*** Science Or God? ***

[Aberforth]

Re: ***science Or God?***

And by the way, you're wrong about exploring the Universe and getting satisfaction from it. From what I know about cosmology, the more we know about the Universe, the less satisfying it is. And more confusing, of course!

I am sorry to say, you are wrong to assume exploration of mysteries in the universe means a study of cosmology. Cosmology is the study of universe as 'cosmos' or space. Universe consists of subatomic particles to living beings to giant galaxies which puts all branches of science under the purview of universe. It is mentally stimulating and gratifying to unravel and delve into these mysteries for a scientist, to the point of being addictive. Confusion and skepticism is only for the intellectually blunt: doubts are for the intelligents. The mysteries of the universe aren't confusing, they just become clearer once they are understood.

First cause(Etiological ) proof can be stated as follows:

1. Everything that exists or begins to exist has a cause.

> yes even for small events has a cause,for example a falling leaf has a cause behind it may be a wind or something else,power cut u know something is causing it,like this every small, even a motion of electron has a cause behind it.


2. The universe exists and began to exist.
> everyone knows it exist ,there must be a cause which has no cause behind it , something familiar isn't?

3. The universe must have a cause.
>come up with a event that has no cause behind it, u can't

4. The cause of the universe is God.

>why not ,universe need a first cause,and universe still exist, for universe to exist there must be a cause...it must be eternal....all things start from this first cause....sound's familiar...yes for long time now holly books like Geetha,bible r saying in a simple way that people could understand.

THERE MUST BE ATLEAST A SUPERPOWER ABOVE ALL

Causality is an idea, a philosophy and not an exact science per se and it can't be used to existence of god. If you refer to use of causality in science, the universe existed because of the seperation of matter and anti-matter and conversion of matter into energy. If god was the cause then what is the origin and cause of god's existence? And using you logic and causality, I could prove Santa Claus comes to my backyard, tooth fairy exists, I am immortal....blah blah... Plus Bible and Gita are all human written books of philosophy and they have been often been found mistaken (human errors) in other spheres that their claim of god in incredible - normal humans made these texts.

 

[Yamaraj]

Re: ***science Or God?***

I am sorry to say, you are wrong to assume exploration of mysteries in the universe means a study of cosmology. Cosmology is the study of universe as 'cosmos' or space. Universe consists of subatomic particles to living beings to giant galaxies which puts all branches of science under the purview of universe. It is mentally stimulating and gratifying to unravel and delve into these mysteries for a scientist, to the point of being addictive. Confusion and skepticism is only for the intellectually blunt: doubts are for the intelligents. The mysteries of the universe aren't confusing, they just become clearer once they are understood.

I very much understand what Cosmology and explorations are, and I'm not unaware of the differences between the two. Cosmology is much greater a domain of sciences, exploration, and metaphysics than you happen to think. It's the study of the Cosmos in its entirety. Whether it's the particles or strings that make our clock tick, is still quite a mystery.

I don't know about you, but to me - confusion, skepticism and doubt have more in common than the differences. And your statement was quite prejudiced and outright offensive. We've had fine and civil discussions til now; let's keep it that way.

Oh, and I agree with you on causality. There are valid argument against the existance of an "Almighty". Like, "Could God create a rock so heavy He could not lift it?".

 

[runeet]

Re: ***science Or God?***

god created science.

 

[Aberforth]

Re: ***science Or God?***

And your statement was quite prejudiced and outright offensive. We've had fine and civil discussions til now; let's keep it that way.

If disagreeing with you is uncivil and offensive then I'm sorry it will be difficult to be civil.

 

[Shasanka_Gogoi]

Re: ***science Or God?***

Gr8 Post

 

[indian_samosa]

Re: ***science Or God?***

But we can all be satisfied once we die ...as ...the person himself will know whether he exists or not out of his body or whateva.So just wait for a few years.

 

[sysfilez]

Re: ***science Or God?***

God is Almighty.

 

[Yamaraj]

Re: ***science Or God?***

If disagreeing with you is uncivil and offensive then I'm sorry it will be difficult to be civil.

So be it! I know you have the right to be in disagreement with me, but there should at least be valid reasons and arguments in due process. What you have essentially been saying that science is the answer to all questions and nothing metaphysical or supernatural can exist beyond its claws.

