5

I know that many hindu philosphers believe God can be known only through scriptures.

Brahma sutras also try to explain logically about nature of brahman etc..

Any place where the problem of improbability of a creator him/her/it being more complex is addressed?

The summary of the problem is stated by Richard Dawkins in God Delusion in 4th chapter Why there almost certainly is no God:

1 One of the greatest challenges to the human intellect, over the centuries, has been to explain how the complex, improbable appearance of design in the universe arises.

2 The natural temptation is to attribute the appearance of design to actual design itself. In the case of a man-made artifact such as a watch, the designer really was an intelligent engineer. It is tempting to apply the same logic to an eye or a wing, a spider or a person.

3.The temptation is a false one, because the designer hypothesis immediately raises the larger problem of who designed the designer. The whole problem we started out with was the problem of explaining statistical improbability. It is obviously no solution to postulate something even more improbable. We need a 'crane', not a 'skyhook', for only a crane can do the business of working up gradually and plausibly from simplicity to otherwise improbable complexity.

If the argument of this chapter is accepted, the factual premise of religion - the God Hypothesis - is untenable. God almost certainly does not exist.

  • if you deny existence of god no matter what we say you reject by null hypothesis best thing to experience, Vedas speaks about experience of Rishi, When it uttered in specific meter im definitely sure that you can experience the presence in you, so vedas can only reveal so learn veda from Guru because there is nothing important in human life than knowing about God. Madhva clearly says moola roopa of Vishnu is Veda.. – Prasanna R Feb 28 at 11:27
  • It is only for these Acharyas and Philosophers, whose primary goal is to debate and defeat the opponents, God's existence is ONLY found in the scriptures .. the spiritual aspirants (Saints, Yogis, Sadhakas), however, get such proofs day in day out – Rickross Feb 28 at 11:57
  • What I find always amusing with those "God Delusion" books is that they say God almost certainly doesn't exist. They are not sure, they are just "almost" there to be sure about it :) And another thing is also funny. They do admit that the universe looks like it has a designer, but they simply deny it. – brahma jijnasa Feb 28 at 12:47
  • And one more thing. You said the factual premise of religion - the God Hypothesis -- you are wrong about it. A religion, whether Hindu or some other, does not speak about a Hypothesis about God. Religion is telling that God is a fact, not just a hypothesis. – brahma jijnasa Feb 28 at 13:03
  • 1
    @LazyLubber I agree. Anyways, here Richard Dawkins is addressing the common argument that believers of God give.. They say this universe is so nice and greatly designed, how can it be a chance? He says, by introducing an intelligent person, you are making it more complex. The person must be even more complex to explain since he could do a complex creation..Problem level rises instead of getting simplified. – user2612 Mar 1 at 8:14
1

Dawkins shows the narrowness of his reading rather than the depth of his understanding. His limited understanding of the start of the sensual universe is of the Western dualistic traditions, which teach of a single creative 'event'. Eastern traditions, whether Hindu dualistic or non-dualisitc, or Buddhist - do not assert a single 'creation'. First, the Vedas teach that the universe has always been and always will be; it is eternal in duration. It is infinite in space. Second, there are cycles; periods of expansion and contraction. Third, the Vedas do not use the word 'creation', they use the sanskrit 'srishti' which translates as 'projection' - not creation. The universe is projected out of Brahman -so to speak, it is Brahman; it is not separate from Brahman as the word 'creation' implies and how Western theologies and Dawkins understands.

From an pure Advaita perspective, there never was a creation. It is only an illusion that there is a 'creation', that there is a sensual universe. You have brushed aside the Brahma Sutras hastily in your question. The Brahma Sutras deal with the problem of creation in the first and second chapters. Gaudapada in his Karika on the Mandukya Upanishad, chapters 1 and 2, goes into painstaking argumentation on the unreality and non-existence of a creation and the sensual universe. Professor Chandradhar Sharma has excellent summaries and scriptural references and counter arguments that Hindu philosophers and saints have recorded through the ages against the arguments of materialists in his book A Critical Survey of Indian Philosophy. On page 242, Sharma writes:

The fundamental doctrine of Gaudapada is the Doctrine of No-origination (ajativada). Negatively, it means that the world, being only an appearance, is in fact never created. Positively, it means that the Absolute, being self-existent, is never created (aja).

Dawkins, with his materialistic doctrine, sees his way to non-creation. But the flaw in his logic is that it leaves him there, abandoned, and he cannot see his way to a out of his sensual interpretation and up-bringing that there is a creation. So he makes the grand leap, as does Hawking, that everything must have just sprung out of nothing. But as numerous Eastern philosophers have pointed out, how can something arise out of nothing? In some prior answers dealing with similar questions as to Advaita and creation, links and quotes from all these referenced sources are given.

  • If you say there was never any creation, you are contradicting perception. Its like saying that a species like elephants dont exist. – Lazy Lubber Mar 1 at 8:04
  • If you say universe always existed, you are implying that infinite number of years have already passed by, which is impossible. Ultimately, the "solutions" given by vedanta are as unsatisfactory as those given by semitic religions. – Lazy Lubber Mar 1 at 8:07
  • "it means that the Absolute, being self-existent, is never created" - is this simply an assertion or is there any proof for this? Also, what is stopping you and I from claiming we are "self-existent"? "But as numerous Eastern philosophers have pointed out, how can something arise out of nothing?" - It's interesting these philosophers have no problem accepting the first cause is self-existent but have a problem with "something arising out of nothing." – sv. Mar 2 at 2:26

You must log in to answer this question.