Post Reply 
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Convincing atheists
02-13-2009, 06:39 AM
Post: #1
Convincing atheists

Convincing atheists


The logic of atheists is based on perception (Pratyaksha Pramana), which was propagated by the sage Charvaka. Perception means the knowledge derived from the observation with the naked eyes. Infact in the logic (Tarka Sastra) all the means of knowledge are based on perception only. In the inference (Anumana) also, the fire on the hill is inferred by its smoke. But the relationship between the fire and smoke is perceived with the naked eyes only. Similarly other means of knowledge are also based on the perception only. Thus Charvaka forms the basic of the entire logic and without logic there is no knowledge. The statement that the God is above logic must be proved only by perception.

The divine miracles performed by the human form of Lord prove that there is a power above the logic. These miracles are seen by the naked eyes. The atheists must be allowed to prove whether the miracles are simply magic tricks. When they cannot prove, they must accept the existence of super power above the logic. If they do not accept this they are contradicting their own basis, which is the perception. The divine miracles are experienced by the devotees and the experience cannot be contradicted. If the experience is contradicted, the experience of the atheists is also contradicted. Therefore atheists must be open-minded and should not be conservative. If they are conservative they have no right to criticize the religious conservatism.

The theory of Vedas and Bhagavath Gita never contradicts the perception and therefore the logic of atheists becomes the basis of the spiritual knowledge. The Lord comes in human form and this human form is perceived by the naked eyes. Even the miracles performed by demons establish the existence of super power. Therefore to convince the atheists the miracles of the Lord are not necessary. When they are convinced about the existence of the Super power (Maya), the possessor of the Super Power, the Lord, coming in human form must be also accepted because the form is seen by the naked eyes.

The salvation is breakage of the bonds in this world. Since the bonds of this world exist based on the perception, the salvation is also existing based on the perception. Since the family members and the money are perceived by the eyes, the bonds with them are also perceived. Thus the salvation (Moksha) must be accepted by the atheists. A single bond with the human form of the Lord is called ‘Saayujya’ or ‘Kaivalya’.

Since the human form is perceived, Sayujya or Kaivalya is also perceived and must be accepted by the atheists. The Bliss is derived by the devotee from the divine knowledge of the human form of the Lord. Therefore the Bliss is also true according to atheists. Thus the goal, the means to please the Lord (Sadhana) and the fruit of Sadhana (Moksha and Kaivalya) are perceived and exist in this world itself. Veda says ‘Yat Saakshat Aparokshaat’, ‘Pratyagatmana Maikshat’ which mean that the Lord in human form is perceived by the naked eyes.

Veda also says ‘Ihachet Avedeet’, which means that everything is true as seen in this world itself. This is called ‘Jeevanmukthi’, which means attaining the salvation while one is alive and not after death. The salvation after the death is not true because that has no basis of perception. Thus if the atheists are little bit patient and leave their aggressive nature of criticism, they are best fitted in the true spiritual knowledge of Vedas. In fact Swami Vidyaranya included the philosophy of Charvaka in his book as one of the logical philosophies (Darsanaas).


Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
02-13-2009, 04:18 PM
Post: #2
RE: Convincing atheists
See, this is why I need to study more Hinduism. A very good argument. However, I would add one caveat - if a truly miraculous event were to occur that is not a trick, that would still not necessarily prove the existence of a God. It would simply prove that such miraculous events are possible. Whether these events come from God, from some previously unknown spiritual layer of reality, by "magic", that would have to be determined. It is very possible that we have not yet discovered the true nature of reality, but that does not mean that we cannot with science, with observation, logic, and inference. Thus, it may be possible in the future to discover the scientific laws that had made such a "miracle" possible, at which point the action stops being a miracle.

Thus, the mere presence of something we cannot explain does not logically lead to there being a God. Most ancient cultures had Gods to fulfill functions that we now know have rational, scientific explanations (the boat of the sun that carried Ra, for instance). It is the height of hubris to believe that we know all about the universe that can be known, and to infer the presence of a God from the unexplained is to commit the folly of those ancient cultures.
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
02-13-2009, 04:48 PM
Post: #3
RE: Convincing atheists
(02-13-2009 04:18 PM)GTseng3 Wrote:  See, this is why I need to study more Hinduism. A very good argument. However, I would add one caveat - if a truly miraculous event were to occur that is not a trick, that would still not necessarily prove the existence of a God. It would simply prove that such miraculous events are possible. Whether these events come from God, from some previously unknown spiritual layer of reality, by "magic", that would have to be determined. It is very possible that we have not yet discovered the true nature of reality, but that does not mean that we cannot with science, with observation, logic, and inference. Thus, it may be possible in the future to discover the scientific laws that had made such a "miracle" possible, at which point the action stops being a miracle.

