Value Education and Spirituality 05 – The Spiritual Foundation of Values 3 – Three non-sectarian arguments for the existence of God

This is an AI-generated transcript and may contain some errors. Hare Krishna. Welcome back to the value education and spirituality series. We are discussing the spiritual foundation of values and therein we have discussed till now about how the end is not the end, soul is beyond the physical body, we are eternal souls and then we discussed about how karma helps us make sense of the senselessness of life by talking about how the cause-effect connection extends to causes before this life and expects coming after this life also. We will discuss more about karma when we talk about the King Dhritarashtra and his question to Krishna in the Mahabharata. At this stage, we will discuss about one more concept which is important in spiritual foundation which is implicit in our discussion in the last session, the concept of God itself. So, how do we look at the concept of God from the point of view of values? So, when we talk about God, what do we exactly mean? Some people may think of God as some image that is there in the temple. Some people may think of some person who claims to be incarnation of God and that person is considered to be God. Some people may have a conception of some fulgent white light as a God. So, different people may conceive of God in different ways. If we look at the wisdom traditions of the world, they often talk about God in a consistent way which is significantly different from the commonplace conceptions that come up in people’s minds whenever they hear the word God. Foundationally, God is defined as the source of everything. So, in the Vedic context, there is sarva-karana-karana, the cause of all causes. Now, what do we mean by cause of all causes? All of us have a cause, that is our parents. Parents have their cause, they are parents. And like that, we move backwards, backwards, backwards towards various causes. So, if we go backward, backward, backward, is there some place where this stops? So, wherever that stops, that is God. Now, from a purely point of view of logical definition, some people normally face the immediate question with respect to God as the cause of all causes. If God created everything, who created God? And that question may seem logical as long as we do not know the definition of God. If you are thinking of God just as some person or some image which we see in the temple, then naturally, who created this person or this image? That is the question which logically come up. But if we understand God from a definition point of view that that is the source of everything, then the question who created God itself becomes illogical. Because even from the point of view of pure logic, the source of everything cannot have a source. The source of everything cannot have a source. Why is that? Because the source of everything, by definition, is the source of everything. So, if it had some other source, then that thing would be the source of everything. And then that would actually be called the source of everything. So, the source of everything cannot have a source. Now, what does this, how do we make sense of this idea that something is the sourceless source of everything? Let us consider the concept of a novel. Now, in a novel, there are different characters, and we say, okay, this person is the son or daughter of this person and this person is the son of this other person. And now, within that, there are various characters, they have their interrelationships. And say a child reads a novel for the first time and likes the novel and thinks, okay, these are the different characters and likes the characters and wants to know more about it. And then comes to know that there is also an author. A child asks the question, I read the book, I did not find the author in the story of the book, where is the author? And the author is not in the story of the book. The author created the characters, the author created the storyline, the author created the timeline, the author created the interactions. But the author exists outside of all this in a different framework. So, similarly, the causeless cause of everything out exists outside the framework of cause and effect. So, to claim that God should also be within the causal of cause effect chain is to misunderstand the concept of God. So, from the point of view of law, as I said, from the point of view of pure logic, the causeless cause of everything cannot have a cause. The cause of everything has to be causeless. Now, so when tracing backward, backward, backward, the point at which we stop, that point is itself God. Now, if that point is God, then we may get the question, first of all, is there such a point like this? Is there a source of everything? Now, even science has more or less come to the conclusion that the universe that we see, the universe around us is not eternal. If the universe had been eternal, within science, there was a theory called at particular time called a steady state theory or the static universe theory, which had the idea, which proposed the idea or was based on the idea that the universe is the way it is now, that is how it was forever. Now, if the universe had always been the way it is now, then it would not require a creator. It was not created and it would not require a creator. But various scientific theories have more or less led to the conclusion that the universe has had a beginning, that the cosmic background effect, the noise that is heard from all directions, and the fact that the distant galaxies seem to be expanding. These point to the, these have led scientists also to the conclusion, the universe that we know, the universe around us has a beginning. So, it is expanding, that means it was close to that one particular place, and from there, it is expanded. Now, often, this idea of the universe having a beginning and thereby thereafter expanding, this is often equated with the Big Bang theory, that okay, there was something that exploded, and therefore, from that Big Bang, everything came about. Now, initially, when the Big Bang theory was proposed, actually, many atheists opposed the theory, because they said that actually accepting the Big Bang theory is like accepting the existence of God. Because if there is a beginning to the creation, then there has to be also a beginner. If there is a taller creation, which is starting from a particular point, then there has to be a creator who started it off. So, now, we are simply going from the point of view of