The argument that God is beyond space and time does not seem to resonate with the atheists.
I’d like to make a different argument from the Indian perspective. What the Indians define God to be is the ultimate reality. Let’s explain that.
The materialist sees that the world has so and so fundamental materials and forces. But they do not have any explanation saying that these specific materials and forces are the one valid set, nor do they hold that perspective. That means, they would believe that there are other worlds with other laws. That would imply that this world is one among many possible worlds, and that would be the ultimate reality. However, when pressed to define what kinds of realities would exist in that ultimate reality, the materialist would often say that it contains all possibilities. But that would mean there is a reality in which someone is holding a child and suddenly the child turns into a ball of fire and dies. That’s an absurd situation, and even common rationality tells them that the specific world we are in would not lead to such events, because if it did, the entire field of science would not be valid. Then there are laws like the past of least action pointing out that even if many outcomes existed, only the most efficient path would be taken, and that explains how sudden deviations in laws don’t happen. But it still does not explain why we have these specific initial laws, and why they remain consistent instead of changing over time.
Then there are others who say that this specific world came about to exist randomly, and we only see it because we are part of its randomness. But then the same people cannot describe what randomness is, by showing at least one example. All random number generation algorithms are actually pseudo-random number generators, who require a seed value to make the number less predictable. But given the same seed, the numbers generated by the generator would always be predictable. So the rational definition of randomness as far as we know in daily use is simply “something which we do not know well enough to define.” But then that is not dismissive of theism, except that it gives you the freedom to disbelieve. So it is only an argument against religions that impose their dogmas, and not against other forms of theology. And in fact, not believing in something you don’t resonate with is important in Indian religions.
So we can see that a rationalist has to believe in an ultimate reality which may or may not be this world at first glance. And they must also see that the ultimate reality does not give rise to absurd and discontinuous realities. Yet, when they come to really define the constraints, they realize it is less random on one level, but still arbitrary on another level. Here is where the difference in perspective comes in from the Indian religions.
In the Indian perspective, Brahman or the ultimate self is the ultimate reality, and the world is an illusion. The specific reason for the origin of the illusion differs by the school of religion, but generally, in Advaita Vedanta, the ignorance of the Jeeva is the cause of the material world. But that is confusing since a Jeeva is part of the material world, so it would be like saying the ignorance of the child is the cause of its parent. But as far as I have studied this topic, I’ve realized that this just means that the world is an illusion and Brahman is not affected by it, yet the entities in the illusion are aware and think they are real, while Brahman alone is real. To make it more clear, the analogies used, mostly in other schools, include Prathibimba Vaada or the theory of reflection. Here, the dualistic world is said to be the reflection of Brahman’s radiance on itself, but Brahman is not its reflection. Now one thing to note is that classical Advaita Vedanta emphasized that Brahman is without attributes, and so it did not make use of these analogies, and still only views them as helpful tools. I thought of this model myself before seeing it was actually thought of by earlier philosophers, and I further refined it by modelling the analogy as a spherical mirror, whose points on the interior all perfectly absorb and emit light. As I watched some videos to see what this would look like, I saw that a person in a mirror cage would see multiple reflections of themselves and in case of a spherical mirror, there is a lot of darkness. Though I did not empirically study the optical behaviour of spherical mirrors, at first look, these made me find some significance in what was just a simple model I made to describe my thoughts. But Advaita Vedanta generally avoids describing the nature of the illusion as meaningful in any manner, and says Brahman does not use his will to create this world, and ignorance alone is the cause of the illusion. But I find this lacking in many ways. In other words, the Upaadhi, or limiting cause that causes the illusion is ignorance itself, but Brahman is not affected by it. Ignorance creates the world of divisions, while only Brahman is real. I kept describing this because I would myself get confused by this a lot.
