Dubai Forums Dubai Discussions Dubai Politics Talk Philosophy and Religion Forums

The practical proof for existence of God

God Himself comes down in human form to give practical proof for the existence of the unimaginable God through the exhibition of unimaginable events called as miracles. Jesus told that He has come down to fulfill, what is said in the scripture. Krishna also said that He came down since there is a necessity and He said that He will come down whenever there is a necessity. The necessity is the requirement of practical proof for the theoretical explanation of God given in the scripture. Then only, the validity comes. Science is valid since every concept in the book is experimentally proved in the laboratory. A student of science always attends the practical class in the laboratory after the theory class. The doubt about the existence of God is quite natural because there is every chance to doubt about the existence of anything, which is not understood even by intensive imagination. The human incarnation declares the existence of God after giving the practical proof. In fact, people experience the unimaginable events in their life, which indicate God. But, people do not care to analyze and remember God thereby.

Even if we dispose all the miracles as magic show without careful analysis, the existence of unimaginable boundary of universe, which can be realized by anybody at anytime, is a clear proof for existence of unimaginable entity called as God.

I don't think that any muslim will take you seriously here with your flooding offtops and threads. There's no Krishna, Jesus nor Muhammad here. So my advice, save your time and instead use it to look for human gods somewhere else. I think my muslims brothers would join to my opinion.

Shuhrat wrote:I don't think that any muslim will take you seriously here with your flooding offtops and threads. There's no Krishna, Jesus nor Muhammad here. So my advice, save your time and instead use it to look for human gods somewhere else. I think my muslims brothers would join to my opinion.

I know that you are worried that the Lord perhaps gets modified into the human body and thus the unchangeable Lord undergoes a change. Do not worry about this point, because the Lord is never modified into the human body. He only enters into the human body. The word ‘Ashritam’ in the verse of the Gita “Manushim tanumashritam” means the entry of the Lord into the human body and not the modification of the Lord into a human body. This is clarified by Lord Krishna in the Gita in the verse “Avyaktam Vyaktimapannam”.


God is not any medium or body (Akayamavranam…Veda) because God is unimaginable. The body or medium is a part of the creation and hence is imaginable. God is also not modified into medium or body. God only entered the medium or body. The current is not the wire. The current is not modified into wire. The current has entered the wire. As long as the current exists in the wire, the wire has to be treated as the current and there is no other way to experience the current than this. The wire attains the property of the current and gives shock thereby giving experience of the existence of the current. The experience of the existence of current is not the experience of the knowledge of original form of current. God entered the human body of Krishna and Krishna became God. Krishna lifted the hill on His finger. This unimaginable event indicates the existence of unimaginable God in Krishna. By this God did not become imaginable.

I'm sorry, but it sounds as though you're saying that the SCIENTIFIC proof of god is the fact that humans exist?

What are you, some crazy ass creationist who thinks the world was created 6000 years ago in 6 days?

I'm really hope you are, 'cause this will be a lot more fun and easy if you're a creationist...albeit other monotheists think creationists are insane.

Hell, some people have some sense to believe in abiogenesis and evolution, and still retain their religious beliefs.

But to completely deny tangible scientific evidence is not only annoying, but also ignorant.

Unless proven otherwise (using the many worlds hypothesis, which is yet to be proven) a spiritual deity CANNOT exist within the universe very simply because it cannot co-exist with the laws of physics (in which everything in the universe is bound by, whether you're the creator or not).

/thread

God, the worker

An engineer planned a house and constructed it. The house is matter consisting of atoms bonded by bond energies. Since matter is energy the whole house is energy. The planning of the engineer is work. Since energy is work, the house is work and since planning is also work, the house becomes the planning of the engineer. The engineer is also made of matter, energy and life. Since life is energy and matter is also energy, the engineer is also energy. Since the energy is work, the engineer himself is work or planning. Thus the engineer, planning and the house have been reduced to simply one item namely work. But there cannot be work without the worker. The worker must exist.

When you see the house and do not see the engineer there, do you not infer the engineer? You also say that the entire house is the work of the engineer. Therefore, seeing the work, you must infer the existence of the worker. Similarly seeing the creation, which is the work of God, one must infer the existence of its invisible worker—God. The second Brahma Sutra (Janmadyasya yatah) says the same. You cannot say that creation itself is the creator because worker and work are seen separately in this world. The house cannot construct itself. Such a systematic well-planned universe certainly demands the existence of its engineer
www.universal-spirituality.org
Universal Spirituality for World Peace

The good book is good because the good book says it's good.

cw71017 wrote:The good book is good because the good book says it's good.

