Athiest can never disprove the existence of God

The atheists can never disprove the existence of unimaginable God due to several unimaginable events (miracles) exhibited by several Godly people and due to several practical experiences of the existence of unimaginable power of God during the lives of several people in this world.

The miracles are exhibited not only by Godly people and human incarnations but also by evil people having very bad character and conduct, cheating the public in many ways. The development of atheism is mainly due to the existence of such evil people only. But, the atheists are also not analyzing the miracle performed by an evil person. The concept of the miracle is completely different and has nothing to do with the character of the person performing that miracle. A petty fellow, who has worst character due to bad habits like drinking etc., is announcing a rule of Municipality in a town to the public. The message of the announcement has nothing to do with the character of the announcer. Since, the announcer is a bad fellow, you cannot ignore the message of the Municipality and behave as you like. The announcer will be separately punished for his bad character. You will be also punished if you ignore his announcement based on the point that the announcer is not a good fellow.

Similarly, you have to take the point conveyed by the miracle and ignore the character of the evil person performing that miracle. God will punish him separately for his evil nature. From the unimaginable event (miracle), you should conclude the existence of unimaginable God. This is the message of any miracle to create the fundamental belief in God. Some people having jealousy on great devotees of God or the human incarnation of God, reject the greatness of devotees or incarnation based on miracles by saying “even dirty people perform these miracles. What is the greatness by such miracles?”.

They pass such comments due to two reasons:

1) they are jealous of the greatness of devotees or incarnation and
2) they have not understood the message conveyed by a miracle.

If a good fellow is announcing a message and if you say that the same message was also announced by a bad fellow previously and hence the message should be neglected, is it correct? A miracle is necessary for majority of human beings to have real belief in the existence of God. Several people are standing on the ground and require this to climb the first step. After having the full belief in the existence of God, miracles are not necessary because the second step is to attain the grace of God through practical sacrifice. But, several theists also need the observation of miracles, because their belief is not perfect and hence to strengthen their belief, miracles are necessary. Even a person having full faith in the existence of God should not criticize the miracles, because you cannot ignore the first step after climbing the second step.

Dear dattaswami,

Please allow me, atheist, to respond on your posting from a few weeks ago.

I don’t believe in any god, imaginable or not. I also wouldn’t know what to think of ‘unimaginable events (miracles)’. A lot of those events are not understood or not yet understood by us. And what use are miracles ny way? To show of how powerful god is, or godly persons. Why should i desire to walk on water or bring dead people back to life? By wondering about the beauty of nature, how everything seems to fit in place like a jig-saw-puzzle i don’t get any urge to seek behind that an unimaginable god...

Most religious books i read are from the Veda’s especial the advaita vedanta type of books. I am not sure whether the sages who wrote those scriptures had a god in mind like most of us nowadays have, or rather thought in terms of forces of nature and of human psychology. In the most of the scriptures they didn’t make any division into godly (good) and satanic (bad) events. It’s our perception and wantings that tell us that something is positive or negative. We don’t like fierce rainshowers, but today in Greece near Athens some hundred bushfires are burning away. Surely there the inhabitants of Athens wouldn’t mind at all.

I don’t think atheism developed due to the existence of ‘evil people’. Who are we to decide who is evil and who is good. As for me personally, i don’t recall an evil person putting it into my mind. Rather it perhaps was in my genes all along, or i developed it through my thinking about the word, mankind and the sense of it all, as early as of my 11^th year or there about. My parents had tried their utmost to guide me towards a good catholic life but noticed quite early that it wouldn’t hold.

When i talk to people about god in our eucumenic community, i use the word(s) ‘Absolute Reality’, not meaning that there is any connection with absolute truth or so, but simply to describe everything that exists, that which is without time. That which was there all along, which is now and which will allways be. That which is complete and if you take something from it, it will not get lesser, or when you add something it will not get greater.

Concerning your two reasons: i am in no way jealous of greatness of devotees, but perhaps i don’t grasp the meaning (or the use) of miracles.

I don’t fancy having any belief in a god if having that belief would mean stopping questioning the so called miracles or questioning the mere existence of god. I will probably remain a seeker or religious enquirer for the rest of my life. I don have answers about the creation of this world and all the plants, animals, human species. But i can fully imagine the rishis getting to see that all things have a beginning, a lifespan and an ending. They will have given those force of nature names like Brahma, Vishnu an Shiva and later on personified them into godly incarnations. Turning them into man, assigning a wive to them, letting them get children and so on... In the end it all turns out to be that same Absolute Reality, that which is. only in our illusionary vision there are separate entities. See it as a big blob of semifluid clay in a bowl with three holes in it. From below one only sees three separate strands of clay while in reality there is but one blob of clay; the strands are part of that blob.

Remains the filosophical question related to these entities: Where do i come from, who am i, where will i end up. It occurs to me that religion or yoga or what ever name we give that which keeps our minds busy is about those three question, whether we believe in a god or not.

Kees de Boer

Beverwijk, (Netherlands)

We are establishing this point not simply based on the theoretical statement in Veda. It has logic and experience also as supporting evidences. If space is God, there should be no unimaginable concept existing in the world. Since, God or space is imaginable, there is no place for the existence of unimaginable point in the world. The human form of God and several devotees of God also perform miracles which are unimaginable and which are experienced in the world. Scientists and atheists always oppose these miracles to save their basic concept of primordial energy to be God. The source of all these miracles is unimaginable power for which the source is unimaginable God. Thus, God in human form arrives in the world to give logical evidence to be experienced for the existence of unimaginable power of God and there by to prove the existence of unimaginable God. In Gita, Krishna said that He demonstrates the statement of spiritual knowledge of scripture (Vedantakrut…).In Christianity also, Jesus said that He came to fulfill the statement of scripture.

Atmayoga is the final state for atheists and intermediate state for theists


For both theists and atheists, this state is common as intermediate and final respectively. Even the word Brahman is common to both, but the sense differs.

Shankara established the nature of Atman or soul as inert energy and proved that it is the same cosmic energy or Brahman. By getting rid off Jiva, who is the doer and enjoyer of all works and by attaining the soul, one gets total peace by disassociating with all worldly affairs. This is called as the attainment of self by filtering the essence of Jiva, which is the inert energy or Atman. Since, Jiva is the work of Atman, leaving Jiva means only stopping the work of Atman as in the deep sleep. Thus, Atmayoga means attainment of deep sleep during the state of waking itself and therefore it is the attainment of peace in the waking state itself. This state is also needed for theists to do the divine service of God. This state is the final state for atheists where they enjoy the peace as bliss and treat soul as God. But the theists also enjoy the peace as peace and soul as soul in this state. Such attainment of peace is essential even for theists, who try to please God and achieve bliss from God.

This Atmayoga is the final state for atheists and intermediate state for theists. The final degree of the school is common to a student, who stops there, and also for a student, who advances to college. The stopping student feels that it is the ultimate degree and the advancing student feels that it is an intermediate degree. This difference in their feelings has no relevance in doing efforts to attain the degree. Hence, the final degree of school is open to all and need not be specified for anyone of these students. For this reason, Shankara did not specify theists or atheists as relevant for His commentary, which establishes the Atmayoga. Shankara did not mention God beyond Atmayoga in His commentary, for the reason that the atheists will run away if such mention of God related to theists only is done in His commentary. Therefore, the commentary of Shankara is universal to all humanity irrespective of theists and atheists. The word Brahman satisfies both theists and atheists. For atheists, the cosmic energy is the ultimate God or Brahman. For theists, the cosmic energy is the greatest item in the creation or Brahman. Since, Brahman can mean both God as well as greatest item in a category, the theists and atheists are not separated in using the word Brahman. Both are separated only in the sense of the word to be taken in relevance to their context.


Cosmic energy is the ultimate for atheists, it can be called as God of atheists.


For the sake of atheists both Buddha and Shankara were forced to preach the Yoga of Pravrutti only, stressing on the control of actions and desires.

The Yoga in Pravrutti (Atmayoga) is totally different from the Yoga in Nivrutti (Brahmayoga) since atheists do not believe in God. The Yoga of Nivrutti is irrelevant to them. The only possible advice to help them is the Yoga in Pravrutti which is the attainment of the stored inert energy or self. The Yoga in Pravrutti is common to both atheists and theists, which is the attainment of perfect physical and mental health that gives happiness, but not the bliss of God. This happiness is non-eternal, where as the happiness from God is eternal and is called as bliss. The happiness in Pravrutti yoga is nothing but peace attained by arresting the loss of inert energy in the worldly affairs. Hence, the storage of inert energy is mainly based on the discipline of life and the control of desires, which are responsible for extra activities leading to extra expenditure of inert energy.

Since the inert energy cannot be supplied infinitely, by taking infinite food, the control on expenditure is essential. Since the expenditure is only work (Karma) and the initiator of work is the desire or qulaity, control of desires has to be advised in the Yoga of Pravrutti. Hence Buddha stressed on the control of desires, to attain happiness in the case of atheists and this is the reason for His silence about God. Shankara was also concentrating on atheists and hence had to follow the path of Buddha by saying that God does not exist separately other than the self. This is also another style of atheism. Hence, Shankara was said to be a follower of Buddha in disguise (prachchhanna bauddha). You must remember that neither Buddha nor Shankara were atheists but they had to act like atheists in dealing with atheists. Buddha kept silent about God in the case of atheists. Shankara, being the top most genius, introduced the word Brahman which means both inert cosmic energy as well as God. Since, self is a part of the cosmic energy and qualitatively the same, Shankara extended the word Brahman meaning cosmic energy to soul also. The word Brahman can be taken as God also in the sense that it is the ultimate. Since, cosmic energy is the ultimate for atheists, it can be called as God of atheists.

[quote name='boerkees' date='Aug 22 2009, 03:12 PM' post='21766'


Remains the filosophical question related to these entities: Where do i come from, who am i, where will i end up. It occurs to me that religion or yoga or what ever name we give that which keeps our minds busy is about those three question, whether we believe in a god or not.

Kees de Boer

Beverwijk, (Netherlands)
[/quote]



Perhaps greater than the 3 questions you have posed for yourself above, there is a greater question still that can only be answered through the guidance and direction of the invisible consciousness of conscience and will always be a Mystery, to whit; "What is my purpose?"...God's Peace.....To`na Wanagi

Thank you dattaswami for sending verbatim the sutras 102, 211, 212 of “Parabrahma Sutra” by Sri Datta Swami...
I downloaded the complete book from scrib.com I will read the other sutras too.

Thank you To`na Wanagi,
I allways wonder whether i posed those 3 questions for myself or whether they simply appeared in front of me.
The question "What is my purpose?", or "Why am i here, why do i exist at all" I left behind me long ago.
Why should there be a purpose in life, for me life is it's own purpose.

Suppose i sincerely explore that question "What is my purpose?"
And suppose the invisible conscoiusness of conscience will direct and guide me towards an answer, what use would that answer be to me. It wouldn't be my answer but the answer of that invisible consciousness.

Isn't personal life a flow of a small piece of sublimated divine energy (or absolute reality, or god or Brahman or ...) in the great river of materialized energy which we take for real with the limited capabilities of our senses.

We do our best to educate these senses so that we would get a sound perception of the world, but we are far from perfect in that.

And life is so short! Before you realize it, you wash out into the great ocean in which we all dissolve again at the end of the journey.

Peace to all of us!

Kees de Boer
Beverwijk, Netherlands

Knower of Atman

The old feelings in ‘chittam’ (storing capacity of mind) appear on the screen of the mind as a cinema. Resisting the mental activity through senses is Yoga as told by Patanjali (Chittavritii Nirodhah). If you resist seeing, hearing etc., the entry of external poison to the mind is stopped. But the poison was already precipitated in your chittam since several births. Thus the mental activity (Chitta Vritti) is both external as well as internal. This activity is called as ‘Sphota’. According to Sanskrit grammar, chittam has two meanings. One is the addition of poison from outside (Samjnanam) and other is digestion of already existing poison (Smaranam). The poison is the bundle of worldly matters. Resistance of mental activity is to be done by the soul, which can be affected by the poison. But a scholar (Jnani) does not resist this poison. He can digest the poison and so even takes it from outside. Both these activities are done by the subtle body (Sukshma Shareeram), which is made of qualities or mind. The gross body (Sthula Shareeram) is a composite of the senses, which do actions initiated by qualities.