Behold! Science is only a set of mathematical and logical tools bound within some natural restrictions. Big Bang used to be a theory until others were able to gather significant data and facts against it. Science is a mothod, not an answer in itself; hence it differs from theology, philosophy and metaphysics. Science cannot tell if we're living inside a simulation. It cannot describe, analyze or predict things beyond its reach. Surely enough, Universe stretches far beyond any scientist has seen, and that doesn't mean that "unknown" Universe does not exist.

Science has severe limitations. That, it is based on observations and perception. A flatlander scientist living in a 2D world can never realize, even with his mathematics developed within the limitations, that there is more to the World than his plane. Scientists have been continuously trying to find how and when the Universe evolved. Perhaps someday they'll find answers closer to the reality, but can science tell us "What and why the Universe is?"

Remember, science is a method and a set of tools, and should never be compared with metaphysics and philosophy. It's not about "skepticism", "confusion" or "doubt", it's the ability to differentiate between two different things that matters.

 

[Aberforth]

Re: ***science Or God?***

What you have essentially been saying that science is the answer to all questions and nothing metaphysical or supernatural can exist beyond its claws.

I'd love to see you back up this statement. Science has sufficient answers to the mysteries of the universe (including all in it) to disprove the need to a mystical, super natural god. Science also can explain why people believe in a mystical super being called god. Metaphysics isn't my concern and I don't believe in super natural phenomena, nature is varied enough to have explanations for every observed phenomena, nothing is 'super' for it.
__________

Science is only a set of mathematical and logical tools bound within some natural restrictions. Science is a mothod, not an answer in itself; hence it differs from theology, philosophy and metaphysics.

Science is never defined as an answer, it is the search and understanding of facts and knowledge which science really stands for. Neither are theology and philosophy an answers, they are based on assumptions and fantasy and have little evidence to back up their findings, except more fantasy.

Philosophy often relies on scientific methods to verify its findings, so they are pretty interrelated.

Science has severe limitations. That, it is based on observations and perception. A flatlander scientist living in a 2D world can never realize, even with his mathematics developed within the limitations, that there is more to the World than his plane.

Science is the quest and understanding of facts and knowledge. A scientist living in a 2D world can understand the existence of a 3D world if sufficient observations have been made, it would not be impossible to simulate a 3D image or vision in a 2D world. It is religion and theology which will be bound to think and answer in the limitations of a 2D world, until it gets disproved by findings using the scientific method.

Examples -

1. We see a flat world, it is scientific observations which gave the concept of round world and scientific technology which finally proved it. Until then the-god-people believed what they were told.

2. Humans lived in a world with gravity, it was philosophy to think everything has a natural tendency to fall down. Yet it was a scientist who questioned it, used mathematics to measure this property of falling down and gave the equation to understand a zero gravity condition.

The two examples prove that with scientific approach, the world around us isn't limited to mere physical existence and imagination. If I were to transport someone from the 15th century to today, they would have thought we were a generation of sorcery and magic.

I can give tons if you wish...

 

[Yamaraj]

Re: ***science Or God?***

Science has insufficient hypotheses to the mysteries of the universe (including all in it) to disprove the need to a mystical, super natural god.

Fixed for you.

Science is never defined as an answer, it is the search and understanding of facts and knowledge which science really stands for. Neither are theology and philosophy an answers, they are based on assumptions and fantasy and have little evidence to back up their findings, except more fantasy.

Philosophy often relies on scientific methods to verify its findings, so they are pretty interrelated.

Problem is that your words are not yours, but imported. The whole "religion vs. science" bitterness is an entirely Western issue. We have never had such conflicts in eastern religions, mysticism and philosophy. Our ancient scholars were both religious and scientists at the same time. The concept of atheism or agnosticism is also a "part" of eastern religions, not against them.

It's alright if you have closed your mind to facts and views other what you seem to be preoccupied with. But don't go on assuming that others are stupid because they don't think the way you do.

Science is the quest and understanding of facts and knowledge. A scientist living in a 2D world can understand the existence of a 3D world if sufficient observations have been made, it would not be impossible to simulate a 3D image or vision in a 2D world. It is religion and theology which will be bound to think and answer in the limitations of a 2D world, until it gets disproved by findings using the scientific method.

Science is only a method of exploring what is already out there. The Universe does not exist because of scientists or their "facts", and it does not cease to everytime the "facts" are debased and defaced. No offense intended, but you clearly need to put some efforts in understanding the dynamics of science. Even the best works of best scientists can vaguely be compared with the findings of the seven blind men, who were left to feel an elephant and conclude their findings. Science also requires a certain amount of faith and belief, even if in scientific methods only, to ignore the ever growing pile of failures and keep going.

