Hindu Proof of God: Best Arguments

[Spirit_Warrior]

The opponent cannot produce a single example of blind random aggregations of anything ever producing anything meaningful or useful.

I have demonstrated this with my thought experiment that the circuit can never be assembled blindly.

No computer program could ever blindly paint the Mona Lisa, no matter how many times you run the program. Even if you run it on a supercomputer for the next 1000 years it cannot randomly generate pixels to create a Mona Lisa. This is a system of pixels, where every pixel is related to every other pixel to create the final system, in this case the graphic of the Mona Lisa.

We can replace the part of pixels with letters, and run a random computer program to generate the complete works of Shakespeare, and it is will never happen.

Here try for yourself: Random Letter Sequence Generator

Set first field to 100, and second field to 1, and keep hitting the button. You can sit there and do it for the next 50 years and you will never end up with even the first 100 letters in sequence of Hamlet.

Blind matter cannot produce useful and meaningful systems. It is a childish to think so.

 

[sayak83]

The opponent cannot produce a single example of blind random aggregations of anything ever producing anything meaningful or useful.

I have demonstrated this with my thought experiment that the circuit can never be assembled blindly.

No computer program could ever blindly paint the Mona Lisa, no matter how many times you run the program. Even if you run it on a supercomputer for the next 1000 years it cannot randomly generate pixels to create a Mona Lisa. This is a system of pixels, where every pixel is related to every other pixel to create the final system, in this case the graphic of the Mona Lisa.

We can replace the part of pixels with letters, and run a random computer program to generate the complete works of Shakespeare, and it is will never happen.

Here try for yourself: Random Letter Sequence Generator

Set first field to 100, and second field to 1, and keep hitting the button. You can sit there and do it for the next 50 years and you will never end up with even the first few letters in sequence of Hamlet.

Blind matter cannot produce useful and meaningful systems. It is a childish to think so.

Irrelevant. Science has only to explain naturally occuring phenomena using natural laws. This includes living cells and not Mona Lisa. Science has been able to explain both the assembly of living cells through abiogenesis and evolution and the functioning of living cells in its assembled form through interactions of subatomic particles following the laws of quantum mechanics out of which chemistry and biological processes have been explicitly shown to emerge. Once that has done, idle and vacuous thought experiments involving clearly man-made objects like Mona Lisa prove nothing. Maybe Mona Lisa cannot be created without a designer, but cells can. Proved. The end. Moving on.

 

[Spirit_Warrior]

^^ Ignoring the above, because as usual he is avoiding the issue and argument.

I am now going to demonstrate an old Hindu Samkhya argument which uses a variant of the above arguments, in this case it places a blind man that cannot see but can walk in a maze. Like so:

The blind person has to get out of the maze.

Can the blind person that cannot see but can walk get out of the maze?

Answer: No, because while the blind mqn can walk around it, it cannot see the paths that it's taking, so it will end up in the maze forever, and never get out.

Now Samkhaya considers a second man that can see but is lame.

Can the lame man that can see but cannot get out of the maze?

Answer: No, because while he can see where he is going, he cannot walk there. So he will end up forever in the maze and never get out.

Solution: If the man who can see but is lame, piggy backs on the man who is blind but can walk, it can guide the blind man in the right way to walk out of the maze.


Here the blind man is matter and the lame man is the intelligent soul. The soul cannot move in the world without a body and matter cannot form the body without the instructions from the soul. Matter configures itself based on the needs of the soul. If the soul needs eyes, it forms eyes. This is now proven in modern epigenetics, which no longer accepts a classical Darwinian explanation that cells just randomly mutate, but accepts a Neo-Lamrack theory that shows that cell mutations depend on the interaction with the environment. Hence, we find that the organism only evolves exactly those features that are needed to survive in that environment e.g. in dark environments, eyes are not required as it hard to see, so bats only have eyes adapted to low light conditions. Fish need to breath under water so they develop gills, but elephants don't require gills because they live on land.

The Hindu dualist Samkhya theory has far more explanatory power than the reductionist materialist theory.

 

[sayak83]

^^ Ignoring the above, because as usual he is avoiding the issue and argument.

I am now going to demonstrate an old Hindu Samkhya argument which uses a variant of the above arguments, in this case it places a blind man that cannot see but can walk in a maze. Like so:

The blind person has to get out of the maze.

