Recently, I had been asked an explanation for the existence of God. It is my humble opinion that the existence of God can neither be proved nor disproved at least according to Hinduism . This is because of the limitaions of logic. God according to Hinduism is beyond space and time and whatever we come across in logic is constrained to space and time. Having said this, is it at least possible to "prove" (prove formally) that the existence of God can neither be disproved nor proved ? I definitely think yes-it can be proved. I think the crux of the proof would involve Godel's theorem. The essence of Godel's theorem is that truth is different from provability. Something which can be proved (or disproved) does not mean it is true (or false) universally. If at all anything is proved, it just means that it is true within the "context" and the truth cannot be held universal. Thus, if the existence of God is proved (or disproved) then it means that God is true (or false) within the context of space and time. But, God according to Hinduism is beyond space and time. So, I think it can be formally deduced (this needs rigorous research) that the proof of existence of God cannot exist (if God is taken to be beyond space and time according to Hindu theology ).
14 comments:
Nice argument that !
interesting
wondering what will robbie and senthil say to this
I dont think they just getaway by calling mumbo jumbo
makes great sense
coz after believing and actively seeking him thru watever means , when a person gets 2 experience his presence , he totally forgets about space and time..
if he doesnt believe in his presence, he won't seek him and in the end he is gonna end up confined in everything that is finite
so its all upto the atheist 2 choose which is the best 4 him..:)
God can neither be proved nor disproved
Then y argue :)
Hmm.. i can use this point when i am faced in an argument. Thanks man.
Kasthuri,
Aren't you assuming that God will not come down to earth one day and tell us all that he does exists. If he does that, that would be proof enough, wouldn't it?
And why do you claim that cannot happen?
my point being, to search for a proof for God is a futile exercise and so is to search for a proof that it can/cannot be proved. God - as Laplace once said - is an unnecessary hypothesis as long as one knows exactly what happened/will happen. Uncertainity - thy other name is God
kasthuri: interesting argument!
"God according to Hinduism is beyond space and time and whatever we come across in logic is constrained to space and time."
Isn't God the space and time? He is that, and beyond that too ... This is taking into account the Hindu way of looking at things. What about other theologies?
I tend to agree with swami here, that if God does "descend" to be part of this space and time, then can be he proved/disproved?
@ arvind,ganesh,krishna,tt_giant : Actually I realize the argument is not based on Hindu theology. Sorry for the mis-interpretation. Please see Swami's and Ranj's comments.
@ ioiio : You are right :-)
@ swami : You are right da. I think search for the non-existence of proof is as futile as search for proof if God is considered according to Hindu theology where he is limited by space and time as well -Ranj rightly points out. The argument is valid only if God is defined as a being who is beyond time and space in which case I am ruling out the possibility of he descending on earth some day. Thanks da.
@ Ranj : Great pointer. Thank you so much for bringing the issue into light. I was wrong and I think it is a gross mis-interpretation of Hindu faith. Me and my screwed up logic! By confining God beyond space and time I am again going into duality - such is the power of maya...what to do :-(
All : I have struck out "according to Hinduism" in the post. So, the post does no longer represents Hindu faith. But, the arguments remain valid as such.
Dear Kasthuri,
I think there needs to be a clarification here
Ranj asks whether God is notpace and time?
ParaBrahman (which sounds beter because it denotes something more than what we think of God) in the actual state cannot be defined using any terminology whatsoever and no formalisms. However when the world and space-time ( dear friends please refer to it as space-time, Einstein has to be respected you know), are taken into account we find that these things according to Vedantha are strung on the PARABRAHMAN (NARAYANA, IF YOU DON'T MIND) like pearls strung together.
therefore the question of Narayana as the transcendental Brahman cannot be even captured using logic or language as his Maya is the source of logic and language.
as for Swami's view, I do agree that the idea of the absolute manifesting on earth can settle the issue. anyway the Lord has stated in the Gita that he does this seemingly inexplicable compactification by employing the sattwa element of prakriti and via his YOGAMAYA ( WHICH HAS NOT BEEN EFFECTIVELY TRANSLATED TILL DATE, ).
Therefore the idea is this : ParaBrahman or Narayana is like a consciousness and intelligence that can be picked up by our metacognitive and higher intuitive faculties only when they have reduced the noise caused by Maya.
hope this is of use to you.
just because we aren't able to reduce this noise we cannot claim that this is all there is.
and for calling ParaBrahman a hypothesis I think since the UPANISHADIC TEXT (TAITTTRIYA I THINK)REFERS TO IT AS SATYAM JNANAM ANANTAM BRAHMA..
OR EXISTENCE, ( HERE SATYAM IS TAKEN IN THE SENSE OF EXISTENCE AS DERIVED FROM THE WORD FOR THE SAME SAT), KNOWLEDGE AND INFINITY IS BEAHMAN, WE CAN STATE THAT AS EXISTENCE IS PROVED SO IS THE BRAHMAN. I will try to ( NARAYANA must of course give me the necessary insights) post on this sometime in the next few weeks.
OM TAT SAT
SARVAM SRIKRISHNAARPANAMASTHU!
If He wants a part of Him to realize the rest of Him, then we will be able to prove God ;)
Paremshwara Preethyartham!
Whats with TAMU bloggers today ? all *strike throughs* ;)
@ tj : Well said.
@ arvind : :-)
@ anand : Nice info as usual. Hope to learn more on this soon.
Post a Comment