Belief in a god is only a hypothesis. I don't believe in one. But I don't have a blind faith in science either - to accept all the crap they keep coming with. Many scientists, and mathematicians in particular, are under false impression that the Universe and everything can be explain with one or a few equations and theories. Hence the efforts in finding a "Unified" theory. You need to understand that science has its limitations. It cannot describe and solve everything.

1. We see a flat world, it is scientific observations which gave the concept of round world and scientific technology which finally proved it. Until then the-god-people believed what they were told.

Again with your typical Biblical references. Even before there was any Christ, Indians knew it very well that Earth was round and not flat.

2. Humans lived in a world with gravity, it was philosophy to think everything has a natural tendency to fall down. Yet it was a scientist who questioned it, used mathematics to measure this property of falling down and gave the equation to understand a zero gravity condition.

I'm not denying science. It's because of scientists and scientific people that we are here expressing our views and e-insulting everyone on the net. If you are thinking of me as a Bible-thumping arrogant preaching to the choir, it's your problem.

The two examples prove that with scientific approach, the world around us isn't limited to mere physical existence and imagination. If I were to transport someone from the 15th century to today, they would have thought we were a generation of sorcery and magic.

Examples? Sorry if I missed any.

I can give tons if you wish...

That is almost as much as I can take. One at a time!

Newtonian-Euclidian model was perfect in its day. Not anymore! General Relativity was a sensation in its time. Not so much now. Strings have made the entire Particle Physics look like a joke. There is no certainty at quantum level - you can both exist and not at the same time. And you can sound intelligent and stupid at once! Quantum Cosmology makes everyone's head spin. There is no t=0, yet the Universe was born according to the "facts" and "theories". Still, other scientists disagree and say it may have existed forever, with no beginning in time and no end at all. First, there were 3 dimensions, then 4, and then 10, but suddenly M-theory requies another one! Some have even come up with valid equations for 26 in total. To satisfy their equations, scientists invented "Dark Matter" and "Dark Energy". "Aether/Ether" anyone?

It's a particle. It's a wave. No, it's a string!

There are no "facts" in science, only observations and conclusions. Einstein's GR is being challanged as I write this piece of junk.

UPDATE:-
Here are some links if you still cannot figure out what science is:
1. *www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/diapsids/buzz/dinoscience.html
2. *users.marshall.edu/~bady/isc203/science/falsify.html

Many "hardcore" scientists and experts think that since "theories" like Big Bang and numerous others cannot be either observed or falsified, they're not part of "true science". Here's excerpt for you:

"Although the Big Bang Theory is widely accepted, it probably will never be proved; consequentially, leaving a number of tough, unanswered questions." SOURCE - *liftoff.msfc.nasa.gov/academy/universe/b_bang.html

So, if true science cannot properly deal with cosmology, quantum physics, evolution and other unfalsifiable and unobservables, you know it's no better than metaphysics and philosophy.

UPDATE 2:-

1. Eternal Oscilating Universe
-------------------------------
"According to Hindu eschatology the Universe and the circle of its re-creation completely correspond to the individual circle of periodic transfers of the soul, so during the "great break up" the entire Universe is completely emptied, and only Prakrti remains (original indifference and immobility of matter) while the original spirit Purusha draws all souls into itself. After this a new cycle begins. Out of Prakrti a new Brahman appears to create a new world, and the original spirit Purusha and all souls are resurrected (...). The similarity to our model isn't just qualitative. If we calculate the time between one "birth" and "destruction" of the world (4,300,000*1000*2*30*365*24*60*60) we get the figure of 9.76*1021 seconds. It is almost fascinating that the time of one period (or oscillation) of Eternal Oscillating Universe has been estimated at 100 billion years, which is 3.15*1021 seconds, which corresponds amazingly precisely with the "duration of one Brahma's life"..."
From - *www.beotel.yu/~gmarjanovic/etosun.html

2. Hindu Cosmology - *www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=16672

3. "There's a good myth about Vishnu (the lord of the universe) finding out he and his whole universe is only a dream in the mind of Brahman, who is also dreaming of many other universes with other Vishnus and so on, and they all cycle and so on. Vishnu is considerably humbled... not easy to do with an almighty Lord of the Universe." - *blog.washingtonpost.com/achenblog/2006/05/the_infinite_universe.html

Sometimes, deities are introduced only to deal with the average minds, who cannot do and digest all the thoughts and philosophy underlying it. Also, Hinudism is not a religion but a way of living. And, it's definitely different from other religions, not only fundamentally but scientifically. Scientists have problems dealing with a sacred text that states the age of Universe as only a few thousand years, never with the one that come closest to their own findings.