But in Vishishta Advaita, Brahman is the cause of the world, and hence also the Upaadhi, and the same is true in Dvaita Vedanta, the dualist school. The main difference is that in Dvaita Vedanta, since Brahman is the Upaadhi for the world, if the Upaadhi ceases, Brahman ceases too. That is, while in Advaita Vedanta, if the Upaadhi ceases, Jeeva becomes one with Brahman. The debate goes on to see whether the reflection can be destroyed without destroying the source. To Advaitins, the reflection is unreal, so there is no question of destroying what is not real. While to the Dvaitins, the reflection is real and is dependent on the source. But the idea that ignorance is something that exists apart from Brahman itself cannot be true, so the logical explanation is that Brahman is the cause of the reflection, and the reflection merges back into Brahman. Kashmir Shaivism solves this by explaining the evolution of the world (in principle, not through time) using 36 principles, where Parama-Shiva-Shakthi or Para Brahman has free will and power, and is beyond descriptions, but the unfolding of creation can be explained using the principles. 23 of the principles, and Prakrti and Purusha are from the Saankhya Darshana adapted to Vedanta, and the remaining deal with the principles of Shiva’s nature and Maya’s nature. Basically, in Kashmir Shaivism, the world is created by Parama-Shiva-Shakthi’s free will, and Shiva himself experiences the world of illusions created by Shakthi. Shiva-Shakthi is Saguna Brahman.
Anyways the point here was to show that what’s intended by the super-natural is not necessarily something that is separate from the natural world. And even if it was separate in some regard, it still is from a different perspective. An analogy would be like asking who created numbers. Numbers are eternal, only the labels and number systems we use to describe them are our creations.
The personal deity is then just the ultimate reality beyond the world as viewed from the world of illusions.
Rough Notes
My takes on Advaita (rough): Canvas-Area (Brahman) / Painting (Maya) / Object Area (Duality) Since the Object Area as seen by the Object Areas is always structured and not chaotic, the Canvas Area (Eeshvara) maintains control. That means, the painting cannot be arbitrary.
For this reason, I say that Brahman has Shakthi, and that Shakthi imposes Maya on to Brahman.
It depends on how you see Para Brahman. If it is Krishna, the world is Leela. If it is Shiva-Shakthi, the world is Maaya of Shakthi. If it is Vishnu, it is his dream.
But, why doesn’t Maya change? Can I change it, being Brahman? Are there procedures (Tantra, Manifestation)? Can they be valid (Tantra, Manifestation), when I was given a reality without it?
Tell em (Discord):
As far as Hinduism is concerned, this world is an illusion. It’s not even a test, it’s just an illusion. And Brahman alone is real.
There are those who say All is God, as you guys say that Hindus say that cow is God, etc. They are all misguided.
There is no concern of what happens after death, because your soul is one. Life and death are part of the illusion. The self remains.
Ethics only exists to be in harmony in the illusion. The illusion is always a combination of three qualities.
About the Nature of Jeevas:
Chaithanya Charithamritha, Anthya Leela, Adhyaaya 4, Shloka 85:
kāṣṭhera putalī yena kuhake nācāya āpane nā jāne, putalī kibā nāce gāya!
Translation: “A wooden doll chants and dances according to the direction of a magician but does not know how he is dancing and singing.
Why Dhrita Jnaanis need not do Karma or Upaasana: http://www.vicharasagara.com/2015/04/a-drdha-jnanin-requires-no-sadhana.html (Vichaara Saagara = The Metaphysics of the Upanishads)
Main concern 1 (About the Anirvachaniya nature of Maya): I just read while studying Anirvachaniya Khatya, that Maya is Anirvachaniya from Paramarthika just as a Mirage is Anirvachaniya from Reality, as it is only an illusion. That clearly makes sense. But we (minds) from a higher reality (Vyavaharika) know why mirages (Prathibasika) happen due to effects of the Vyavaharika. But we are not able to describe, from Brahman’s perspective why Vyavaharika happens due to the effects in the Paramarthika. If we say ignorance, it must have some validity in Parmarthika (because it is ultimate) in order to explain the Vyavaharika. And what is that?
Kashmir Shaivism: Shakti actively manifests reality, so there’s no contradiction. Viśiṣṭādvaita: The world is Brahman’s body, so there’s no question of illusion at all.
Advaita tries to answer this by introducing Īśvara, the cosmic controller:
- Īśvara (God) is Brahman seen through Māyā.
- Māyā is universal, not just personal ignorance.
- The multiple paintings (worlds, experiences) arise due to the collective dream of Māyā, not individual ignorance.
Avidya is about identification. Something causes Maya though.
I hear Drishti Srishti Vaada explains the existence of the world after Moksha (from http://www.vicharasagara.com/2015/07/does-brahma-jnana-destroy-prarabdha.html). It is the same as solipsism (i.e. the waking world is also a dream). This is specifically Drishti Sama Samayaa Srishti, while Drishti Eva Srishti posits that all experience is insignificant, and only the ultimate reality is real.