 |
| @page { margin: 2cm } p { margin-bottom: 0.25cm; line-height: 120% } a:link { so-language: zxx }
Sri Ramakrishna
|
 |
| @page { margin: 2cm } p { margin-bottom: 0.25cm; line-height: 120% } a:link { so-language: zxx }
Sri Ramakrishna
|
 |
| @page { margin: 2cm } p { margin-bottom: 0.25cm; line-height: 120% } a:link { so-language: zxx }
Sri Ramakrishna
|
//pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/js/adsbygoogle.js
God as a creator:
(Some theology says that God is a personal being and He created this universe out of nothing, But it has to withstand the following tests)
Now there are two principles of knowledge. “The one guideline is that we know by alluding the specific to the general, and the general to the all-inclusive; and the second is that anything of which the” explanation is sought is to be explained so far as possible from its own nature…(CW.II.329)
The speculation of the Personal God is another a valid example. … this generalization was reached and was called the sum total of all consciousness. But a difficulty arises — it is an incomplete generalization. We take up only one side of the facts of nature, the fact of consciousness, and upon that we generalize, but the other side is left out. (i.e matter & force were generalized up to Akasha & Prana respectively and there it stopped, now the question is how did the Paramatman create Akasha & Prana out of nothing) So, in the first place, it is a defective generalization. (CW.II.330)
There is another deficiency, and that identifies with the second rule… If that God is outside of nature, having nothing to do with nature, and this nature is the result of the command of that God and produced from nothing,(since the explanation is not coming from inside)it is a very unscientific theory…(CW.II.330)
@page { margin: 2cm } p { margin-bottom: 0.25cm; line-height: 120% }
(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({});
SRI RAMAKRISHNA TODAY 