Proofs for existence of God

No, we are more than mind or logic... the sp!rit that dwells in us, what we experience is the important thing, not what our monkey mind thinks about it. Kant and Hegel ultimately failed in their quest to logically or rationally comprehend the d!vine (see Star of Redemption).

The process is a lot like Godel's incompleteness theorem: for g!d to be empirically knowable, h! would have to be of the physical universe... sh! is not, but rather "beyond". Saying so is like saying "I can feel your pain", plainly a meaningless statement. If I felt your pain (literally), it would be my pain and not yours anymore.
 
Bhak said "Are ability to "sense" or to "think" is gravely limited ---so we must depend on the the mercy of earlier generations . . . in conjunction with our own individual "Good Karma" . . . if one is to expect full revelation of unknown truths."

Say huh? I do not comprehend this statement at all. Why do you believe our abilities are gravely limited? Why must we depend on earlier generations in order to find answers? Did they have some special insight that we lack now? What does their mercy have to do with anything???
 
radarmark said:
No, we are more than mind or logic... the sp!rit that dwells in us, what we experience is the important thing, not what our monkey mind thinks about it. Kant and Hegel ultimately failed in their quest to logically or rationally comprehend the d!vine (see Star of Redemption).

The process is a lot like Godel's incompleteness theorem: for g!d to be empirically knowable, h! would have to be of the physical universe... sh! is not, but rather "beyond". Saying so is like saying "I can feel your pain", plainly a meaningless statement. If I felt your pain (literally), it would be my pain and not yours anymore.
Click to expand...

"How can the unlimited be known by the limited? if the unlimited cannot be known by the limited then it is not unlimited", indeed experience is the important thing but logic & reason can help us toward that experience.
 
carrots said:
"How can the unlimited be known by the limited? if the unlimited cannot be known by the limited then it is not unlimited", indeed experience is the important thing but logic & reason can help us toward that experience.
Click to expand...


I do not know who said that, but Gregory of Nyssa, John Chrysostom, Basil the Great, John of Damascus, Meister Eckhart and St. John of the Cross, would disagree, as would Maimonides, Ha'ARI, and Rosenzweig. Sorry, g!d is beyond knowledge... it is such a limited and trivial thing. It is like using arithmatic (baic math) to understand the universe... it just does not work IMHO.
 
When, however, one is enlightened with the knowledge by which nescience is destroyed, then his knowledge reveals everything, as the sun lights up everything in the daytime.

krsna bhagavad gita 5:16
 
That is the Hare-Krishna translation of Bhagawad-Gita 5:16

"Jñānena tu tad ajñānaḿ, yeshāḿ nāshitam ātmanaḥ;
teshām āditya-vaj jñānaḿ, prakāshayati tat param."

jñānena — by knowledge; tu — but; tat — that; ajñānam — nescience; yeṣām — whose; nāśitam — is destroyed; ātmanaḥ — of the living entity; teṣām — their; āditya-vat — like the rising sun; jñānam — knowledge; prakāśayati — discloses; tat param — Kṛṣṇa consciousness.

Correct translation:

But by knowledge that ignorance, of (whose) the living entity is destroyed; their sun-like knowledge lightens that ultimate.

Please note that 'tat param' is 'Kṛishṇa consciousness' only for the Hare-Krishnas. It is 'scientific knowledge of the universe' for me in a secular translation.
 
Aupmanyav said:
That is the Hare-Krishna translation of Bhagawad-Gita 5:16

"Jñānena tu tad ajñānaḿ, yeshāḿ nāshitam ātmanaḥ;
teshām āditya-vaj jñānaḿ, prakāshayati tat param."

jñānena — by knowledge; tu — but; tat — that; ajñānam — nescience; yeṣām — whose; nāśitam — is destroyed; ātmanaḥ — of the living entity; teṣām — their; āditya-vat — like the rising sun; jñānam — knowledge; prakāśayati — discloses; tat param — Kṛṣṇa consciousness.

Correct translation:

But by knowledge that ignorance, of (whose) the living entity is destroyed; their sun-like knowledge lightens that ultimate.

Please note that 'tat param' is 'Kṛishṇa consciousness' only for the Hare-Krishnas. It is 'scientific knowledge of the universe' for me in a secular translation.
Click to expand...