"The Hindu religion is the only one of the world's great faiths dedicated to the idea that the Cosmos itself undergoes an immense, indeed an infinite, number of deaths and rebirths. It is the only religion in which the time scales correspond, to those of modern scientific cosmology. Its cycles run from our ordinary day and night to a day and night of Brahma, 8.64 billion years long. Longer than the age of the Earth or the Sun and about half the time since the Big Bang. And there are much longer time scales still." - Carl Sagan

"A millennium before Europeans were wiling to divest themselves of the Biblical idea that the world was a few thousand years old, the Mayans were thinking of millions and the Hindus billions" - Carl Sagan, again.

"Some foolish men declare that a Creator made the world. The doctrine that the world was created is ill-advised, and should be rejected. If God created the world, where was he before creation? Know that the world is uncreated, as time itself is, without beginning and end." - Jinasena, India, c. 900 A.D

 

[Aberforth]

Re: ***science Or God?***

Fixed for you.

Misquoting and pulling words out of context doesn't make you look cooler by the way. Do you thrive in pissing off others and creating controversy? That isn't debate but insult.

I meant what I said - Science has sufficient answers to the questions of this universe and all in it, which were the domain of theology and it can provide the answers which would make the requirement of God pretty ridiculous. Even if they are not perfect and comprehensive, the have sufficient backbone to shake foundations of 'god' beliefs.

Problem is that your words are not yours, but imported. The whole "religion vs. science" bitterness is an entirely Western issue. We have never had such conflicts in eastern religions, mysticism and philosophy. Our ancient scholars were both religious and scientists at the same time. The concept of atheism or agnosticism is also a "part" of eastern religions, not against them.

My opinions are not imported and science is not a western concept. The thread is not in western religious versus science argument, it is on science vs god, which rather means "Does god have to exist in the light of science?".

But I don't have a blind faith in science either - to accept all the crap they keep coming with. Many scientists, and mathematicians in particular, are under false impression that the Universe and everything can be explain with one or a few equations and theories. Hence the efforts in finding a "Unified" theory. You need to understand that science has its limitations. It cannot describe and solve everything.

Science is not a doctrine as your words imply, perhaps you view science as a faith on opinions of scientists. It is not saw, an uplausible idea will be rejected if it cannot be observed and reproduced under lab conditions - pick global warning as example. I admire the efforts to find a unified theory, knowledge leads to enlightenment. Like it or not, most of the technology of today's world were results of years to trial and hit scientific researches which incidentally includes the computer you used to type and the internet which you connected to.

Again with your typical Biblical references. Even before there was any Christ, Indians knew it very well that Earth was round and not flat.

Can you back it up with proofs?

Examples? Sorry if I missed any.

If you actually read the two example I gave above, about how scientists aren't limited b their physical surroundings. Gravity and flat world were two of them.

So, if true science cannot properly deal with cosmology, quantum physics, evolution and other unfalsifiable and unobservables, you know it's no better than metaphysics and philosophy.

Sorry to burst you rambles, but what does all this have to do with god vs science? Seeing such rants I can't waste my time reading the rest, sorry if I sound rude.

 

[Yamaraj]

Re: ***science Or God?***

Misquoting and pulling words out of context doesn't make you look cooler by the way. Do you thrive in pissing off others and creating controversy? That isn't debate but insult.

We settled upon this 'insult' issue a few posts back, didn't we?

I meant what I said - Science has sufficient answers to the questions of this universe and all in it, which were the domain of theology and it can provide the answers which would make the requirement of God pretty ridiculous. Even if they are not perfect and comprehensive, the have sufficient backbone to shake foundations of 'god' beliefs.

You can say whatever you like, and you can say it all day long. Science still does not have the answers to the most significant of all problems - the Universe, and most likey it never will. And, you seem to purposely bring the "god" issue every now and then. Science was never meant to be a replacement for a god. In fact, there is more to the reality than just a god or science.

