Surrendra Gangadean is a Professor of Philosophy at Paradise Community College in Phoenix, Arizona whose new book Philosophical Foundation: A Critical Analysis of Basic Beliefs attempts to prove the existence of God from reason.
Gangadean uses Cornelius Van Til's presuppositional technique, with the basis on reason instead of Scripture, to deduce from Reason that God exists. Here are the basic steps:
# Reason is clear, because it is self evident and innate; consisting of the law of identity (a=a), the law of the excluded middle (a or not-a), and the law of non-contradiction (not both a and not-a in the same respect and at the same time). # Existence is clear, because of the law of identity (a must exist). Temporal is clear, because of the law of non-contradiction (a and not-a at different times). Eternal is clear, because of the law of the excluded middle (not-temporal). # Existence is eternal (no beginning and without change) or temporal (has a beginning)… Eternal existence is clear; because if all existence was temporal then being came from non-being, this violates the law of the excluded middle (no difference between a and not-a). # All things are eternal or some is eternal… The existence of the self or mind is clear; because of the ability to think, thought is an action and action proves existence (law of non-contradiction, a to not-a). Mind is conscious (self aware), temporal (not all knowing), and has no extension. The existence of matter is because clear; (1) my mind does not have total control (more than I exists), (2) my mind has some control and involuntary sensations (I am not part of another’s mind), (3) unlike minds, there is existence, outside of all minds, that has extension and no consciousness. It is clear that matter (that which is extended and not conscious) is temporal; because it is not self maintaining (entropy), had a beginning, and changes. Some is eternal. # Eternal, nonmaterial existence is clear. The existence of God is clear; because eternal existence caused matter to come into existence (no other source), so an intelligent (evidenced by order and complexity), all powerful (created out of nothing), and all knowing (intelligence and eternality) Creator exists.
I believe this author also runs some sort of very odd fundamentalist "doxologically reformed" church and is a philosophy professor for PVCC in North Phoenix. Met him once, gave me the MEGA-CREEPS. His adherents sound like parrots "meaning is more basic than truth", "I am church", "the good". I smell cool-aide.
Guest
2. 27-01-2010 18:42
This is a link to his church site http://westminsterfellowship.com/
This is a link to his philosophy notes for PVCC http://www2.pvc.maricopa.edu/~gangadean/
Very intriguing and baffling logic.
Guest
3. 30-01-2010 03:19
There seem to be some factual errors in this entry. See the book Philosophical Foundations for clarification.
Guest
4. 29-03-2010 16:48
What ridiculous sophistry!
Guest
5. 17-03-2011 17:08
Mr. Gangadean is running a small cult made-up of former student of his "philosophy" (reformed apologetics" class. He is a fraud and what he is doing is illegal.
To all his sheep - you morons deserve the tyranny that you have sold yourselves to. I rejoice in your captivity.
Guest
6. 21-09-2011 22:52
My family has lost our son to this cult.
Guest
7. 03-11-2011 16:29
actually you are all wrong. Professor Gangadean is very right. but further more reason is right. and if you deny reason, then you deny to think and talk. so why are you commenting on this post? if you cant think and talk, then quit existing. can you deny that some things are clear? can you deny that something must be eternal, and that the nature of the eternal must be good? can you still make a claim that matter or soul are eternal? if you had read this book you might find all of what you are saying to be rediculous. and no, he is not the leader of a cult, he is influencing the unintellectual to be intellectual. which clearly flew right over your head, if you actually read the book that is... i was a skeptic idealist before i heard of all of this. unfortunetely i would have agreed with Immanuel Kant before having learned of what Gangadean said, which now that i say that is embarassing. if you can prove him to be wrong with out attacking him with something personal and useless then please do so, because i, and many others, would love to hear it.
Guest
8. 06-01-2012 18:22
To Aj- The argument for if your going to deny reason which form thoughts, judgements, and concepts, then you should stop speaking because your not thinking. That's from class. I have taken Philosophy 101, Ethics, and world religions. I have been to Mr. G's church. Believe me when I say that, yes the book is bias. I have read the entire book. Anyone who reads the book, can see that it ends in Christianity before it goes into ethics which is merely a break down of the 10 commandments. The book is not a very easy read either and full of complicated big words and circular arguments. Thinking presuppositional is like always having a back up in his class. My last class I took was world religions and before the class I had already stopped going to his church. By the way ALL of the teachers and teachers aides that teach any of the classes all go to Mr.G's church. When it comes down to it my friend, he cannot actually put up an argument against other religions. He just tells you why it doesn't make sense by only examining small parts of the religion itself. Philosophical Foundation is not a pre req for the class yet we were learning all over again the arguments in his book. My test for hinduism had 10 questions. 6 of them were objections to the religion.
It is more possible for there to be many truths then just one.
Guest
9. 26-02-2012 02:38
"You are wrong Gangadean is right" - lol. Silly Gangadeanian, hush when the adults are talking, darlin'.
Guest
10. 24-03-2012 20:31
AJ - That's alot of sound and fury there.
This is just TAG with bells on. You don't need the bells. TAG works alot better without the dead weight of Christianity around it's neck.
