If every particle of the universe, that's 10^89 or 10^90 particles, is a testament to the existence of God, does that amount to evidence of God?

 Evidence of God is not actually about evidence, it’s about epistemology - what counts as evidence.

Claiming there is or isn’t evidence of God skips two important steps.

  1. What is meant by ‘God’.
  2. What counts as evidence.

These are best answered though epistemology, and that’s the primary cause for disagreements because there is no universally accepted epistemic framework. Rather, there are competing ones, and without, at the very least, agreeing on a shared framework there can be no meaningful discussion.

Even when there is an agreed framework, for example, the scientific method or scripture/shastra there is still ample room for disagreement over what amounts to good evidence.

It would be more interesting to see questions and discussions on the nature, origin, and limits of knowledge before approaching evidence for something.

The core of Vedic epistemology is the enumeration of valid sources of knowledge. While different schools accept different numbers, the most comprehensive systems recognize six pramanas (which means valid knowledge).

  1. Pratyaksha (Perception): Direct knowledge gained through the senses. This is often considered the foundation, similar to empirical observation in science.
  2. Anumāna (Inference): Knowledge derived by reasoning from an observed sign to something not directly perceived, such as inferring fire from smoke. The Nyaya school specializes in refining this into a rigorous logic system.
  3. Upamana (Comparison/Analogy): Knowledge derived from similarity (e.g., learning that a zebra is like a horse with black and white stripes).
  4. Arthapatti (Postulation): Deriving knowledge from circumstances to resolve contradictions (e.g., observing a fat person stays fat even though he is never observed eating in the daytime, implying he is eating in the nighttime).
  5. Anupalabdhi (Non-perception): Valid knowledge of absence or negation (e.g., knowing there is no monkey on the table because if there was, we could perceive it, but we can’t).
  6. Shabda (Verbal Testimony): Reliable word or testimony, divided into human (experts) and superhuman (the Vedas).

Then it goes further to include Svatah Pramanyavada and Paratah Pramanyavada to determine when a particular pramana is valid, asking "Which instrument of knowledge is appropriate for this specific object of inquiry?"

Together these are the tools used to determine the validity of knowledge. Based on these, we can examine what is evidence for what. The absence of evidence according to one pramāṇa does not establish the absence of evidence according to another.

So according to one perspective, evidence of the universe is evidence of God; according to another it’s only evidence of a universe. So before discussing/arguing, settle the epistemic differences, because that’s the heart of the problem.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

What does Lord Krishna says about death in the Bhagavad Gita?

Lord Krishna says death both exists and doesn’t exist. Bhagavad Gita straddles the two worlds of the absolute and the relative. Krishna speaks transcendent truths but applies them in the temporal, mundane world. This is the role of a guru. He must reveal what is beyond sense perception but through the medium of sense perception. He must explain what reality is, using what is not reality. Krishna says that for the soul there is neither birth nor death. (BG. 2.20) Obviously, for matter, there is no death because it’s not alive. So the soul doesn’t die, and matter doesn’t die, and there are only these two energies in the material world (BG 7.4–5), so what is death?
Read more

Action in Inaction and Inaction in Action as per Bhagavad Gita

Under the laws of karma, every action carries a reaction. Only by having zero personal attachments and desires can one avoid reactions Theoretically, if we don’t perform any action there won’t be any reaction which is what we want right? But it’s not possible to live in this world and not perform any activity. People may sit silently in meditation trying to control and empty the mind, but this is still activity. They must eat something, breath, move around a little, so even though they may appear to be inactive, there are still reactions being chalked up, so they are not ‘inactive’ because reactions are accumulating. So actually they are performing actions even though aiming for inaction. This is the meaning of seeing action in inaction. Another person may be active, but their consciousness is completely devoid of any personal desires or interest in their activity so there will be no reaction. It’s as if they were inactive.
Read more

Difference between Shrimad Bhagavatam and Bhagavad Gita

Bhagavad Gita is mainly philosophical. It was spoken by Krishna Himself and is the conclusion of all the Upanisadas. In this unparalleled dialogue between Krishna and Arjuna everything that is important in life is mentioned. In itself it is complete but it is very concise and Krishna deals with one point after another without elaborating. It serves to orient a person so that they know who they are and what they should be doing. While Bhagavad Gita is only 700 verses, Srimad Bhagavatam is 18,000 verses, but the conclusion is the same. The difference between Bhagavatam and Bhagavad Gita is in the detail. For example, in Bhagavad Gita Krishna says: This material nature, which is one of My energies, is working under My direction, O son of Kunti, producing all moving and nonmoving beings. Under its rule this manifestation is created and annihilated again and again. Bg 9.10
Read more

What is human fallibility and redemption as per Bhagavad Gita?

A human is a spirit soul in a human body. The spirit soul or jivatma is always pure, but due to its tiny size it can fall into illusion and think it is its body. In its embodied state the jivatma is fallible. Once we are under the illusion that we are our ‘human’ body, we are restricted by the limitations of the body. We have imperfect senses, we make mistakes, we fall into deeper illusion, and we cheat. These are the basic failings of humans and the result of them is that we make errors. The theological concept of redemption is to be forgiven and freed from the consequences of these errors. It’s more commonly used in Abrahamic religions. In Christianity I believe Christ is understood to be the redeemer of all mankind by his death. Judaism and Islam don’t agree with that understanding but the core principle of being forgiven and freed from bondage is still present and dependent on the Lord’s mercy. The understanding in Sanatan Dharma is that the Lord can forgive and free the living ent...
Read more