Imagination with respect to abstract idea about many things is not possible for everyone. Imagination of very very few in the world have changed the world for ever by giving so many gadgets which we use in daily life. Mobile , TV are used by almost 90% population based on Quantum Mechanics & General Theory of Relativity which are in itself are in contradiction at fundamental level. In reality hardly 99.99% people do not understand and even those who are graduate, postgraduate , doctorate also do not understand. 99% people can not even verbally define God even according to their own religious point of view but think they have realised God.
In faith you applies your inner concept learnt by external events since faith is learning part which is not universal in nature . And faith is depends upon the type of knowledge you getting in .
Must say. I never thought I would find a channel/person on Social media, from India, who would openly call himself/herself as "Atheist" (variation incl, though I dont prefer that term), without falling for usual tropes associated with atheism. Most folks, atleast the ones I have come across in India (to some extent in outside), who call themselves atheists usually fall into the category of 1. "God haters" - Due to few incidents which they would have endured that they wish they would not have 2. "Cool name chasers" - Its hip-to-be kinda folks. Mostly rebels without a cause 3. "Inventions & Discoveries, means no God" or "Hasty conclusion driven" folks 4. "Responsibility deniers" But its rare to find people who have genuinely spent time to think, analyze, question, read, gain perspectives to define reality as seen and perceived. The best way, as you already said in this video, is to always start with definitions. A debate almost always starts based on a sentence/statement that becomes the assumption based on which further arguments are made. Rarely it so happens, that the opening statement is broken down for its definitions and hence churning out assumptions around those definitions. Kudos to all the efforts put in. Based on your videos I have watched so far, I can see that you must be acquainted with evolution of philosophy in the west. We, in India, though had a great start, still have a long way to go in producing greater works. Good to see you being part of that. Maybe we can meet online for a talk some day, but I cannot think of a topic yet. But I am just throwing this one (Maybe you can share your views in a solo video) Topic: Indians have always claimed that "Charvak" school was one of the early schools of atheism in India. "Buddhism" is also seen as atheistic in principle. Yet, all these schools, either didnt survive or found their home outside of India. On the other hand, in the west, atheism has had a relatively more organic growth through Sartre and others, that has led it to the maturity it enjoys today. If one has to echo these lines of thought in India, they will easily be branded "brown sepoy" or derogatory equivalent terms. If atheism were to flourish from current day "Hinduism", what is the most convincing methodology in your opinion? You can say, just question the nature of everything you believe in. But you and I already know, most people would not comprehend skepticism in the same spirit we might. IMO, Buddhism was a key philosophical change, when taken further would have taken this path. But then, Buddha was made an Avatar and the who concept of Anatman got lost in Hindu minds. I can keep going on, but would like to see your take on how you see Atheism's future in our country
Thanks for the kind words Vishwas. I have actually made a series of videos about these matters on my main channel ua-cam.com/users/vimoh and I agree that the way atheism is "done" by many in India is often problematic. Feel free to join the live stream any time and we can have a talk.
In order to prove or disprove God, we first have to decide ONE definition for God that is common like a law of physics. The problem with the definition of God is that it changes with religions and followers. Therefore, disproving God becomes challenging as it has no set definition.
I agree that the answer to "do u know if God exists?" is I don't know. But you cannot answer "I don't know" to the question "do you believe that God exists" because you either believe or you don't. So we would have to respond "I don't believe God exists" just like we would say "I don't believe Santaclause exists".
But how can we believe or not believe in something that we don't even know exists. You can say that you do not have faith in the religion based gods and state your reason.
@Vimoh I feel your position is comprising. If we do not know whether god exists or not then by the same logic we do not know whether Santa Claus, Unicorn or mermaid exists or not. Anybody comes up with any fantasy, we have to confess we don't know because nobody can disprove these things. Though it is a tight or rigorous philosophical position but for all practical purposes ( while arguing with a common person ) we can say god does not exist as there are no proofs of it and we do not need god to explain our existence as it (existence of the creator god ) creates logical fallacy.