logic. If we see in the world today that there is, there are things and there are beings, things like the table, like the mic, like the camera, these don’t have consciousness. Whereas beings like us have consciousness. So, there are things and there are beings. And that means within the world that we see around us, we see there is, there are unconscious things that are conscious beings. So, if we move backward, backward, backward, the source from which this has come, it should also have both these things, that there is matter and there is consciousness. And both of these are present at the beginning, that’s how they are present now. The idea that matter itself by some, there was only matter earlier, then the matter somehow produced consciousness, that is, it’s not empirically proven or is actually theoretically explainable. How matter can suddenly produce something that experiences matter is something which is neither experimentally nor theoretically demonstrated or explained. There is such a radical difference between matter and consciousness that the brain, even when it is analysed exhaustively, in its most exhaustive details, the brain is basically an information processing device. It is not an information experiencing device. Now, if a person gets a love letter, the love letter will be stored, say, gets it by mail. Now, the letters of the love letter are stored in the computer, but the computer does not become happy by reading that love letter. There has to be something else which experiences the consciousness. Just as a computer has a memory, the brain has a device for storing memory, the brain has a device for storing memory. Just as the computer has some devices for processing information, similarly, brain has certain capacities for processing information, certain devices, certain mechanisms. But just as the brain may store and process, the computer may store and process information, but the computer does not experience that information. Now, suppose we get some bad news, the computer, we get the bad news and we may become depressed, we may burst into tears on hearing the bad news. But the computer which has conveyed the news does not get that, of course, because it does not have the capacity to experience. Now, just as the computer is ultimately made of atoms and molecules, same way the brain is also made of atoms and molecules. So, therefore, now this whole logic can be used to also demonstrate the existence of soul or to point towards the existence of a soul, that the body is whole made of matter. And therefore, when we are conscious, and because atoms or subatomic particles themselves do not have any consciousness, so we can infer that the source of consciousness has to be elsewhere. Now, we are right now focussing on the concept of God. So, if we move backward, backward, backwards, right now we have matter and we have consciousness and there is neither theoretical or empirical support for the idea that matter transforms into consciousness, that matter develops consciousness. So, therefore, then if these two are present, and these two are fundamental irreducible facts of nature, and many eminent scientists have actually come to this conclusion that consciousness is a fundamental fact of nature. Nobel laureates like John Eccles said that consciousness does not come in the brain. T. H. Huxley, the pioneering scientist, he said that the third thing to it in the universe beyond matter and energy, so matter as things, energies which causes things to move about, but what is it that experiences those things in their motion, that is consciousness. He said there is a third thing in the universe called consciousness, which is different from matter and energy, and which is not a conceivable modification of either of them. So, therefore, this is matter and consciousness are present here. So, actually, they have to be present in the original source also. So, now, if again, from another logical perspective, if we see just matter existing on its own, and matter has no self-organising capacity. Therefore, what we are talking about is, before we go to this point, that the original starting point has to be having consciousness as a feature, because without consciousness as a feature, how would consciousness emerge in the subsequent creation? So, another way of understanding this is that if this is actually what I discussed right now, is in a simple way of phrasing the cosmological argument for the existence of God, that actually God is not just a conception of some people within existence, God is the precondition for all of existence. If there is no source for everything, then everything would be there. So, God is the precondition for everything, is the cosmological argument. Going further, there is another argument which can be used, it is called the design argument. If there were a huge lump of say cement, concrete, tiles, water, sand, all breaks and things like that put it up, pile together at a place, would it organise itself into a building? No. But if there were an intelligent person with consciousness and having the desire to construct a beautiful building, that person could arrange it all into a building. So, same way, if you look at the universe, its starting point, if it were just instantiated matter, matter, instantiated matter does not itself have any self-organising capacity and therefore, it would not organise itself. But if we had this particular, if we had a conscious being at the beginning, that conscious being could organise everything. So, we see that in the universe, things are orderly. Things do not happen by chance. So, for example, we know F is equal to g m1 m2 upon r square. There is a law of gravity and then every particle of matter attracts every other particle of matter by a force that is directly proportional to their masses and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between them. Now, Newton observed this law. He postulated this law, that means he observed what was happening and based on that he gave a mathematical formula that quantified that observation. But when Newton was asked by his peers, just Leibniz, what is the source, where does this gravity come from? He says that I am just giving a mathematical formulation for empirical phenomena. I am not going into ontological explanation. That means where does things come from? Where does this come from? So, what is it that makes matter follow these laws? An electron moves in its orbit at 186,000 per second. That basically is the speed of light. So, when the electron is whizzing around at that