*** Science Or God? ***
sygeek
Technomancer
The formation of living organisms was not from dust or fumes but rather by evolution which follows the "rules of the world" (so to speak). There's a difference between laws, theories and hypothesis btw.
Evolution is not an automagical process, google it up a bit.Oh, another one, peacock tail. U said, that it took that pattern cause of the need to attract female.
I will say, wow how spontaneous and sophisticated automated creation. We need to see, so have a steroscopic binocular vision, we need to think, so we have a mysterious brain...
Oh, now i feel that our life is at great risk having only one blood-pumping organ, lets another heart be automatically created and adjusted through million years process.
Hell no way u/we can answer our all always-expanding-questions with science.
But , will 'the believing in the god' be able to? Well search by yourself guys.
I'm going to go super sci-fi and say and maybe in a trillion or trillion-trillion years, we (actually, not we) may be able to bend and warp space and time itself and indeed solve the answers for the questions you asked.
Last edited:
population is not a problem, it is an incredible, untapped resource
think it was like 12, and that was an incredibly stupid title, trolls can twink at any level
structure of the universe is a problem. there are a bunch of theories. it's finite and expanding, it curves back into itself like the surface of the sphere... and the rarely explored one is that it is infinite and static
the last option is not commonly believed by science, but that is the theory that appeals to imagination, but it has several problems... for example what is outside the universe, or who made the universe etc... these questions are also problems, and there are elegant mathematical solutions for these, such as the universe that curves into itself
but one look at the night sky is enough to convince that they got it wrong... some future intergalactic columbus cannot undertake a voyage where he goes around the universe and comes back to earth. if that acutally happens, it's incredible. and intuitively, the universe is infinite
one of the basic ones is that stuff from far away is further back in time, so we can never see beyond a certain point
but... if the universe were really infinite, our skies would be filled with the light of too many distant stars, so there is an intervening factor, dark matter, or something that just sucks out light over vast distances
think it was like 12, and that was an incredibly stupid title, trolls can twink at any level
structure of the universe is a problem. there are a bunch of theories. it's finite and expanding, it curves back into itself like the surface of the sphere... and the rarely explored one is that it is infinite and static
the last option is not commonly believed by science, but that is the theory that appeals to imagination, but it has several problems... for example what is outside the universe, or who made the universe etc... these questions are also problems, and there are elegant mathematical solutions for these, such as the universe that curves into itself
but one look at the night sky is enough to convince that they got it wrong... some future intergalactic columbus cannot undertake a voyage where he goes around the universe and comes back to earth. if that acutally happens, it's incredible. and intuitively, the universe is infinite
one of the basic ones is that stuff from far away is further back in time, so we can never see beyond a certain point
but... if the universe were really infinite, our skies would be filled with the light of too many distant stars, so there is an intervening factor, dark matter, or something that just sucks out light over vast distances
rhitwick
Democracy is a myth
Its a very thin line between reading religious texts for knowledge so that you can fight the believers in their own ground and reading those for/and believing them.
Most of the time, its like the story of rishi Valmiki...he couldn't say "Ram" at first so he started with "M-ra" and eventually turned to "Ram"
Its not easy to not get influenced by few particular books which gives proper logic (in its own language and within its ground) on things that rationalists disagree. At such moments, one who is weak-willed (may be) should be ignorant of such texts, verses to have his faith so that his beliefs in rational explanations stay unaffected.
Most of the time, its like the story of rishi Valmiki...he couldn't say "Ram" at first so he started with "M-ra" and eventually turned to "Ram"
Its not easy to not get influenced by few particular books which gives proper logic (in its own language and within its ground) on things that rationalists disagree. At such moments, one who is weak-willed (may be) should be ignorant of such texts, verses to have his faith so that his beliefs in rational explanations stay unaffected.
ratul
█████████████████
wow, a nice discussion going on, let me put my views..
i neither believe in god or science, i just believe that the things we can describe tends to fall in "Scientific terms" and those which cannot be explained falls in "Godly terms"..
Coz neither science nor god can justify that how we were created, how this universe is created? (big-bang is just what we humans have assumed to have happened, but none of us are 100% sure about it..
")..
I just believe that there's one form of energy, which drives this whole universe, but don't consider it as a god, who keeps balance of good or bad, or anything like that, i consider it just to be an energy, which came into existence by unknown sources..