But there is one thing common amongst all the definitions of God- sacredness and divinity. I say this because across all cultures God has been seen as a powerful, supernatural, sacred and divine being filled with legends and folklore about their unimaginable feats. They are also associated with creation and hence I believe there are some fundamental similarities between Gods and there can be a bottom line to their definition. Also keeping in mind, definitions are human constructs and throughout history they have existed as flawed pieces of information that human beings gathered through their observations. They have changed/amended over time. For example, Democracy in ancient Greece was significantly different from what it is now. But then there are few foundational principles which can be identified in both ancient Greece version of Democracy and democracy as we know it today. And as human beings we are keen on adding adjectives to such nouns by calling it primitive-democracy or proto-democracy. So while I agree that definitions of God might vary but then the sacredness or divinity is something which is common across all cultures and civilizations. So, I believe God doesn't exist because all the unimaginable feats often associated with Gods like Poseidon (causing earthquakes) or Ra (sailing a ship across the earth causing sunrise and sunset) or Vishnu (taking avatar and creating a bridge which connects India and Sri Lanka) were not actually associated with them because Science on the basis of evidence and observations points in the other direction. We know now with conclusive proofs that it is not Poseidon who caused Earthquakes, it was not Ra who sailed in a ship around the earth to cause Sunrise and sun set and it was not Vishnu's avatar who created the setusamudram. Also when atheists say that there is no God, it is never a claim. Why do we see it as claim, when the context dictates otherwise? At best, in my humble opinion it can be seen as a counter to the existing claim. If someone has already claimed that God exists and it has been claimed since the cradle of civilization, the onus always lies on them to prove the existence not on the person who denies the existence of God. Because proof for denial of existence of something which has never been proved to exist, is something which doesn't make any sense. Also there is a practical limitation to proofs that we as rational humans can furnish. Imagine this, you attend a University and that University gives you degrees and certificates which you use for admission to higher institution. That itself is a proof of your education. You're not made to go to all the other universities which you never attended to ask for a proof in form of a written document which states "They never attended our institution". It will be both logically and practically implausible. In our everyday living we furnish proofs of existence and not of non existence. That is in my opinion an inherent limitation on proofs that are practically possible. Somewhere I don't agree with the onus shifting to Atheists when they "claim" that God does not exist. Because if we do so, we are devoid of context in which that "claim" was made. Making atheists furnish proof of non existence of God is like making them furnish proof of non existence of a Unicorn. And in both of these examples the fact remains the same that those who claimed the existence of God and Unicorns never furnished conclusive proof for the same. Would like to know your views on this.
Deism doesn't include claims of divinity and sacredness. Nor does demon worship, fairies, spirits and mystical dwarves. Burden of proof is on anyone who makes a claim. If theists do it, they have it. If atheists do it, they have it.
@@vimohlive First, Deism did include claims of divinity and sacred worshipping when it was formed. And today Diesm cannot be limited to one set of beliefs. And there is still the point of unimaginable feats by their "God".They do believe in a creator. With demon worshippers. I would rather say it is very vague to comprehend what do you mean by them? Is it limited to Satanism or does it include other occult practices as well? So I will reserve my comment on that for now. Coming to Spirits, again I won't say much because it is unclear whether we are talking about veneration of the dead or spirits in nature such as Kami? Worshippers of the Fairies do have sacred symbols which are attached to divinity. All of them still full with legends of unimaginable feats. Further, when you say atheists have a "claim", when they say God doesn't exist, you take it out of context because it is not a claim. It is a response to those who claim something but never provide the proof of it. The lack of proof of existence in itself is a "presumed" proof for non existence. And it remains so till the presumption in favour of non existence is reversed. And there is only one way to do it is by furnishing the proof of existence. I say this because that's how courts work while judging a case. They start with a presumption in favour to guide the arguments and reach a decision.
