Indian Logic and Atomism: An Exposition of the Nyaya and Vaiceshika Systems c19.s2.5

c19.s2.5

Thirdly, it is shown that no means of proof yields results opposed to the reality of God. He is not perceived, but *ex hypothesi* he is not perceptible. He is inferred, and inference is trustworthy; its refutation always rests on inference, which shows that it cannot inherently be invalid. Comparison yields only knowledge of the significance of words, and tells nothing of existence, and thus cannot negate God. Verbal testimony declares his being; when it seems to negate it, it merely denies him attributes. The argument from presumption. ‘If God were omniscient, would he not cause us to act without laying down injunctions?’ whence the uselessness of the Veda and the non-existence, therefore, of its author are deduced, is invalid, for we must have directions for our actions, and in any case presumption and non-apprehension are not valid means of proof.