... We generally ignore the athiests because

>: talking about God to them is a waste of breath...)

 

>Strange... I find talking to those who do not share my beliefs and

>opinions most helpful in understanding them better. If I cannot explain

>them to someone else, do I really know them myself? Perhaps that is

>the difference between a world view based on questioning and understanding,

>and one based on belief.

 

We can explain everything perfectly well, but many atheists are not interested in

listening, that's the problem. And even if they do listen it's only to pick up

some point they can argue about. You may post pages of very nice things about

Krishna and they will scan them [in exactly the same way as you have said the

creationists do with the scientists findings] to find something they can argue

with... It's not the right mood at all.

 

"Just try to learn the truth by approaching a spiritual master.

Inquire from him submissively and render service unto him. The

self-realized souls can impart knowledge unto you because they have seen

the truth." (Bhagavad-gita 4.34)

 

>: You can't disprove God and can't experience Him either (because He doesn't

>: reveal Himself to the atheists)

 

>I neither am able to, nor wish to, disprove God. I _would_ like to be

>able to understand what you are saying - perhaps the Bhagavad-gita loses

>something in the translation, but much of it posted here is

>indistinguishable from gibberish.

 

Well I have been posting the sanskrit but nobody out there reads sanskrit and

anyway there are not enough letters in the ASCII alphabet to really write it

properly... So perhaps now I will just put the english... It may be difficult to

relate to in the beginning. The first time I read Bhagavad-gita I couldn't make

much sense of it either. But it is perfectly clear now. There is a mystical

quality about these books:

 

>: "I am never manifest to the foolish and unintelligent. For them I am

>: covered by My internal potency, and therefore they do not know that I am

>: unborn and infallible." (Bhagavad-gita 7.25)

 

>See what I mean?

 

 

Thank you. Hare Krishna!

 

Madhudvisa dasa       

(madhudvisa@krishna.org)     /sudarsana

 

All glories to His Divine Grace A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada!
References: