| Birth of the God and its early childhood: | | | | questions regarding the God, the soul, the heavens, |
| Learned ones say that in the early years of his birth, | | | | the sin, the evil etc. are such pseudo questions. |
| the man needed an answer to all the mystic | | | | What is the real question? |
| questions posed by the nature. Wherever he had no | | | | The God, the soul etc. are the state of existence. |
| reason he invented a super-reason. He called this | | | | People whenever refer to the existence they do it |
| super reason - the God. | | | | with the help of languages which they have |
| Subsequently this concept of God was coupled with | | | | developed during the course of their history. In the |
| the life, norms of life, moral conduct, social values, | | | | language of Inuit people the word corresponding to |
| rituals and performances. As the consciousness of | | | | the snow are many more time than the words in |
| man developed and he evolved a systematic study | | | | other European languages collectively. The words |
| of surroundings his this super reason and the | | | | related to the God in Indian languages are several |
| mysticism around it started being questioned. The | | | | times more than the words in any other language. So |
| super reason and all related mysticism were then | | | | when you translate an instance of snow from the |
| known as religion and this systematic study of | | | | Inuit language into some Sahara region language, |
| surroundings is known as science. The friction | | | | having almost no word for snow, then you may not |
| between the religion and the science has been the | | | | find a proper word to describe a particular instance |
| essential part of the human history of civilization. | | | | related to snow in that Inuit language. It reflects the |
| The God and its theory have always been under the | | | | limitations of the Sahara language and not the |
| attack not from the scientists only, which goes a | | | | limitation of the snow or that particular instance of |
| few hundred years back in time, but also from those | | | | snow. Similarly whenever any instance of |
| members of the society who claimed themselves to | | | | transcendental experience is told in worldly languages |
| be analytics and are as old as is the society and the | | | | and it does not convey the full meaning to the |
| concept of the God. They claim that they are as old | | | | listener then it shows the limitations of the worldly |
| as is the God. History calls them as atheists. | | | | languages and not that of the transcendental |
| A number of arguments were led and countered for | | | | experience. |
| the God. A number of battles were fought either as | | | | Whenever any description of the God is made and it |
| crusade or jihad in the name of God. The human | | | | creates a contradiction in terms then it may be a |
| history has never let the God, sit calmly and | | | | contradiction or limitation of the language and not |
| peacefully. | | | | that of the God. It must be understood that the |
| The fiercest attack by the science: | | | | languages generally fail to express the existence. |
| Prior to the development of the science the battle | | | | These languages are just ad hoc tools to deal with |
| between the theistic and atheistic groups were | | | | the factual position at the empirical level. "Dasein" in |
| mainly argumentative. These arguments were led | | | | Heidegger's philosophy, "chi" in Chinese tradition, |
| with varying sentence structures, different syntax | | | | "Braham" in Indian life are some such concepts which |
| and well developed syllogism. Their refutation was a | | | | cannot be translated in any other language of the |
| bit easy. When the science joined the fray it claimed | | | | world. It shows only a limitation of the other |
| to have changed the scenario in its entirety. | | | | languages of the world and not that of "Dasein" or |
| The science started dispelling the arguments of God | | | | "chi" or "Braham". It should be understood clearly. |
| on the basis of facts. The sciences broke the myth | | | | There fore when something is told about the God or |
| that the God is on the seventh sky. Science tracked | | | | the existence or the essence and it gives rise to a |
| the interstellar distances and told with factual | | | | contradicting situation then prior to making a final |
| correctness that there was a vacuum and other | | | | statements about the God or the existence or the |
| celestial bodies and not the layers of the skies. | | | | essence or the absolute, reconsideration must be |
| Religious people said that there was heaven and | | | | made to the languages in which it is told. That would |
| there were angles, enjoyment and many other things | | | | help in reformulating the real questions. |
| of leisurely life were there. The science declared that | | | | "Reason" is only a small faculty in the human brain: |
| there is not even a possibility of any life in the | | | | Human beings have various faculties in their brain. |
| universe except on the earth, at least not within a | | | | These are emotional, aesthetic, logical, practical, |
| radius of several million light years around our Milky | | | | verbal, spatial, temporal, interpersonal, affectional, |
| Way galaxy. | | | | social, motivational and a hundreds more. Modern |
| They said every thing is done by the God in this | | | | psychologists call them multiple intelligences. |
| world. The sciences told that there is a principle of | | | | One loves one's children, one's country and one's |
| causality. Provide the causes the effect will take | | | | values and there is no reason behind it. Some people |
| place. It is as certain as that. | | | | do not love their children, their country or values. This |
| Similarly other beliefs of the religion and the God | | | | is always a matter of choice. No argument, applicable |
| were dispelled by the science. | | | | to all can be given asking every body to choose the |
| The theists took a new stand. The said that science | | | | same option. This is one's choice to comprehend |
| has itself proposed a limit of knowledge. Beyond | | | | one's children, country or values. He has arrived at |
| which the science cannot go. They take such | | | | these conclusions subjectively. No objective |