Can the blind person that cannot see but can walk get out of the maze?

Answer: No, because while the blind person can walk around it, it cannot see the paths that it's taking, so it will end up in the maze forever, and never get out.

Now Samkhaya considers a second person that can see but is lame.

Can the lame person that can see but cannot get out of the maze?

Answer: No, because while he can see where he is going, he cannot walk there. So he will end up forever in the maze and never get out.

Solution: If the person who can see but is lame, piggy backs on the person who is blind but can walk, it can guide the blind man in the right way to walk out of the maze.


Here the blind man is matter and the lame man is the intelligent soul. The soul cannot move in the world without a body and matter cannot form the body without the instructions from the soul. Matter configures itself based on the needs of the soul. If the soul needs eyes, it forms eyes. This is now proven in modern epigenetics, which no longer accepts a classical Darwinian explanation that cells just randomly mutate, but accepts a Neo-Lamrack theory that shows that cell mutations depend on the interaction with the environment. Hence, we find that the organism only evolves exactly those features that are needed to survive in that environment e.g. in dark environments, eyes are not required as it hard to see, so bats only have eyes adapted it low light conditions. Fish need to breath under water so they develop gills, but elephants don't require gills because they live on land.

The Hindu dualist Samkhya theory has far more explanatory power than the reductionist materialist theory.

No understanding of epigenetics as well, I see. Modern epigenetics also firmly believes that cells mutate randomly. Next?

Epigenetics: Fundamentals - What is Epigenetics?

Epigenetics is the study of potentially heritable changes in gene expression (active versus inactive genes) that does not involve changes to the underlying DNA sequence — a change in phenotype without a change in genotype.

The examples you provided are NOT examples of epigenetics at all but standard evolution through mutation and natural selection.

A Super Brief and Basic Explanation of Epigenetics for Total Beginners - What is Epigenetics?

 

[Spirit_Warrior]

On epigenetics: we need both Darwin’s and Lamarck’s theories | Aeon Essays

 

[Spirit_Warrior]

https://www.evolutionnews.org/2015/08/epigenetic_chan/

Which brings us to epigenetics. Jean-Baptiste Lamarck (1744-1829) was an early evolutionist who proposed that life forms could acquire information from their environment and pass it on in their genes. He was dismissed, when not ridiculed, by Darwinists for many decades (though not, as it happens, by Darwin). But the basic thrust of his idea has recently resurfaced in epigenetics.​

 

[sayak83]

On epigenetics: we need both Darwin’s and Lamarck’s theories | Aeon Essays

From your article:-
Today, that is the precise definition of epigenetics: the molecular factors that regulate how DNA functions and what genes are turned on or off, independent of the DNA sequence itself. Epigenetics involves a number of molecular processes that can dramatically influence the activity of the genome without altering the sequence of DNA in the genes themselves.

You do understand that a mutation is an alteration of a DNA letter. Could you explain what caused you to write epigenetics implies mutations in DNA and genes are not random when epigenetics has nothing to do with mechanisms that alter (or conserve) DNA sequences?

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

Okay, the argument did not say there is more than one puddle, but then it argues that just because the puddle fits the hole, we cannot say the hole was fine-tuned for that puddle. If we assume there are many holes, then it means the puddle just take on the form of that hole. However, here the analogy fails. The OP, especially the article cited in the OP, shows there were many ways this one universe could have come into being, and he shows by testing various simulations by adjusting some basic factors that if such and such factor was x then stable matter would not arise, and if such such and such factor was y, then stars would not arise, and it goes through several such factors to show that even if one factor was off a miniscule amount life would not arise.

Hence, if we are not talking of many universes, we can talk of possible universes and it just happen to be that the universe we ended up with was fine-tuned for life.



These types of arguments where you accuse your opponent of emotional motive are useless arguments, because they are double edged sword. I could easily just throw it back at you and say "You do not want to feel special" this is why you argue against my position.

Stick to logical arguments.

Well... I would like to feel special. I mean... who wouldn't?

In the end, I feel some of the possibilities that aren't merely "logical" need to be addressed. Such as whether someone is advocating for something based on a particularly strong bias that has no logical basis, even as they attempt to present the logical arguments for said position - especially when said position may or may not have any more plausibility than thousands of other unproven speculative stances.

 

[sayak83]

https://www.evolutionnews.org/2015/08/epigenetic_chan/

Which brings us to epigenetics. Jean-Baptiste Lamarck (1744-1829) was an early evolutionist who proposed that life forms could acquire information from their environment and pass it on in their genes. He was dismissed, when not ridiculed, by Darwinists for many decades (though not, as it happens, by Darwin). But the basic thrust of his idea has recently resurfaced in epigenetics.​

Evolutionnews is a pseudoscientific website peddling christian creationism. Provide links to actual scientific websites.

 

[miodrag]

Argument: The laws of cause and effect require a maintainer that enforces it.

Nonsense. Instead of contributing your own original speculations, give us a genuine Hindu teaching which proves the existence of God. I am a Vaishnava and I say that there is no Hindu proof of God's existence, and there will never be one. This is obvious to all who can think straight and know some basic philosophy. As far as laws are concerned, laws are not "reality", they are not an ontological category, existing on their own. Laws are mental concepts. And 'proof' argues that it takes consciousness to process mental concepts. Come on. Proofs are either scientific or philosophical, both cases rely on logic. Science is universal, it proves no God. Philosophies are many, Hindu philosophy is glorious, yet it provided no proof for God's existence.

It does not tell us anything about God, it merely indicates God.

Indicator is not a proof. The laws you mention may inspire you to see God in nature. And that is all. Some may be inspired by these indications, some may be not.

Your argument is not consistent because you admit that if you found a watch you would infer an intelligence, if you found a city on an alien planet you would infer intelligence, but here you have in your midst a single cell which is such a complex system...

City and a watch we recognize as creations, therefore we automatically conclude that there is a creator. So, about cities and watches, we have consensus. But I do not recognize a cell as a creation, we have no consensus here, so your argument fails. I can build a watch myself, if I go around asking, learning and finding a blueprint, I have the experience of watchmaking etc...

A human eye is like a more complex, sophisticated and powerful version of the first primitive eye, but both are irreducibly complex. It means that part are arranged in such a manner that every part interconnects as a system so that it can function.

No, Sankacharya is showing through the strength of pure argument that matter cannot self-assemble without being guided by an intelligence. As matter is blind, and because it is blind it does not know what to assemble, how to assemble it and why to keep it as it is if it does assemble anything.

Matter assembled itself in globes we call planets, moving around the Sun and tending to remain in the plane of eclyptic, forming a functional Solar system. And we can attach our arbitrary values to that system, like complexity, purpose, how's and why's... It may have been a completely unguided, spontaneous process of self-organizing matter. And if it was not, then there may have been a race of advanced aliens who gave everything a push. That race may have existed eternally, just like the Universe, and they are not omniscient, but only clever enough to fool us into believing in Big Bang, in order to remain hidden from idiots like us. No need for God.

 

[Spirit_Warrior]

Nonsense. Instead of contributing your own original speculations, give us a genuine Hindu teaching which proves the existence of God. I am a Vaishnava and I say that there is no Hindu proof of God's existence, and there will never be one. This is obvious to all who can think straight and know some basic philosophy.

Then you are not very well read in classical Hindu philosophy:

This essay examines three classical Hindu thinkers belonging to two of the so-called orthodox darśanas who address the question of design in the universe and its implications for theism. The first two, Śaṅkara (c. 700-750 C.E.) and Udayana (c. 975-1050 .E.), advance elaborate articulations of the design argument against their non-theistic opponents. The third, Rāmānuja (fl. 1120 C.E.), while accepting the design argument in some contexts, vigorously rejects it in the main, putting forth counterarguments that anticipated Hume by some seven centuries. Thus, not only did Hindus have a fully developed natural theology, but they also were keenly aware of limitations and weaknesses of the design argument. Several aspects of the Indian classical debates have close parallels in the West, while others are particular to the Hindu context or to the special characteristics of a given school. And as in the West, traditional Hindu notions of an intelligent designer that were revived in the nineteenth century during British rule contributed to a cultural climate predisposed against full acceptance of a robust Darwinian evolutionary view of life

http://digitalcommons.trinity.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1000&context=relig_faculty