Actually, i really laugh off those "bhakti" shows, which have flooded our TV sets for as long as these TV's have existed in india.., there was one recent scene from a show which my parents watch, in which maa durga took birth on earth and some evil was trying to kill that baby, who suddenly was attacked by a lion, who killed the evil and guarded the child (maa durga. ), what i thought was if it was a normal child in real life, it would surely been a good and healthy lunch for that lion, but coz that was maa durga, it actually guarded it, how pity and impartial, on one side, we say that "Bhagwan sabme basta hai", and on the other hand we show that lions only guard "special childs in which durga resides" and eats all other..
Back to the point, we humans are just a very small part of this universe, what all theories and proofs we have "invented" in the name of science are actually just assumptions, which limits to the extent which we see, daily many theories changes, modifies and many scientific laws are broken in the name of natural acts, coz we humans just can assume what we see, we say that life can only exist on a habitable climate, which earth possess, i think what if sun has it's own form of life, any bacteria or organisms, that are not found on earth, but can only survive in high temps like sun (not in our earth core/lava), and we humans don't have enough equipments to find that, but we deny it, i've heard many reports in newspapers, in which scientists say: "Life needs a habitable climate to survive", but that's evolution, earth organisms evolved to live in earthly climates, some other organisms might exist in a climate, which we humans could have labelled "inhabitable" or "poisonous", coz it's what it is for us..
I know my views are quite confusing, and that what i believe, i am somewhere in my mindset, in the middle of the "science" and "god", i don't blindly believe in either one of them...
Wrapping up things on my side with the lines that describe my thoughts: "The things which we can describe, we label them as "Scientifically proven", and not "Some act of god" coz it's explained, and then there are some things that we cannot describe (like life after death, we can't prove it by science, so we labelled them in our ways, some saying the concept of "soul" getting freed, some saying that re-incarnation process follows after death, but we should see that these all are again "assumptions", no one knows if there's a soul or not, we have just assumed it to be a form that drives our body, that we cannot explain, for me, dying is just like what we feel when we sleep, but for forever, coz we won't wake up once we die..), we label these things are "natural" or "act of god", which no one of us can ever explain"..
i neither believe in god or science, i just believe that the things we can describe tends to fall in "Scientific terms" and those which cannot be explained falls in "Godly terms"..
Coz neither science nor god can justify that how we were created, how this universe is created? (big-bang is just what we humans have assumed to have happened, but none of us are 100% sure about it..
")..I just believe that there's one form of energy, which drives this whole universe, but don't consider it as a god, who keeps balance of good or bad, or anything like that, i consider it just to be an energy, which came into existence by unknown sources..
Actually, i really laugh off those "bhakti" shows, which have flooded our TV sets for as long as these TV's have existed in india..
, there was one recent scene from a show which my parents watch, in which maa durga took birth on earth and some evil was trying to kill that baby, who suddenly was attacked by a lion, who killed the evil and guarded the child (maa durga. ), what i thought was if it was a normal child in real life, it would surely been a good and healthy lunch for that lion, but coz that was maa durga, it actually guarded it, how pity and impartial, on one side, we say that "Bhagwan sabme basta hai", and on the other hand we show that lions only guard "special childs in which durga resides" and eats all other.. Back to the point, we humans are just a very small part of this universe, what all theories and proofs we have "invented" in the name of science are actually just assumptions, which limits to the extent which we see, daily many theories changes, modifies and many scientific laws are broken in the name of natural acts, coz we humans just can assume what we see, we say that life can only exist on a habitable climate, which earth possess, i think what if sun has it's own form of life, any bacteria or organisms, that are not found on earth, but can only survive in high temps like sun (not in our earth core/lava), and we humans don't have enough equipments to find that, but we deny it, i've heard many reports in newspapers, in which scientists say: "Life needs a habitable climate to survive", but that's evolution, earth organisms evolved to live in earthly climates, some other organisms might exist in a climate, which we humans could have labelled "inhabitable" or "poisonous", coz it's what it is for us..
I know my views are quite confusing, and that what i believe, i am somewhere in my mindset, in the middle of the "science" and "god", i don't blindly believe in either one of them...
Wrapping up things on my side with the lines that describe my thoughts: "The things which we can describe, we label them as "Scientifically proven", and not "Some act of god" coz it's explained, and then there are some things that we cannot describe (like life after death, we can't prove it by science, so we labelled them in our ways, some saying the concept of "soul" getting freed, some saying that re-incarnation process follows after death, but we should see that these all are again "assumptions", no one knows if there's a soul or not, we have just assumed it to be a form that drives our body, that we cannot explain, for me, dying is just like what we feel when we sleep, but for forever, coz we won't wake up once we die..