Thus, the mere presence of something we cannot explain does not logically lead to there being a God. Most ancient cultures had Gods to fulfill functions that we now know have rational, scientific explanations (the boat of the sun that carried Ra, for instance). It is the height of hubris to believe that we know all about the universe that can be known, and to infer the presence of a God from the unexplained is to commit the folly of those ancient cultures.

Good response. It may also be worth mentioning that available evidence to support miracles seems to be almost completely anecdotal.

If ignorance is bliss why aren't there more happy people?
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
02-13-2009, 04:52 PM
Post: #4
RE: Convincing atheists
That goes without saying, but I think this was a hypothetical question. If a miracle could be proven to be a miracle beyond reasonable doubt.
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
02-13-2009, 05:05 PM
Post: #5
RE: Convincing atheists
dattaswami1 Wrote:The divine miracles performed by the human form of Lord prove that there is a power above the logic. These miracles are seen by the naked eyes. The atheists must be allowed to prove whether the miracles are simply magic tricks. When they cannot prove, they must accept the existence of super power above the logic.


Personally I've never seen anything that could be interpreted as a divine miracle, but even if I had it wouldn't necessarily convince me that the supernatural exists. A more likely conclusion would be that I'd seen something that could not be explained due to insufficiency of data. I suppose if the phenomenon was repeatable and testable, then I would take notice, especially if it was a really good miracle...say for instance - a woman with three breasts flying through the air on a magic carpet, eating an onion bhaji.

The American magician and supernatural sceptic, James Randi has devised an experiment to test the abilities of people who make the fairly popular claim that they can view a mysterious energy field called an aura, encircling a person's head. He has even offered a one million dollar reward for the person who can demonstrate this ability.

No takers as yet I believe..

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=39PM03iVbqE
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
02-13-2009, 05:13 PM
Post: #6
RE: Convincing atheists
forget about athiests they don,t exist.

Good evil salvation
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
02-14-2009, 06:02 PM
Post: #7
RE: Convincing atheists
(02-13-2009 06:39 AM)dattaswami1 Wrote:  The divine miracles are experienced by the devotees and the experience cannot be contradicted. If the experience is contradicted, the experience of the atheists is also contradicted.

The problem with the above is that experiences are subjective.

While it may indeed be true that one's experience of a miracle cannot be contradicted, that is only because subjective information is by definition personal, not objective, and therefore not bound by rules of reason and logic, or demands for evidence. "Miracles," then, are really only proof of divine interaction in the minds of those who experience them with faith. To the rest of us, they are simply events for which there may or may not be a reasonable explanation at this time.

---------------
Not selling anything.
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
02-14-2009, 08:26 PM
Post: #8
RE: Convincing atheists
(02-14-2009 06:02 PM)MerryAtheist Wrote:  
(02-13-2009 06:39 AM)dattaswami1 Wrote:  The divine miracles are experienced by the devotees and the experience cannot be contradicted. If the experience is contradicted, the experience of the atheists is also contradicted.

The problem with the above is that experiences are subjective.

While it may indeed be true that one's experience of a miracle cannot be contradicted, that is only because subjective information is by definition personal, not objective, and therefore not bound by rules of reason and logic, or demands for evidence. "Miracles," then, are really only proof of divine interaction in the minds of those who experience them with faith. To the rest of us, they are simply events for which there may or may not be a reasonable explanation at this time.