My opinions are not imported and science is not a western concept. The thread is not in western religious versus science argument, it is on science vs god, which rather means "Does god have to exist in the light of science?".

I never said Science was a western concept. This whole thread is based on the faulty premise of the Western "Religion Vs. Science" propaganda. And this thread is surely not about what you think it is. Take a second look at the original post and poll options. You and your agendas!

Science is not a doctrine as your words imply, perhaps you view science as a faith on opinions of scientists. It is not saw, an uplausible idea will be rejected if it cannot be observed and reproduced under lab conditions - pick global warning as example. I admire the efforts to find a unified theory, knowledge leads to enlightenment. Like it or not, most of the technology of today's world were results of years to trial and hit scientific researches which incidentally includes the computer you used to type and the internet which you connected to.

I have been repeatedly trying to explain what science is, but you fail to pay any attention. It's not my problem.

Can you back it up with proofs?

I doubt if you have the courage to say it in face of a Big Bang promoter scientist. And I assure you he can't back it up at all. This is what I call "faith and belief" in science. You'll never accept what non-scientists have to say, but whatever crap the pseudo-scientists are pulling out of thin air is the only "fact" you're willing to adore. <Insert any insult here>

Well, here is a reasonable "proof" for you:
"The works of the classical Indian astronomer and mathematician Aryabhatta (CE 476 - 550) deal with the sphericity of the Earth and the motion of the planets. The final two parts of his Sanskrit magnum opus the Aryabhatiya, which were named the Kalakriya ("reckoning of time") and the Gola ("sphere"), state that the earth is spherical and that its circumference is 4,967 yojanas, which in modern units is 24,835 miles, very close to the current value of 24,902 miles.[1]. He also stated that the apparent rotation of the celestial objects was due to the actual rotation of the earth, calculating the length of the sidereal day to be 23 hours, 56 minutes and 4.1 seconds, which is also surprisingly accurate. It is likely that Aryabhata's results influenced European astronomy, because the 8th century Arabic version of the Aryabhatiya was translated into Latin in the 13th century."

Read more here - *cs.annauniv.edu/insight/insight/maths/history/index.htm

If you actually read the two example I gave above, about how scientists aren't limited b their physical surroundings. Gravity and flat world were two of them.

You don't know what you're talking about. If scientists are basing their theories on unobservable and unfalsifiable "things", it's not science but pseudo-science.

Sorry to burst you rambles, but what does all this have to do with god vs science? Seeing such rants I can't waste my time reading the rest, sorry if I sound rude.

Of course you don't want to read and digest it, for it doesn't rhyme with your rheoterics.

 

[mediator]

Re: ***science Or God?***

Hmmm....some nice links being put forward! Here's one from me!

 

[Aberforth]

Re: ***science Or God?***

I doubt if you have the courage to say it in face of a Big Bang promoter scientist. And I assure you he can't back it up at all. This is what I call "faith and belief" in science. You'll never accept what non-scientists have to say, but whatever crap the pseudo-scientists are pulling out of thin air is the only "fact" you're willing to adore. <Insert any insult here>

You obviously do not get me and of course you don't know me to make such a biased, concieted opinion of my beliefs. And your attempt to insert an insult shows I should not bother arguing with you.

You don't know what you're talking about. If scientists are basing their theories on unobservable and unfalsifiable "things", it's not science but pseudo-science.

I know clear as crystal what I am talking about, perhaps your lack of comprehenson prevents that point getting to you. Or maybe you need to read with a clear mind. You gave an allegory, a scientist living in a 2D world would nt be able to observe or understand 3D world. I put forward the example how a scientist is still not limited by his immediate surrouding he could, with adequate simulation and observation could still make an equation of zero gravity condition. That encompasses both 'observation' (which means it is observable) and experimentation. And science is not a quest for truth, it is a quest for facts. What is fact from one angle may not be from another, depends on which side of the coin you are on. So your 'unfalsifiable' idea goes to thin air.

And please, do avoid insults if you can. I know it is hard when you face stiff resistance, but it does at the very least make you look more civil if you are nice enough to do. No one is paid here to debate and I am sorry to state there are no agendas. Nothing is going to come out of this debate and nothing's going to change.

 

[zyberboy]

Re: ***science Or God?***

sorry for late reply, exams.