), we label these things are "natural" or "act of god", which no one of us can ever explain"..
doomgiver
Warframe
we say that "Bhagwan sabme basta hai", and on the other hand we show that lions only guard "special childs in which durga resides" and eats all other..
that, friends, is the really, really deep stuff. the stuff archimedes and ptolemy were made of.
hellscream666
Broken In
we are just teeny tiny organisms teeming around in a bunch of rocks created by another race.
We were created as samples for them to study the following :
1. Adaptability
2. Evolutionary capability
3. Potential to grow and create life
4. To see whether we can think beyond what we can see
so far I think they are getting wonderful results.
As to the their origins, they themselves are the samples of an even higher species which then goes on like the reflections in two parallel mirrors.
We were created as samples for them to study the following :
1. Adaptability
2. Evolutionary capability
3. Potential to grow and create life
4. To see whether we can think beyond what we can see
so far I think they are getting wonderful results.
As to the their origins, they themselves are the samples of an even higher species which then goes on like the reflections in two parallel mirrors.
mastercool8695
Cyborg Agent
Simple thing:
God created and adjusted and also in a way organised everything,
now, the humans ,
they discover things by things,
they go like :
:eeksign:
and call it science
so, what is the point of discussion ??
who's better?? or who's more powerful ???
Being a science student , i may say, science is better, cuz god made it,but science showed us that it exists and how it is..
but hey, just imagine, if nothing ever existed:
i mean none of these existed:
the universe, the planets, the space, us. etc..
??
i am agreee
and the big bang theory is like,
"as the entropy of the universe is ever increasing, at that time also, the entropy would have increased., so lets call it like a bang. and since it was a big scale bang, call it BIGBANG"
and that energy that came from unknown sources has to be the total energy of the whole universe...
hehehe
it was some really big
which i wrote above.. 
God created and adjusted and also in a way organised everything,
now, the humans ,
they discover things by things,
they go like :
:eeksign:
and call it science
so, what is the point of discussion ??
who's better?? or who's more powerful ???
Being a science student , i may say, science is better, cuz god made it,but science showed us that it exists and how it is..
but hey, just imagine, if nothing ever existed:
i mean none of these existed:
the universe, the planets, the space, us. etc..
??
wow, a nice discussion going on, let me put my views..
i neither believe in god or science, i just believe that the things we can describe tends to fall in "Scientific terms" and those which cannot be explained falls in "Godly terms"..
Coz neither science nor god can justify that how we were created, how this universe is created? (big-bang is just what we humans have assumed to have happened, but none of us are 100% sure about it..
I just believe that there's one form of energy, which drives this whole universe, but don't consider it as a god, who keeps balance of good or bad, or anything like that, i consider it just to be an energy, which came into existence by unknown sources..
Actually, i really laugh off those "bhakti" shows, which have flooded our TV sets for as long as these TV's have existed in india..
Back to the point, we humans are just a very small part of this universe, what all theories and proofs we have "invented" in the name of science are actually just assumptions, which limits to the extent which we see, daily many theories changes, modifies and many scientific laws are broken in the name of natural acts, coz we humans just can assume what we see, we say that life can only exist on a habitable climate, which earth possess, i think what if sun has it's own form of life, any bacteria or organisms, that are not found on earth, but can only survive in high temps like sun (not in our earth core/lava), and we humans don't have enough equipments to find that, but we deny it, i've heard many reports in newspapers, in which scientists say: "Life needs a habitable climate to survive", but that's evolution, earth organisms evolved to live in earthly climates, some other organisms might exist in a climate, which we humans could have labelled "inhabitable" or "poisonous", coz it's what it is for us..
I know my views are quite confusing, and that what i believe, i am somewhere in my mindset, in the middle of the "science" and "god", i don't blindly believe in either one of them...
