*** Science Or God? ***

Science or God?

  • Total voters
    517
azzu

azzu

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

@abtom@this is a thread with completely diff topic.
maybe we shud use PM for such things.
Just a sugg.

ur rght bro but this is bandwidth wastage CHALta hai :D
 
S

SunnyChahal

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

GOD,always.
Waise i said,calta hai to chala lo.
i mean continue with the topic.

GOD,always.
Waise i said,calta hai to chala lo.
i mean continue with the topic.
 
Last edited:
Q

qadirahmed

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

No God or Know God?


An atheist professor of philosophy speaks to his class on the problem Science has with God, The Almighty.


He asks one of his new students to stand and.....

Prof: So you believe in God?

Student: Absolutely, sir.


Prof: Is God good?

Student: Sure.



Prof: Is God all-powerful?

Student: Yes.


Prof: My brother died of cancer even though he prayed to God to heal him.


Most of us would attempt to help others who are ill. But God didn't. How is this God good then? Hmm? (Student is silent.)


Prof: You can't answer, can you? Let's start again, young fellow. Is God good?

Student: Yes.


Prof: Is Satan good ?

Student: No.


Prof: Where does Satan come from?

Student: From...God.. .


Prof: That's right. Tell me son, is there evil in this world?

Student: Yes.


Prof: Evil is everywhere, isn't it? And God did make everything. Correct?

Student: Yes.


Prof: So who created evil?

(Student does not answer. )



Prof: Is there sickness? Immorality? Hatred? Ugliness? All these terrible things exist in the world, don't they?

Student: Yes, sir.



Prof: So, who created them?

( Student has no answer.)



Prof: Science says you have 5 senses you use to identify and observe the world around you. Tell me, son...Have you ever seen God?

Student: No, sir.



Prof: Tell us if you have ever heard your God?

Student: No, sir.


Prof: Have you ever felt your God, tasted your God, smelt your God? Have you ever had any sensory perception of God for that matter?

Student: No, sir. I'm afraid I haven't.



Prof: Yet you still believe in Him ?

Student: Yes.



Prof: According to empirical, testable, demonstrable protocol, science says your GOD doesn't exist. What do you say to that, son?

Student: Nothing. I only have my faith.



Prof: Yes. Faith. And that is the problem science has.



Student: Professor, is there such a thing as heat?

Prof: Yes.



Student: And is there such a thing as cold?

Prof: Yes.



Student: No sir. There isn't.


(The lecture theatre becomes very quiet with this turn of events .)



Student: Sir, you can have lots of heat, even more heat, superheat, mega heat, white heat, a little heat or no heat. But we don't have anything called cold. We can hit 458 degrees below zero which is no heat,


But we can't go any further after that. There is no such thing as cold. Cold is only a word we use to describe the absence of heat. We cannot measure cold.


Heat is energy. Cold is not the opposite of heat, sir, just the absence of it.



(There is pin-drop silence in the lecture theatre .)


Student: What about darkness, Professor? Is there such a thing as darkness?

Prof: Yes. What is night if there isn't darkness?



Student: You're wrong again, sir. Darkness is the absence of something. You can have low light, normal light, bright light, flashing light....But if you have no light constantly, you have nothing and its called darkness, isn't it? In reality, darkness isn't.


If it were you would be able to make darkness darker, wouldn't you?



Prof: So what is the point you are making, young man?

Student: Sir, my point is your philosophical premise is flawed.

Prof: Flawed? Can you explain how?



Student: Sir, you are working on the premise of duality. You argue there is life and then there is death, a good God and a bad God. You are viewing the concept of God as something finite, something we can measure.


Sir, science can't even explain a thought. It uses electricity and magnetism, but has never seen, much less fully understood either one.


To view death as the opposite of life is to be ignorant of the fact that death cannot exist as a substantive thing. Death is not the opposite of life: just the absence of it. Now tell me, Professor. Do you teach your students that they evolved from a monkey?


Prof: If you are referring to the natural evolutionary process, yes, of course, I do.

Student: Have you ever observed evolution with your own eyes, sir?


(The Professor shakes his head with a smile, beginning to realize where the argument is going.)



Student: Since no one has ever observed the process of evolution at work and cannot even prove that this process is an on-going endeavour, are you not teaching your opinion, sir? Are you not a scientist but a preacher?


(The class is in uproar .)


Student: Is there anyone in the class who has ever seen the Professor's brain?


(The class breaks out into laughter.)