A ‘Jnani’ separates himself [by analysis] from these two bodies and enters the third, causal body (Karana Shareeram), which is pure awareness. He will not cross the boundaries of this third body, which is also called as Atman. Such a scholar is called Sthita Prajna. ‘Prajna’ means pure awareness. ‘Sthita’ means the person who has limited himself to pure awareness. Since he takes the decision of himself to be Atman, ‘Buddhi’ (intelligence) also becomes the pure awareness. Since he decides the meaning of ‘I’ as pure awareness, the ‘Ahankara’ [I-sense or ego] also becomes pure awareness. You must note that Prajna also means Buddhi. The remaining two internal items (Antahkaranams) are Chittam which is the C.D. or cassette of precipitated feelings and ‘Manas’ (mind) which are the internal screen.

The internal T.V. show goes on and the spectator (Atman) sees and enjoys the show. His gross body is his own house, which is the cinema theatre. The whole show is the subtle body and the causal body is the spectator. The spectator has no link with the T.V. show and is only entertained. The spectator is not disturbed by the show and is only entertained. The spectator is not disturbed by the show and is called ‘Gunateeta’ by Gita (Guna Guneshu Vartante…). This T.V. show initiates the senses of the gross body, which do deeds according to the qualities of show. The Atman or spectator (I) is also separated from the gross body and so is not linked to the deeds and the qualities. The soul [Atman] is detached from qualities, deeds and their corresponding results. This does not mean that he does not receive the results of his deeds. The subtle and gross bodies did the deeds and so they enjoy the results. But this soul, which is detached from these two bodies, is a spectator of such enjoyment of the enjoyer. The soul is not the enjoyer since it is not the doer of the deeds. The wheel that constitutes the deeds and their corresponding results, (Karma Chakra) is also not affected, since it is related to the person’s subtle and gross bodies only and not to his causal body or the Atman. The subtle and gross bodies are the ‘doer’ and ‘enjoyer’, constituting a show for the entertainment of the causal body, which is just a spectator. Since the subtle body is also made of awareness, it enjoys the results through its gross body. But an ordinary human being identifies himself with the subtle body and gross body, considering them as ‘I’ and therefore becomes the doer and enjoyer. But the scholar fixes his ‘I’ to the causal body alone and de-links himself from doer-ship and enjoyer-ship.

There are two vessels containing vibrated water. Both the vessels undergo stress due to the water vibrations. The vessel is the gross body and water-vibrations are the subtle body. An ignorant fellow identifies himself with the vessel and the water vibrations and so is vibrated [he feels that he is being vibrated] and undergoes stress. But the scholar identifies himself only with the water and not with the vibrations or the vessel. He is not vibrated and has no stress. He goes on enjoying the vibrations and the stress. Even if he does a sin, he goes to heck and enjoys the punishment there. The punishment is received by his subtle and gross bodies and he, as Atman, observes the enjoyment of the punishment and gets entertainment. Ramana Maharshi got a boil [tumor] on the body due to some deed. But he confined himself to the soul and so was not the doer of that deed. When the boil was operated upon by the doctor, He observed it and His subtle body enjoyed the pain [he was operated upon without anesthesia]. But he, as Atman was entertained in the operation. When the Gita says “Atmavantam na Karmani”, it means the Jnani enjoys the results of deeds but he is detached from such enjoyment.

“Avashyamanu bhoktavyam…. Kalpakoti Shataih” means that one has to undergo the results of his deeds even after millions of births with interest. The doer can never escape the enjoyment of results. But in the case of a deserving devotee, the Lord comes down as a human incarnation and enjoys his results [undergoes suffering on behalf of the devotee]. Except this way, the doer has to enjoy his own results. But in the case of a deserving devotee, the Lord comes down as a human incarnation and enjoys his results. Except this way, the doer has to undergo the results. But in that path, the devotee should not aspire for such unjust punishment of the Lord and should resist it, if he comes to know of it. The Lord is called ‘Datta’ for this very reason, since He donates Himself for the sake of His devotee. When Datta enjoys such results, He also behaves like a Yogi. It means that He confines Himself to the soul and His subtle and gross bodies undergo the punishments. Therefore, a Yogi is just like the Lord in this aspect of spectatorship. The Lord has the power of creation of the world while the Yogi does not. But this difference is irrelevant during the aspect of spectatorship. Therefore, this ‘Advaita’ (state of oneness; monism) state of a liberated soul and the Lord, which was proposed by Shankara, is meaningful.

