Our God — Page 7
Introduction 7 starts denying even self-evident truths. When this objection was raised in the past—however absurd and baseless it was—it had the potential to deceive some ignorant people. But what surprises me is that this objection should be raised in the present age! I am truly astonished at the intellect of people who use such objections to justify their denial of God. But as it is a common objection, I will proceed to answer it, albeit briefly. There are different ways of learning about things. For instance, we learn by sight, sound, taste, smell, texture, or move- ment. All information we derive from the various senses, have the same degree of authenticity and credibility. We cannot demand that we must learn about something through a particular sense, or else we shall deny its very existence. The eyes, for example, are the medium for perceiving different colours; the nose is used for discerning different smells; and, the ears are for hearing sounds. Would it not be sheer insanity to insist that unless we could see a certain smell with our eyes, or smell a particular colour with our nose, or feel a particular sound with our hands, we shall not believe that it exists? Whoever makes such demands would be considered insane, and if perchance he is not sent to the lunatic asylum, he will certainly become a laughing stock for the street urchins. Strange to say, people raise such objections about God all the time and are still considered wise! Do they find nothing other than God to make the object of their mockery? So far I have mentioned only the physical senses through which we acquire knowledge of various worldly phenomena. But there are countless other things which we cannot experience through any of our physical senses. Yet we have the same degree of certainty about them as about the others. Take the magnetic