@@FactaClaus Response to a claim is rejection of the claim. And when I reject the claim that god exists, I land on atheism. But claiming that there are no gods is only applicable to specific claims of god. A blanket statement about gods not existing is very much a truth claim. Some people may claim god is an alien. Some do claim a deistic god exists that isn't sacred or worthy of worship. Some day god is the universe itself. In each such case, the argument must be subjected to the same standards we use for any truth claim. Burden of proof applies to all truth claims.
I had a doubt If we say that God is non existent then we are claiming that science will have answers to every question and of course that's a claim that never can be made
No. When we say god is non-existent we are not saying anything about science. In fact, I don't even make the claim that "god is non-existent". I simply say "there is no evidence for god".
There are two concepts for god, a personal one and a non-personal one. You can easily discard the personal gods that cover most religions by testing the religious claims. Hence you can call yourself an atheist under such a definition of god. A non-personal god however can niether be proved nor disproved. We simply don't know if all matter came into existence on its own or something created it. Under this definition, one cannot objectively claim to be an atheist. Otherwise you are assuming without any evidence. The position of agnosticism is more feasible here, at least till we know more about the nature of reality. For this second kind of god, even Carl Sagan said: "An atheist is someone who is certain that God does not exist, someone who has compelling evidence against the existence of God. I know of no such compelling evidence. Because God can be relegated to remote times and places and to ultimate causes, we would have to know a great deal more about the universe than we do know to be sure that no such God exists."
Carl Sagan, like Neil deGrasse Tyson to some extent, was against a certain variety of atheism. I am too. I am an Agnostic Atheist. As for impersonal gods, the word god carries implications. If your claim is that this impersonal god is without consciousness, why use the word god? Why not simply say universe? If you want to give this impersonal god consciousness, then you are still anthropomorphizing them somewhat. And there is no reason to believe in that idea.
Imagination with respect to abstract idea about many things is not possible for everyone. Imagination of very very few in the world have changed the world for ever by giving so many gadgets which we use in daily life. Mobile , TV are used by almost 90% population based on Quantum Mechanics & General Theory of Relativity which are in itself are in contradiction at fundamental level. In reality hardly 99.99% people do not understand and even those who are graduate, postgraduate , doctorate also do not understand.
99% people can not even verbally define God even according to their own religious point of view but think they have realised God.
Exactly, this is the difference between faith and knowledge.
In faith you applies your inner concept learnt by external events since faith is learning part which is not universal in nature . And faith is depends upon the type of knowledge you getting in .
Must say. I never thought I would find a channel/person on Social media, from India, who would openly call himself/herself as "Atheist" (variation incl, though I dont prefer that term), without falling for usual tropes associated with atheism.
Most folks, atleast the ones I have come across in India (to some extent in outside), who call themselves atheists usually fall into the category of
1. "God haters" - Due to few incidents which they would have endured that they wish they would not have
2. "Cool name chasers" - Its hip-to-be kinda folks. Mostly rebels without a cause
3. "Inventions & Discoveries, means no God" or "Hasty conclusion driven" folks
4. "Responsibility deniers"
But its rare to find people who have genuinely spent time to think, analyze, question, read, gain perspectives to define reality as seen and perceived. The best way, as you already said in this video, is to always start with definitions. A debate almost always starts based on a sentence/statement that becomes the assumption based on which further arguments are made. Rarely it so happens, that the opening statement is broken down for its definitions and hence churning out assumptions around those definitions.
Kudos to all the efforts put in. Based on your videos I have watched so far, I can see that you must be acquainted with evolution of philosophy in the west. We, in India, though had a great start, still have a long way to go in producing greater works. Good to see you being part of that.
Maybe we can meet online for a talk some day, but I cannot think of a topic yet. But I am just throwing this one (Maybe you can share your views in a solo video)
Topic: Indians have always claimed that "Charvak" school was one of the early schools of atheism in India. "Buddhism" is also seen as atheistic in principle. Yet, all these schools, either didnt survive or found their home outside of India. On the other hand, in the west, atheism has had a relatively more organic growth through Sartre and others, that has led it to the maturity it enjoys today. If one has to echo these lines of thought in India, they will easily be branded "brown sepoy" or derogatory equivalent terms. If atheism were to flourish from current day "Hinduism", what is the most convincing methodology in your opinion? You can say, just question the nature of everything you believe in. But you and I already know, most people would not comprehend skepticism in the same spirit we might. IMO, Buddhism was a key philosophical change, when taken further would have taken this path. But then, Buddha was made an Avatar and the who concept of Anatman got lost in Hindu minds. I can keep going on, but would like to see your take on how you see Atheism's future in our country
Thanks for the kind words Vishwas. I have actually made a series of videos about these matters on my main channel ua-cam.com/users/vimoh and I agree that the way atheism is "done" by many in India is often problematic. Feel free to join the live stream any time and we can have a talk.
@@vimohlive Happy to check them out!
In order to prove or disprove God, we first have to decide ONE definition for God that is common like a law of physics. The problem with the definition of God is that it changes with religions and followers. Therefore, disproving God becomes challenging as it has no set definition.
Yes. Which is why it is wiser to take claims into consideration as they come.
Take the definition of brahman of Advait Vedanta as the definition of God and disprove it.
@@shrutisarangi8387 vimoh already did it
I agree that the answer to "do u know if God exists?" is I don't know. But you cannot answer "I don't know" to the question "do you believe that God exists" because you either believe or you don't. So we would have to respond "I don't believe God exists" just like we would say "I don't believe Santaclause exists".
But how can we believe or not believe in something that we don't even know exists. You can say that you do not have faith in the religion based gods and state your reason.
The agreement ends with your authoritarian source wants you to "get rid" of other people.
@Vimoh I feel your position is comprising. If we do not know whether god exists or not then by the same logic we do not know whether Santa Claus, Unicorn or mermaid exists or not. Anybody comes up with any fantasy, we have to confess we don't know because nobody can disprove these things. Though it is a tight or rigorous philosophical position but for all practical purposes ( while arguing with a common person ) we can say god does not exist as there are no proofs of it and we do not need god to explain our existence as it (existence of the creator god ) creates logical fallacy.
The problem is we can never say "i know"
But there is one thing common amongst all the definitions of God- sacredness and divinity. I say this because across all cultures God has been seen as a powerful, supernatural, sacred and divine being filled with legends and folklore about their unimaginable feats. They are also associated with creation and hence I believe there are some fundamental similarities between Gods and there can be a bottom line to their definition. Also keeping in mind, definitions are human constructs and throughout history they have existed as flawed pieces of information that human beings gathered through their observations. They have changed/amended over time. For example, Democracy in ancient Greece was significantly different from what it is now. But then there are few foundational principles which can be identified in both ancient Greece version of Democracy and democracy as we know it today. And as human beings we are keen on adding adjectives to such nouns by calling it primitive-democracy or proto-democracy.
So while I agree that definitions of God might vary but then the sacredness or divinity is something which is common across all cultures and civilizations.
So, I believe God doesn't exist because all the unimaginable feats often associated with Gods like Poseidon (causing earthquakes) or Ra (sailing a ship across the earth causing sunrise and sunset) or Vishnu (taking avatar and creating a bridge which connects India and Sri Lanka) were not actually associated with them because Science on the basis of evidence and observations points in the other direction. We know now with conclusive proofs that it is not Poseidon who caused Earthquakes, it was not Ra who sailed in a ship around the earth to cause Sunrise and sun set and it was not Vishnu's avatar who created the setusamudram.
Also when atheists say that there is no God, it is never a claim. Why do we see it as claim, when the context dictates otherwise? At best, in my humble opinion it can be seen as a counter to the existing claim. If someone has already claimed that God exists and it has been claimed since the cradle of civilization, the onus always lies on them to prove the existence not on the person who denies the existence of God. Because proof for denial of existence of something which has never been proved to exist, is something which doesn't make any sense.