This whole universe is the gross body of the Lord and ‘Hiranya Garbha’ is the subtle body of the Lord. Hiranya Garbha means the composite form of all the souls. Now, in the gross and subtle bodies of the Lord also, a number of reactions and changes are going on like a cinema. The ‘Maha Maya’ is the Atman or the causal body of the Lord, which is only a spectator. He confines Himself to this Atman and sees the show in His subtle and gross bodies.
The path of Karma [worldly action or desire-motivated action] has no salvation because the soul is not detached from subtle and gross bodies (Bhunjanam Vaa—Gita). He cannot entertain himself by confining to his Atman and so he resists bad qualities and bad deeds. He is very alert about good deeds and always tries to enjoy the pleasures of heaven. But he often comes back to this world, where good and bad are mixed. He is always exposed to the risk of falling in a trap of bad qualities and sins here. He is always afraid of that and has no independence. But in the path of Jnana or knowledge, the scholar is fearless and fully independent. He is beyond both good and bad. Both give entertainment to him equally like sweet and hot items in a meal. This soul has Jnana [knowledge] of Atman, has ‘Rasa’ [love] of the entertainment and ‘Ananda’ [happiness] of the enjoyment of both good and bad equally. The Veda says that such a liberated soul is characterised by these three qualities. The Lord as Rama killed Vali and as Krishna, He enjoyed the result of that sin. But the doer and the enjoyer were only His subtle and gross bodies. They are and not the Lord, who was only confined to the Atman as a spectator. Lord Krishna could see the show at the end in which His own sons and grandsons were killed and He was entertained by the show. When Arjuna could not kill his grandfather, because he identified himself with his subtle and gross bodies, the Lord taught him ‘Jnana Yoga’ by which Arjuna confined himself to his soul and killed his grandfather and went to heck. But he was the spectator in killing and also while enjoying the sin in heck.

Jains [followers of Mahavir Jain] say that Krishna also went to heck, since He was responsible for such a cruel war. Even if that were correct, the Lord would have enjoyed heck as a spectator! Therefore, such a remark on the Lord does not affect Him at all. Shankara taught about the Atman, which is the causal body in the view of ordinary human beings. When His own case comes, God exists in Him beyond even the Atman and so God is called as the Maha Karana or the Cause of the causal body. When He said that He is Shiva, this word Shiva refers to God and He confined Himself only to God, just like the Yogi confines himself to Atman. The word Shiva means auspicious and so can refer to the Atman in the case of the Yogi. The Veda says “Ubhe Punya Pape Vidhuya….”, which means that the Yogi transcends both good and bad and becomes equal to God. The Gita also says the same “Ubhe Sukruta Dushkrute”.

@dattaswami:
Please forgive me putting you on my black list. I can't help disliking reaction that are simply copies of earlier postings (Posted: Mon Mar 03, 2008 2:53 am, Post subject: Knower of Atman) on different subjects, or substantial verbatim parts of books, even if self written.
I am more interested in original thoughts and opinions, although citations can be very explanatory.

With kind regards,

Kees de Boer
Beverwijk, Netherlands

and they can never disprove dog either.

I think you misunderstand atheism, dattaswami. That's okay, a lot of people do. That's why I do my best to clear things up.

Firstly, atheists are bothered with disproving the existence of god. Because you're right, we can't. We can't disprove leprechauns either. They could be very well hidden, or invisible, or something. But there is very little evidence for leprechauns. So we don't believe in them. Chances are you don't believe in them either. And most of the time when there is something that you could attribute to a leprechaun, there's a simpler, more rational explanation.

We just see god the same way we do leprechauns. We can credit most things to other, more worldly explanations. And sometimes, when we don't know what caused something to happen, we just say it. But we don't credit it to the supernatural, we just keep looking for an explanation.

Secondly, atheist is actually a very broad term. It covers anyone who doesn't believe in a god. Sometimes they believe in things like karma, or other spiritual things, and sometimes they don't believe in the supernatural at all. So it's incorrect to say that any state or somesuch is what an atheist aspires to, because they're very diverse.

Thirdly, atheism isn't due to bitterness or jealously, or anger at god, or anything of the like. They just don't believe in god. From your other posts, I gather you're a Christian. What this probably means is that you don't believe in most gods either. I'm guessing you don't believe in Thor, Zeus, or any number of other gods. We just take it one god further.