The scientific atheists say that the cosmic energy is the ultimate God from which this entire creation is generated through big bang, maintained and destroyed. He says that another unimaginable God as generator of cosmic energy is unnecessary. If we say that an agent of intelligence is required to maintain all this creation in such a systematic manner, the atheists disagree saying that randomness with probability based on theory of evolution can be the reason for such systematic administration. We cannot completely rule out this answer of the atheists. In such case, the unimaginable God disappears and the imaginable cosmic energy becomes God. The concept of energy is clearly understood only through intricate scientific analysis like thermodynamics etc. and hence, an entity understood with difficulty can be treated unimaginable for the time being. If we say that the genuine miracles stand as perfect proof for the real unimaginable concept, the atheists still weaken us by saying that there is atleast 50% probability in the future for the revelation of such genuine miracle also. When such situation stands before us, the only concept of perfect unimaginable concept is the existence of infinite entity. This cosmos is infinite without beginning and end.

Its boundary is perfectly unimaginable since even scientists agree that it can never be reached. Even if you reach the boundary of cosmos, will there be a compound wall indicating the limits of the universe? If such compound wall exists, what is present beyond that compound wall? Therefore, in this case, the real unimaginable boundary of the infinite cosmos has to be accepted even by science. There is no trace of possibility in future to explain the boundary of cosmos. This is the only proof for the real existence of an unimaginable concept indicating the unimaginable God. We can say that God exists beyond the limits of the universe and thus, it means that God is always unimaginable.

Arjuna had the vision of this infinite cosmos containing infinite matter and energy. The only statement given by Lord Krishna is that there is no end to this cosmic vision, which clearly means that the limits of the creation are infinite and unimaginable (Naantosti mama …).

Nononononono!

Nothing within the universe can be physically infinite, everything has a beginning and an end...EVEN if you are the creator. To sum up, God cannot be outside the universe (since there is nothing there until proven otherwise), God cannot be within the universe (seeing as how he's an infinite entity) AND everything within the universe must obey physical laws.

However, since we cannot travel at the speed of light (or travel that far off into space) we don't know what is beyond that wall (like I said, don't start talking about the many world hypothesis because it is yet to be proven) but for now we can imagine that there is nothing there, if you can go outside that wall you simply cease to exist (because well, the universe IS existence)

cw71017 wrote:Nononononono!

Nothing within the universe can be physically infinite, everything has a beginning and an end...EVEN if you are the creator. To sum up, God cannot be outside the universe (since there is nothing there until proven otherwise), God cannot be within the universe (seeing as how he's an infinite entity) AND everything within the universe must obey physical laws.

However, since we cannot travel at the speed of light (or travel that far off into space) we don't know what is beyond that wall (like I said, don't start talking about the many world hypothesis because it is yet to be proven) but for now we can imagine that there is nothing there, if you can go outside that wall you simply cease to exist (because well, the universe IS existence)

How can you say like that! Have you seen the boundary of this universe?!! No.

The unimaginable God can never be touched even by your intelligence or logic. When you say that God wished to create the world, you have not touched the absolute God. The God in your statement is only the absolute God embedded in the awareness. The awareness was created by Him in the beginning and He entered that awareness. Awareness is the medium (Upadhi) for God here. Now ‘God Thinks’ means that the awareness controlled by God thinks. You can go up to this point only which is the extreme edge. All the three Acharyaas went up to this point only. The medium indicates the possessor of the medium. The wire indicates the electricity in it. You can call the wire as electricity or the electricity as the wire. Similarly, in such case you can call God as awareness or awareness as God. But every wire is not electric wire. Similarly, every bit of awareness (living being) is not charged by God and hence cannot be called as God.

The boundary of the Universe need not be made of the same material (five elements). A metallic wheel may have a plastic ring around its edge. Therefore, the boundary of the Universe need not be made of the same imaginable material. The boundary is unimaginable means that the boundary is made of unimaginable material i.e., God. Even if you say that the diameter of the Universe is some billions of light years, is there a compound wall in the edge of the boundary? If there is such wall what is present beyond that wall? If you say that space is present beyond that wall, space is also a part of the Universe (one of the five elements). The theory of bending of the space around object proves that space is the most subtle energy. Therefore, the diameter of the Universe is infinite.