| instances from the science itself. Heisenberg | | | | intervention is possible for shaping one's internal |
| proposed the uncertainty principle. He said whatever | | | | choice. Arguments are advanced objectively and |
| the techniques and methodologies are adopted there | | | | correspond to only those aspects of life which are |
| is a limit of precision with which the position and | | | | equally objective. But this opens a new window for |
| velocity of a sub-atomic particle can be calculated. | | | | those who argue about the God or no-God. |
| The sciences cannot go beyond that limit of precision. | | | | Argument is not everything. A lot of existence lies |
| Similarly Einstein said that there was the upper limit of | | | | beyond the domain of this 'argument'. Argument is |
| speed which can be attained. It was the speed | | | | only to see the harmony between two sentences. |
| (precisely it is called the velocity) of light. It shows | | | | Arguments do not survive beyond the words and |
| that the human efforts to explore the nature are | | | | sentences. Whatever is non verbal is non |
| constricted by the tools of the nature itself. No man, | | | | argumentative. Love, compassion, bliss, blessings and |
| if continuously remains busy in observing the universe | | | | prayer (in the heart) etc. are all examples of non |
| can "look" beyond an area of 70-80 light years of | | | | argumentative existence. Either you are in love for |
| universal existence. This is approximately the life span | | | | someone or you are not. No argument can be |
| of that man. Those who have read about the | | | | forwarded for being or not being in love. |
| dimensions of universe as billions of light years know | | | | The same is true for God. You may realize God or |
| that any period less than 100 light years is a very | | | | you may not. But it is all about you and nothing about |
| small distance. | | | | the God. Whenever you realize about the God it is |
| Is this nature so evolved (or made, as the theists | | | | non verbal grasping of things and it cannot be |
| argue) that it is not to reveal itself on the human | | | | injected into with the syringe of arguments. Those |
| minds? Theists say yes. They say it is only for God | | | | who lead arguments in favour of or against the God, |
| to know every thing and not for the humans who | | | | infact tell about their arguments, premises of their |
| are just one among all the creations in this universe. | | | | arguments. And there is nothing about the God. |
| They argue something like "apple argument" at the | | | | If the arguments are accepted for or against the |
| time of Edam's expulsion from the heaven. From their | | | | God then it will be tantamount to show that the |
| arguments it appears that God wants to maintain a | | | | human reason goes beyond and is all-encompassing |
| gap between his expertise and the human | | | | everything including the existence, validity, cause, |
| accessibility. | | | | effect and purpose of the God. The God, who by |
| Scientists find this argument against the proposition | | | | definition is all inclusive of the human beings, non |
| that the God is kind and has mercy and compassion | | | | human beings, animals, non living beings, celestial |
| for his creation. If he is compassionate enough then | | | | bodies, interstellar space, black holes, supernovas and |
| why he wants to keep the secrets of nature | | | | all those things which are not yet known and would |
| inaccessible from the human approach? | | | | be known in future through the discoveries of |
| Whatever be the next argument but mind it here | | | | science etc., is subservient to the human reason |
| that the arguments have re-entered the pre-scientific | | | | which has still to know the whole creation and its |
| era. They are again contending their validity based on | | | | amplitude. This then would be an anti-argument to |
| the logic, syntax and syllogism. So the sciences are | | | | the aforesaid argument that the God can be known |
| not so designed as to answer all the questions of | | | | through the human reason. Again it would go to the |
| theists. This is somewhat similar to the religion which | | | | domain of verbal communication. Again Wittgenstein |
| is so formulated that it is unable to answer all the | | | | would be referred and again the Vienna circle would |
| questions of atheists. | | | | come to check the verifiability and falsifiability of the |
| Then would this problem of God's existence be | | | | arguments. You would again be back to the point |
| solved again using those pre-scientific tools - | | | | zero and you would be standing trapped in a fallacy |
| arguments, logic, reason, sentences, syntaxes, | | | | of arguments. |
| syllogistic approaches? In the early twentieth century | | | | Arguments of reason about the God will do it again |
| Ludwig Wittgenstein wrote in his "Tractatus" that the | | | | and again. A contradiction is about to be encountered |
| language is like a tool box. The words have nothing | | | | always whenever you proceed to lead arguments for |
| inherent in them; their meaning largely depends on | | | | or against the God. Your reason has a limitation as |
| the way and in the manner which they are used in. | | | | Heisenberg and Einstein proposed the limitations |
| Later on the philosophers of Vienna circle followed | | | | about the scientific research. There is always a |
| him and put forward their principle that using the | | | | limitation on "knowing" the God. You can never know |
| ambiguities of languages we pose such questions | | | | the God. You can never know the God in a manner |
| which are neither verifiable nor falsifiable. | | | | as you know about your pencil or diary or dating |
| Philosophers of Vienna circle, infact explained that | | | | schedule. |
| when the question are posed away from the area of | | | | There is only one way out. If you cannot know the |
| existence and only in the intricacies of the language | | | | God then the way is to be the God. This will be the |
| these become pseudo questions. These questions | | | | subject matter of my next article titled as "The Post |
| have nothing to do with the problems of existence. | | | | Quantum God". |
| This is merely a verbal jugglery. Most of the | | | | |