Student: Is there anyone here who has ever heard the Professor's brain, felt it, touched or smelt it? No one appears to have done so. So, according to the established rules of empirical, stable, demonstrable protocol, science says that you have no brain, sir.


With all due respect, sir, how do we then trust your lectures, sir?



(The room is silent . The professor stares at the student, his face unfathomable. )



Prof: I guess you'll have to take them on faith, son.


Student: That is it sir... The link between man & god is FAITH .

That is all that keeps things moving & alive....... ......... ..



Best Regard
 
azzu

azzu

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

the story is overdone
but gotta say mee to fighted a much in conversation with our social and physics
teacher about same topic :D
and there's perfect answer for it
But god's the almighty to all :D
 
Ray

Ray

Precision Processor
Re: ***science Or God?***

God exists.we can't prove if god exists but we also can't prove that god does not exist.
 
Yamaraj

Yamaraj

The Lord of Death
Re: ***science Or God?***

Ray said:
God exists.we can't prove if god exists but we also can't prove that god does not exist.
Click to expand...
Human stupidity is infinite, hence god exists.
 
speedyguy

speedyguy

Cyborg Agent
Re: ***science Or God?***

and it continues....newez i also dint appreciate dat story...n m not dat less intelligent...

Enjoy~!
 
sreevirus

sreevirus

Certified Nutz
Re: ***science Or God?***

Wow!
Amazing thread, and an amazing debate going on here. Didn't read the entire thread, because it's gargantuan, and I'm neck deep in assignment work. But I've read enough to find a lot of arguments from personal incredulity and ignorance, mostly leading to Ignoratio elenchi.

But leave all that, I think these videos are totally relevant to anybody who craves a bit of enlightenment.

The Root of All Evil:
*video.google.com/videoplay?docid=9002284641446868316
*video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5627242120502502207
(96 minutes)

The Enemies of Reason:
*video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7218293233140975017
*video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4720837385783230047
(96 minutes)

The Big Question: Why we are here?
*video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8572351836469636547
(24 minutes)

Caution: All the above videos are huge (watch only if you have enough bandwidth, and if you don't have a download limit)

But for the others, watch this amusing, albeit awesomely good video.

*www.youtube.com/watch?v=zJM4EBuL82o
(3 min, 53 sec)


[personal opinion]Richard Dawkins rocks![/personal opinion]
 
club_pranay

club_pranay

Nokia 7110 to iPhone 5
Re: ***science Or God?***

there should be a fifth option the poll..
"science and God are inter-related, but it's beyond the scope of present human intellegence" or something like that
 
OP
naveen_reloaded

naveen_reloaded

!! RecuZant By Birth !!
Re: ***science Or God?***

*osaichella.blogspot.com/2007/09/blog-post_3913.html

found a inteersting article here....

thought of sharing...
English quotes are Quoted from: Appendix No.1 of Part 3 of the book
Riddles of Hinduism 1995
By Dr. Babasaheb B.R.Ambedkar

Rama's birth is miraculous and it may be that the suggestion that he was born from a pinda prepared by the sage Shrung is an allegorical gloss to cover up the naked truth that he was begotten upon Kausalya by the sage Shrung, although the two did not stand in the relationship of husband and wife. In any case his birth, if not disreputable in its origin, is certainly unnatural.

Valmiki starts his Ramayana by emphasizing the fact that Rama is an Avatar of Vishnu, and it is Vishnu who agreed to take birth as Rama and be the son of Dasharatha. The God Brahma came to know of this and felt that in order that this Rama Avatar of Vishnu be a complete success, arrangement shall be made that Rama shall have powerful associates to help him and cooperate with him. There were none existing then.

The Gods agreed to carry out the command to Brahma and engaged themselves in wholesale acts of fornication not only against Apsaras who were prostitutes, not only against the unmarried daughters of Yakshas and Nagas but also against the lawfully wedded wives of Ruksha, Vidhyadhar, Gandharvas, Kinnars and Vanaras and produced the Vanaras who became the associates of Rama.


Mr. C.R. Sreenivasa lyengar's translation of Valmiki Ramayana says: " Though Rama had married Sita to be the queen, he married many other wives for sexual pleasure in accordance with the royal customs. (Ayodha Kandam 8th Chapter, page 28). (The term "Rama's wives" as been used in many places in Ramayan).

Rama called his father " A FOOL, AN IDIOT" (Ayodhya Kandam, 53rd Chapter).

