Those who call themselves Rationalists say they disprove God by a mere statement that God does not Exist.
They declare that They can not perceive Him, so He does not Exist
This often is the One Liner Argument.
Other than this their arguments are in the form of rebuttal and abuse and ridicule of those who say God exists.
Let me examine how constructive the arguments are for disproving God.
Let us begin at the Philosophical Level.
One can not see God, hear Him feel Him, so He does not exist.
This argument belongs to Perception as a means of Knowledge.
If one were to accept this yardstick of one experiencing every thing by oneself, then one can not prove anything.
One can not prove he will die for he has not experienced Death.
One can not prove Hunger, Sex for One does not see hear these.
Rather one feels.
Feelings by themselves are not perceivable.
They are known by their external manifestations, like being Happy, Sad.
Feelings are inferred.
Again senses themselves are not infallible.
Renes Descartes , in his masterly analysis, quotes the experience of senses thus.
You keep your hands in cold water for five minutes, then dip them in Hot water,
The warmth takes longer to become effective when compared to normal circumstances.
One can do this the other way, keep them in warm water and dip later in cold water.
Here, what exactly the senses convey and which one is correct?
If one were to say I am aware that I dipped my hands in hot/cold water earlier,therefore I am able to distinguish the error of my understanding her.
The fact that you understand that there was an error, means the senses do commit errors .
Are the perceptions of things the same for every one for a particular object?
For that matter, are we,or our senses consistent in conveying the information to us?
How does a Blind Man prove there is Light?
If you admit the has deficiency. one can also say we also have deficiencies in perceiving things for which our senses are not equipped.
Do we Perceive Atoms?
Do we see air?
The earlier we do believe in, because Science tell us so.
In the latter, we feel air.
So we proceed to the next instrument of Knowledge, perception being inadequate.
(for more on Perception, read my post on Perception under Indian Philosophy,Hinduism)
Atheists dismiss the Testimony as being not proven.
They are not proved or authentic.
One does not know his Great Grand Father.
We do believe he lived.
Because our Fathers have told us.
Similarly one has to believe in Testimony unless proved otherwise by personal experience , not by Logic alone for Logic is faulty.I shall discuss it here later)
What is the authenticity we are talking about?
Support by other Books?
If we can not believe the earlier ones, why should we believe in the latter?
How does one learn a Language?
Through others, Testimony.
Why do we not deny Language?
Because we feel it is essential
Who gave you names for things and why should they be correct .
If you deny Testimony as a source of Knowledge, you should deny tit altogether.
Not in bits and pieces as it suits you.
Inference is built on Logic.
What is Logic built on?
Mind, which you have not seen or can perceive.
This is Logical?
If one were to say that the Mind is perceived because of its functions or effects, then one should also believe in God as the primary Cause.
In Logic there are two vital elements,
One is induction and another is Deduction.
Induction is the process by which you come to a general statement(Genus).
The next is Deduction, which proceeds by linking the Genus to individual case.
Let us see an example.
All men are mortal.
Socrates is Man.
Therefore He is Mortal.
The General Statement that All Men are Mortal does not conform to Logic.
We have not checked all the things that were born, are born or would be born and verified that once born they are certain to die.
This is called the Inductive Leap.
On what basis in this allowed?
Logic again depends on the Law of Uniformity of Nature.
Law of Uniformity can not be proved for the same reason as in the Syllogism stated above.
There is no guarantee that The Gravitational Force will be there to-morrow.
Law of Causality is again built on The Law of Uniformity of Nature.
Moreover, One Cause may produce more than one result and one result may be due to many Causes.
How does one link a particular Cause and Effect?
I shall be writing on this from the Indian Philosophical point of view, Parinama Vada and Vivarta Vada later as it is a complicated topic.
I shall be dealing with the other instruments of Knowledge like Intuition in the future, along with rebuttal for Atheists 50 Arguments point by point.
10 responses to “‘God Does Not Exist’ Proof ?”
bertrand russel is an agnostic,not an athiest;he does not say god does not exist;he says that the claim that god exits is not sustainable;that is also my stand;
He started as an Atheist. Sustainable is matter of personal opinion. We can not prove that we exist at all.
now you are abandoning logic;sustainability of a claim cannot be a matter of personal opinion;our existence is the proof of our existence;it does not require further proof;
How does one prove that He Exists?
Bishop Berkeley is a Solipsist, a Subjective Idealist of the extreme order.
He maintained by Logic that the world and himself exist only as an idea in the Mind,
So exasperated was a Man, when asked by Berkeley, to prove his existence,the man stomped on Berkeley’s feet and Berke;ey cried.
The Man said ‘You exist’
Secondly what is Existence?
I shall be posting a blog on this profound question from the Western and Indian philosophy.
And those who call themselves rationalists say they can prove any deity to exist by suggestion through mere philosophical opinion alone.
Please show the populace how you can conjure the existence of a being from a synthetic religion.
You haven’t done that.
And, you also are trying to rebuttal your opposition, so that’s a moot point my friend.
First let the ‘Rationalists’ prove Reason or Mind. Kindly refer my post on how two verses of the Purusha Sukta , A religious Hymn of Hinduism produces electricity..How the Stars Sirius A and B produce the Sound OM or how these sounds throw up images of a Tantric symbol Sri Yantra,with Sanskrit letters.Or How Quantum Theory and the Founders of the Quantum declared openly that their’findings are consistent with the Vedas. https://ramanan50.wordpress.com/2014/05/13/stars-radiate-om-visual-sri-yantra/
““Both Bohr and Schrödinger, the founders of quantum physics, were avid readers of the Vedic texts and
observed that their experiments in quantum physics were consistent with what they had read in the Vedas.”
Please check my posts under Hinduism,Astrophysics, Science for more.
Thanks for dropping by and posing a Good question.Regards
It would appear that you are not really answering my questions. Instead you are reinforcing your beliefs by redirecting others to your blog. This is not in any seeking truth.
Do you see and experience your own family?
I do have experiences. I have them filed under Hinduism,Faith refer this one https://ramanan50.wordpress.com/2011/04/25/haunted-campus-buildings-my-experience-with-the-paranormal/
People should go either by so called science or by Faith.
After studying Shankaracharya I have been convinced at the intellectual level, after personal experiences by faith.
Once again, you’re refusal to answer a simple question put to you shows an intent to evade the answer. But, if you must.
If you are having any experiences within this reality henceforth that you exist, that you experience your own family is a testament to your existence, if however, you still think that you really aren’t there, my I suggest seeking help?
I have no faith. And I’ve been an avid ghost hunter for 37 years now, and have never seen anything that I cannot explain.
You say (so-called science?) this would indeed designate your utter rejection of science, and replace it with speculation and conjecture from a philosophical opinion. In matters of philosophy, one can say whatever they like because it always ends with 3 answers. And those answers are, yes, no, and maybe. But your reality will only provide you with only 2. Yes, or no. There is no maybe. You either have the correct position, or you don’t.
I don’t rely on philosophy because it’s the same as religion, as in, argument only and isn’t entirely reasonable for the facts.
And in spite of everything, I do care for you friend.
Well every one to his own.