Navin thinks that my throwaway line about it being impossible to disprove the existence of God deserves a post by itself. Not really. It is quite simple. If an omnipotent God does exist, by definition He controls everything including logic. He can create a universe where there exists irrefutable proof that there is no God. Why? God only knows, but it is certainly possible. So whatever proof you claim to have, it cannot stand up against that fundamental objection, viz “God might have created it that way”
It is a bit like some Biblical creationists who claimed that God created the world 3000 odd years back, but that He created it with not just a complete fossil record, but also other telltale evidence fooling people into believing that the the universe has existed for much longer than that – something like a movie starting in the middle of someone’s life. You can’t argue against such beliefs, but thankfully, they were rather quickly abandoned because they must have sounded silly even to the true believers.
I did say that the idea isn’t important enough to make a post out of, but as I have started anyway, I might as well discuss two more interesting things. Buddha too had an interesting proof that there was no God. The “proof”, as I understand it, went something like:
- If there is a God who created the world, it must mean that He must have had a desire to do so, which means that there was a lacuna in Him
- God, by definition, is perfect. He cannot have a lacuna.
- The two statements contradict each other. Hence there cannot be a God.
If you are baffled by the above “proof”, do not be. Just remember that in Buddhist belief, desire is the root of all suffering. The aim of life is to attain Nirvana, a state of desirelessness, a state which is as close to perfection as you will get. Once you accept the above tenet, the logic is impeccable. There cannot be a Buddhist God.
Incidentally, I’ve heard people claiming that it is impossible to prove a negative. That statement is not quite true. For example, it is possible to prove that there is no cat sitting on my chair right now. It is more correct to say that it is difficult and unnecessary prove a negative. The burden of proof is always on those who would make an assertion, not the other way round.
Doesn’t the Buddhist contradiction work only if you hold it true that the universe came after god?
Umm.. yes, but if you can assume that the universe exists independent of a Creator, then there isn’t much need to assume His existence in any case. You can assume a God who sits in a secluded corner of the world and does nothing at all. That would be a waste of so much omnipotence.
Nice post,to say the least. Your original statement in the previous post is quoted
“Long back I realised that it is impossible to prove that God does not exist unless you make the assumption that He is a benevolent God”
My desire was to see how well you qualify the second part of your statement about the benevolent God. In the same vein as Buddha, Advaita in Hindu thought also preaches reaching non-attachment and when you have reached that state, you are one with what it termed as “Nirguna Brahman” – an attributeless entity that nevertheless remains the material and efficient cause of the universe. The prerequisite of a benevolent God being essential falls apart in that event.
If there is a God who created the world, it must mean that He must have had a desire to do so, which means that there was a lacuna in Him
Quite possible, not necessarily. An entity that created the world out of itself and by itself may get masked by other generated entities in the process, that eventually conceal the true nature of their origin. Bodies,minds and logic may have developed subsequently out of this entity, eventually giving us the impression that they are the real thing.
Ockam’s razor is used quite effectively to prove that God does not exist, but yet again logic and rationality may exist independently without being aware of where they came from.
Nice Post ….
Interestingly … Tagore and Einstein were once musing on the same topic, and wondered whether there is a reality independent of human mind … because if it does … God (as defined by humans) may have a hand behind it
Ashish
PS. the link for the discussion …
http://www.boloji.com/perspective/064.htm
“but thankfully, they were rather quickly abandoned because they must have sounded silly even to the true believers.”
Not really, Ravi. There are some really serious people who believe that every word of the Bible is true, including “young earth”.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v21/i1/dinosaurbones.asp
And don’t think they are fringe group. There is a strong movement to set a foot in biology classrooms in the form of “Intelligent Design” by using reasonable-sounding sound-bites.
hmm… I was referring to the belief that God created the world intact with fossil evidence made to look as if it were millions of years old. I don’t know how many people hold that specific belief. I do know that a large majority of even educated people in the US do not believe in evolution. I am under the impression that the beliefs they hold are a little more “sophisticated” than this one.
What is the difference between a belief that god created earth with the fossil evidence and that the tried and proven scientific techniques are incorrect, while the bible is the true word even in the matters of science. To a non-science-fellow, the latter might sound reasonable, but it sounds equally ridiculous to a scientist.
In practice, none. But in theory, the hypothesis that the Bible speaks the truth can be verified and proved to be true or false. Of course, in practice those who take up this question are out to “prove” that the Bible is true regardless of what the evidence tells them. So yes, it is a waste of time trying to convince those people.
On the other hand, the theory that God created the world with the fossil evidence intact cannot be refuted no matter what evidence you find. How can you? You can only point out that it is silly.
Here’s an interesting example of circular argument in “Philosophy Gym” by Stephen Law :
A : God is the greatest Being in the Universe.
B : Who said that ?
A : Te Bible says so.
B: Who wrote the Bible ?
A : God