Sambuka was slain (by Rama) because he was making penance which was forbidden to hime by Vedas as he was a "Shudra" (Uttara kanadam, Chapter 76).

LUSTFUL SITA VS THE "IMPOTENT" RAMA
Sita told Rama "You are no better than a woman-monger who lets his wife for hire and makes is livelihood. You want to be profited by my prostitution". Sita also told Rama "You lack in POTENCE, manners and charm" & "She called her husband a simpleton".
As soon as Sita stepped into Ravan's palace her love towards Ravan grew more. (Aranya Kandam,
Chapter 54).

Vali and Sugriva were two brothers. They belonged to the Vanar race and came from a ruling family, which had its own kingdom the capital of which was Kishkindha. At the time when Sita was kidnapped by Ravana, Vali was reigning at Kishkindha. While Vali was on the throne he was engaged in a war with a Rakshasa by name Mayavi. In the personal combat between the two, Mayavi ran for his life. Both Vali and Sugriva pursued him. Mayavi entered into a deep cavity in the earth. Vali asked Sugriva to wait at the mouth of the cavity and he went inside. After sometime a flood of blood came from inside the cavity. Sugriva concluded that Vali must have been killed by Mayavi and came to Kishkindha and got himself declared king in place of Vali and made Hanuman his Prime Minister.

As a matter of fact, Vali was not killed. It was Mayavi who was killed by Vali. Vali came out of the cavity but did not find Sugriva there. He proceeded to Kishkindha and to his great surprise he found that Sugriva had proclaimed himself king. Vali naturally became enraged at this act of treachery on the part of his brother Sugriva and he had good ground to be. Sugriva should have ascertained, should not merely have assumed, that Vali was dead. Secondly, Vali had a son by name Angad whom Sugriva should have made the king as the ligitimate heir of Vali. He did neither of the two things. His was a clear case of usurpation. Vali drove out Sugriva and took back the throne.

And what does he do with her when he brings her back to Ayodhya? Of course, he became king and she became queen. But while Rama remained king, Sita ceased to be queen very soon. This incident reflects great infamy upon Rama. It is recorded by Valmiki in his Ramayana that some days after the coronation of Rama and Sita as king and queen, Sita conceived. Seeing that she was carrying some residents of evil disposition began to calumniate Sita suggesting that she was in Lanka and blaming Rama for taking such a woman back as his wife. This malicious gossip in the town was reported by Bhadra, the Court joker, to Rama. Rama evidently was stung by this calumny. He was overwhelmed with a sense of disgrace. This is quite natural. What is quite unnatural is the means he adopts of getting rid of this disgrace. To get rid of this disgrace he takes the shortest cut and the swiftest means - namely to abandon her, a woman in a somewhat advanced state of pregnancy in a jungle, without friends, without provision, without even notice - in a most treacherous manner. There is no doubt that the idea of abandoning Sita was not sudden and had not occurred to ram on the spur of the moment. The genesis of the idea, the developing of it and the plan of executing are worth some detailed mention.

When Bhadra reports to him the gossip about Sita which had spread in the town, Rama calls his brothers and tells them of his feelings. He tells them Sita's purity and chastity was proved in Lanka, that Gods had vouched for it and that he absolutely believed in her innocence, purity and chastity. "All the same the public are calumniating Sita and are blaming me and putting me to shame. No one can tolerate such disgrace. Honour is a great asset; Gods as well as great men strive to maintain it. I cannot bear this dishonour and disgrace. To save myself from such dishonour and disgrace I shall be ready even to abandon you. Don't think I shall hesitate to abandon Sita."

