The Chicago-Prashnottar: 51-55 Questions & Answers

Published: 08.07.2011
Updated: 10.07.2011

51. Question:

As to your statement that all objects having bodies are the work of an intelligent Being, I give an example and it that an old ruined well reminds of: a mason, though not present there, as in the case of a newly built well.


Your positionis not correct, a cloud, a serpent's hole etc. are objects having bodies but their maker is not any intelli-gent Being. If you say that a cloud, the rainbow, a serpent's hole &c. are not considered to be the work of an all-intelli-gent. Being, then similarly the earth and mountains do not require an intelligent Being to produce them.

God is never proved to be the creator of the world on the strength of the arguments hitherto advanced. I ask those who believe God to be the creator of the world to thoroughly answer all my arguments and until they do so, they should cease believing in the God being the creator of the world. If any believers in God answer all these arguments satisfactorily, I shall feel inclined to that belief, otherwise my position holds good.

52. Question:

God is not proved to be the creator of the world, i now ask you whether it is not true that there is only one God.


There is no evidence to show that there is only one God. Until such evidence is produced, the oneness of God cannot be established.

53. Question:

The argument showing the singularity of God is this. When a number of men undertake a work, it does not succeed owing to the difference of views of these men. If there were many Gods, there would be a great difference of opinions among them regarding the work of creation, which would produce confusion. Does it not therefore show that God is only One?


Your reasoning does not establish the oneness of God, because God has not been proved to be the creator of any thing. Is it not strange that while a multitude of bees become of one mind in the construc-tion of their honeycomb, Gods, who are lofty souls, immutable, immaterial, and of the forms of light, do not agree with each other. Do you consider Gods to be inferior even to insects in intelligence, knowledge and goodness as they cannot agree?

54. Question:

The construction of the honeycomb, which a swaim of bees seem to build, is really due to the inner working of God,


If it is so, then all such acts as making a pot, committing theft or fornication &c. will appear to have really been prompted by God, and man will be stripped of their responsibility.

Who will in such circumstances suffer the consequences of their deeds? Nor will there remain any necessity of sending men to heaven or hell.

55. Question:

It is evident that a potter, a thief or for the matter of that any other man has perfect liberty of action.


Are bees alone to be debarred from having liberty of action? When such a difficulty comes in the way in the belief of only one God, one fails to understand how enormously would these difficulties be multiplied if there are many Gods engaged in creating the world with conflicting views, as there would be no foreman among them. One God, on seeing another God, will be jealous of his equal power and many other similar difficulties will spring up. Your argument based on the above assumption regarding the oneness of God, is really rotten and unsound. When you call God to be omniscient, it does not behove you to say that such beings will have a divergence of opinion and that they will not be of one mind.

When a God is assumed to be devoid of passions, jealousy, pride &c, how will he be affected by jealousy and pride on meeting another equally powerful God? If such Gods were to quarrel among themselves led by jealousy and pride, they would cease to be Gods. When it is impossible to prove God to be the creator of the world, how is it possible to prove mutual bickerings among Gods in the matter? It is, therefore, free from any logical flaw to believe in a number of Gods. The assumption that God is omnipresent, is also untenable. If God is omnipresent, is he so by means of his material form or the form of knowledge?

If God pervades all by his material form, then the whole universe will be overwhelmed with the immensity of his body; no room will be left for other substances to stand. It is, therefore, impossible to think that God pervades the universe by his material form.


The Chicago-Prashnottar

Translator & Publisher:
Atmanand Jain Pustak Pracharak Mandal, Roshan Mohalla, Agra.

Edition: 1918 (1st Edition - 500 books)

Edited Online Edition: HereNow4U

Share this page on:
Page glossary
Some texts contain  footnotes  and  glossary  entries. To distinguish between them, the links have different colors.
  1. Body
  2. Omniscient
  3. Pride
Page statistics
This page has been viewed 837 times.
© 1997-2023 HereNow4U, Version 4.52
Contact us
Social Networking

HN4U Deutsche Version
Today's Counter: