We have 6 guests and no members online
This article is a sequel of my earlier article “God of Contradictions”. It would be easy to appreciate it after reading the first one.
The science took lead in attacking the God. And then on being satisfied, after Nietzsche’s declaration regarding the death of the God, the scientists went ahead in the pursuit of giving this world a science suited God which would be well tested on all scientific laws and principles. Almost all scientists tried to defy or define the God. Some of them tried to carve it out of the physical material or obtain it as a product of some difficult chemical reaction.
In the early nineteenth century when the science was coming to its juvenility they concluded that the matter was everything; and the matter was only the thing which existed. Subsequently Einstein in the early twentieth century made some correction and declared that it is not the matter only rather it is the totality of the matter and energy which is conserved. He found that the matter and energy were inter-convertible. It was in fifties of the twentieth century when Schrödinger with the help of his parable of quantum cat made an announcement regarding the peaceful demise of the “Matter”. He said proudly that the matter existed no more.
On another front, during the life time of “matter”, Heisenberg brought the wave theory and told about the wave nature of matter. He said that the matter existed only in the form of wave. It was against the Newton's idea that the matter existed with the particle nature. Then the French scholar de Broglie postulated the dual nature of the matter and said that with some indeterminate factor implicit therein a matter has both the characteristics of a particle and of a wave. It can be, at the same time a particle and a wave both without any contradiction.
It was the first time in the history of science when the contradiction was accepted as an essential part of a scientific theory. However the future was more fertile for the contradictions and probabilities to grow in scientific theories. In the quantum era of sciences, it appeared that the whole universe is nothing more than throwing a dice. The theory of probability prevailed on all scientific results and outcomes. If two fundamental particles were to interact with each other their results were only a probability. Nothing was sure and certain.
This Quantum Theory involved so many contingencies and probabilities that even Einstein could not digest the idea of the existence of the universe only as a probability. According to him "God reveals himself in the harmony of all that exists". He (Einstein) was not easy to listen from the quantum physicists that the existence of the universe is nothing but a chance.
On the experimental level the quantum theory provided new vistas of possibilities. When an electron interacted with a positron (an anti particle of the electron) both of them disappeared and only energy particles (called neutrinos) remained there. Similarly when two neutrinos were brought near each other, a pair of an electron and a positron appeared in the vacuum. This is called a pair production in quantum physics.
It shows that the existence is not the only thing "existing" in this universe but its "potential" is also equally important. It is the potential which comes into the existence and it is the existence which disappears and reduces itself into a potential (i.e. a potential to exist). Remember here that the potential (in the form of neutrinos) comes into the existence (pair of the electron and the positron) and the existence goes into inexistence and becomes a potential. Potential is only a possibility; it is only a probability. It does not exist, it is inexistent but it can give birth to the existence. The science is saying that the existence and the non existence are two aspects of the same thing. They both are inter-convertible. !!!!!!!!!.
Take a short pause. Our language is being stretched to its maximum to explain this concept of existence and the non existence. It is against all the arguments that the existence and non-existence both are the same. Arguments fail to elaborate how a thing can be existent and non-existent at the same time; how an existing thing can be an non-existing thing. How these two can correspond to the same ….. (thing, existence, matter, object, contradiction, non-existence, nothing, none ... not any one of these words is suitable here to give a clear picture). This is again a limitation of the language to describe the world. Languages create a contradiction when they are used to describe the world. (And the Learned ones argue about the contradictions in describing the God which is all encompassing; reference to my article “The God of Contradictions”).
One thing that surfaces here is that the languages are only for serving the routine life purposes. When used to describe the existence or non-existence of the God they start giving problems. The languages always develop out of the routine experience of the people concerned. Languages contain only those words which reflect daily experiences of those who have developed them. Hence, languages are the collections of past experiences of the people who created and developed those languages. By their very nature, languages are not to have diction for the experiences of people which have not been experienced so far. That is why a Sahara region language does not have all words of experience as the language of Inuit people (Eskimos) has. Similarly all other languages of human beings have and contain only those words which describe the common experiences of those human beings. This is why the languages have words which correspond to the objective world.
So whenever someone is to tell something about the existence, the God or the essence or the Absolute, which are not the daily experiences, all details cannot be verbally communicated. Any communication with verbal expressions is bound to create contradictions. To be free from contradiction it must be consisting of some non verbal component of communication.
The problem with this non verbal component of communication is with its communicability. How one would communicate that non verbal component of communication to others. Probably it cannot be. So the recipient would have to be subjective to that extent. He has to develop his own methodology to understand what was infact communicated through that non verbal component of communication. It is quite possible that the transmitter is transmitting something different from what is being received by the recipient.
This non verbal component of communication would always form the basis of the knowledge (if this word may be used for the knowledge) of the absolute or the God or the existence and it will be subjective only. Therefore any absolute knowledge will have an essential subjective component. Without this subjective component a knowledge cannot be complete; it would not be able to comprehend the contradictions involved and also the probabilities of existence.
For those who do not find this complexity of the subject very interesting, we go back to the interesting level. There are some who say that the love is God. There are some others who say that the truth is God. Still there are some more who say that the beauty is God. You are not at liberty to say that it is not God. It is the subjectivity of the person concerned which determines what is God and it is this subjectivity only which further determines as what is understood by the God. It is again possible that the picture of God in your mind may be entirely different from the picture of God in other’s mind. There is no objective scale to measure the attributes of the God so as to broadcast them for all.
If for you the love is God, even then you cannot determine objectively the nature of the love and the God, which is acceptable to all others. So leave defining the love and the God. Be the love so to be the God. You cannot know the God. For if you claim to know the God then it would be attacked by objective arguments regarding your knowledge and you would not be in a position to explain it as it would be containing that non verbal component of subjectivity. This non verbal component of subjectivity is incapable of being expressed. So don’t know what cannot be known.
The God, the Existence, the Essence, the Absolute etc cannot be established by the science or the reason or the arguments or any other objective criterion. Ultimately it has to have some subjective component of comprehension. Here again a danger has crept into. Someone may argue that The God, the Existence, the Essence, the Absolute etc all depend on the comprehension and hence if one, say an insane, does not comprehend them, would it be the end of The God, the Existence, the Essence, the Absolute etc.
It is submitted by the author please do not lead the verbal arguments. These verbal arguments do not correspond to the reality in entirety.
Be love and attain the Godship. If for you the truth is the God then be the truth and attain the Godship. If the beauty is the God for you then do not try to know the beauty, better is to be the beauty to rise to the Godship. Do not know the God, do not try to establish the God argumentatively it is deceptive. Be the God, attain the Godship.
The scientific objectivity is allowed only to a particular level of existence. Beyond it the objectivity is barred. This article tells how to proceed there in that domain.