This shows that he was making up his mind to abandon Sita as the easiest way of saving himself from public calumny without considering whether the way was fair or foul. The life of Sita simply did not count. What counted was his own personal name and fame. He of course does not take the manly course of defending his wife and stopping the gossip, which as a king he could have done and which as a husband who was convinced of his wife's innocence he was supposed to do. He yielded to the public gossip and there are not wanting Hindus who use this as ground to prove that Rama was a democratic king when others could equally well say that he was a weak and cowardly monarch. Be that as it may that diabolical plan of saving his name and his fame he discloses to his brother but not to Sita, the only person who was affected by it and the only person who was entitled to have notice of it. But she is kept entirely in the dark. Rama keeps it away from Sita as a closely guarded secret and was waiting for an opportunity to put his plan into action. Eventually the cruel fate of Sita gives him the opportunity he was waiting for. Women who are carrying exhibit all sorts of cravings for all sorts of things. Rama knew of this. So one day he asked Sita if there was anything for which she was craving. She replied that she would like to live in the vicinity of the Ashrama of a sage on the bank of the river Ganges and live on fruits and roots at least for one night. Rama simply jumped at the suggestion of Sita and said, "Be easy my dear, I shall see that you are sent there tomorrow". Sita treats this as an honest promise. But what does Rama do? He thinks it is a good opportunity for carrying out his plan of abandoning Sita. Accordingly he called his brothers to a secret conference and disclosed to them his determination to use this desire of Sita as the opportunity to carry out the plan of abandoning her. He tells his brothers not to intercede on behalf of Sita, and warns them that if they came in his way he would look upon them as his enemies. Then he tells Laxman to take Sita in a chariot next day to the Ashram in the jungle on the bank of the river Ganges and to abandon her there. Laxman did not know how he could muster courage to tell Sita what was decided by Rama. Sensing his difficulty Rama informs Laxman that Sita had already expressed her desire to spend some time in the vicinity of an Ashram on the bank of the river and eased the mind of Laxman. This confabulation took place at night. Next morning Laxman asked Sumanta to yoke the horses to the chariot. Sumanta informs Laxman of having already done so. Laxman then goes into the palace and meets Sita and reminds her of her having expressed the desire to pass some days in the vicinity of an Ashrama and Rama having promised to fulfill the same and tells her of his having been charged by Rama to do the needful in the matter. He points to her the chariot waiting there and says, "Let us go!" Sita jumps into the chariot with her heart full of gratitude to Rama. With Laxman as her companion and Sumanta as coachman, the chariot proceeds to its appointed place. At last, they were on the bank of the Ganges and were ferried across by the fishermen. Laxman fell at Sita's feet, and with hot tears flowing from his eyes he said, "Pardon me, O, blameless queen, for what I am doing. My orders are to abandon you here, for the people blame Rama for keeping you in his house".

Sita, abandoned by Rama and left to die in a jungle, went for shelter to the Ashrama of Valmiki, which was near about. Valmiki gave her protection and kept her in his Ashram. There in course of time, Sita gave birth to twin sons, called Kusa and Lava. The three lived with Valmiki. Valmiki brought up the boys and taught them to sing the Ramayana which he had composed. For 12 years the boys lived in the forest in the Ashrama of Valmiki not far from Ayodhya where Rama continued to rule. Never once in those 12 years this 'model husband and loving father' cared to inquire what had happened to Sita - whether she was living or whether she was dead. Twelve years after Rama meets Sita in a strange manner. Rama decided to perform a Yagna and issued an invitation to all the Rishis to attend and take part. For reasons best known to Rama himself no invitation was issued to Valmiki although his Ashram was near to Ayodhya. But Valmiki came to the Yagna of his own accord accompanied by the two sons of Sita introducing them as his disciples. While the Yagna was going on the two boys were used to perform recitations of Ramayana in the presence of the Assembly. Rama was very pleased and made inquiries, and he was informed that they were the sons of Sita. It was then he remembered Sita and what does he do then? He does not send for Sita. He calls these innocent boys who knew nothing about their parents' sin, who were the only victims of a cruel destiny, to tell Valmiki that if Sita was pure and chaste she could present herself in the Assembly to take a vow and thereby remove the calumny cast against herself and himself. This is a thing she had once done in Lanka. This is a thing she could have been asked to do again before she was sent away. There was no promise that after this vindication of her character Rama was prepared to take her back. Valmiki brings her to the Assembly. When she was in front of Rama, Valmiki said, "O, son of Dashratha, here is Sita whom you abandoned in consequence of public disapprobation. She will now swear her purity if permitted by you. Here are your twin-born sons raised up by me in my hermitage". "I know", said Rama, "that Sita is pure and that these are my sons. She performed an ordeal in Lanka in proof of her purity and therefore I took her back. But people here have doubts still, and let Sita perform an ordeal here that all these Rashis and people may witness it".

With eyes cast down on the ground and with hands folded Sita swore "As I never thought out of anyone except Rama even in my mind, let mother Earth open and bury me. As I always loved Rama in words, in thoughts, and in deed, let mother Earth open and bury me!" As she uttered the oath, the earth verily opened and Sita was carried away inside seated on a golden simhasana (throne). Heavenly flowers fell on Sita's head while the audience looked on as in a trance.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom