Update : See comments below.
Somedays back, I had been asked a question about the existence of God. The question was whether the existence of God is a convenience theory and I thought about it now. Does existence of God needs logical demonstration ? I would say it needs logical demonstration for people who are bent solely on logic. By demonstration, I don't mean a proof. Proving the existence of God may be next to impossible. But, it can be logically argued that God exists. Consider this simple argument which treats God from a dualistic point of view (not necessarily my view and Vedantic view).
Somedays back, I had been asked a question about the existence of God. The question was whether the existence of God is a convenience theory and I thought about it now. Does existence of God needs logical demonstration ? I would say it needs logical demonstration for people who are bent solely on logic. By demonstration, I don't mean a proof. Proving the existence of God may be next to impossible. But, it can be logically argued that God exists. Consider this simple argument which treats God from a dualistic point of view (not necessarily my view and Vedantic view).
1. The only thing that is permanent is change.
2. Change cannot be perceived without something which is changeless.
3. Our thoughts, feelings and emotions change.
4. The changeless entity which perceives our changing thoughts, feelings and emotions is God.
5. Therefore, God exists.
Of course, one can counter the above arguments by saying all is subject to change and so what I have written is neither true/not true. Other than this, is there any logical flaw in this argument ? Any of you guys who has studied philosophy of religion can you please tell me what type of argument is this (like ontological, cosmological etc.) ?
Update : Points (1) and (2) needs little clarification. (1) and (2) is based on the emprical world whereas (3) and (4) is for the personal world. This means, (1) and (2) is true with respect to our senses while (3) and (4) is validated because of (1) and (2). Also, I have changed the order in (1) and (2) although it doesn't matter much.
14 comments:
Dear Kasthuri,
there is something here , I just can't put my finger on it...
however God is a word I find difficult to use as it is a western conception of an anthropomorphic being controlling the cosmos.
In Vaishnava temples there is a stotram known as Jitntha Stotram which is apparently recited everyday,
this claims that Narayana has no ornaments, has no form, has no weapons, but has assumed them for the sake of the Jivathma- in other words , for the purpose of meditation
Narayana is the changeless reality and abode of infinite perfections. as we cannot cognise infinite perfections with our finite intelligence (in the embodied state), therefore we worship this reality as a being with a most charming form of unmatched beauty.
upon attaining moksha the reality is cognised in all its essential splendour.
looking at "God" from a dualistic perspective has been responsible for the opposition to the notion of God.
SARVAM SRIKRISHNAARPANAMASTHU!
er, small correction
that was JITANTHA STOTRAM
SARVAM SRIKRISHNAARPANAMASTHU!
anand that was great.
Me wanted to posted one of similar kind
God -this terminology is differently used i mean in eastern philosophy it means something totally different from their western counterpart isnt it ?
yaapa - Kasthuri - u r proving to be the modern age adi shankarar :)..
Dear Kasthuri,
I think this position of yours might be assailed by Buddhist logicians of the Maadhyamika school(Nagarjuna for instance) , can you beat their tricks in debate? that would be really great as an update.
Ganesh,
thanks
actually Ganesh we are using the word God only because we are now an english-speaking nation,
the word Bhagavan means one with Bhaga or six auspicious attributes (please refer to my post on saguna Brahman).
as for the term Ishwara we have different meanings for it in Yoga and in Visishtaadvaita.
however all terms are used only to refer to the ParaBrahman which must not be (in my opinion) referred to as God. for the Brahman is something beyond our notions of a God.
Arjuna,
I agree with you, Kasthuri is seriously a genius. His approach is quite logical.
SARVAM SRIKRISHNAARPANAMASTHU!
Kasthuri,
I refer, yet again to 'Summa Theologica'
"For truth to not exist, the statement "truth does not exist" must be 'true'. So for truth to not exist, 'true' must exist, and hence truth exists"
yeah, it will be tough to change our my minds on the changelessness of the changeless bliss..:)
@ Anand : I kinda agree to u'r view that God may not be an exact equivalent of Brahman. However, I feel the very nature of argument about the existence of God is useless. This is just to emphasize that the concept of God is not a convinience theory. I have often wondered about the Buddhist argument that there isn't any soul but life is like a firebrand which makes one think there is a soul (just like firbrand makes one think there is a fire at one place) but actually things are only changing. Hoewver, even in that argument, the change is with respect to the stationary person. There too there exists a changeless entity (which is the person). Hope this makes some sense. Thank you so much for the information about the stotram. However I am not able to find online info about it. Do u know where I can get hold of that ?
Also, please don't use such words like 'genius' which are reserved for some other people (like u). I am not even sure whatever I write makes sense.
@ whoami : Hope our converstation explained some things. By God I don't mean the true nature of one's identity. I am defining God as the changeless entity that observes the changes. Emprical logic justifies the existence of such entity.
@ ganesh : Thanks for comment which enabled Anand to share interesting info.
@ arjuna : I don't know what made u say that. I think we are on the extremes. As I said, you should ask my advisor about my ignorance. He has a better idea :-)
@ arvind : I have come across the argument. I think its called the argument based on error or something. Will check Summa Theologica when I find time. Thanks.
@ krishna : Very true Krishna. Thanks.
Question for point number 2- Why?
@ Viji : Change is always a relative phenomena. When we say something changes we always have a fixed idea in mind and evaluate the difference and say that as a change.
I beg your pardon for being incoherent.
I meant-
Why cannot Change be perceived without something which is changeless ??
@ Viji : You are not incoherent and its my fault that I was not clear. The very nature of change assumes a changeless entity. For instance, if we say "I was 4 ft tall" sometime back and now "I am 6 ft tall". This change in physic is measured with the standard notion of a feet which is 12 inches. Here "feet" is a constant changeless entity. Similarly whatever we perceive as change can be measured only against a changeless entity. Hope this is clear, if not please don't hesitate to put u'r questions/comments. That's way we'll learn. Thanks.
Hi Kasthuri
I would restate your points this way
1. The only thing that is apparently permanent is a factor called change.
2. This change is perceived by a perceiver not necessarily permanent.
3. This observers attributes are subject to change.
4. Point 4 is debatable as God is suddenly defined as something unchangeable
5. Highly Questionable
I am not an atheist. That does not mean I shall accept God minus logic
Let me re-rephrase your points
1. It is observable that there is change by documentation
2. These changes follow a certain pattern of cause and effect
3. This pattern is designed or exists by itself is the argument between science and religion.
Here is where Hinduism goes into logic and other religions fail as they explain by belief. This pattern for us is Dharma and this Dharma is an attribute of the Paramatma, -sat-chit-ananda. In working within the laws of Dharma we are in sync with this jagat. If not.. the pattern will take a different route.
Beyond this the idea of God as far as I am concerned is a Convenience Theory
@ cr : Thanks for the comments. I think the proof for existance of God is a futile exercise. If you have come across some of the arguments in the western philosophy course, they would follow this kind of pattern and I tried to construct such argument. Anyway, good observation.
Post a Comment