Faith in Nature-Theism
Markendeya Yeddanapudi
Faith in Nature-Theism
In the free and healthy nature, rapture is the culture of the Biosphere.Faith, Rapture and complete self unification with nature all, become identical. Organisms smell, sense, perceive and understand. Their mutual understanding and continuous communication via the air, creates the unending reinforcement of spirit in every organism. Faith in nature or simply Theism grows continuously. Theism and natural evolution become synonym. Theism takes over the internal hormonal communication of the bloodstreams of every organism.
Without breathing no organism can live. So without Theism, no organism can live. Theism cannot be logiced with the Cartesian approach. In fact emotional intelligence drives away the mechanical approach. God gets freedom from the pineal gland of the human, and takes over the administration of natural evolution. Every life form also shelters God. The Troposphere becomes Theosphere. Faith in God and faith in life giving air are the same.
Every machine harms nature’s symbiosis. There is only Atheism in machine form. Because machines do not breathe, smell, sense and feel. There can be no Theism without feeling nature; the free and healthy nature. Theism is the basic faculty of emotionally relating to nature.
Today, we believe in machines only and do not trust the free nature. We live in nature, breathing the air, while we do not trust nature and our own breathing. We abandoned sensing via breathing and smelling. We depend on machines only. We have cut us away from relating to nature.
We do not even realize the basic fact that nature needs freedom to enable its symbiosis. Theism is the flow of feeling of nature, creating continuous change as evolution. Evolution is the evolution of emotional relations, not just changes of the physical forms seen in the visible spectrum. The 99.9965% of the totality the feeling based formless nature, the invisible spectrum, certainly participates in the evolution, as emotional changes.
Science, technology as economics has cut us from nature itself, and we do not view ourselves as part of the Biosphere and as participants in evolution. And we are actually striving to live as the economic human, the machine of classical physics, without any relation to nature.
The Universities today have hijacked education from the world. And they promote the mechanical paradigm in mechanized frenzy. Education no longer is feeling the subject matter. It needs the indifferent mechanical attitude. The result has been catastrophic. As economic life we destroy nature from every angle. The Cartesian approach has put us in the economic quagmire.
We need the Free Nature Parks, where the life is completely free from our tampering. We must accept the Higgs Boson as the God’s particle and that the Higgs field is the field of proto emotion. Big bang is the spread of emotional relations.
The angle of the Sun’s ray or the latitude changes the parent earth matter into the soil bacteria the proto life forms or emotional life forms. We are actually seeing the conversion of the flow of electromagnetism from the Sun into the Soil bacteria on earth. Along with the attempt for the TOE, there must also be the exploration for the rehabilitation of the emotional approach in the ‘Theory of the Emotional Big Bang. ‘God did not start the Big bang from Singularity, without any feeling and emotion. God does not discount emotions and simply cannot promote mechanization, where God becomes the indifferent machine.
YM Sarma
Rajaram Krishnamurthy
THEISM
The angle of the Sun’s ray or the latitude changes the parent earth matter into the soil bacteria the proto life forms or emotional life forms. We are actually seeing the conversion of the flow of electromagnetism from the Sun into the Soil bacteria on earth. Along with the attempt for the TOE, there must also be the exploration for the rehabilitation of the emotional approach in the ‘Theory of the Emotional Big Bang. ‘God did not start the Big bang from Singularity, without any feeling and emotion. God does not discount emotions and simply cannot promote mechanization, where God becomes the indifferent machine.
YM Sarma
Xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
KR How did life start according to the Theory of Evolution?
The Theory of Evolution does not explain how life first began.
It explains how life changes and diversifies after it already exists.
The main scientist behind this theory was Charles Darwin.
What Evolution Says:
Life began in simple forms.
Over millions of years, organisms changed gradually.
Through natural selection, better-adapted organisms survived and reproduced.
All living things share common ancestors.
Then how did life actually begin?
The scientific field that studies the origin of life is called abiogenesis, not evolution.
The leading scientific idea is:
Early Earth had simple chemicals (water, methane, ammonia, etc.).
Energy from lightning, volcanoes, or UV radiation caused chemical reactions.
These reactions formed complex organic molecules.
Eventually, self-replicating molecules formed.
Over a very long time, the first simple cells developed.
Scientists like Alexander Oparin and J. B. S. Haldane proposed early chemical evolution ideas.
Important: Scientists do not yet fully know the exact step-by-step process of how life first started. Research is ongoing.
What about God’s role in the Big Bang?
The Big Bang Theory explains how the universe began expanding about 13.8 billion years ago.
It was first scientifically developed by Georges Lemaître — interestingly, he was both a Catholic priest and a physicist.
What the Big Bang Theory says:
The universe began from an extremely hot, dense state.
It expanded rapidly.
