The logical impossibility of Atheism

[nitaipoddar 0]

I'd like to share with you what I believe to be a simple, logical impossibility of the idea of Atheism. Most atheists forget this concept, but it is very simple to understand. Behold:

 

 

There are three types of people:

 

Theists

Agnostics

Atheists

 

Theists believe in a God.

 

Agnostics either are unsure of the existence of God, or do not care, or insist that we can never know.

 

Atheists, however, deny the existence of any god anywhere in the Universe. This is my definition of atheism. To deny the existence of the Judeochristian god is not atheism *by this definition*.

 

Now that I have the definitions in place, watch how the logic cannot work:

 

An atheist will deny the existence of god anywhere in the universe, where universe is defined as Everything.

 

Suppose I asked you the following:

 

"Prove to me that no pink giraffes exist anywhere in the city of New York"

 

Can it be done? Absolutely not. In order to prove to me that no pink giraffes exist anywhere in New York would require an awareness of EVERYTHING in New York, over every square inch, at ALL TIMES.

 

So, using my example, one would have to have *omnipotence* over the city of New York in order to prove to me that no pink giraffes exist there.

 

Now do you see the problem? I have only limited this to the city of New York.

 

What if I asked you to prove to me that no god exists anywhere in the entire universe? It would simply not be possible. In order to prove this to me, one would need to have an omnipotent awareness of *everything* in the universe.

 

And this is why the atheist's claims are just logically impossible. It's very simple. I wish more people would look at it /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[Pankaja_Dasa 1]

 

 

This is good. I will use this logic next time I talk with an athiest.

[Guest guest]

GovindRam, I am happy that you are a staunch believer.But if you use such arguments in a debate with Atheist,it wont work out well.The reason is as follows.

 

Statement 1:There is pink giraffe somewhere in new york.

Statement 2:There isnt pink Giraffe anywhere in new york.

 

To make the statement 1, you should have absoulte knowledge about New york.But you dont have that.To make statement 2,yes we need absolute knowledge of new york.But atheists will argue that their statement as follows and not as statement 2.

 

statement 3:The existence of pink giraffe in new york is unproved.So until new evnidence creeps up it is safe to assume that there is no pink giraffe in new york.

 

And also the burden of proof lies with the person who says that "there is a thing".It is easy to say "we have life in planet X in andromeda galaxy".If somebody questions that statement you cannot say "Disprove that there is no life in andromeda galaxy".That will be against the scientific method of enquiry.

 

Scientists dont say "There is methane in titan.If you doubt it,disprove it".They gave proof for existence of methane in Titan.Its always the person who makes the claim that there is a thing,should provide the proof.

 

If you want to know how to defeat atheists--I will tell you.There is no need to defeat them.we dont preach our religion and try to convert them.we follow our religion and god for our personal benefit.To know whether god is there or not,only prayer will help.Krishna himself has said that he is to be known only by devotion and nothing else.

 

Those who do not want to do it,let them proceed in whatever way them deem it fit.Krishna will show the right path to them.

 

If an atheist challenges you to prove god,ask him to sit in meditation with you.If he has devotion he will see god.else he wont.

 

[maadhav 0]

to prove that there is god is nto easy.

to prove that there is no god is also not easy.

 

vivekananda was an atheist, until ramakrishna held his thumb for a moment and threw him in trance. this is a way of making one a believer instantly. but very few hae such an ability.

 

to prove by logical derivation/debate takes long time,

and may not work for some unbelievers.

 

sometimes some life events make one a believer, or non believer.

 

 

[Guest guest]

Atheists can be changed.

But what about Pseudo secularists? and politicians?

Atheists pose no threat, their challenges are open.

Its the other two people need to think about.

[Guest guest]

im taking an atheism class this semester and alot of the beliefs that i have that i believe i got from some knowledge of hinduism is considered pantheistic. and in that sense, she says i am not theistic. i think its just her way of dismissing my beliefs in order to make a good class debate between western theists and atheists.

 

where do u guys think it belongs? is pantheistic atheism in disguise or theistic also, where atheism would mean the non-existance of a god who purposefully engages in the happenings of the world.

[Guest guest]

leading him to conviction of God: How does having a mystical trance cause belief in God?

 

Couldn't the mystical trance be a purely subjective thing which is inapplicable to the rigors of scientific testing?

 

Couldn't it be merely a product of brain chemistry and nothing more?

 

 

Then how does this convince people of God? I mean, in order to have proof it should be something that OTHERS can also see and verify. There's just no way for other people to see what Vivekananda himself experiences, so how does he know what he experienced is real?

 

[Guest guest]

really. Not atheism, but not necessarily theism either.

 

But then again, you could rebut whoever said this and say that Hinduism is theistic, atheistic, and deistic altogether. There is no one definition of God in Hinduism

[Guest guest]

is very western oriented thought and a 'clear' definition of god i needed and if its not clear, then the prof. dismisses the claim immediately

[Guest guest]

I'm wary of attending any class that deals with religion, God, or whatever. Unfortunately it's a Christian world, especially so in the West, and it does tend to alienate Hindus and people of non-Abrahamic faith in this manner.

