The following proof to the non-existence of God is given by Melbourne philosopher Douglas Gasking. This is a funny counter-proof for the ontological ‘proof’ of the existence of God devised by St Anselm (1033–1109). Though Gasking has not proved the non-existence of God (Anselm had not proved the existence either) it makes an interesting read. The Gasking's proof is given below.
(1) The creation of the world is the most marvellous achievement imaginable.
(2) The merit of an achievement is the product of (a) its intrinsic quality, and (b) the ability of its creator.
(3) The greater the disability (or handicap) of the creator, the more impressive the achievement.
(4) The most formidable handicap for a creator would be non-existence.
(5) Therefore, if we suppose that the universe is the product of an existent creator, we can conceive a greater being – namely, one who created everything while not existing.
(6) An existing God, therefore, would not be a being than which a greate cannot be conceived, because an even more formidable and incredible creator would be a God which did not exist.
Ergo,
(7) God does not exist.
God a Paradox
Incidentally, omniscience and omnipotence properties that are normally associated to God are mutually incompatible. If God is omniscient, he must already know how he is going to intervene to change the course of history using his omnipotence. But that means he can't change his mind about his intervention, which means he is not omnipotent.
For example, let us assume yesterday God saw the state of the world on 31st December, 2099 by using his power of omniscience. And today, for some reason God wants to change the state of that future world through his power of omnipotence.
a) If he manages to change the world, then what he saw yesterday was not correct. So it negates his omniscience.
b) If he does not manage to change the world (since it violates the power of omniscience as stated above), it would violate God's power of omnipotence.
So a God, who can see everything and can do anything reduces to a mere mathematical paradox. Can such a God exist?
It was half past ten in the morning a typical lazy Sunday when I got out of bed. Surprisingly, Saddy was already up and was watching movie songs in Sun Music. Half an hour later, with usual morning duties complete, I joined him in our usual Sunday morning siesta. Shankar, my other roommate, came out of his room with his helmet in his hand. Put in a nutshell, Shankar was a guy who wanted to project himself as a DUDE. As he had a helmet and going out, we prompted him.
Me : "Dey!! Where are you going?"
Shankar : "Machi, very bored da. Simply going on a ride."
Saddy was surprised.
Saddy : "Rideaa... Where?"
Shankar : "Chumma jolly.. No particular place.. Wanna join?"
He gave us the usual look that a teacher would give to his class expecting an some reaction at the end of a boring and sleepy lecture.
We were just too lazy to do such a thing.
Me : "Poda.. Not interested. You go."
Saddy agreed with me.
Shankar : "Ok machi... I will see you guys later."
With this he left. We then occupied ourselves with our usual non-occupation. Half an hour passed with nothing particular to remember when I received a call. It was Shankar.
Me : "Hello.. What da?"
Shankar : "Machi petrol over. I am stranded in Ring road."
I was amused. I told Saddy. He started laughing his heart out.
Shankar : "Machi bring some petrol da. I will be waiting for you. Please hurry."
Me : "Ok da. We will start in 10 minutes."
With this our conversation ended. Saddy was still laughing.
Me : "Saddy we need to go NOW!!. I cannot drive holding a bottle of petrol in one hand."
Saddy : "Dey! I thought of going for an Oil massage today. Its 11:40 now. I will come back in a jiffy then we will go. We can have our lunch while coming back."
I have to admit that till that second Saddy had not uttered a single word about "Oil massage" as a part of his morning itinerary.
Me : "Machan, it will be late. Shankar will be waiting."
Saddy : "Machi, you worry too much da. I will be back in a jiffy."
With this Saddy left the house in a renewed enthusiasm. After Twenty five minutes he was back.
Me : "Shall we go?"
Saddy : "Dey, after Oil massage one needs to take head bath in warm water. That's what Boger had said before dying."
I really did not want to argue with Saddy about Boger. So I let him have his say on things. Meanwhile I was getting missed calls from Shankar, and the interval between two missed calls was decreasing. I have to confess those calls were deliberately missed by me.
After following all good advices of Boger, Saddy was ready to leave. I checked my watch. It happily showed 1:00 PM. With little remorse we went out to help our friend. Poor Shankar was stranded for almost 2 hours waiting for help from us. We made up few excuses for our delay on our way. It was 1:20 PM when we met him.
I was expecting Shankar to screem at us. On the contrary he was very calm and collected, even though he was shooting venomous looks at us. Five minutes later, with the petrol in his Hero Honda Splendor, he sat down to kick his engine to life. He made few attempts.
Kick. No response.
Kick.. Kick.. Kick.. Again no sign of the engine getting started.
Saddy and I were unusually silent. I was little disappointed because Shankar did not scream at us for being late. We had made some brilliant and comical excuses to tell him, which became useless. Anyways, everything was alright by then.
Kick.. Kick.. and this time the engine sprang to life. Shankar was a very relieved and happy man. He looked at us and thanked us.
In return I went up to him and asked, "So.. How was the ride?"
We should be proud of our country. We should protect the integrity and sovereignty of our republic. I bet every person in this world would have heard of their responsibilities towards building their nation. Much would have been said and heard about their country and its founding fathers. Here in India there is so much said about how Mahatma Gandhi through his sheer power of non-violence moved this country from gloom to brightness. Nationalism is rooted into out DNA in almost all phase of life. JFK's words "Ask not what the country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country" epitomizes the idea of nationalism. Every citizen should pitch in and contribute to national building. He/she should feel proud of their mother land.
I have to admit I was one of those who believed in all this. Until I got to think about it after 26th November, Mumbai attacks.
Let me give few cases to convey my message
Case A
Consider a remote town in South Africa in the mid 1980's when Apartheid was the norm in the land. A white kid in those times would have been told to be proud of being a WHITE. He/she is superior than a black kid because he belongs to a more divine race.
Case B
A group of teenagers in some remote village in Pakistan are recruited by some terrorist outfit whose main aim is to cause harm to any other communities which does not recognize their faith as the undisputed law. These teenagers are trained and constantly reminded of being proud of being a Muslim and a Jihadi.
Case C
Group of soldiers of Israel army are trained to cause maximum damage to any of Israel's neighbors under order. Similarly the Palestinian group are to proud to be Palestinian and oppose foreign oppression.
My question is simple. What difference is there in the ideology of these cases.
i) when a kid is made to feel proud of being a white in South Africa (OR)
ii) when a kid is made to feel proud of being a Muslim in Pakistan (OR)
iii) when a kid is made to feel proud of being a Israeli or Palestinian
People are made to feel proud of a divide under which they fall and have been categorized. I find this disturbing. How different is "Nationalism" stripped out of all the decorations, jewelery and euphemism that surrounds it be any different from "Racism"? Is it not the same about any division asking to be patronized?
Why is the world divided like the way it is? May be men are attracted to power and money. Men need to have a sphere of influence. When some elements want to gain more power, and to protect their sphere of influence, they engineer/promote a divide. For example division based on faith, language, state, race etc are engineered to satisfy only a handful of people who gain power, recognition and may be money out of it. Kids are easily influenced by the surrounding and so are easy targets. If a conducive environment to propagate this kind of partisan feeling are established, any kid groomed in that kind of environment would would certainly believe what is told.
State, religious outfits, political parties want to establish and maintain this divide to exist and thrive. I am not saying we should turn a blind-eye to all these divisions. A black kid is black and a white kid is white, because there is a division in race through natural cause. Why should the community recognize this division? A Muslim is different from Christian who is different from a Hindu only on the basis of faith. Why should there be a need for a political party based on faith/race/language/caste? On one had we say that all races are equal. But on the other hand we are made to be feel proud of our mother country. Isn't this contradictory? Why should I feel proud to be an Indian? Why can't I just feel proud to be what I am as a person and nothing more?
Why is the world not Ideal? I wonder if it ever was (ideal) and it can ever be...
It takes an innovation to make a difference in the world. Many corporate gaints come out of disaster because of an innovation. Mustang for Ford and Pulsar for Bajaj were life savers.
Similarly cinema industry has seen many films made from time to time which had caught public imagination there by becoming part of a rich cinema history. But are these path breaking films really innovative? Typically in Indian context, a film is defined by its Hero. Likes of Amithabh's dialogues, Ranjini's style, Hritik's moves has been the USP for films in many era.