Galaxies, stars, and planets formed over billions of years.
The theory describes how the universe expanded — not why it began or what caused it.
Where does God fit in?
Science and religion approach the question differently:
Scientific Perspective
Science studies natural causes and physical processes.
It does not test or measure God.
Therefore, science neither proves nor disproves God's existence.
Religious Perspective
Different religions interpret this differently:
Some believe God directly created the universe and life.
Some believe God used the Big Bang and evolution as tools.
Some reject scientific explanations and prefer literal scripture interpretations.
Many scientists (including religious ones) see:
God as the cause behind the Big Bang
Evolution as the method through which life developed
This view is sometimes called theistic evolution.
THEORY OF EVERYTHING TOE
Does the Theory of Everything explain:
Evolution?
Big Bang?
God?
Evolution No. Evolution is biology. It explains how life changes after it exists. : Charles Darwin.
A TOE in physics would not directly deal with biological evolution.
Big Bang A TOE might help explain: What happened at the very first moment (before 10⁻⁴³ seconds). Why gravity and quantum mechanics behave differently. The Big Bang theory itself was first proposed by Georges Lemaître.
A TOE could potentially explain:
What caused the Big Bang
Whether there was something “before” it
But we do not have that theory yet.
God A scientific Theory of Everything: Would describe physical laws.; Would not prove or disprove God.
Science studies how things happen. Religion and philosophy ask why they happen. Even if a TOE explains the Big Bang perfectly, people could still ask: Why do these laws exist? Why is there something rather than nothing? That question moves into philosophy and theology.
Important Understanding Field What It Studies
Physics Matter, energy, universe
Biology Life and evolution
Religion/Philosophy Meaning, purpose, God
A Theory of Everything belongs to physics only.
No scientific theory that explains evolution + Big Bang + God together.
No physics theory that proves or disproves God.
No completed Theory of Everything.
If scientists discovered a complete Theory of Everything (TOE) — a single set of equations explaining all physical reality — would that eliminate God?
Philosophers and theologians generally say: Not necessarily.
Here are the main arguments on both sides.
Argument 1: “If Everything Is Explained, God Is Not Needed”
Some thinkers argue: If a TOE explains all physical laws, And those laws explain the Big Bang, And those laws explain matter, stars, planets, and eventually life, Then there is no “gap” left for God. This idea is sometimes associated with interpretations of thinkers like Stephen Hawking, who suggested that if we fully understood the laws of physics, we would “know the mind of God” (meaning fully understand reality). This view is often linked to scientific naturalism: Everything that exists is physical and follows natural laws. Under this view: God becomes unnecessary as an explanation.
Argument 2: A TOE Explains “How,” Not “Why”
Many philosophers respond:Even if we had a complete TOE, we could still ask: Why do these laws exist instead of others?
Why is there something rather than nothing?
Why do mathematical laws describe reality at all?
A TOE would explain: How the universe works. But not: Why the universe exists at all. This connects to the famous philosopher Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz, who asked: Why is there something rather than nothing? A TOE does not answer that question.
Argument 3: God as the Ground of Laws
Some theologians argue: God is not a “gap filler” inside physics.
Instead: God is the reason laws of physics exist at all. God is the foundation of reality itself.
Under this view: Even a perfect TOE would describe God's method. It would not eliminate God. This is common in classical theism.
Argument 4: The Fine-Tuning Argument
Some argue:The universe’s constants are extremely precise for life. If a TOE explains these constants, It might show they had to be that way. Or it might suggest a multiverse. If a multiverse exists, some say: No need for God — we just live in one lucky universe. Others argue: Even a multiverse would still need an explanation. This debate continues today.
Argument 5: God as Unnecessary Hypothesis
Philosopher Bertrand Russell argued: If natural laws fully explain the universe, there is no need to add another entity (God).
This follows a principle called Occam’s Razor: Do not multiply explanations beyond necessity. If the TOE explains everything physically, God might be seen as unnecessary.
Argument 6: God Beyond Physical Explanation Other thinkers like Thomas Aquinas argued: God is not a physical caus inside the universe.
God is: The necessary being. The cause of existence itself. Beyond space and time. A TOE would describe physical reality, but God would be metaphysical — not physical. So science could never eliminate God, because God is not a scientific object.
A Theory of Everything could: Remove mystery about physics. Explain the Big Bang fully. Unify all forces. But it would not automatically answer: Why existence exists. Why laws exist. Whether meaning or purpose exists. So philosophically, most scholars agree: A TOE would change the debate — but not end it.
Mathematics does not logically prove God — but some philosophers argue it strongly points toward God. Others strongly disagree.