Causality is an idea, a philosophy and not an exact science per se and it can't be used to existence of god.
If god was the cause then what is the origin and cause of god's existence

You are wrong mate,cause and effect is, cosmic reality or cosmic law which drives every event in our universe.
cause behind god:- that i already said there is no cause behind god,I am not saying here that First cause is a god who knows all ,instead if we simply try to say its properties, it is strikingly similar to wat holly books are saying.And plz dont say it is coincidence ,we are getting too much coincidence here.

Oh, and I agree with you on causality. There are valid argument against the existance of an "Almighty". Like, "Could God create a rock so heavy He could not lift it?".

Good question ,but not. Lets look what "quantum physics" says. If an ordinary person try enough times(not infinity) to pass through a concrete wall several meter thick he will successfully pass through it without physically breaking the wall.
If god exist, then he can create a rock that he cannot lift,and at the same time he can lift the rock.

It is mentally stimulating and gratifying to unravel and delve into these mysteries for a scientist, to the point of being addictive. Confusion and skepticism is only for the intellectually blunt: doubts are for the intelligents. The mysteries of the universe aren't confusing, they just become clearer once they are understood.

If you say "Confusion and skepticism is only for the intellectually blunt" then you are calling all the scientist who are formulating "String theory" and quantum physics" as intellectually blunt ,and i wud also say that you dont know the latest happenings in modern science.
First lets look what one of the prominent scientist(does't remember his name) has said in National Geographic channel.

""100 years from now people will look our era(present day) and appreciate the scientist who took great risk to overcome all the confusion & difficulties in their findings and abling them to formulate String theory/M theory, or as a great tragedy where the scientific community came up with empty hand, i would like to see later to happen but there is nothing wrong in preparing for the worst""

So even scientist are confused,but we cannot blame them because science has a reached a point where its limeted exploration/method won't do.It is really not possible to unravel all the parallel universe and dimensions with science.
Now science has to deal with parallel universe,mutiuniverse,worm holes,Dimension overlapping,Quantum Consciousness.
And time is calling for different approach,otherwise we will continue scratching surface forever.We cant explore south pole in Maruti 800 even with serious modifications.

Science also requires a certain amount of faith and belief, even if in scientific methods only, to ignore the ever growing pile of failures and keep going.

Exactly ,perfect example for this is "evolution" everyone knows why giraffe has got long neck. It started to reach for higher branches,but took millions of years to reach that state.But problem is even though natural selection is the driving force behind evolution there are other creatures where partial development of bodily parts have no use for it unless it is fully developed but managed to live with this useless thing and continued to develop it for milliones of years(and we know that evolution will not continue to develop useless things).Evolution is proven theory but contains the anomalies behind it like this.Scientist are amazed how evolution escapes from tricky situation where they now suspect tinge of intelligence behind evolution . And as he said "It requires a certain amount of faith and belief " to belive even in a well proven theory like "Evolution".
.Science is getting to the point where it requires certain amount of "faith and belief", but less than our old religions .So we can consider science as a modern religion.(it is not argument from design,evolution is well capable of producing something as complex as our eye)

Plus Bible and Gita are all human written books of philosophy and they have been often been found mistaken (human errors) in other spheres that their claim of god in incredible - normal humans made these texts.

oh no...Very wrong, you know that normal humans are not capable of producing something like "oscillatory Universe",MAYA(illusion) singularity(even has symbol for it in hindu mythology) and many other.
Hindu mythology clearly say about "Maya" in many situations and look wt quantum physics states, you can both exist and not at the same time( coincidence ??)

"Hinduism arose from the discoveries of people who felt that they had gained an insight into the nature of reality through deep meditation and ascetic practices. Science uses a heuristic method that requires objective proof of mathematical theories. Yet both have proposed similar scenarios for the creation of the universe."

quote
****"Although it might be easy for a modern Westerner, raised in a materialistic culture, to dismiss the radical claims of the mystics, it is not so easy to dismiss the most eminent of our physicists, who make claims remarkably similar to those of the mystics. Consider, for example, the words of Werner Heisenberg, the inventor of quantum mechanics:

""The ontology of materialism rested upon the illusion that the kind of existence, the direct "actuality" of the world around us, can be extrapolated into the atomic range. This extrapolation is impossible, however."""