 

God can't be easily defined, no matter how much someone would like to define God. For one thing, few have actually seen or experienced God. And even fewer are clearer about what they've seen or experienced. And even fewer are those who actually are willing to talk about what they've felt or experienced for fear of ridicule.

 

In any case, how does the teacher dismiss it? Couldn't you argue that there is no simplistic definition of God or challenge the teacher to come up with a clear definition of God that would be unanimously approved by the class?

 

 

[Pankaja_Dasa 1]

 

 

I think that Athiests are addicted to being atheists. Anyway tell you the truth we don't really preach to them anyway, because even thought people profess to know God. They don't...

 

Krishna says in Gita out of millions of people hardly one knows me in Truth. So lets have a hard look who is athiest, or to use a better term for all who is a Neophyete devotee? Haribol

[maadhav 0]

to make/convert a stounch atheist instantly by holding his thumb for a moment is an extra ordinary ability.

 

the fact is that vivekanada did become a theist instantly.

no one had forced him no one had bribed him.

 

enve more remarkable than this is the ability of sahajananda swami. one of his disciple - an ordinary man - would touch a non believer by teh end of a small stick given to him by sahajananda, and insantly the peron touched would fall in trance and believe in sahajananda. this is recordd history.

 

it is okay if you or some one do not want to believe it.

i know these abilitis as historical facts.

 

i cannot lie about vivekananda just because he was an advaiti and i am a vaishnav. he was a vedic swami.

 

[nitaipoddar 0]

A few responses to the above engagements:

 

 

A reader stated that it is safe to assume something does not exist if you cannot prove its existence.

 

This is a very common misconception.

 

Logic favors the existence of god. Let me explain why it is infinitely safer to assume something exists rather than deny its existence:

 

First, understand how infinitely vast the universe is. When one says something does NOT exist anywhere in this universe, he is almost *certainly* wrong. Conversely, if one assumes that somewhere in the universe, something exists, then he is almost certainly right. The universe is just that vast. Remember the tale of the frog in the well who denied the existence of an ocean, because he was surrounded by stone.

 

 

Secondly, let me use a historical example:

 

700 years ago, in the western world, it was "assumed" the world was flat. No one had yet proven it was round, so people just naturally assumed it was flat.

 

It is far better to engage something intellectually than to deny its existence. Chances are, it exists.

 

 

 

Someone also noted that atheists are addicted to being an atheists. Atheism is a psychological defense. Most atheists are people who have been somehow emotionally hurt by some aspect of religion, and therefore shield themselves by denying the existence of god.

[Guest guest]

************Theists believe in a God.

 

Atheists, however, deny the existence of any god anywhere in the Universe. This is my definition of atheism. To deny the existence of the Judeochristian god is not atheism *by this definition* *************

 

No. The real difference is in the belief of what is the root of the Universe – the intelligent spirit or the matter? Atheists believe matter evolved into intelligence automatically whereas spiritualists believe that intelligent spirit is the source of all. Logic cannot really untangle it, since non-believers ask: where from the spirit comes? And there the arguments get stuck.

 

Madhava, as per my faith, is nearest to the truth – it is personal experience and dawn of grace. Till this grace, one remains the doer and cribs at everything outside oneself. But dawn of grace makes one realize as to who the doer is.

 

 

There may be many types of experience heralding the knowledge. Death or seeing a near one die is one such experience. I was an atheist till I saw my father die in front of my eyes. He was extremely agitated during the last seven days of life except just before dying when he became radiant and calm. Two questions started arousing me. First, what left him that even if I feed him glucose he will not turn a finger – though the body with the brain was still physically there. What is this life force? Second, I wondered why he became calm and happy at the moment of death? Doctor said that it was common since serotonin is released at such times. But who does it? Not the dead body definitely. Not for nothing Siva roams the samsan.

 

Who has the feeling “I am” in a body? A dead body can not say I. That suggests or even indicates that what says I in me is the life force which is subtle and not material.

 

Vivekananda’s experience is real as corroborated by experience of countless others who in Samadhi know the Agni nature of the self. One who knows Agni Deva, does not doubt ever.

 

 

But, it is still the personal experience and grace that makes the difference. Perception without attending wisdom cannot reveal the true.

 

 

However, a school of religious philosophy of India maintains that “In cases of Scripture conflicting with Perception, Scripture is not stronger. The True cannot be known through the Untrue”.

 

This is the problem. As if what we perceive through senses is faultless? Even spiritualists do this, though Vedas state that senses do not reach THAT. Logic has a limit. A report written by me will not understand me but I will understand the report. Who will realise Lord through senses?

 

[Guest guest]

***********Couldn't it be merely a product of brain chemistry and nothing more?****************

 

 

The brain chemistry is material but the change in such chemistry is spiritual.

 

Who thinks? Do you think that the brain thinks? Then in a dead body, why the brain does not think?