- Reaction score
- Yellow Springs Ohio USA
Yes, g!d is beyond logic and rationalism and empirical proof. Experiential or existential proof works for me.
Any such evidence is unacceptable in science.proof of god is personal, krsna gives arjuna divine eyes!
Any such evidence is unacceptable in science.
I agree but logic and reason are the tools we have to work with!Yes, g!d is beyond logic and rationalism and empirical proof. Experiential or existential proof works for me.
No, we are more than mind or logic... the sp!rit that dwells in us, what we experience is the important thing, not what our monkey mind thinks about it. Kant and Hegel ultimately failed in their quest to logically or rationally comprehend the d!vine (see Star of Redemption).
The process is a lot like Godel's incompleteness theorem: for g!d to be empirically knowable, h! would have to be of the physical universe... sh! is not, but rather "beyond". Saying so is like saying "I can feel your pain", plainly a meaningless statement. If I felt your pain (literally), it would be my pain and not yours anymore.
"How can the unlimited be known by the limited? if the unlimited cannot be known by the limited then it is not unlimited", indeed experience is the important thing but logic & reason can help us toward that experience.
Does bolding type bring more gravity to our statements????? If so just think what font size could do!
That is the Hare-Krishna translation of Bhagawad-Gita 5:16
"Jñānena tu tad ajñānaḿ, yeshāḿ nāshitam ātmanaḥ;
teshām āditya-vaj jñānaḿ, prakāshayati tat param."
jñānena — by knowledge; tu — but; tat — that; ajñānam — nescience; yeṣām — whose; nāśitam — is destroyed; ātmanaḥ — of the living entity; teṣām — their; āditya-vat — like the rising sun; jñānam — knowledge; prakāśayati — discloses; tat param — Kṛṣṇa consciousness.
But by knowledge that ignorance, of (whose) the living entity is destroyed; their sun-like knowledge lightens that ultimate.
Please note that 'tat param' is 'Kṛishṇa consciousness' only for the Hare-Krishnas. It is 'scientific knowledge of the universe' for me in a secular translation.
Don't mind me Carrots. Just my weird sense of silliness kicking in.
As I understand modern religions, proof of God is an oxymoron. The very point of God is that he is accepted by faith. No proof required, or indeed even desired. Though we mortals would wish that we could somehow generate some sort of proof, it is doomed to failure.
It was to emphasize the difference in translation. I kept the size same. I am normally against bolding.Does bolding type bring more gravity to our statements????? If so just think what font size could do!
All three are valid ways of understanding (divine or otherwise), I do not deny that... that's my understanding based on my experience with bhakti yoga.