Wrapping up things on my side with the lines that describe my thoughts: "The things which we can describe, we label them as "Scientifically proven", and not "Some act of god" coz it's explained, and then there are some things that we cannot describe (like life after death, we can't prove it by science, so we labelled them in our ways, some saying the concept of "soul" getting freed, some saying that re-incarnation process follows after death, but we should see that these all are again "assumptions", no one knows if there's a soul or not, we have just assumed it to be a form that drives our body, that we cannot explain, for me, dying is just like what we feel when we sleep, but for forever, coz we won't wake up once we die..
i am agreee
and the big bang theory is like,
"as the entropy of the universe is ever increasing, at that time also, the entropy would have increased., so lets call it like a bang. and since it was a big scale bang, call it BIGBANG"
and that energy that came from unknown sources has to be the total energy of the whole universe...
hehehe
it was some really big
which i wrote above..
ratul
█████████████████
now that's a scientific logic, and i 100% agree with it.. (saiyans..
)yeah, coz acc to me from what i have read (and from the movie "Evolution", really loved the concept..
), life on earth started with some meteorite with some living samples striking the earth, and that sample evolved to live in this climate..And that meteorite might have been a part of any other living planet, which bursted in parts, whose one of the part struck the earth.. (assumptions)
So we can say "GOD" to those creatures, from whose samples we evolved..
doomgiver
Warframe
total energy of the universe has to be zero.
example :
in an isolated system, there are 2 balls.
you(outside source) move one ball away from the other. you have "created" energy in the system. however, the energy of the system which INCLUDES you, is still zero.
so, in order for this god "theory" to be correct, this must mean that there must be something other than this universe (system). who governs that?
now that's a scientific logic, and i 100% agree with it.. (saiyans..
yeah, coz acc to me from what i have read (and from the movie "Evolution", really loved the concept..
And that meteorite might have been a part of any other living planet, which bursted in parts, whose one of the part struck the earth.. (assumptions)
So we can say "GOD" to those creatures, from whose samples we evolved..
i dont think organisms can survive the re-entry heat of the meteorites, which can reach 3000 K.
mastercool8695
Cyborg Agent
^^.
i dont think so..
it should be like. "energy change" for the system that includes me has to be zero since no extra energy has been added..
please correct me if i'm wrong..
hell , this thread is being converted to "thermodynamics" discussion..
anyways, any of you tried the imagine thingy ?
i dont think so..
it should be like. "energy change" for the system that includes me has to be zero since no extra energy has been added..
please correct me if i'm wrong..
hell , this thread is being converted to "thermodynamics" discussion..
anyways, any of you tried the imagine thingy ?
ratul
█████████████████
that's what i mean to say, we think this because we don't know any organism which can survive in that temp, but we are not the masters of the universe, we constitute 0.00000001% of this universe, how could we possibly know each and every organism, how they can survive, in what conditions they can survive???
3000K is sure enough to eliminate any living creatures we know, but do we really know that no organism can survive that temp, are we sure about that???
doomgiver
Warframe
that's what i mean to say, we think this because we don't know any organism which can survive in that temp, but we are not the masters of the universe, we constitute 0.00000001% of this universe, how could we possibly know each and every organism, how they can survive, in what conditions they can survive???
3000K is sure enough to eliminate any living creatures we know, but do we really know that no organism can survive that temp, are we sure about that???
if something seeded our planet from outer space, something that could easily survive 3000 K, then we too, by default(evolution), should be able to survive 3000 K, coz fire resistance is a very cool thing.
but we dont have fire resistance, so, our ancestors cannot be from outer space.
late heavy bombardment, lot of material exchange between planetary bodies
without a load of comets smashing into earth in this phase, we wouldn't have enough water for a water cycle. also, apart from the whole space rocks got minerals rich for life from space theory, there is another one, where the bombardment dislodged life bearing material from other bodies that were then in the habitable zone (say mars), to the planets that were later in the habitable zone (earth)
while it is true that no lifeform can survive such extreme temperatures, only the surface of rocks get heated so much, the material can remain safe beyond the hot melting rock outside, in the cold, not heated rock inside
without a load of comets smashing into earth in this phase, we wouldn't have enough water for a water cycle. also, apart from the whole space rocks got minerals rich for life from space theory, there is another one, where the bombardment dislodged life bearing material from other bodies that were then in the habitable zone (say mars), to the planets that were later in the habitable zone (earth)
while it is true that no lifeform can survive such extreme temperatures, only the surface of rocks get heated so much, the material can remain safe beyond the hot melting rock outside, in the cold, not heated rock inside
mastercool8695
Cyborg Agent
^^ that is what we believe,
what if on a distant planet, organisms cannot live below 1000 K ?
as we cannot live below a certain temperature ???
what if on a distant planet, organisms cannot live below 1000 K ?
as we cannot live below a certain temperature ???
rhitwick
Democracy is a myth
Am I even informed enough to comment on this?
