The Ultimate God Paradox by Kedar Joshi SignUp
Boloji.com
Boloji
Home Kabir Poetry Blogs BoloKids Writers Contribute Search Contact Site Map Advertise RSS Login Register
Boloji
Channels

In Focus

Analysis
Cartoons
Education
Environment
Going Inner
Opinion
Photo Essays

Columns

A Bystander's Diary
Business
My Word
PlainSpeak
Random Thoughts

Our Heritage

Architecture
Astrology
Ayurveda
Buddhism
Cinema
Culture
Dances
Festivals
Hinduism
History
People
Places
Sikhism
Spirituality
Vastu
Vithika

Society & Lifestyle

Family Matters
Health
Parenting
Perspective
Recipes
Society
Teens
Women

Creative Writings

Book Reviews
Ghalib's Corner
Humor
Individuality
Literary Shelf
Love Letters
Memoirs
Musings
Quotes
Ramblings
Stories
Travelogues
Workshop

Computing

CC++
Computing Articles
Flash
Internet Security
Java
Linux
Networking
Spirituality Share This Page
The Ultimate God Paradox
by Kedar Joshi Bookmark and Share
 
This work attempts to describe my "Ultimate God Paradox": the paradox that God exists but He is uncreated and unnecessary.

God, for some reasons – as given in my UQV (Ultimate Questioner’s Vanity) theory – exists; but He is presumably the first cause – if God is not the first cause, He is not God; and therefore He is uncreated. However, at the same time, God – like any other material phenomenon such as gravity – is logically unnecessary. The existence of man, under certain factual, material conditions such as an extremely high level of order in the world, suggests that God exists. But man and the conditions themselves are not logically necessary. One can imagine a world where neither man, nor the conditions, nor God exist. For example, one can imagine the existence of a running TV, and the existence necessarily suggests that there is also some source of electricity; but one can also imagine the world with no running TV and no source of electricity – in other words, if there is no running TV, the existence of the source of electricity is not necessary. The TV and the source of electricity are both logically unnecessary, and so are man, the conditions, and God.  Thus, God exists, but He is uncreated and unnecessary. However, it is self-evident – in the sense of being axiomatic and undeniable – that any uncreated thing – such as the law of syllogism – is logically necessary. It exists, for it is necessary for it to exist. In a different perspective, it is self-evident that any unnecessary thing has to have a creator in order to exist. It seems illogical, absurd, and perhaps more accurately, unimaginable that there can be a world where a thing, which is not logically necessary, exists, but was never created. God is such unimaginable thing: it exists; it is logically not necessary; and it was never created. The existence of God is therefore a paradox. God is uncreated and unnecessary: the ultimate God paradox. And furthermore, the UQV theory speculates that God created man to puzzle him about the subtle, paradoxical nature of His existence. Life is thus considered to be a question asked by God about the way He exists. God – it is conjectured – wants man to solve the paradox, answer the question, and discover the way He exists; and this process of discovery would progressively quench God’s – the ultimate questioner’s – vanity.

Thus, I believe in the existence of a thing, called God – the ultimate questioner, which I have speculated and considered to be the first thing – i.e. uncreated – but, at the same time, I do not understand how an unnecessary material thing can be the first – i.e. uncreated, hence the paradox. In other words, to make the best sense of my life, I conjecture and believe that there is a thing so (philosophically) strange that it is both ‘first’ and ‘a thing’; strange to me because I fail to understand how a thing can be the first – i.e. uncreated; since to me it is self-evidently necessary for an unnecessary thing to have a creator. And I conjecture the existence of such strange paradoxical thing – i.e. the ultimate questioner – for it quenches the demand for the best meaning of life/world – life/world that is philosophically challenging and extremely orderly. The ultimate paradox fits in the philosophically challenging part, and God – the ultimate questioner – fits in the ultimate designer of the extreme order part. Thus, it is simple to understand that God – the ultimate questioner – is uncreated, since He is defined as the first creator. And it may be equally simple to understand that He is unnecessary, since He, being a creator, is a material thing. However, this simplicity does not answer the paradox, for there is still the failure in understanding how an unnecessary material thing can be uncreated. That is, on the one hand, I conjecture or speculate that an uncreated thing exists and, on the other hand, I fail to understand how an uncreated thing can actually exist. The idea of God quenches the need for the intelligent designer of the intelligent design. And, the paradox, which comes as probably the greatest philosophical challenge, actually helps in making the best sense of the world – God posing the best possible philosophical challenge to a philosopher man to quench His vanity.
16-Apr-2012
More by :  Kedar Joshi
 
Views: 850
Article Comment I have just posted the comment below to the article 'Slumdog Philosopher...' by Raam Gokhale, which deals with the existence of God as you understand it:

>The fundamental error about the concept of God in any reference to God is that of someone who exists. God does not exist, to the relief of atheists - however, God is
Existence. I use the capital form, because unlike Hindu philosophy, which equates existence with God, God is distinct from created existence. In saying God is Existence, I imply God is the form of existence itself, and cannot be therefore referred to as someone who exists.

An example of the distinction between existence and something that is said to exist, as God is wrongly said to exist, is provided by any existing thing. When we say a tree exists we take for granted the context of its existence, the soil, air, atmospheric pressure, gravity, light, heat, that are integral to its existence, as well as its communication with the context in terms of its inter-action. This form of existence is a direct analogy with the Existence that is God, where context, form, and the communication between the two constitute the one Existence of God.<

I will add here, that existence as we know it is proof of the Divine Existence, or proof of God. Let me explain. When you say, God exists, it is assumed God is in a context of his existence, like a tree is in its context. But this is impossible, since at the level of God's existence, nothing else, least of all a context that holds God in existence can exist. Therefore God is his own context of existence. But existence implies form, in God that which is contextually generated or begotten from all eternity, which is divine; the inter-action or affection between context and form in the one Existence of God is the Spirit. Thus in the Divine Trinity is the Existence that is God.

rdashby
04/18/2012
 
Top | Spirituality







A Bystander's Diary Analysis Architecture Astrology Ayurveda Book Reviews
Buddhism Business Cartoons CC++ Cinema Computing Articles
Culture Dances Education Environment Family Matters Festivals
Flash Ghalib's Corner Going Inner Health Hinduism History
Humor Individuality Internet Security Java Linux Literary Shelf
Love Letters Memoirs Musings My Word Networking Opinion
Parenting People Perspective Photo Essays Places PlainSpeak
Quotes Ramblings Random Thoughts Recipes Sikhism Society
Spirituality Stories Teens Travelogues Vastu Vithika
Women Workshop
RSS Feed RSS Feed Home | Privacy Policy | Disclaimer | Site Map
No part of this Internet site may be reproduced without prior written permission of the copyright holder.
Developed and Programmed by ekant solutions