atheists A DIALOGUE WITH AN ATHEISTS TO ANSWER HIS QUESTION

[dattaswami]

A DIALOGUE WITH AN ATHEISTS TO ANSWER HIS QUESTIONS Shri Datta Swami answers questions of an atheist

Questions from: Soluresk Dianar Turissmont (TuryCury)

 

Quote from Swami's message: 'Science means the perfect unbiased analysis of all the items and concepts of the imaginable creation.'

Q) Objective perfection is unachievable because objective perfection is an unrealistic concept. Also, How do you know that everything was Created and wasn't just brought into existence by quantum fluxuations and energy?

Shri Swami: Whether the object is perfect or imperfect is determined by the perfect scientific analysis. Even if the object is imperfect, it is decided as imperfect by the scientific analysis. The imperfection may lie with the object but not with the analysis. We do not say that world is unreal and hence imperfect since we are part and parcel of the world. If we say that the world is unreal, we will also become unreal. If we are unreal, whatever we say becomes totally unreal. The unreal nature of world is with respect to the real and unimaginable God. Hence, the world cannot be unreal in total purview and hence it is called as relatively real (Mithya). If the world is imperfect, we become imperfect and in such case every conclusion from our brain must be imperfect.

Science says that the cosmic energy is the ultimate item, which in very subtle form is space.Science stops here because [it] cannot cross the point of imagination of the human being. But, science does not say that there is nothing beyond imagination and hence is silent about unimaginable God. Science also keeps silent about genuine unimaginable miracles. The silence of science shows its polite nature, which indicates that its silence means the lack of explanation only from its side and not negation of the other side. Infinite space is another standing miracle. Atheism, little scientific knowledge does not stop at this point of silence. It goes further beyond the silence due to ego of its incomplete knowledge and says that nothing exists beyond imagination.

The philosophy also is silent (Maunam) about God indicating that God is beyond words, mind, intelligence, analysis and imagination. Hence, science and philosophy are one and the same due to submissive nature, which is the fruit of real knowledge (Vidyaa dadaati vinayam...) like a silent pot fully filled with water. Ego is the fruit of incomplete knowledge.Ego shouts negating existence of anything beyond imagination like a pot filled with little water making sounds. In science, we have seen that the concepts, which are thought to be false, yesterday, were proved true today. Similarly, true concepts of today may be proved false by tomorrow. To digest true knowledge, one must have the absence of rigid prejudice and bias. These two are like ulcer and malfunction of liver opposing digestion of food. One must have patience and open heart throughout the analysis to find out the truth. Your concentration should be in finding out the truth and not on the self-victory in analysis during debate. If truth is found out, which is not a relative of any person, everybody including you gets benefit.

Quote from Swami's message: 'We welcome science as far as the path of the analysis is concerned.'

Q) Science is more than analysis. It is also experimentation, repetition and observation of the results of each repeated experiment after you create a hypothesis that is testable. Then you take the results and build a theoretical conclusion based on those results. Do you have such an experiment that brings along a theoretical conclusion that there really is a god? I highly doubt it because the existence of a god is a claim that cannot be made into a testable hypothesis.

Shri Swami: The word ‘analysis’ includes experimentation also. You find the name board as ‘Analytical laboratory’ in which theoretical analysis is followed by experiments, conclusions and analysis of conclusions. All these steps are called as analysis and hence, the Analytical laboratory including all these steps is meaningful. There cannot be experimentation without hypothesis or theory. After experimentation also, the discussion as theory appears without which the experimentation becomes meaningless. The science or analysis representing theoretical discussions and experimentations is always limited to the objects of the world only. God, beyond the imagination cannot be the object of your intelligence and analysis done by it. We appreciated science or analysis for its systematic procedure to bring out the truth as far as the objects of the world are concerned.