It has been tried to prove the existence of God not only in Europe but also in India. In Europe, the argument for the existence of God, whether teleological or cosmological, is formed by analogy, being an inductive inference. In India, it was mainly the Naiyayika-s who developed such arguments. They proved the existence of God (i vara) by a five-membered syllogism' (pancavayava), which is a deductive inference. The form of such arguments looks to be quite different from that in Europe. Commentators on Nyayasutra have endeavored to establish God not to contradict the system of Nyaya philosophy. For this purpose, they actually intended to prove with the form of a five-membered syllogism' that God is the efficient cause of the world. It is, so to speak, the cosmological argument.

https://www.jstage.jst.go.jp/article/ibk1952/35/2/35_2_1001/_pdf

From fairly early in its history, Nyāya specifically takes it upon itself to defend the existence of God (Īśvara). Nyāya primarily employs versions of the design inference. Paradigmatic arguments include:

Primordial matter, atoms and karma function when guided by a conscious agent because they are insentient (acetaṇatvāt) like an axe. As axes, due to insentience, operate only when directed by a sentient agent, so too do things like primordial nature, atoms and karma. Therefore, they too are directed by a cause possessed of intelligence. (Uddyotakara, NV 4.1.21)

Things like the earth have a maker as their cause, because they are products (kāryatvāt). (Udayana Nyāyakusumāñjali, Fifth Chapter)

With various formulations like the above, and extensive supporting arguments, Nyāya defends a version of the argument from design.

Nyaya | Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy


Udayana's Nyayakusumanjali gave the following nine arguments to prove the existence of creative God:[1]

• Kāryāt (lit. "from effect"): The world is an effect, all effects have efficient cause, hence the world must have an efficient cause. That efficient cause is God.[1]
• Āyojanāt (lit., from combination): Atoms are inactive. To form a substance, they must combine. To combine, they must move. Nothing moves without intelligence and source of motion. Since we perceive substance, some intelligent source must have moved the inactive atoms. That intelligent source is God.[1]
• Dhŗtyādéḥ (lit., from support): Something sustains this world. Something destroys this world. Unintelligent Adrsta (unseen principles of nature) cannot do this. We must infer that something intelligent is behind it. That is God.[1]
• Padāt (lit., from word): Each word has meaning and represents an object. This representational power of words has a cause. That cause is God.
• Pratyayataḥ (lit, from faith): Vedas are infallible. Human beings are fallible. Infallible Vedas cannot have been authored by fallible human beings. Someone authored the infallible Vedas. That author is God.[1]
• Shrutéḥ (lit., from scriptures): The infallible Vedas testify to the existence of God. Thus God exists.[1]
• Vākyāt (lit., from precepts): Vedas deal with moral laws, the rights and the wrongs. These are divine. Divine injunctions and prohibitions can only come from a divine creator of laws. That divine creator is God.[1]

Samkhyāviśeşāt (lit., from the specialty of numbers): By rules of perception, only the number "one" can ever be directly perceived. All numbers other than one are inferences and concepts created by consciousness. When man is born, his mind is incapable of inferences and concepts. He develops consciousness as he develops. The consciousness development is self-evident and proven because of man's ability with perfect numerical conception. This ability to conceive numerically perfect concepts must depend on something. That something is divine consciousness. So God must exist.[1]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Udayana​

​

Invariably we find when another Hindu challenges me on what I am doing, like for example trying to use logical arguments to prove existence of God or attacking materialism/atheist, that actually I am doing exactly what classical Hindu philosophers all did, and hence I am actually more authentically Hindu than these postmodern Hindus who are not well-read at in classical literature

 

[Spirit_Warrior]

Matter assembled itself in globes we call planets, moving around the Sun and tending to remain in the plane of eclyptic, forming a functional Solar system. And we can attach our arbitrary values to that system, like complexity, purpose, how's and why's... It may have been a completely unguided, spontaneous process of self-organizing matter.

I really don't get this. If you believe(as ridiculous as the belief is) that matter just self assembles all by itself, then what is the need for God in your belief system?

You have to show me a single example, other than a Disney or Hollywood movie, where matter self-assembles itself into complex functional systems. I have already shown it is impossible above with the circuit, Monsa Lisa, Hamlet and blind man in maze thought experiments. And by the way, the latter is straight out of Hindu philosophy.

 

[sayak83]

I really don't get this. If you believe(as ridiculous as the belief is) that matter just self assembles all by itself, then what is the need for God in your belief system?