speed, what makes the electron go at that speed? Even mainstream science does not have any answer for this. Another significant point is if we say it is just chance, by chance it is happening like that. The problem with the chance explanation is that it is too unsustainable even from the point of view of probability that if somebody were playing a game of dice and while playing the game of dice, what was at stake was the person’s life itself. That means if the person lost the dice game, then that person would lose their life, lose life. And to win the dice, the person had to get 6. To win the game, the person has to get a 6. Now, once the person gets 6, you will say hey, you are lucky, you survived. Second time the person gets 6, you will say hey, you are really lucky. Third time 6, fourth time 6, fifth time 6. The person gets 6 a dozen times, then we naturally get the question, what is going on here? What is going on? Things do not make sense here. Something is fishy. So, if it is 60 times, 100 times, each time life is at stake and each time it is false 6, we will feel this is probably, is this dice rigged? Is it all sides are 6? That is why it is coming like this. This is a natural question. So, same way, if we look at the laws that exist within nature, then we observe that these laws in and of themselves are, have to be very precise. For example, there is a, within the nucleus, there is a nuclear strong force and there is a nuclear weak force. So, these refer to the forces within the nucleus. Say, there are electrons and protons, they are unlike, they attract each other. There are protons and protons, then they repel each other. So, their interaction produces forces. Now, the interaction between the strong force and the weak force, the relative values of these forces, they are so precise that if the values were a little bit here or a little bit there, the atom itself or most atoms, which most molecules subsequently form, matter as we know it would not be possible. And if matter as we know it is not possible, then life as we know it would also not be possible. And this is not just one. There is this phenomenon often called as cosmic tuning. And there are dozens and dozens and dozens of phenomena like this. So, if we say the earth is tilted at 23 and a half degrees in terms of its axis. So, now, why is the earth tilted at 23 and a half degrees? If it were tilted at some other location, angle, then what would have happened? We would not have had seasons. And if there is no seasons, there is no proper alternation between. The rain, basically the rain from the oceans would not come to the land. And then there will be life again, as we know it would not be possible. Within the universe, we see that the earth not only goes around the sun, it rotates on its own axis. Now, if the earth while rotating on its axis starts rotating too fast or too slow, it rotates at the exact speed. If it is rotating too fast, then the winds that would be generated by that would have too frequent tornadoes and storms. And again, life would be difficult, if not impossible. Or on the other hand, if we look at the earth as if it were moving too slowly, then again, the days would be too hot and the nights would become too cold and again life would be not sustainable. If we look at the solar system itself, we see that the planets are arranged in such a way that Jupiter is a large planet, several times larger than the earth. And actually in the solar system, according to modern cosmology, there are many projectiles within the universe. There are asteroids and other celestial projectiles just moving along through space. And often if they collide with the earth, they can cause a lot of damage. But because Jupiter is present not very far from the earth, Jupiter acts as a gravitational vacuum cleaner and it sucks in the projectiles and prevents them from disturbing the earth. Now, if Jupiter had been say in the position of Saturn, then that gravitational vacuum cleaning effect would not have been enough and more projectiles would still have come and they would have damaged the earth. We would have had cosmic projectiles hitting us and significant part of the earth would be, significant life would be repeatedly, sometimes irreversibly destroyed. Now, if Jupiter had been just instead of in the position of Saturn, if it had been the position of Mars, it would have been too close to the earth and the earth’s orbit and the gravitational phenomena that are there on the earth, they would have got disrupted. So, either way, Jupiter is positioned just at the right position. Similarly, the earth’s position also. If the earth had been in the position of Mars or the earth had been in the position of Venus, again there would be serious problems. So, the point again here is that if you look at the universe, everything is precisely designed for life as we know it to be possible. And that is why for life as we know it to be possible, each of these factors are like the fall of a dice, the fall of a dice. That means that that if we, if any of these factors had gone wrong, it would be that we would have died. So, if once, twice, thrice, the dice fall six, that is okay, we can say it is by chance, but it is dozens and dozens of times it is happening. And there are dozens and dozens of phenomena like this and science is discovering more and more of these phenomena. The universe is fine tuned for life. That is one way scientists put it. And naturally, the fine tuning begs the question, who is the fine tuner? So, the positions, the interactions and the mechanisms for interactions between various objects in the universe, these may be designed by laws, but those laws are so precise that they themselves having come by chance is a mathematical improbability. Therefore, it again points towards a being who is in charge. So, the cosmological argument talks about God as the source of everything. The design argument talks about God as in charge still. Now, beyond that, we will discuss one more argument, which is directly related with the concept of values. So, why are we discussing about God’s existence? We are discussing right now about the spiritual foundation of values and a fundamental spiritual reality is God. So, when we understand God’s existence, then as we discussed about karma earlier, the concept of karma makes sense because there is God who is giving us the reactions to our actions. There is a law, but that law is under the supervision of God. So, the third argument that we will discuss is called the moral argument. Moral argument means that all of us have an innate sense of morality, of certain things being right and certain things being wrong. Now, what the things are, what things we may consider right and what things we may consider wrong, that may vary depending on our cultural conditioning. So, in certain cultures, for example, certain things will be considered right and certain things may be considered wrong. But the concept of rightness and wrongness is there everywhere. If somebody says, you spoke rudely to me, and then you say, I was upset already and I just burst out at you. So, implicit in this understanding is such a conversation, this kind of conversation can happen dozens of times even in a day. So, implicit in this is, you spoke rudely to me, implicit in the understanding that rude behaviour is improper. And a second person is responding, oh, it’s improper, but there is a reason for this and I was upset because of this and I just burst out over here, although you are not to be blamed. So, the point is that there is some conception that there is certain kinds of behaviour that are right and certain kinds of behaviour that are not so right. And where does this concept of rightness come from? Now, if we look at animals, according to materialistic ideologies, we all are basically geared for survival. So, the whole purpose of existence is survival and survival of the fittest. That is the basic principle of existence. Now, this may be a fact of existence, but is it an ennobling, inspiring fact? When a strong animal, a predator attacks and consumes a weaker animal, a prey, if that is what happens in human society, does that inspire us? If a bully comes and smashes a weakling, is there anything inspiring about it? Not at all. It is often revolting. At least it is distressing. So, to the contrary, we will see that there is some other behaviour that we find inspiring and ennobling and that is not survival of the fittest, but sacrifice by the fittest. Sacrifice by the fittest. So, if a child or a young person is drowning and then somebody who is fit and healthy and has the capacity, that person may have no relationship with the person who is drowning, but that person just dives into the river or in the ocean, you know, there are strong currents, risk one’s life and goes in and takes out the child and saves the potential casualty, avoids the potential casualty, saves the person. What do you feel? Oh, you risk your life for doing such a thing. Now, if you see, this seems to be exactly contradictory. Now, that person does not know how to swim, that person is unfit. Let that person drown. But then our behaviour goes against that. And we do not think, hey, you did something wrong. You know, we all are meant to live survival for the fittest and you did something foolish. Now, what we feel is, oh, this person is so courageous, so noble and act for such a person to do. So, where does this feeling of compassion, of sacrifice, of doing good to others come, even if it causes some inconvenience or even danger for us, where does this come from? It actually comes, if we look at ourselves simply as materialistic creatures, then this just doesn’t make any sense. This sort of thing should not be there at all. Now, we should be driven just by our need for survival and sustenance and that’s all. There should be nothing else governing our existence or shaping our behaviour. But we do know that there are other factors. In fact, we have human society where people often go against this. If somebody is blind, we don’t say survival of the fittest. Let that person unfit, let that person struggle. It’s normal cultured behaviour that if a person is blind, that person helps the blind person cross the road. Same with people who are challenged in some other way. Some people may be physically handicapped, some people may be whatever in different ways. We think of this as the right thing to do. We don’t think this is some misfiring of the person’s genes, that the person is behaving like this. It’s ennobling behaviour, inspiring action. So, where does this desire to act right come from? If we were just materialistic creatures, this doesn’t make sense. So, the understanding is that actually that the supreme being who has created us has also given a compass within us. And this compass is not a geometrical compass, but it’s an ethical compass. And that ethical compass often it is referred to as conscience. You know, we are all internal, there’s a voice within us. In some people, the voice may be loud and clear. Some voice may be faint, almost to the point of being muted, but it is there. And this voice tells us, do this, don’t do this. And by understanding this, we can, by understanding this voice, by harmonising this voice, we can act in our best interest and also make the best contribution to others. So, this, the sense of morality, the specifics of morality may vary among different people, but the principle that is something right is something wrong. And the sense that doing the right thing is good, even if it involves some sacrifice and some trouble, that sense comes from the person who has made us, that is God. So, just as God has created us, he has created within us a compass, a guide, which provides, which acts as a compass for us, which tells us this is what should be done, this is not to be done. And when we try to live according to values, spirituality informs us it is not that we are trying to acquire something from without. Yes, we may learn some knowledge, we may get some inspiration from others, but actually values are something which are innate within us. We are just removing the rust, we are just removing the covering, we are removing extraneous influences so that our own inner compass becomes clear and functional and it becomes the shaping and guide in our life. So, thus by looking at these three non-sectarian arguments, these are not arguments which are based on belief in a particular religious tradition, we discussed the cosmological argument, the design argument, the moral argument, we can see how the conception of God as a person who is created, who is the source of the world, and who is in charge of the world, and who has created within us a sense of how we are to best contribute within the world. All this progressively gives a strong foundation for value-based living, that there is a certain way we function, which is ennobling, which is uplifting, and which is the way we are meant to be, and values guide us to live in that way. We will continue and discuss more about this sort of guidance for living according to values in our