The Buddha, speaking about the true nature of reality, makes the following very similar claim:

""There is that which does not belong to materialism and which is not reached by the knowledge of philosophers who...fail to see that, fundamentally, there is no reality in external objects"*****

If i take the words of Yamaraj(very much valid point) ""Forget the rituals and stupid elements of religions, gods and demons, mantras and sermons. Forget the priests and pundits and all their propaganda, and then you'll have the core of religions. Is it mere coincidence that Hindu mythology comes pretty close to modern calculations of the age of the Universe? And how do you explain the "oscillatory Universe" in Hindu mythology that is driving the cosmologists wild? And wt about maya(illusion)?""

It is the core of religion that really matters.

I meant what I said - Science has sufficient answers to the questions of this universe and all in it, which were the domain of theology and it can provide the answers which would make the requirement of God pretty ridiculous. Even if they are not perfect and comprehensive, the have sufficient backbone to shake foundations of 'god' beliefs.

Sorry to say that you are very much mistaken,And also sorry to say that if you really belive that "Science has sufficient answers to the questions of this universe" i dont see much difference between you and a person who blindly belives in god/Super human. Science doesn't have answers to even to simple phenomena like "human Consciousness" .Not even a single scientist/physicists will agree to your opinion.It not about hating science, it is to understand its limitation,and i am very much interested in science.



What now?? Classical science is slowly leaving while modern science takes its place with its new theories and explanations.I think it is better to look again what Yamaraj has said in an earlier post.

""Proofs and theories are for the people of Middle-Earth. As you progress to the higher sciences, it comes to you that nothing is absolute. There are no hard facts that you can prove - not in cosmology and not in Quantum physics.""

And finally,i wud like to say,i am not a hardcore Athesist nor thesist.

 

[Yamaraj]

Re: ***science Or God?***

You obviously do not get me and of course you don't know me to make such a biased, concieted opinion of my beliefs. And your attempt to insert an insult shows I should not bother arguing with you.

And please, do avoid insults if you can. I know it is hard when you face stiff resistance, but it does at the very least make you look more civil if you are nice enough to do. No one is paid here to debate and I am sorry to state there are no agendas. Nothing is going to come out of this debate and nothing's going to change.

You have made little attepmt, if any, to come up with facts that support your point of view. In stead, you've been playing apologist for the like-minded people living inside a box of their own imagination. I don't know why it's so hard for you to accept shortcomings and limitations of science, and that scientific methods alone cannot describe and explain everything.

Had I really intended on using an insult to express my frustration in dealing with a closed-mind, I would have used one in stead of a placeholder. It was a sarcastic remark, and you fell for it.

I know clear as crystal what I am talking about, perhaps your lack of comprehenson prevents that point getting to you. Or maybe you need to read with a clear mind. You gave an allegory, a scientist living in a 2D world would nt be able to observe or understand 3D world. I put forward the example how a scientist is still not limited by his immediate surrouding he could, with adequate simulation and observation could still make an equation of zero gravity condition. That encompasses both 'observation' (which means it is observable) and experimentation. And science is not a quest for truth, it is a quest for facts. What is fact from one angle may not be from another, depends on which side of the coin you are on. So your 'unfalsifiable' idea goes to thin air.

Lack of comprehension? Sure! Who said irony was dead?
What does Gravity have to do a 2D World? And regardless of how many gravities and dimensions a flatlander can find, it's still not "hard science". That's why many scientists believe that String/M-theory, Parallel Universes, 26 dimensions, Black holes, Dark Matter/Energy and Multiverses etc cencepts are more philophical in nature than scientific. A mathematician will prove whatever he wants to. Scientists even fabricate result data to make their point. Have you ever heard of Hendrik Schon?

Science is neither a quest for truth, nor for facts. It's only a quest - no strings attached. There are no facts, only observations and conclusions. Scientific "facts" change more often than babies change their diapers.

Quoted earlier:
"Although the Big Bang Theory is widely accepted, it probably will never be proved; consequentially, leaving a number of tough, unanswered questions." SOURCE - *liftoff.msfc.nasa.gov/academy/universe/b_bang.html

Why don't you challange them on the "falsifiability" of the Big Bang "Theory"? Either accept that you know little about higher sciences, of stop pretending that you do.

__________


1. Another "fact" goes down:
"Scientists break the speed of light" - *www.itnews.com.au/newsstory.aspx?CIaNID=47047&src=site-marq

I wonder how many semi-intelligent beings laughed at others on this issue only because they read so in their school textbooks. Again, observation, and not "fact", is the basis of science.