There are so many things I don't know. My education and knowledge is limited to text books and few links to certain websites. Be it scientific or religious. I, even know less about our religion leave alone others.
My other arguments were nothing but my arrogance talking, I knew a headline and made a post on base of that knowledge. I read the gist only to be on safe side so that I can handle counter auguments. It was to win the debate, not to gain knowledge.
I denied our religion and the practices ( I still do) but I never went deep in them to know what is their explanation for what they do? And, I asked people who were blind followers and got some bullsh1t as answers. (Maybe) Unfortunately I did not get in contact with seers who know deep about our religion and philosophy around them. People around me were too busy to make me believe in God rather explaining the philosophy around him/her/it.
For past 15-20 days I'm reading biography of Vivekanada. B4 you start presuming on the reason, let me say it has two reasons.
1>Couple of years back I confronted one of my friend who was bad mouthing about Vivekananda. When I asked him not to he challanged me why couldn't he do so, what Vivekandanda had done for us apart from giving some lectures. I knew, I knew less about him to made a comment. And, then I made sure to know more about him.
2>He was an atheist in his early life. He denied religion, hated brahmins, idol worshipping etc. In short a true blue atheist. But, something happened and he turned a face of hindu religion in world. I just had to why he changed, what made him change.
While reading his bio, I came to know about a lot of things...basically questions that we ask to religious people now he was asked even then. (If the answers of believers have not changed for ages, I can see our questions also have not changed)
He read. He read about all things. Science, religion, philosophy all.
He told,
>Eating beef was allowed in Hindu religion long ago
>He explained about idol worshipping
>He had an explanation for time and space. And explained why both of them can't be infinite at the same time.
etc.
Basically, at his time, he still was a norm breaker for conventional hinduism.
Am I inspired by him or am I influenced by him? I'm still not sure.
But, I can say one thing, I know very little to argue on this.
Two things can be done now: either I can stop pursuing the truth and 'just' accept either religion or science without question and stay happy or gather more knowledge.
First one is a very easy solution, suitable for lazy people like me, second one is very tough and tiresome.
IDK, can I be blessed with the power of ignorance?
There are so many things I don't know. My education and knowledge is limited to text books and few links to certain websites. Be it scientific or religious. I, even know less about our religion leave alone others.
My other arguments were nothing but my arrogance talking, I knew a headline and made a post on base of that knowledge. I read the gist only to be on safe side so that I can handle counter auguments. It was to win the debate, not to gain knowledge.
I denied our religion and the practices ( I still do) but I never went deep in them to know what is their explanation for what they do? And, I asked people who were blind followers and got some bullsh1t as answers. (Maybe) Unfortunately I did not get in contact with seers who know deep about our religion and philosophy around them. People around me were too busy to make me believe in God rather explaining the philosophy around him/her/it.
For past 15-20 days I'm reading biography of Vivekanada. B4 you start presuming on the reason, let me say it has two reasons.
1>Couple of years back I confronted one of my friend who was bad mouthing about Vivekananda. When I asked him not to he challanged me why couldn't he do so, what Vivekandanda had done for us apart from giving some lectures. I knew, I knew less about him to made a comment. And, then I made sure to know more about him.
2>He was an atheist in his early life. He denied religion, hated brahmins, idol worshipping etc. In short a true blue atheist. But, something happened and he turned a face of hindu religion in world. I just had to why he changed, what made him change.
While reading his bio, I came to know about a lot of things...basically questions that we ask to religious people now he was asked even then. (If the answers of believers have not changed for ages, I can see our questions also have not changed)
He read. He read about all things. Science, religion, philosophy all.
He told,
>Eating beef was allowed in Hindu religion long ago
>He explained about idol worshipping
>He had an explanation for time and space. And explained why both of them can't be infinite at the same time.
etc.
Basically, at his time, he still was a norm breaker for conventional hinduism.
Am I inspired by him or am I influenced by him? I'm still not sure.
But, I can say one thing, I know very little to argue on this.
Two things can be done now: either I can stop pursuing the truth and 'just' accept either religion or science without question and stay happy or gather more knowledge.
First one is a very easy solution, suitable for lazy people like me, second one is very tough and tiresome.
IDK, can I be blessed with the power of ignorance?