Bhagavad-gītā is also known as Gītopaniṣad. It is the essence of Vedic knowledge and one of the most important Upaniṣads in Vedic literature. Of course there are many commentaries in English on the Bhagavad-gītā, and one may question the necessity for another one. This present edition can be explained in the following way. Recently an American lady asked me to recommend an English translation of Bhagavad-gītā. Of course in America there are so many editions of Bhagavad-gītā available in English, but as far as I have seen, not only in America but also in India, none of them can be strictly said to be authoritative because in almost every one of them the commentator has expressed his own opinions without touching the spirit of Bhagavad-gītā as it is.
The spirit of Bhagavad-gītā is mentioned in Bhagavad-gītā itself. It is just like this: If we want to take a particular medicine, then we have to follow the directions written on the label. We cannot take the medicine according to our own whim or the direction of a friend. It must be taken according to the directions on the label or the directions given by a physician. Similarly, Bhagavad-gītā should be taken or accepted as it is directed by the speaker Himself. The speaker of Bhagavad-gītā is Lord Śrī Kṛṣṇa. He is mentioned on every page of Bhagavad-gītā as the Supreme Personality of Godhead, Bhagavān. Of course the word bhagavān sometimes refers to any powerful person or any powerful demigod, and certainly here bhagavān designates Lord Śrī Kṛṣṇa as a great personality, but at the same time we should know that Lord Śrī Kṛṣṇa is the Supreme Personality of Godhead, as is confirmed by all great ācāryas (spiritual masters) like Śańkarācārya, Rāmānujācārya, Madhvācārya, Nimbārka Svāmī, Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu and many other authorities of Vedic knowledge in India. The Lord Himself also establishes Himself as the Supreme Personality of Godhead in the Bhagavad-gītā, and He is accepted as such in the Brahma-saḿhitā and all the Purāṇas, especially the Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam, known as the Bhāgavata Purāṇa (kṛṣṇas tu bhagavān svayam). Therefore we should take Bhagavad-gītā as it is directed by the Personality of Godhead Himself.

from bhaktivedanta swamis introduction to bhagavad gita as it is!

"correct translation":) depends on where you place your faith.
 
Don't mind me Carrots. Just my weird sense of silliness kicking in.

As I understand modern religions, proof of God is an oxymoron. The very point of God is that he is accepted by faith. No proof required, or indeed even desired. Though we mortals would wish that we could somehow generate some sort of proof, it is doomed to failure.
 
Gordian Knot said:
Don't mind me Carrots. Just my weird sense of silliness kicking in.

As I understand modern religions, proof of God is an oxymoron. The very point of God is that he is accepted by faith. No proof required, or indeed even desired. Though we mortals would wish that we could somehow generate some sort of proof, it is doomed to failure.
Click to expand...


As I understand it, through faith (not just belief) divinity is progressively experienced personally. knowledge is necessary and the end of all knowledge is love, that's my understanding based on my experience with bhakti yoga.
 
Oddly enough, I agree with carrots, but I base it on "sudden school" insight.

However, I agree with you, too, GK. Proof means proof in the physical universe (empirical). It does not apply.

But I do have as much faith in my experience of the d!vine as I have in my experience of self or of physical science (relativity and quantum are really pretty experiential and not so logical (JMHO)).
 
Gordian Knot said:
Does bolding type bring more gravity to our statements????? If so just think what font size could do!
Click to expand...
It was to emphasize the difference in translation. I kept the size same. I am normally against bolding.
carrots said:
.. that's my understanding based on my experience with bhakti yoga.
Click to expand...
All three are valid ways of understanding (divine or otherwise), I do not deny that.
 
Radar I'm completely with you in regards to your comments on quantum science. But relativity is experimental? Coming from a physicist that is a shock. My understanding is that there is about a century of proofs and fact checks that make relativity about as verified as a scientific theory can ever be.
 
Turning the subject of this thread on its head, proof that God does not exist would actually prove nothing. Putting aside for a moment that one cannot prove a negative, if proof; solid, verifiable proof could be found that there is no God, it would simply be rejected by the majority of people who do believe. Faith trumps proof.

There have been many stories in SF about time travelers going back to witness the life of the Christ only to find that nothing of the sort happened. These stories always end with the belief going on regardless.

One of the most famous is Michael Moorcock's Behold the Man.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top