[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Re: Help Please!
In article <ghenDqs92E.4yt@netcom.com>,
Pradip Gangopadhyay <pradip@lism.usc.edu> wrote:
> The knowledge of God is beyond the realm of logic. Nobody has ever
>been able to prove or disprove the existence of God using logic. If you can
>do that then God will come under the purview of science. Thus God can only be
>"known" in a supersensuous experience (Aporakhsanubhuti). God is beyond our
>senses. Thus the knowledge obtained in meditation is supersensuous knowledge.
most difficult part of the post, to me, seems to be the excerpt above.
"the knowledge of god is beyond logic" is a hypothesis, or a statement of
fact, or proven theory? does the statement also imply "the knowledge
of God is essentially *illogical*"?
i also fail to understand the import of the word "Thus" used twice
in the above excerpt. does not the statement -- ' nobody has ever
been able to prove or disprove the existence of god using logic ' --
only imply the status of *current* knowledge? is there a *flaw* in
--if ever-- god coming under the purview of science? are we not
taking a hypothesis to be a theorem when we imply 'thus god can only
be known in supersensuous experience'?
gopal