The use of this true analysis of the world for the philosophy is that we can refuse somebody establishing a worldly object as God. With the help of science, we can prove that such mistaken object as God is not God because such object is imaginable item only. For example: the awareness was thought to be God. But, the science proves that awareness is a specific form of inert energy only called as the specific work or awareness. This work becomes specific since the inert energy enters a specific nervous system and performs specific work called as awareness. Like this, all the mistaken objects are analysed by science to be imaginable worldly objects only so that we can finally conclude that God is unimaginable being beyond space and time and that no imaginable worldly object is God. The rejection of every item as God is mentioned in the scripture (Neti Neti— Veda). This rejection of every imaginable object as God is achievable through science only, which is nothing but perfect analysis, substantiated by the experimental part, wherever it is possible. Every department in the University does not have experimental laboratory. Theoretical physics is also science.

Quote from Swami's message: 'At the end, the right conclusion should be drawn and some scientists draw the wrong conclusion, which is in the opposite direction to the right conclusion.'

Q) The right and wrong conclusion are not always polar opposites of each other, I cannot name any specific examples at this moment, but right and wrong conclusions could be a different as a small number mix up that leads to a very slight change in the answer to an equation. And scientists drawing the right or wrong conclusion will be corrected by their peers who will seek to prove/disprove them correct.

Shri Swami: Slight difference existing between two conclusions does not make both diagonally opposite like two people with slight change in colour. At the same time, diagonally opposite concluded concepts also can exist. Both difference and opposition exist in different contexts. Delivery of a child by a woman and a man are opposite to each other and here the first is true and the second is false. A good person giving donation and a greedy person not giving donation are opposite to each other. After all, there is the concept that something is right and its opposing concept is wrong. If somebody says in the night that it is day time, certainly it is wrong. The right is that it is night time. You cannot say that these two statements do not oppose each other and are only different statements. You can say that day and night are different items since darkness always exists in a cave or for a blind man even during the day time. A blind man or a person sitting in the cave may say that it is night. But, if a person, not blind, sitting in the sunlight says that it is night time, it is totally opposite to the right statement and becomes totally wrong.

Similarly, in science also, certain wrong conclusions were drawn like Sun moves around the earth, sound is the characteristic of vacuum etc. Absence of opposite [of] right and wrong in every place of science is not correct. Similarly, in philosophy also, there are right and wrong theories. Whether it is philosophy or science, error is nature of humanity. The idea here is that you should follow the right path in the analysis so that you will certainly draw right conclusions in the end whether it is philosophy or science.

Quote from Swami's message: 'Science is like the straight tusk of the tree and these two conclusions are like the two branches generating from the tip of the tusk in the opposite directions'

Q) this presentation is on a point yes, I can see where you come from at this thought train. But if you actually think about it. science itself is a tree with many branches, twigs and leaves that lead to specific types of scientific study like biology, astrophysics, engineering, social sciences and many others. not a tree of right and wrong conclusions, its too much of a dogmatic black and white presentation.

Shri Swami: You can take the tree with several branches as simile in the context of science having various departments and nobody denies it. The appearance of two opposite scientific concepts as conclusions is a different context and the simile here is the tree with two opposite branches. Here, tree with many branches cannot be taken as the simile since context is different. The simile is always confined with selected limitations to express the concept and cannot be extended to the other aspects of the simile. If we say that the face is like moon, the simile is confined to the pleasantness existing in both face and moon. The other aspects like black spots in the moon, growth and reduction of moon etc., should not be invited. The concept compared is important deciding the required limitations for it and the simile is at its disposal and has no freedom to project out crossing the limitations decided by the concept. A tree may have several branches, but it is a simile only and not the concept and the tree with two opposite branches only is limited here from the point of two opposite right and wrong conclusions arrived from the analysis-tusk. The simile can be changed in the interest of the concept but not vice-versa.

Quote from Swami's message: 'We also travel along the tusk in line with the atheists. We differ from the atheist at the end of the analysis only.'

Q) Hmm explain this part further for me please, how exactly are we traveling together? are we both just looking for conclusions? or is it something else?

