Convincing atheists

[dattaswami1]

Can you convince the logic of atheists in your spiritual explanations?


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).

[Eclectic Mystic]

My saying is that atheism is still a theism.

[Vajradhara]

Namaste Dattaswami,

thanks for the post.

Originally Posted by dattaswami1

Can you convince the logic of atheists in your spiritual explanations?


The logic of atheists is based on perception (Pratyaksha Pramana), which was propagated by the sage Charvaka.

this is somewhat correct but somewhat incorrect. this presumes that all a-thiests have come to their conclusions by the same methods, which is demonstrably not the case though i would say that perception is a foundational tool for the development of a coherent logic chain.

Perception means the knowledge derived from the observation with the naked eyes.

all the sensory organs are employed, the whole range of senses inform our perception of any particular phenomena or noumena.

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.

you can make a valid inference between the heat you feel and and fire as well.

The statement that the God is above logic must be proved only by perception.

if logic is perception, eyes only, as you say.. and God is above that process, then you cannot use that process to validate its a-priori assumptions.

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.

no.. no.. you've got this all backwards..

since you are making the positive claim you must provide the evidence to back your statment. if you cannot provide said evidence then your very premis stands refuted regardless if what efforts said atheist may engage in.

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.

oh? how so? if all religious beings exeperienced the same thing and all came to the same conclusion about it, that would be one thing.. the facts of the matter are, however, somewhat different.

the religious experience of one refutes the religious experience of another if they are not identical, in your presentation. that beings have come to different conclusions after having religious experience refutes your point once more.

perhaps, Dattaswami, it would be better for you to use your own words and understanding to discourse with us.

Therefore to convince the atheists the miracles of the Lord are not necessary.

if you use them as evidence of your claims then you should be prepared to present it or do not surprised if it is simply ignored as "superstition" or "dogma".

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).

i think that you seriously misunderstand the various thinking processes that makes one not believe in a creator deity... that or whomever wrote this piece does.

i care little for critism of your tradition, when you make claims that you would have me accept, however, i shall hold you to the same standard of evidence as i would any other which is what we call "intersubjective" evidence. should you have some, you may as well present it.

metta,

~v

[Eudaimonist]

Originally Posted by dattaswami1

The logic of atheists is based on perception (Pratyaksha Pramana), which was propagated by the sage Charvaka.

Please don't tarnish modern atheists with Charvaka. You will find that the personal epistemologies of atheists may differ somewhat from Charvaka's. Even atheists who have strong empirical views may disagree with Charvaka on some key issues. I personally would not say that all knowledge is derived from observation, since we are able to gain knowledge about our own psychologies through introspection. Also, our ability to create instruments to detect what can't be seen extends our ability to learn far beyond what Charvaka would have dreamed possible.

The statement that the God is above logic must be proved only by perception.

This is a nonsensical claim, even disregarding the perception issue.

The divine miracles performed by the human form of Lord prove that there is a power above the logic.

Hardly. It would simply mean that one would have to expand one's knowledge of what can be done (assuming this has actually happened). It wouldn't disprove logic, but expand the context of knowledge to which it applies.

In fact, how can one disprove logic with logic, as you are trying to do here? It can't be done. This is a contradiction.

These miracles are seen by the naked eyes. The atheists must be allowed to prove whether the miracles are simply magic tricks.

The burden of proof is on the believers, not the atheists.

When they cannot prove, they must accept the existence of super power above the logic.

No, their failure to show that something is a magic trick does not mean that it is not a magic trick or that it is divine.

If they do not accept this they are contradicting their own basis, which is the perception.

And so this argument fails.

The divine miracles are experienced by the devotees and the experience cannot be contradicted.

No the alleged miracles cannot be contradicted. The claim that such "miracles" are divine in origin may be logically regarded as unsupported.

Therefore atheists must be open-minded and should not be conservative. If they are conservative they have no right to criticize the religious conservatism.

This conclusion does not follow.

The theory of Vedas and Bhagavath Gita never contradicts the perception and therefore the logic of atheists becomes the basis of the spiritual knowledge.

A failure to contradict perception is not the same thing as support for the theory. Theories can add entirely unnecessary and unsupported conclusions to what may be reasonably concluded from perception.


eudaimonia,

Mark

[dattaswami1]

Originally Posted by Vajradhara

Namaste Dattaswami,

thanks for the post.



this is somewhat correct but somewhat incorrect. this presumes that all a-thiests have come to their conclusions by the same methods, which is demonstrably not the case though i would say that perception is a foundational tool for the development of a coherent logic chain.



all the sensory organs are employed, the whole range of senses inform our perception of any particular phenomena or noumena.



you can make a valid inference between the heat you feel and and fire as well.



if logic is perception, eyes only, as you say.. and God is above that process, then you cannot use that process to validate its a-priori assumptions.



no.. no.. you've got this all backwards..

since you are making the positive claim you must provide the evidence to back your statment. if you cannot provide said evidence then your very premis stands refuted regardless if what efforts said atheist may engage in.



