CHAPTER 5 PROOFS FOR THE EXISTENCE OF GOD I Introductory Remark We have seen that according to Sri Svaminarayana,out oi the three methods of knowing reality it is only intuition that helps us in knowing the nature of the Ultimate Reality. Accepting the principle that * only like can know like,* Sri svaminarayana has written that parabrahman or God which is the Ultimate Reality can be known neither through sense 1 organs, nor through mind because parabrahman is beyond maya; whereas our psycho-physical organism, through which our 2 sense and mind function, is the product of mayas Thus the knowledge of God is to be derived from personal intuitive experience of God. In the Vacanamrta Sri Svaminarayana has repeatedly said th>t he himself had the mystical experience of God - realization. He also 3 claimed to be constantly in touch with God. T$us drl Svaminarayana*s conception of God is based on his own personal direct experience..ygcipgiggl..basis of the proofs for the Existence of God ----------------- -------- As God can be known only through intuitive experience,
Sri Svaminarayana has not at all tried to prove the existence of God. From what we have said with regard to the importance 4 of faith in human life, it is clear that all those who do not have the mystical experience of God realization can accept God only on the basis of faith. From this it {follows that those who try to prove the existence of God I must be believing in God, prior to their argumentationṅ St. Thomas has recognized this fact. Ift the very ToegimjLng of his discussion of the proofs for the existence of God he has clearly admitted this : " I speak of a twofold truth of divine things... In support of this kind of truth certain probable arguments must be adduced for ithe practice and help of^the faithful, but not for the conviction of the opponents, because the very insufficiency of these arguments would rather confirm them in their error if they thought that we assented to the truth of faith 5 on account of such weak reasonings^" Thus regarding the nature of the proofs for the existence of,.god Erich Frank has rightly observed; " Fundamentally, they all presuppose faith; in fact, they merely transpose the. 6 act of faith into medium of rational thinking." Ill Unconvincing Character of the Metaphysical and Moral Irguments for the Existence of God As the attempt to prove the existence of God presupposes faith, it is obvious that the man who does
>74 not have faith in God is not likely to be convinced by any at* proof that may be given for the existence of God. All the ^ arguments for the existence of God are essentially unconvincing. That is the reason why they admit of being severely criticised* Kant*s criticism of the traditional arguments for the existence of God are very well-known. The fact that even contemporary thinkers continue to argue against the cogency of these arguments brings it out very clearly that the cohviction for the existence of God is never going to be created purely on the basis of these artificial and complicated argumentations To illustrate our point, we shall refer to some of the representative criticisms of these arguments made by contemporary writers. Dr. Coll ingwood. has pointed out, n What the ontological argument proves is not that because our idea of God is an idea id quo maius cogitari nequit. therefore God exist, but that because our idea of God is an idea id quo maius cogitari nequit. we stand committed to belief in Godfs 7 existence. Thus for an unbeliever the ontological argument * completely fails to prove that, in the idiom of Anselm, God exists in re as well as in intellectus Commenting on the cosmological argument Bertrand Russell has written : The cosmological argument... has a formal vice, in that it starts from finite existence
as its datum and... proceed to infer an existence which is not contingent. But as the premise is contingent the 8 conclusion also must be contingent, According to Russell, the argument from design is 9 * more palpably inadequate than any of the others, because for him, our human world ( is a world ) of cruelty and injustice and war... I find for my part untruth, injustice and uncharitable ness and ugliness pursued not only in fact 10 but as ideas, As A.E. Taylor has observed it may be, " probably true to say that it is primarily due to Kantfs influence that in our time, it is mainly upon the moral argument that 11 popular theistic philosophy continues to base itself, But we can say with reference to this that it is quite possible to conceive that the postulation of ethical v autonomy may be used against the existence of God rather than for it. Thus we find that neither metaphysical nor Moral arguments are capable of cogently proving the existence of God. A genuine proof must createjconvietion in minds hitherto unconvinced. This quality of communicating i conviction is completely missing in the proof for the existence of God, because they start with the assumption * of their conclusion. They are thus circular. As Austin Farrer has pointed out, God*s existence... cannot be
-76- demo ns tr a ted. in the ordinary sense; for no principle can be found for proof... tp argue from effects is to begin j by positing the divine activity and the divine Agent, and 12 begs the question * IV The Justification for not Attempting to prove the Existence of God That Sri s^mina ray ana was fully justified in not attempting to prove the existence of God will be clear by the following passage from Kierkegaard s " And how does God s existence emerge from the proof? Does it follow straightway without any breach of continuity? Or have we not here an analogy to the behaviour of these toys, the little Cartesian dolls. As soon as I let go of the doll it stands on its head. As soon as I let it go - I must therefore let it go. So also with the proof for God s existence, as long as I keep my hold on the proof, i.e. continue to demonstrate, the existence does not come out, if for no other reason than that I am engaged in proving 13 it; but when I let the proof go the existence is there " In a similar vein Newman has written that the being of God is " as certain to me as the certainty of my own existence, though when I try to put the grounds of that certainty into logical shape I find a difficulty in doing 14 so in mood and figure to my satisfaction "
«77. V A proved God is no God Thus we find that the procedure of proving the existence of God is confronted with a dilemma. Those who believe in God do not need to prove the existence of God and those who do not believe in God are by no means convinced by the proof for the existence of God. Perhaps for this t \ reason, Sri Svaminarayana has avoided any attempt to prove the existence of God. It is true that S^i svaminarayana has emphasised the regularity and uniformity that is observable in nature. From this it may seem that he has tried to formulate the argument from design. But this is really f - not the case, Sri Svaminarayana1s reference to the regularity and uniformity of nature is intended to show that God. ( whose existence is directly known ) must be one and a 15 Wise One Without a second. Thus Sri Svaminarayana has not at all tried to prove the existence of God. Therefore, we can say that from the standpoint of Svaminarayanism in the words of Karl Jaspers, " A proved God is no &od«t t _ Sri Svaminarayana would thus agree with Karl Barth in his remark that, " A God who could be known otherwise than r through Himself, i.e. otherwise than through His revelation of Himself, would have already betrayed, eo ipso, that
78 17 he was not the or and rily one and so was not God.'* It is hardly necessary to note that neither God nor the proofs for His existence presented any problem to Sri svaminarayana, because as we have seen* he was constantly feeling His presence» Prof. De Burgh has observed that, " we can no more prove God s existence than we can prove that of our fellow men j Our knowledge of the one as of the 18 other is founded on the experience of their presence " We can see that this observation is literally acceptable to Svaminarayanism. VI The possibility of Describing the Nature of God in Rational Terms Though Sri Svaminarayana has not attempted to prove the existence of God, he has tried to describe the nature of God in rational terms. We have seen that Sri Svaminarayana has emphasised ggp- the complementary character of the 18 different methods of knowing. Svaminarayanism cannot, /therefore, consistently admit any antagonism between \ mysticism and logic. Dr. Radhakrishnan has remarked^ The function of reasoning is not so much proof as the 20 determination of an indeterminate object, Sri Svaminarayana has accepted this viewpoint as far as his treatment of the problem of God is concerned. He has not tried to prove
-79- * G d»t»ut he has definitely tried to describe the nature of God revealed in his intuitive experience. We shall confine our^selves to this description in the next five chapters.