I actually don't have a problem with the above statement. Absolutely right, if experience of devotees is contradicted, then the experience of atheists must also be contradicted. I differ by saying: contradict ALL evidence by subjective experience, and rely on observable fact and logical inference. You should ignore someone who says "I believe there is no God because I feel in my heart that there is no God" just as you should ignore someone who claims to feel the power of God within them.
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
02-15-2009, 12:19 AM
Post: #9
RE: Convincing atheists
(02-13-2009 04:18 PM)GTseng3 Wrote:  See, this is why I need to study more Hinduism. A very good argument. However, I would add one caveat - if a truly miraculous event were to occur that is not a trick, that would still not necessarily prove the existence of a God. It would simply prove that such miraculous events are possible. Whether these events come from God, from some previously unknown spiritual layer of reality, by "magic", that would have to be determined. It is very possible that we have not yet discovered the true nature of reality, but that does not mean that we cannot with science, with observation, logic, and inference. Thus, it may be possible in the future to discover the scientific laws that had made such a "miracle" possible, at which point the action stops being a miracle.

Thus, the mere presence of something we cannot explain does not logically lead to there being a God. Most ancient cultures had Gods to fulfill functions that we now know have rational, scientific explanations (the boat of the sun that carried Ra, for instance). It is the height of hubris to believe that we know all about the universe that can be known, and to infer the presence of a God from the unexplained is to commit the folly of those ancient cultures.

People make mistake while analysing God. They want to analyse God from worldly examples and worldly co-ordinates. In this world or creation every item can be defined because it exists prior. Thus we use worldly examples. But in case of God, God is beyond creation. God is unimaginable. Meaning one can never define God and He is beyond the comprehension of human logic. Logic fails in case of God. God is beyond the creation.

The unimaginable God is beyond the four-dimensional model of space and time. You can imagine the dissolution of matter converting into energy filling the space. Subsequently you can imagine the disappearance of energy in the space and the result is final vacuum. But, even if you try for your lifetime, you can never imagine the disappearance of vacuum.

God being the generator of space is beyond space and therefore, can never be imagined. If you have to imagine God, the pre-requisite is the imagination of disappearance of space or vacuum. Of course space is a form of very fine energy and in this context the word energy used by Me can be taken as crude form of energy. The only knowledge about God is that He is beyond the knowledge (Yasyaamatam… Veda).


All the non-God items are worldly objects, which are parts of creation. All these items are known first and then only their existence is mentioned. When you say that a pot exists, it means that you are stating the existence since you know the pot already. Hence, the existence of any worldly item requires the knowledge of that item already. If you do not know anything about an item, you will not say that it exists. Hence, the existence always requires the prior knowledge of the item.

But God is beyond world and is unimaginable since God is not known. Hence, the existence of God is not similar to the existence of the worldly items. Since the existence of worldly items, which requires prior knowledge of the item, is absent in the case of God, God can be said as an item not having the existence of worldly items and hence God is non-existent (Asat) in this sense. This does not mean that God is really non-existent because God really exists as per Veda (Astityeva….) and hence God exists (Sat).
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
02-15-2009, 01:49 AM
Post: #10
RE: Convincing atheists
(02-15-2009 12:19 AM)dattaswami1 Wrote:  People make mistake while analysing God. They want to analyse God from worldly examples and worldly co-ordinates. In this world or creation every item can be defined because it exists prior. Thus we use worldly examples. But in case of God, God is beyond creation. God is unimaginable. Meaning one can never define God and He is beyond the comprehension of human logic. Logic fails in case of God. God is beyond the creation.

In that case God is useless to discuss or believe in. If God is completely beyond logic and comprehension, then there is no way to understand him, or to know if he exists, or the proper way in which to please Him. Thus, whether he exists or not becomes a moot point. If he is so incomprehensible then whether we believe or not has no meaning.

Quote:The unimaginable God is beyond the four-dimensional model of space and time. You can imagine the dissolution of matter converting into energy filling the space. Subsequently you can imagine the disappearance of energy in the space and the result is final vacuum. But, even if you try for your lifetime, you can never imagine the disappearance of vacuum.

Don't put limits on my imagination. I've managed to wrap my head around the basics of ten dimensional superstring theory.

Quote:The only knowledge about God is that He is beyond the knowledge (Yasyaamatam… Veda).

Then he's pointless and we may as well live like Atheists, because attempting to do anything else is an exercise in futility since we can never know whether we're doing the right thing.

Your first post that I read was pretty interesting, the one at the beginning of this post, but since then you've done nothing but post a large number of metaphors and anecdotes that really just don't parse. I like the Hinduism/Buddhism base that you seem to be starting from to get to your universalist philosophy, but I think you need to think about it a little bit more.
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 




User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)