oh? how so? if all religious beings exeperienced the same thing and all came to the same conclusion about it, that would be one thing.. the facts of the matter are, however, somewhat different.

the religious experience of one refutes the religious experience of another if they are not identical, in your presentation. that beings have come to different conclusions after having religious experience refutes your point once more.

perhaps, Dattaswami, it would be better for you to use your own words and understanding to discourse with us.



if you use them as evidence of your claims then you should be prepared to present it or do not surprised if it is simply ignored as "superstition" or "dogma".



i think that you seriously misunderstand the various thinking processes that makes one not believe in a creator deity... that or whomever wrote this piece does.

i care little for critism of your tradition, when you make claims that you would have me accept, however, i shall hold you to the same standard of evidence as i would any other which is what we call "intersubjective" evidence. should you have some, you may as well present it.

metta,

~v

Building is there. Implies Builder should be there. Creation is there. Creator should be there. I can see the building, which is in front of my eyes, but builder need not stand in front of the building. He will be in his own job. If you want to meet the builder, you should definitely put effort to locate the builder and see him. Likewise Creation is there in front of our eyes. But have we put anytime effort to locate and identify the creator? Instead of that, with least effort we can propagate to others also that God is not there. They are not only blinded, they are making others also blinded. Some people who are theists may become prey for the propagation of this ignorance also unfortunately. The greatest sin on the earth is to be unfaithful.

To identify the builder you should know the identification marks, where he lives, what he does etc.. and we have to enquire if we don't know. This is to say that knowledge is required to identify any person. This knowledge is called divine knowledge if the aim is to identify the Lord, which actually only is to be propagated. Lord created this universe for the enjoyment without any selfish motive and we human beings are enjoying the creation. Like through nice parents, wife, children, beautiful nature consisting of pleasant looking mountains, rivers, sea, nature, changing weather etc.

If we cannot please the Lord, the human life is incomplete. We serve our family members by spending our hard earned money and also physically. Are we not serving family as Servant, and these family members are nearly equal to us. Where as, Lord is omnipotent and requires no help from us, many times satisfied our desires, saved us from mishaps etc. and if we cannot bow our head in front of Him, it is very ridiculous. It is very great honour to serve Him, this is the path followed by His real devotees. These real devotees could overcome ego and always wants to serve Him as servant.

Jesus preached the gospel and His followers participated in His mission as servants for further propagation of divine knowledge. These great devotees never hesitated to serve Lord Jesus and their names have also been known even today.

[dattaswami1]

Originally Posted by Eudaimonist

Please don't tarnish modern atheists with Charvaka. You will find that the personal epistemologies of atheists may differ somewhat from Charvaka's. Even atheists who have strong empirical views may disagree with Charvaka on some key issues. I personally would not say that all knowledge is derived from observation, since we are able to gain knowledge about our own psychologies through introspection. Also, our ability to create instruments to detect what can't be seen extends our ability to learn far beyond what Charvaka would have dreamed possible.



This is a nonsensical claim, even disregarding the perception issue.



Hardly. It would simply mean that one would have to expand one's knowledge of what can be done (assuming this has actually happened). It wouldn't disprove logic, but expand the context of knowledge to which it applies.

In fact, how can one disprove logic with logic, as you are trying to do here? It can't be done. This is a contradiction.



The burden of proof is on the believers, not the atheists.



No, their failure to show that something is a magic trick does not mean that it is not a magic trick or that it is divine.



And so this argument fails.



No the alleged miracles cannot be contradicted. The claim that such "miracles" are divine in origin may be logically regarded as unsupported.



This conclusion does not follow.



A failure to contradict perception is not the same thing as support for the theory. Theories can add entirely unnecessary and unsupported conclusions to what may be reasonably concluded from perception.


eudaimonia,

Mark

The Universe is infinite with unimaginable beginning and unimaginable end. This means the cause from which the Universe started and the same cause in which the Universe ends on dissolution is the unimaginable God. Mud is the beginning stage of the pot and also the end stage since the pot ends in the mud on destruction. The Universe exhibits the unimaginable God by its unimaginable limits of beginning and end. The space is generated from God and the dissolution of space can only show the real nature of its cause (God).

When the chain is dissolved in fire, then only the gold lump, which is the cause of the chain, appears in its original form. But even if you imagine for millions of years, you can never imagine the dissolution of space and therefore you can never imagine the original nature of God. God is beyond space and God is the permanently unknowable region even for the intelligence enriched with science and logic.

Hence, God is a permanent wonder and the creation consists of some knowable regions of knowledge without any wonder and also some temporarily unimaginable regions with temporary wonder. Now the word Maya can be used for the wonder, which is both permanent (God) and which is temporary also (the deeper layers of the world up to the space).

[Vajradhara]

Namaste dattaswami,

thank you for the post.

Originally Posted by dattaswami1

Building is there. Implies Builder should be there. Creation is there. Creator should be there.

rock is there. that implies there is a rocker.

this is not a very convincing apolegetic, imo.

Likewise Creation is there in front of our eyes. But have we put anytime effort to locate and identify the creator?

what you call "creation" i call "universe". is there a universerer?

without sharing the same axioms regarding what our senses perceive it is likely that we will have very different assumptions regarding the universe.

To identify the builder you should know the identification marks, where he lives, what he does etc.. and we have to enquire if we don't know. This is to say that knowledge is required to identify any person.

this would lead me to believe that you have some evidence that you can present to substantiate your claim of a creator deity.

i sure would be happy to see it.

If we cannot please the Lord, the human life is incomplete.

i'll presume you are speaking for yourself in this case. this being requires no deity for a complete life cycle

metta,

~v

[Eudaimonist]

Originally Posted by dattaswami1

The Universe is infinite with unimaginable beginning and unimaginable end. This means the cause from which the Universe started and the same cause in which the Universe ends on dissolution is the unimaginable God.

This is not a convincing apologetic to me.

I do not think that the Universe (if this means what we loosely think of as physical existence) started with any cause. In my view, the Universe had never "popped" into existence out of nothingness, or out of anything else (if there can even be something fundamentally different). The Universe doesn't have a start in the usual sense. Change (or "time") may have a beginning, but the universe has always existed, and always shall exist. It is only its form that shall change.

Without any need for a cause of existence, there is no need to suppose that a God exists, unimaginable or otherwise.

Mud is the beginning stage of the pot and also the end stage since the pot ends in the mud on destruction. The Universe exhibits the unimaginable God by its unimaginable limits of beginning and end. The space is generated from God and the dissolution of space can only show the real nature of its cause (God).

This is perhaps a fine theology, but I don't see any reason to arrive at the same conclusions.

When the chain is dissolved in fire, then only the gold lump, which is the cause of the chain, appears in its original form. But even if you imagine for millions of years, you can never imagine the dissolution of space and therefore you can never imagine the original nature of God.

I can think of no reason to believe that there will ever be a dissolution of space, or that if such an event were to occur, that it would have anything to do with "God". Let's say that the dissolution of space means that what will remain are "isolated micro-loops of spacetime". Why call this God?

God is beyond space and God is the permanently unknowable region even for the intelligence enriched with science and logic.

That is very convenient! A bit too convenient. It leaves no reason to conclude that a God truly exists.


eudaimonia,

Mark

[Eudaimonist]

It occurs to me to add another point, which I think important. I've never been fond of "ground of all being" or "necessary being" style metaphysics. It may be that everything that exists has a conditional (or "contingent") existence, since every entity may exist at least in part in relation to other entities, and so one is likely never to reach the point where one finds something that exists "necessarily", which is to say without relation to anything else.

For this reason, any talk of lumps of gold forming gold chains, which is suggestive of the ground of all being style of argumentation, fails to impress me.


eudaimonia,

Mark

[dattaswami1]

Originally Posted by Vajradhara

Namaste dattaswami,

thank you for the post.

[/color]

rock is there. that implies there is a rocker.

this is not a very convincing apolegetic, imo.



what you call "creation" i call "universe". is there a universerer?

without sharing the same axioms regarding what our senses perceive it is likely that we will have very different assumptions regarding the universe.



this would lead me to believe that you have some evidence that you can present to substantiate your claim of a creator deity.

i sure would be happy to see it.



i'll presume you are speaking for yourself in this case. this being requires no deity for a complete life cycle

metta,

~v

The earth is not rotating by itself. Then why the fan is also not rotating by itself? As the invisible current is rotating the fan, the invisible God is rotating the earth. The rotation of earth is work of God. The earth is also the work of God. The rotation of fan is work. The fan is matter. Matter is a form of energy. Energy is work. Therefore the fan is also a form of work only. Thus everything is dynamism (work) only. The dynamo is God. You will immediately say that the dynamo is matter, matter is energy and since work is energy, dynamo is also a form of work. Then you will say God is also a form of work. This is the problem with the simile for God. Every simile is only a part of the creation and cannot stand as a perfect representation of the creator. God is beyond the concepts of work and no work because God is unimaginable.

You can infer the existence of God through this entire wonderful creation (work). But you cannot experience directly unless He enters a particular form of His work which is a human body like Rama, Krishna etc. You can infer the engineer by seeing the wonderful building constructed by him which is his work. But he is present only in a small room of that building. If you want to have a direct contact with him, you should search the room in which he is present. Since the whole building is his construction only, if you sit in some vacant room and try to talk with him, he will not speak to you. You have to identify that specific room in which he is present. In searching for the engineer you may find some other person in some room and can mistake him also as the engineer. Therefore you must have the knowledge of his identification.

[Eudaimonist]

Originally Posted by dattaswami1

The earth is not rotating by itself. Then why the fan is also not rotating by itself?

Let me politely suggest that you study physics before developing arguments along these lines. You may find the answers already there, instead of in theology.


eudaimonia,

Mark