Viewed from a broader perspective, Indian audience love their cine heroes and the villains are equally disliked. Kids remember Rajini as Baasha but how many would revere Raghuvaran as Mark Antony. It goes without saying that hero worship has been a part of the semantics of word "Entertainment" in India. Annals of cinema history would reveal many actors who have determined a films success in box office relying on their popularity and a huge fan base. If movie industry is to be personified, it might just say
"Heroes may come, Heroes may go
But I go on for ever because of them."
Such is the effect of heroes on the success and failures of projects of Indian film industry.
Why should only heroes are acclaimed most of the time? The role of anti-hero is not very popular among audience. But why aren't the actors playing anti-hero as popular as their counterparts?
It may be because of Hero is the Last Man Standing. The villain may have an army of hit-men, an over-flowing inventory of all the gadgets and weapons (which even Osama Bin-Laden would love to possess), but he is still not worshiped. In contrast the hero born in a poor hapless family struggles in life and in the end defeats the villain against odds like one in a trillion is adored. Reason is villain typically is beaten in the end and our hero will be named the crowned champion as always. Public loves underdogs. And if the underdog is made to look like a normal middle-class public, its become a irresitable combination.
It may also be because it always the Hero who gets the girl. Though the villain has many girls to satisfy his carnal itches, only the hero will have a soul-mate. The hero gets to sing songs in the rain, endure group dances that the heroin would demand but hey, he gets his girl. Almost all the famous love songs portray the hero. I can't think of a single famous love song for villain and his mistress. Whenever villain is portrayed, the back ground music is switched to an ultra pitched devil of a noise. But when hero woes his girl, industry has produced some wonderful songs. In the end hero saves the girl from the evil clutches of the villain, but the villain loses his power, dignity and mistress in a swoop of 10 odd minutes climax. The writers are not generous enough to make the villain rot in hell but in the company of his mistress.
The entire genre of "Goodguy-beats-Badguy" films or stories essentially portray the good nature of the hero and bad nature of the villain in an emphatic way. But has the good nature of villains has ever been discovered by a typical movie audience. Ravana in Ramayana is a ulitmate bad-ass. He is abominable with his 10 heads. Did anyone observed that Ravana was as wise as person as to be described as a person with intelligence of 10 people? He could have been master of 10 different fields. But no, the audience want to watch a Ravana with 10 heads.
Isn't there space in the story for a villain to retain his self-dignity? There are legendary villains like Gabbar in Sholay, Mogambo in Mr.India. But they have to run like a beaten mice in the end. Atleast Ravana in Ramayana had the dignity. He says to Rama before dying "Rama, whenever people remember you, they will remember me". Only handful of villains enjoy getting their ass kicked with dignity.
It all makes me wonder, is the Indian audience atrocious in its demands or are they deliberately manipulated by the industry to shape their taste of entertainment? Why doesn't audience get to see a more good-looking, very intelligent anti-hero? The greater the villain's acumen, the sharper his plot the hero who eventually will have to rise all the more higher in stature to overcome him.
Agreed that hero has to take care of his family, pay fee of his siblings education, struggle in life and does not lose hope when broke. But isn't it odd for a hero to have a family and villain to be a loner? Even if villains do have family, why should their children be side-kick villains?
In all likelihood, the actors playing villain would get lesser paycheck than his counterpart. The audience should make judgment of a movie based on performances of its various elements, rather than just dumb hero-worship. I find some movies which were box-office hit (especially some Tamil movies and SRK movies), based purely on the heroes popularity. Movie industry like any other industry had become a money squandering industry. Profit is the decision maker. Lot of questions have been asked in this posts. Questions for which we all know the ready made answers to. The general public will always be served with the same desert with different toppings. Its left to the audience to decide what they want to eat. Its like Henry Ford saying
"Any customer can have a car painted any color that he wants so long as it is black"
In a country where movie industry has a profound impact on its political history, where the next Chief Minister could easily have come from movie industry, shouldn't the audience be more aware and sound in its judgment? For all its history, only heroes have become popular. Wouldn't a corrupt politician use this to his advantage and pull-up a popular hero to canvass for him? Would any politician ever call villains to canvass for him? How easy is it to use this Hero-Villain divide to move mass popularity?
When will the audience judge their villains based on the performance? I would love to see the day when an anti-hero actor gets paid more than his adversary mainly because of his performance. Or an anti-hero actor becomes the next Chief Minister, based on just one criteria. He should be a good leader. That would mean that the public understands the real definition of a hero.