Shri Swami: An atheist says that awareness is only the specific form of inert energy released after digestion and hence the soul said to be the awareness is not God (Yathaa kinvaadibhyo madashaktih...). This analysis is acceptable to us, but, this does not mean that there is no God. You and I have proved that X is not Y. You say that Y does not exist at all and we say that this does not mean that Y does not exist at all. Similarly, we both oppose magic interpreted as miracle, but, we differ at the end since atheist says that genuine miracle is also a magic and we say that genuine miracle is true and divine.

Quote from Swami's message: Atheists take the direction of the wrong conclusion and we take the direction of the right conclusion.

Q) Hold it, what evidence do you have that proves you right and atheists wrong? don't just make more claims, present evidence in a tangible, peer reviewable way that has a solid testable hypothesis.

Shri Swami: In the above clarification, already, we have shown the common path of analysis and the final opposing conclusions. I will not force you to accept My conclusion, but, I will force you to fight with Me in all the angles during the analysis only that takes place before arriving at the conclusions. My right is only the process of convincing you during the stage of analysis before conclusion and not to convince you in the conclusion. You should forget the victory of anyone in the debate. It is not the question of victory or defeat in the debate. It is the question of investigating the truth with the help of the other partner through debate so that the final truth does not belong to anybody and everybody is benefited out of it.

Quote from Swami's message: Our right conclusion is that no item of this imaginary creation is God and no concept related to this creation can be the concept of God.

Q) Okay, so what you're saying here is that nothing was created by this god being you claim exists, neither any thought was created by it? Correct me if I'm wrong about what you just said here because I'm confused about your position now.

Shri Swami: The world is imaginable made of imaginable items and gives only imaginable concepts, being a four dimensional model of space and time. God being beyond this space and time (being generator of both) becomes unimaginable. God created this world and the ultimate cause (found by science), the energy, is also creation of God. The link between God and world is also unimaginable because we know the links between two imaginable items only in this world. Since the link is also unimaginable, we cannot touch God travelling from the effect to the cause as in the case of imaginable worldly analysis like catching the mud through pot or catching the gold through ornament since all these links are imaginable only. God, though not awareness, has thoughts due to His unimaginable power. God, due to the same unimaginable power created this world and the link between Him and world is also unimaginable.

If you take the chain of imaginable causes and their imaginable effects, you have to take the first cause (space or cosmic energy) also as imaginable. When all the items of chain are imaginable from the beginning to end, ad-infinitum (anavasthaa i.e., the endless chain of similar item-beads) results. To avoid this, you have to take the first cause as unimaginable, which must be different from the imaginable beads. The infinite space is like the smoke (affect) coming from its different generator, fire. If there is no fire and only smoke exists, the ad-infinitum results mocking your inability to decide the end of smoke (space).

Quote from Swami's message: The wrong conclusion of the atheists is that nothing exists beyond this imaginable creation and hence God does not exist.

Q) Agnostic atheist yes, but if you actually look at the majority of atheists, the agnostic atheists, we do not make a claim as such. what we do state though is that we have no evidence that something does exist beyond our plane of existence, ergo we choose to not believe, but instead question every claim that comes along that says there is. For an example, you probably believe that a god beyond our plane of existence created this universe. I am rather skeptical of your claim and thus I state that I do not believe your claim, but you can have me start to believe you if you can give a scientific demonstration that proves your claim correct. It's not believing that it doesn't exist, It's not believing that it does, two shockingly different positions actually if you think about it.

Shri Swami: Did you not observe genuine miracles performed by devotees of God and human incarnations (like recent Bhagavan Shri Satya Sai Baba, who performed uncountable miracles in front of lakhs of people of all countries) as a practical proof for the existence of source of unimaginable power? Leave the miracles. What about the boundary of the space? Why space is infinite? You are explaining every item and every concept with defined boundaries in this world. This is the required characteristic of any system introduced by science. Why space or this world, well understood by you, does not exhibit its boundaries to you? The reason is that the infinity of space is not its inherent concept. It is infinite because you cannot touch God, which is beyond this space. Thus, the infinity of space is only a relative concept, which means that the infinity of space does not mean that you cannot cross it because it itself is infinite, but, you cannot cross it since you cannot touch God by crossing it. Without God, the infinity of space mocks your funny theories of universe like the expansion of universe as you travel to touch its boundary etc.

If you reach the boundary of space and touch that which is beyond space, you can take this universe with defined boundaries. Any part of the universe can be a system for you but the entire universe cannot be a system if its boundaries are unimaginable. If you reach the boundary of space, you will touch that which is beyond (adjacent) to the boundary. If you reach the boundary of ocean, you will touch the soil. Hence, the boundary of the universe itself is unimaginable and is the unimaginable God. Muslims bow to the wall, which represents the boundary of the universe, representing unimaginable God. Atheists throw away the miracles without patient examination, which are the experiments demonstrated before your eyes. You throw away the magic and you mix the miracles also with magic and throw away genuine miracles also as magic.

Quote from Swami's message: We use the analysis of science to negate every item of the creation to be God (Neti Neti-Veda).

Q) But have you used experimentation, repetition, and observation of the results of your experiments to come up with a theoretical conclusion to prove this claim? If so, please show me these results so I can review them, share them with other peers so they can review them as well.

Miracles by Incarnations of God Are Most Valid Experiments

Shri Swami: All the concepts of science need not be experimental conclusions only. There is a subject called Theoretical physics. For example, take the concept of conservation of energy, which shows that the total cosmic energy is constant. Can you show an experiment to deduct this without induction? Can you bring the entire universe in to laboratory and calculate the total value of cosmic energy and prove that energy is conserved because of its maintained constant value. Similarly, conservation of matter of the universe. Do you think that both these scientific laws are false due to lack of experimentation in finding the total values?

We have not seen our grandfathers or grand-grandfathers with our eyes. But, they existed through inference. Inference is valid authority in systematic analysis of science. The unimaginable events exhibited as miracles by human incarnations of God are certainly the most valid experiments to prove the existence of unimaginable God, who is beyond the space and time. Infinite space is a constant experimental proof for the existence of unimaginable God beyond the space. Creation of matter and energy by the will of human incarnation in which unimaginable God exists is direct experiment to show that unimaginable God created this world.

Quote from Swami's message: Science is the indirect knowledge of God by which we reject the entire creation to be God and conclude that God, the creator, is beyond the creation

Q) Indirect knowledge of god? Maybe, but you would need to present the scientific experiment that proves that your god exists first and foremost, then your other claim which I'm starting to understand better now from earlier as I read on through your thread post further by what you meant from "No item is god nor concept is of god"

Shri Swami: My friend! I am shouting million times that the genuine miracles performed by devotees and human incarnations are the experiments… experiments… experiments, which are shouted by you again and again. The main [aim] of the miracles is only this. When all the items of the imaginable world are proved to be imaginable only by science, they are not the unimaginable God. It means indirectly that God is unimaginable. All the knowledge of God is indirect only and hence, God can never be your object of knowledge. Even the miracles indicate the unimaginable source called as God through inference only, which is indirect knowledge.

Direct is by perception and indirect is by inference. Both are the same knowledge. In perception, I have seen smoke coming from kitchen. Seeing the smoke coming down from the hill, I can infer the fire on the hill and this is inference. Both are equally valid authorities of knowledge. Science uses both in different places. If anybody takes perception only as the authority, it shows that [he] is only an atheist and not scientist.

Quote from Swami's message: The direct knowledge of God is that God is beyond this creation and more than this no information of God is possible.

Q) What? Please clarify your statement further so that I can understand it better. (by the way so far I'm liking the grammar for fluency, but perhaps I can ask you to make your statements into more spaced out paragraphs? it's kind of hard to keep track of where I am in your posts.)

Shri Swami: The indirect knowledge derived from the above explained inference can be the only knowledge of God, which is that the unimaginable God, who is beyond this imaginable creation, exists (Asteetyeva... Veda). The existence of God, as the result of the indirect knowledge, becomes the direct knowledge of God because it speaks about something related to God directly, which is His existence.

By this, the unimaginable status of God is not affected since the existence of anything does not give its inherent characteristics directly and this is the direct knowledge. Existence is not characteristic and hence it is direct knowledge. Existence is related to God, though not characteristic and hence this information about the existence is direct knowledge. The absence of the knowledge [of] characteristics is indirect knowledge.

Quote from Swami's message: We can show you what is not God and we cannot show you what is God

Q) So now all of those times I asked for evidence that your god exists are now fully moot and redundant because in this statement you have admitted that you cannot show evidence that your claims should even be considered true.

Negation of God based on Perception Rejected Through Inference

Shri Swami: The same problem is repeated again and again since you do not accept both perception and inference as authorities. I cannot show God through perception but can show you through inference. My above statement is with reference to perception. Your negation of God based on the perception is rejected through the inference. Unimaginable God is inferred through inference by observing genuine miracles with open heart and without biased atheism and this is inference based on perception of a similar concept. You have to accept this methodology, which is already accepted by you in law of conservation of matter or energy of the universe.

You cannot have directly the perception of the total value of energy or matter of the whole universe in the laboratory since it is impossible. Similarly, you can understand about the only unimaginable God.

Quote from Swami's message: Space is the first item of the creation, which is not the absence of any imaginable item. Space is only very subtle invisible energy. Bend of space spoken in science proves this.

Q) Yes, science has proven that space isn't just nothing-ness between physical matter, at least this is a sound claim that has evidence behind it in the form of dark matter which forms the "fabric" of the universe. Infact were coming up with possible ways that we can warp this "fabric" to possible travel faster than light if possible, even make short cuts through space, and maybe even time.

Shri Swami: The above remark is about this creation only and not about the creator, which is spoken by Me as a scientist and not as a philosopher.

Quote from Swami's message: There cannot be bending of nothing.

Q) So far this is a logical statement. how can you bend nothing when there no kind of matter or energy there? you cant! so here I this line, we are both in subjectively perfect agreement.

Shri Swami: Same as above since it is also a concept in the creation.

Quote from Swami's message: God is the generator of this space or subtle energy. Veda says that God is generator of space and in another place says that God is the generator of energy. Both these statements are one and the same since space is subtle energy.

Q) But has the god part been proven? does this god have the evidence to exist? From one of your earlier statements, you said you cannot prove that your god exists, so how can I possibly believe the claim that your god generates the subtle energy in space? What if it's not a god? What if it's some sort of reaction on the quantum level of physics?

Shri Swami: I have spoken this to the theists, who are confused with the two different Vedic statements about whether the first creation is space or energy. In explaining this concept, I have taken the help of science.

Regarding the proof of God through inference based perception, I again say that you should answer about the genuine miracles. Miracles are unimaginable as understood by perception and their unimaginable source called God is inferred. Please explain the perception part of it or accept the inference part of it.

I never said that God does not exist. I only said that the unimaginable God cannot be shown to you directly through perception. God through human incarnation performing genuine miracles can be shown through inference as the source of miracles that are perceived by you. Since God identifies Himself with the human being in human incarnation like electricity with the metallic wire in which it flows, the human being in it perceived indicates God through inference.

Science stops at the space and philosophy starts from where science stopped. Wise people believe God through their experiences in lives. Ignorant people believe God by observing the genuine miracles. Good scientists believe God through the concept of infinite space (Einstein and Newton were strong theists). Atheists do not accept anything other than their rigid and blind ignorance mixed with ego.

I advise the atheists to believe in God at least on the basis of 50-50 probability of unseen concepts. Nothing is lost, if you believe in God even if God is absent. Everything is lost, if you do not believe in God and unfortunately if God exists. Take lesser risk if you are wise. There are so many concepts even in science, which were not known yesterday and known today. The concepts not known today may be revealed by tomorrow and by tomorrow you may be in hell without time even to repent. At least, in this way, I want to save My atheistic brothers and sisters in this world since all are children of the Divine Father only. - By Shri Datta Swami

www.universal-spirituality[.]org

Universal Spirituality for World Peace