Fourthly, atheists can be a happy lot. This isn't in response to anything in particular you've said, but it's often a point that could use some clarity. Our lives don't feel empty for lack of god. And we're not usually that angry. Some atheists may appear that way because they're tired of having to argue their beliefs or lack of them, but in a more normal setting we're usually just like anyone else.

I hope this didn't seem like a lecture, or come off as angry or upset. I just want to clear up common misconceptions, and I'm perfectly happy to do so. In fact, if you have anything you'd like to ask me about atheism in general, or my personal atheism, please send me a message!

I believe in God and the miracle I need to prove it is me. I am a miracle. If there was not a creator then I came forth by accident, and I can't believe that, that just seems too impossible.

What is the difference in the statements; "I do not believe in God" and "I believe there is no God." Both are based and founded on belief and unbelief, neither on sure knowledge of the truth. Just as religions are belief systems so also atheism. Atheism can be regarded as a belief system or an unbelief system.

In the love of God,

DW Suiter

Well, its come to this...

I have been an atheist for that past 20 years. I became ordained here mostly as a lark; to show that any fool can become an ordained minister. However, something weird happened. I got to thinking "what if there is a God? I just made a commitment to Him to do his work." Okay. I can deal with that. What I can't deal with are people telling me what atheists believe.

Atheists are atheists mostly because of Christians. Christians don't own God even though they seem to think they do. Also, Jesus is not a given. Christians have sewn him into the fabric of God such that now a person can't have one without the other. B.S.! They are separate from each other. What is it with Christians and their self-righteous idea that God and Jesus are one in the same? No. Jesus did nothing, means nothing, has nothing to say. He was a Jewish Rabbi who attempted to effect change and failed. Simple as that.

I came here to the ULC and became ordained because I like the idea that we are all children of the same universe. I like the motto, "Do that which is right." and I really like the Web Page I found that said, "Jesus was not a Christian."

If all you want to be is a common Christian (as if the world needed another one of those) why don't you just go down to the corner church and join up? There are precious few places for us non-Christians to gather in peace without Christians pointing out why we are wrong at every turn and inserting Jesus into every conversation. This is supposed to be a non-denominational place where people can discuss God and religion, Right? If its just yet another channel for right wing, Christians to spread their filth, then no wonder people are renouncing their ordinations, and its not the place for me either.

CHRISTIANS DON'T OWN GOD! GET OVER YOURSELVES! JESUS AND GOD ARE NOT ONE IN THE SAME.

And for God sake, the word is Philosophical (note the "Ph").

Joseph

Well said Helpful... Very well said.

In his own time, Jesus did very little to effect any kind of change to the Jewish faith which is what his intention was. He didn't set out to start a new religion. Christians embellished his life later and through coercion and threats of death, spread Christianity throughout the world. Christianity is based on nothing.

And, I have no intention of converting anyone to believe anything. My post may have been a bit over the top, but I have heard the tired Christian story over and over, on TV, on the radio, we're bombarded with it. If I wanted to hear the Christian interpretation of the bible (again), there are ubiquitous churches I could join. There is no shortage of Christians in the world.

J

Ahhh, so you were being purposefully obtuse on that other thread. . I wondered, and now it seems clear. You are evidently intolerant of Christianity, J.

No one is actually talking here, it's all recorded (typed), so if there's something you don't want to read, you could choose to skip it. I'm just saying.

I like some of Dattaswami's posts although they are way beyond my personal grasp, but I found the videos bizarre. It appears Dattaswami took a photo of himself and posted it over the deities on the video. Is that some kind of vedic practice?

Tammy,
I have heard the Christian stuff all my life. As I have said, that message in not is short supply. I came here to learn about alternative religions, but as usual the Christians are doing most of the talking. Its pretty indicative of the life in general... The Christians dominate most if not all communications channels, an occasional Jewish person manages to get a word in now and then, and the remainder of the religions are silenced.

Joseph

You live in a predominantly Christian society, what do you expect to find on an open forum about religion? I also hoped to read a broader discussion of some of the other world religions, but it is what it is.

When you first came here (about a day after me) you seemed meek and mild and kind of whipped. But in response to my posts, you have proven yourself to be a tiger. I like that. I respect that. I too wish the proponents of the other religions would speak up more. I would be very interested in hearing from them.

Joseph