Why Some Think Mathematics Implies God
The “Unreasonable Effectiveness” Argument
Physicist Eugene Wigner wrote about the “unreasonable effectiveness of mathematics.” The puzzle: Mathematics is abstract. It exists in the human mind. Yet it perfectly describes the physical universe. Example:
Equations predicted black holes before we observed them.
Einstein’s equations predicted gravitational waves 100 years before detection.
Why should abstract math map onto physical reality so precisely?
Some argue:The best explanation is that the universe is grounded in a rational, mathematical mind — God.
Mathematical Platonism → Divine Mind
Philosopher Plato argued that mathematical objects exist in a timeless, abstract realm. If: Numbers are eternal,
Mathematical truths are necessary (2+2=4 everywhere),
They are not physical, then where do they “exist”? Some theists argue: They exist in the mind of God.
The Argument from Order and Rationality
The universe: Is structured mathematically. Is governed by elegant equations. Is understandable by human minds.
Some argue this suggests: Reality is fundamentally rational. Our minds reflect a greater rational source. Einstein himself said he was amazed that the universe is comprehensible at all (though he did not believe in a personal God).
Why Others Say Mathematics Does NOT Imply God
Mathematics as Human Invention Some philosophers argue: Mathematics is a language humans invented. We created mathematical systems that happen to model patterns in nature. No divine realm required. This is called mathematical nominalism or formalism.
Evolution Explains Mathematical Ability From a naturalistic perspective: Humans evolved pattern-recognition abilities.
Mathematics is a refined extension of that ability. We developed math because it helps survival and prediction. No God needed.
The Universe Just Is Mathematical Some modern thinkers like Max Tegmark argue: The universe is a mathematical structure. In this view:
Math doesn’t need God. Reality itself is mathematical.
Mathematics does not logically prove God. But it creates a powerful philosophical question: Why is reality structured mathematically at all? Some answer: Because of God.
Others answer: Because that’s just the way reality is.
In 1931, Gödel published his incompleteness theorems in Über formal unentscheidbare Sätze….
First Incompleteness Theorem Any consistent, sufficiently powerful formal system (capable of basic arithmetic) contains true statements that cannot be proven within the system.
Second Incompleteness Theorem Such a system cannot prove its own consistency. These theorems apply to formal mathematical systems, not directly to metaphysics, science, or religion.
2. Why Some Think It Supports Theism
Several philosophers and theologians argue that Gödel’s work hints at something beyond materialism:
(A) Limits of Human Rational Systems If reason cannot fully ground itself, some argue it points beyond purely self-contained naturalistic systems.
(B) Truth Beyond Proof Gödel showed that truth transcends formal proof. Some interpret this as: Reality may exceed mechanistic description. Consciousness or meaning might not be reducible to computation. This has been taken by some to challenge strict materialism.
(C) Gödel’s Own Beliefs Gödel himself believed in a rational, ordered metaphysical reality and even formulated a formal version of the ontological argument (see Kurt Gödel’s ontological proof, inspired by Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz).
But: Gödel’s theorems ≠ proof of God.
3. Why Most Logicians Say It Does Not Support Theism
Most mathematicians and philosophers argue: (A) Category Mistake The incompleteness theorems apply to: Formal symbolic systems
Theism concerns: Metaphysical reality These are different domains.
(B) Incompleteness ≠ God From: Some truths are unprovable in formal systems
You cannot logically derive: Therefore, God exists. That would be a non sequitur.
(C) Science Is Not a Single Formal System Science is not one closed axiomatic system like arithmetic. It is empirical and revisable.
4. A More Careful Philosophical View Gödel’s results show:
No sufficiently rich formal system is complete. Self-grounding rational systems face limits. Truth transcends provability. This may support: Epistemic humility Anti-reductionism Skepticism toward strict mechanistic materialism But it does not strictly entail theism.
5. Gödel’s Separate Ontological Argument Independently of incompleteness, Gödel formalized an ontological argument in modal logic (influenced by Anselm of Canterbury and Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz). This is a different line of reasoning entirely.
Hindu darśanas already articulate parallel ideas about the limits of reason, language, and conceptual systems. Below is a darśana-wise analysis.
1. Advaita Vedanta
Ultimate reality (Brahman) is: Beyond thought Beyond language Not objectifiable
Upaniṣadic statement:
yato vāco nivartante aprāpya manasā saha
“From which words return, along with the mind.” — Taittiriya Upanishad 2.9
Possible Reading of Incompleteness Any conceptual system (like arithmetic) fails to capture all truth. Similarly, all mental constructions (vikalpa) fail to capture Brahman.
Advaita would likely say: Gödel mathematically confirms what Vedānta metaphysically asserts — conceptual systems cannot exhaust reality. Śaṅkara (Adi Shankaracharya) holds that reason (yukti) helps remove error but cannot independently reveal Brahman without śruti (scripture).