You have to show me a single example, other than a Disney or Hollywood movie, where matter self-assembles itself into complex functional systems. I have already shown it is impossible above with the circuit, Monsa Lisa, Hamlet and blind man in maze thought experiments. And by the latter is straight out of Hindu philosophy.

You deny the fact that matter assembles all by itself into galaxies, stars and planets under the attractive powers of gravity? Its the simplest, most easiest to establish effect of gravity there is.

New EAGLE Simulation Shows Galaxies as They Really Are (Video)

 

[miodrag]

Let me elaborate: utter nonsense.

[*]Shrutéḥ (lit., from scriptures): The infallible Vedas testify to the existence of God. Thus God exists.[1]
[*]Vākyāt (lit., from precepts): Vedas deal with moral laws, the rights and the wrongs. These are divine. Divine injunctions and prohibitions can only come from a divine creator of laws. That divine creator is God.

Infallible Vedas !!!? Yeah, right, where is the proof that they are infallible? I cannot believe that I even had to write that. Point is to prove God to a skeptic. There is no such a proof and there will never be one.

 

[Spirit_Warrior]

To other Hindus:

There is a necessity to prove God exists, because otherwise it remains an unjustified belief. If you cannot justify your beliefs, then your belief is blind and blind belief is dangerous. As I said earlier to somebody else, you can use a blind belief to cause somebody to do anything e.g. "God says kill the non-believers" A blind belief is also a weak belief. because it lacks conviction. Hence, trying to justify God either to yourself or to others, becomes a necessary intellectual practice. As I said in the OP, I have been an atheist for a long time, and it taken me a long time to accept that there is a God.

 

[Spirit_Warrior]

Let me elaborate: utter nonsense.




Infallible Vedas !!!? Yeah, right, where is the proof that they are infallible? I cannot believe that I even had to write that. Point is to prove God to a skeptic. There is no such a proof and there will never be one.

You just shifted the goal post. The original goal post was:

am a Vaishnava and I say that there is no Hindu proof of God's existence, and there will never be one.

 

[sayak83]

To other Hindus:-
Using pseudoscience nonsense easily refuted by current science undermines rather than bolsters Hindu beliefs and theology.

 

[psychoslice]

The problem with this argument is that it is a tautology. If you define God as a tree, a river or a mountain, or the experience of beauty, truth, goodness or consciousness, me, a a dog or a man, or all things, then all the aforementioned exist, therefore God exists.

The problem psychoslice with this kind of approach is, is what I pointed out with Vinakaya as well, you come into these kind of debates with a superior spiritual attitude, which is actually patronising. You claim there cannot be proofs for God, but then end up making claims yourself about God, like here "God is an experience" In doing so, you end up involved in the debate, because then you have to provide logical justification for your claims. Therefore, if you really do believe in mysticism as regards to God, you should just keep your silence and not get involved at all.

You just don't understand where I am coming from, I don't believe in a god, what we call god to me is all there is, its the Source of all. And please don't claim that I am trying to be superior, and patronizing, I share what i have experienced if you don't like it then please keep you egocentric opinions to yourself,

 

[miodrag]

I really don't get this. If you believe(as ridiculous as the belief is) that matter just self assembles all by itself, then what is the need for God in your belief system?

You have to show me a single example, other than a Disney or Hollywood movie, where matter self-assembles itself into complex functional systems. I have already shown it is impossible above with the circuit, Monsa Lisa, Hamlet and blind man in maze thought experiments. And by the way, the latter is straight out of Hindu philosophy.

If there is a cloud of cosmic dust, it will eventually organize itself into an amazing and balanced system. Unknown hiding aliens created cosmic dust. I need God for a relationship. You have shown nothing. Random process can create random data. It is your experience that recognize a pattern of Mona Lisa in the data and give it a meaning. Give a computer an eternity, and it will eventually create an image of Mona Lisa riding on Hamlet. Please do not embarrass Hinduism anymore. Do something else. Go make yourself a perpetuum mobile.

 

[Spirit_Warrior]

You just don't understand where I am coming from, I don't believe in a god, what we call god to me is all there is, its the Source of all. And please don't claim that I am trying to be superior, and patronizing, I share what i have experienced if you don't like it then please keep you egocentric opinions to yourself,

In response to the emboldened, that is a tautology. If God is just the source of all, then the source of all exists, therefore God exists.