2. Is the universe a quantum computer?

1. *www.wired.com/wired/archive/14.03/play.html?pg=4
2. *www.kurzweilai.net/meme/frame.html?main=/articles/art0386.html

The more we delve deeper, clearer are the pathways leading it all to our conciousness. The rabbit-hole goes deeper than ever thought.

Read this from an interview with Seth Lloyd:
"Would it be fair to say the universe is a mind?
You could use that metaphor. And if you did, then you and I and my cat are its thoughts. But the vast majority of the universe's thinking is about humble vibrations and collisions of atoms."

And compare with this quote posted earlier, which you probably didn't even read - out of intelligence!
"There's a good myth about Vishnu (the lord of the universe) finding out he and his whole universe is only a dream in the mind of Brahman, who is also dreaming of many other universes with other Vishnus and so on, and they all cycle and so on. Vishnu is considerably humbled... not easy to do with an almighty Lord of the Universe."

 

[Aberforth]

Re: ***science Or God?***

Lack of comprehension? Sure! Who said irony was dead?
What does Gravity have to do a 2D World? And regardless of how many gravities and dimensions a flatlander can find, it's still not "hard science".

It was an example I gave that scientists are not limited by their immediate physical surroundings if they could theoretically understand gravity they counld understand 3D too. If they lived in a 2D world, they would find about #D world sooner of later, like they understood gravity. Obviously you you are unable to understand what examples mean, I cannot help much in that area.

By the way, in your own drums, you brought up the idea of 2D world, what does 2D world have to do with science and god?

Why don't you challange them on the "falsifiability" of the Big Bang "Theory"? Either accept that you know little about higher sciences, of stop pretending that you do.

Look boy, I am not a scientist, I am an engineer and I never claimed I understand Big Bang or cosmology, I clearly stated in an above post it is not my area. You have a bruised ego at best and arrogance at worst to make such hotheaded spam like this. I have better things to spend my time than waste it on reading your lengthy silly bantering. Goodbye, I am adding another to my ignore list.

 

[Yamaraj]

Re: ***science Or God?***

Look boy, I am not a scientist, I am an engineer and I never claimed I understand Big Bang or cosmology, I clearly stated in an above post it is not my area. You have a bruised ego at best and arrogance at worst to make such hotheaded spam like this. I have better things to spend my time than waste it on reading your lengthy silly bantering. Goodbye, I am adding another to my ignore list.

You're quitting because you were proven wrong, and many times at that. Being an engineer is not an excuse for getting away with stupid remarks on science and its capabilities. Granted, from your understanding of science, I can make an exception of you.

FYI, I added you to my growing list of "stupid arrogants" long ago. I would still like to wish you luck, for you'll need it in your profession with this much knowledge and attitude of yours.

 

[Vyasram]

Re: ***science Or God?***

hhmmm....so many post asking for proof for the existence of god.
Then here is the proof , The proof i am presenting here are respected even in scientific community.And i also admit that last yr this time i was atheist but today i am not.
Not only becoz of this proof but also some events in my life.

Some of u may have heard this but in order to understand this fully u must really dig deep,think about it atleast for one day.
dont read dis with defensive mind

First cause(Etiological ) proof can be stated as follows:

1. Everything that exists or begins to exist has a cause.

> yes even for small events has a cause,for example a falling leaf has a cause behind it may be a wind or something else,power cut u know something is causing it,like this every small, even a motion of electron has a cause behind it.


2. The universe exists and began to exist.
> everyone knows it exist ,there must be a cause which has no cause behind it , something familiar isn't?

3. The universe must have a cause.
>come up with a event that has no cause behind it, u can't

4. The cause of the universe is God.

>why not ,universe need a first cause,and universe still exist, for universe to exist there must be a cause...it must be eternal....all things start from this first cause....sound's familiar...yes for long time now holly books like Geetha,bible r saying in a simple way that people could understand.

Still doesn't get the grip rewind every event in ur life(has a cause) very fast and to the doom's day(before big bang).Even Big bang need a cause behind it,And u know it has to start from some where isn't?

THERE MUST BE ATLEAST A SUPERPOWER ABOVE ALL

God aint the first cause

the universe or the hyperspace is the first cause

Quantum theroy:

if "nothing" tries to create the space and the universe a finite no of times, at once , "nothing" ends up creatint the space and the universe . thus the universe was formed

 

[amitava82]

Re: ***science Or God?***

so you so called GOD is the cause of everything then what is the cause of your GOD? who created your GOD? you know something can NOT be created out of nothing..