The theory of constant expansion of Universe is also meaningless because expansion of any material requires the existence of space different from the material. When space or subtle energy is the basic material of the Universe, the word ‘expansion’ becomes ridiculous. The infinity of the Universe stands for the existence of unimaginable entity beyond the Universe existing from the boundary of Universe. Unless you accept the unimaginable region beyond the boundary of Universe, you cannot speak of the end of imaginable boundary of the Universe. All this discussion will clearly establish the existence of unimaginable region or God beyond the Universe.

I assure you that constant expansion is not 'meaningless'. It's been proven using Hubble's Law and by studying Red-Shifts.

You're clearly trying to turn physics into philosophy, and I believe the two should never meet. Just because we're uncertain of whether there are other universes within a multiverse, doesn't mean that there is scientific proof of God. Right now, you're basing all this off faith and speculation. Which is why I think science and faith shouldn't mix, because science adjusts its views on what's observed, faith however, is the denial of observation so that belief can be preserved.

cw71017 wrote:I assure you that constant expansion is not 'meaningless'. It's been proven using Hubble's Law and by studying Red-Shifts.

You're clearly trying to turn physics into philosophy, and I believe the two should never meet. Just because we're uncertain of whether there are other universes within a multiverse, doesn't mean that there is scientific proof of God. Right now, you're basing all this off faith and speculation. Which is why I think science and faith shouldn't mix, because science adjusts its views on what's observed, faith however, is the denial of observation so that belief can be preserved.

Philosophy, which is the spiritual knowledge, travels in one direction in the circle of research. Science, which is the physical knowledge, travels in the opposite direction in the same circle of research. A Philosopher or a Scientist should travel extensively, so that they will meet at the same point in the circle. If they are in the middle of their journey only, they will be opposite to each other and therefore, will fight with each other. The Philosopher says that God is beyond this world and He is inexplicable. The Scientist says that this world itself is God and accepts the inexplicable points in the nature.

The Philosopher says that God pervades all over the world. The Scientist accepts the inexplicable nature of the world, though some concepts of the world are explicable. When God is inexplicable, the very characteristic nature of the God is only inexplicability. Philosopher calls the explicability as the creation and the inexplicability as God. The explicable part is agreed by both philosopher and scientist. The inexplicable part of the world is also accepted by both. This inexplicability is called as God by the Philosopher and the Scientist calls the same as inexplicability. The Scientist says that there is wire and heat in a hot wire. The Philosopher says that the fire and the wire are co-existing. The only difference is in words. The Scientist calls heat and the Philosopher calls the heat as fire. The wire is the explicable part of the world, which is agreed by all. A Scientist calls the other inexplicable part as a property by calling it as heat. The Philosopher calls the same as the possessor of the property i.e., fire. The intensive heat is fire.

Thus the possessor of a property and the property are one and the same. The Scientist says the independent existence of the inexplicable power as an independent existence of a field of energy. The Philosopher says that there is a substratum of that field of energy, which is called as God and which, is not perceived so far. The Scientist accepts that they have to go still deeper. The Philosopher infers the existence of the substratum in such a deeper state. The argument of the Philosopher is that power cannot independently exist and needs a possessor. Suppose the Sun is not seen due to overlapping cloud, it should not be concluded that the light transmitting through the cloud is independently existing power. The Scientist may see the Sun in future after piercing through the cloud. So, where is the difference or quarrel between a matured Philosopher and a matured Scientist?

The inference of the Philosopher is based on the perception of a similar concept existing in the explicable part of the world. The Scientist does not believe this because it is not a perception of the direct concept. Both have not seen the Sun. Both accept the perception of light. Both accept that their search and research has not reached the end. At this stage the Philosopher infers the Sun, whereas the Scientist does not infer the Sun but still accepts that the final truth is still to be achieved after piercing through the cloud of ignorance. At this point the support for the Philosopher is the Human Incarnation, which preaches the existence of such substratum. If the Scientist accepts the alternative genuine path of the miracles, the human incarnation definitely becomes the final authority about the existence of the possessor of such inexplicable power. If the Scientist has patience to reach the bottom most end, he will become a spiritual philosopher. An impatient Scientist existing in some middle place of the path becomes the atheist.