SV: creation of human kind

Erik Hoogcarspel jehms at KABELFOON.NL
Thu Dec 24 16:45:00 UTC 1998

Dear Ashish

Op woensdag, 23-dec-98 schreef Ashish Chandra:

AC> Which science has been able to prove the non-existence of God ? Which
AC> science has actually been able to define God ? Have you heard of
AC> Yajnavalkya Smriti ? Yajnavalkya in his dialogue with his wife Maitreyi
AC> describes Aatman(Brahma(God)) as Net Neti. (Not this, Not this).
AC> is an experience, not an object of perception that can be known.

you seem to be a victim of the theosofical fallacy, according to which God
is a name for "THE universal metaphysical being". I think this is a fallacy
mainly for two reasons. 1) THE universal metaphysical being doesn't exist,
because all metaphysics are stories and all are different. (there is no
universal music either). 2) in order to be a being you have to be spoken
and written about, that means that you have certain qualities and miss
others. If you are a person and not a thing you have a unique identity. God
is the central person of the chrsitian bible. This bible is his passport,
his identity. God is not Zeus, Wodan or Ziva, and certainly not the
unpersonal brahman from the unpaniZads, which resembles much more a kind of
natural substance like energy or electricity.
There are very good reasons to doubt the existance of God. A few of them
1) there's no place for him in the universe
2) there's no trace of any divine activity
3) the world shows it's not the result of an intelligent creator, because
nature is a mess
4) The suffering in the world shows that there's no benevolent being who has
any influence
5) the concept of God is logically impossible


  Erik Hoogcarspel           <    jehms at     ><
Boerhaaveln 99b     >
                             <    tl+31.(0)104157097    ><       3112 LE
Schiedam    >
                             <    fx+31.(0)842113137    ><       Holland


More information about the INDOLOGY mailing list