Also there is a practical limitation to proofs that we as rational humans can furnish. Imagine this, you attend a University and that University gives you degrees and certificates which you use for admission to higher institution. That itself is a proof of your education. You're not made to go to all the other universities which you never attended to ask for a proof in form of a written document which states "They never attended our institution". It will be both logically and practically implausible. In our everyday living we furnish proofs of existence and not of non existence. That is in my opinion an inherent limitation on proofs that are practically possible.
Somewhere I don't agree with the onus shifting to Atheists when they "claim" that God does not exist. Because if we do so, we are devoid of context in which that "claim" was made. Making atheists furnish proof of non existence of God is like making them furnish proof of non existence of a Unicorn. And in both of these examples the fact remains the same that those who claimed the existence of God and Unicorns never furnished conclusive proof for the same.
Would like to know your views on this.
Deism doesn't include claims of divinity and sacredness. Nor does demon worship, fairies, spirits and mystical dwarves. Burden of proof is on anyone who makes a claim. If theists do it, they have it. If atheists do it, they have it.
@@vimohlive First, Deism did include claims of divinity and sacred worshipping when it was formed. And today Diesm cannot be limited to one set of beliefs. And there is still the point of unimaginable feats by their "God".They do believe in a creator. With demon worshippers. I would rather say it is very vague to comprehend what do you mean by them? Is it limited to Satanism or does it include other occult practices as well? So I will reserve my comment on that for now. Coming to Spirits, again I won't say much because it is unclear whether we are talking about veneration of the dead or spirits in nature such as Kami? Worshippers of the Fairies do have sacred symbols which are attached to divinity. All of them still full with legends of unimaginable feats.
Further, when you say atheists have a "claim", when they say God doesn't exist, you take it out of context because it is not a claim. It is a response to those who claim something but never provide the proof of it. The lack of proof of existence in itself is a "presumed" proof for non existence. And it remains so till the presumption in favour of non existence is reversed. And there is only one way to do it is by furnishing the proof of existence. I say this because that's how courts work while judging a case. They start with a presumption in favour to guide the arguments and reach a decision.
@@FactaClaus Response to a claim is rejection of the claim. And when I reject the claim that god exists, I land on atheism. But claiming that there are no gods is only applicable to specific claims of god. A blanket statement about gods not existing is very much a truth claim. Some people may claim god is an alien. Some do claim a deistic god exists that isn't sacred or worthy of worship. Some day god is the universe itself. In each such case, the argument must be subjected to the same standards we use for any truth claim. Burden of proof applies to all truth claims.
I like your analogy about the university degree
I had a doubt
If we say that God is non existent then we are claiming that science will have answers to every question and of course that's a claim that never can be made
No. When we say god is non-existent we are not saying anything about science. In fact, I don't even make the claim that "god is non-existent". I simply say "there is no evidence for god".
Vikash bhai homework kro phle.......... Apki bateein khud ko hi contradict kr rhi hai
that why yaha aata hu..
There are two concepts for god, a personal one and a non-personal one.
You can easily discard the personal gods that cover most religions by testing the religious claims. Hence you can call yourself an atheist under such a definition of god.
A non-personal god however can niether be proved nor disproved. We simply don't know if all matter came into existence on its own or something created it. Under this definition, one cannot objectively claim to be an atheist. Otherwise you are assuming without any evidence. The position of agnosticism is more feasible here, at least till we know more about the nature of reality.
For this second kind of god, even Carl Sagan said:
"An atheist is someone who is certain that God does not exist, someone who has compelling evidence against the existence of God. I know of no such compelling evidence. Because God can be relegated to remote times and places and to ultimate causes, we would have to know a great deal more about the universe than we do know to be sure that no such God exists."
Carl Sagan, like Neil deGrasse Tyson to some extent, was against a certain variety of atheism. I am too. I am an Agnostic Atheist.
As for impersonal gods, the word god carries implications. If your claim is that this impersonal god is without consciousness, why use the word god? Why not simply say universe? If you want to give this impersonal god consciousness, then you are still anthropomorphizing them somewhat. And there is no reason to believe in that idea.