2. Nyaya Nyāya values logic (tarka) and valid means of knowledge (pramāṇa). It accepts four pramāṇas: Perception, Inference , Comparison , Testimony (śabda). Nyāya philosophers like Gautama argue that no single pramāṇa is self-sufficient. Nyāya might interpret incompleteness as: A system cannot establish its own consistency →
No pramāṇa validates itself entirely; it is justified within a broader epistemic structure.
Nyāya already acknowledges: Infinite regress problem; Need for foundational realism ; Thus Gödel would not shock Nyāya — it reinforces their pluralistic epistemology.
3. Madhyamaka (for comparison) Though not a Hindu darśana strictly, it is philosophically relevant. Nāgārjuna (Nagarjuna) argues that all conceptual positions collapse under analysis (śūnyatā doctrine). Madhyamaka might interpret incompleteness as: Conceptual systems cannot achieve ultimate closure. Any attempt at total self-grounding leads to paradox. This resonates strongly with Gödel’s structural self-reference.
4. Vishishtadvaita Rāmānuja (Ramanuja) holds: Brahman is rational and personal. Reason is valid but subordinate to revelation. Human rational structures are finite expressions within divine intelligence. Truth exceeds formal containment because: Reality is grounded in Īśvara, not in abstract axioms.
5. Dvaita Vedanta Madhva (Madhvacharya) affirms: Ontological hierarchy Irreducible difference Dependence on Viṣṇu Dvaita could interpret incompleteness as: Finite minds cannot encapsulate total reality. Only God possesses complete, non-derivative knowledge. This fits comfortably within theistic epistemology.
6. Purva Mimamsa Mīmāṃsā emphasizes: The self-validity (svataḥ-prāmāṇya) of Vedic testimony. They might argue: Formal systems failing to self-prove consistency only shows that human-constructed systems lack intrinsic authority — unlike eternal Veda. They would likely reject theological metaphysical extrapolations from Gödel but affirm the autonomy of śabda.
In Vedānta: The Self (Ātman) cannot be objectified. The knower cannot be reduced to an object of knowledge. This mirrors a structural limit: A system cannot fully contain its own meta-level.
8. Microcosm–Macrocosm Reflection (Piṇḍa–Brahmāṇḍa) Earlier you’ve explored cosmological mappings. One could frame incompleteness in that spirit: A finite structure (piṇḍa / formal system) Cannot contain totality (brahmāṇḍa / truth) But:This is a philosophical analogy, not a formal equivalence. Ultimate reality transcends conceptual totalization.
IN SHORT, SCIENCE THOUGH ESTABLISGED SO FAR, AN UNKNOWN FORCE EVEN BY A DERIVATION IN MATHS, CANNOT RENDER IT AS PROOF OG GOD AS SCIENCE FORCES AND BINDS ITSELF ON BRAIN ONLY WHICH IS OUT SIDE THE GOD. B G SAYS,”
क्रोधाद्भवति सम्मोह: सम्मोहात्स्मृतिविभ्रम: |
स्मृतिभ्रंशाद् बुद्धिनाशो बुद्धिनाशात्प्रणश्यति ||
63||
krodhād bhavati sammohaḥ
sammohāt smṛiti-vibhramaḥ
smṛiti-bhranśhād buddhi-nāśho buddhi-nāśhāt praṇaśhyati
BG 2.63: Anger leads to clouding of judgment, which results in bewilderment of memory. When memory is bewildered, the intellect gets destroyed; and when the intellect is destroyed, one is ruined.
LOGIC AND NYAYA ARE NOT TOTALLY DIFFERENT OR ELSE BUDDISM THROUGH NAGARJUNA WOULD NOT HAVE ADOPTED LOGIC OR NYAYA FROM VEDAS INTO THE CULT. THAT MEANS MORE THAN THE BRAIN, MIND THROUGH THE MEDITATION LEADS ONE TO UNDERSTAND THE TRUTH AND THE REALITY HENCE EASTERN CONCLUSIONS ARE EPISTOMOLOGY ACCORDING TO THE SCIENCE, BUT THAT WHICH REVEALED THE TRUTH ALONE IS SCIENCE SINCE ABSTRACT ALONE CAN IDENTIFY THE ABSTRACT AND FROM REALITY TO THE REALITY. HENCE WHEN NETI IS UNDERSTOOD, IT WILL BE KNOWN THAT BODY IS NOT THE MIND BUT MAY BE BUDDI. THEISM IS JUST BORN THERE.
K RAJARAM IRS 19226
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "societyforservingseniors" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to society4servingse...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion, visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/society4servingseniors/CACDCHC%2B5dKs40zL%3DPU9jmnBAUTtwFTgQn%3DV36kYbJy26DcPQTA%40mail.gmail.com.