Pappy;1389975 wrote: Smooth dance... what other steps do you know to avoid an answer? The rest is agian only assumption and no proof of any god. Speaking in parables will not change the scenario.
I like parables and my answer was my answer, your mind avoided my answer. My answers are deliberate; And deliberate is a proof of God. If you walk down the street and see a quarter on the ground, you can assume someone dropped it. You further walk and see 3 quarters on the ground, you can assume that someone has a hole in their pocket. Then you further walk and see 100 quarters on the ground, but each one is carefully balanced on their edges; now you can safely assume that this was deliberately done!
Using this same common sense one can safely assume that our universe and earths living conditions were just as deliberately done! And this is proof of God.
Is God Real?
-
Vrindavana Das
- Posts: 41
- Joined: Fri Mar 23, 2012 1:43 am
Is God Real?
Pappy;1389813 wrote:
There are no facts that prove a god exists. The whole basis for it is based on religious text written by desert dwellers who apparently were in the sun to long. The entire statement is nothing more than assumption based on belief and what the religious brain washers have driven down peoples throats for the last 2000 years.
Friend, none here has been able to disprove God's existence also! Can you?
As for God's existence, science knows that there are various laws like gravity, action-reaction, inertia etc., which it discovers and uses in day-today applications. Ever paused to ponder who created these laws!
For these day-today applications, ranging from TV, microwave, satellite to an insignificant pin, we exploit the natural resources of earth - wood, iron, coal, silicon...who provided these elements?
This gigantic cosmic manifestation held and functioning like a perfect machine in empty nothingness! Who is the engineer behind it?
To breathe we need air, to see we need light, to cook we need fire, to drink we need water...who is the scientist behind it?
We take birth, get diseased, suffer old age and die...is it by our choice? Or are there forced upon us by a higher power!
The list to prove God's existence is endless...
Everything has comes into existence on it's own is a fool's theory. It is like seeing a beautiful car on the road and not understanding there is an engineer behind it.
Consciousness can come only from consciousness. Life can only come from life. We can choose to believe it...or we can choose to turn a blind eye towards it!
There are no facts that prove a god exists. The whole basis for it is based on religious text written by desert dwellers who apparently were in the sun to long. The entire statement is nothing more than assumption based on belief and what the religious brain washers have driven down peoples throats for the last 2000 years.
Friend, none here has been able to disprove God's existence also! Can you?
As for God's existence, science knows that there are various laws like gravity, action-reaction, inertia etc., which it discovers and uses in day-today applications. Ever paused to ponder who created these laws!
For these day-today applications, ranging from TV, microwave, satellite to an insignificant pin, we exploit the natural resources of earth - wood, iron, coal, silicon...who provided these elements?
This gigantic cosmic manifestation held and functioning like a perfect machine in empty nothingness! Who is the engineer behind it?
To breathe we need air, to see we need light, to cook we need fire, to drink we need water...who is the scientist behind it?
We take birth, get diseased, suffer old age and die...is it by our choice? Or are there forced upon us by a higher power!
The list to prove God's existence is endless...
Everything has comes into existence on it's own is a fool's theory. It is like seeing a beautiful car on the road and not understanding there is an engineer behind it.
Consciousness can come only from consciousness. Life can only come from life. We can choose to believe it...or we can choose to turn a blind eye towards it!
Is God Real?
Vrindavana Das;1390845 wrote: Friend, none here has been able to disprove God's existence also! Can you?
As for God's existence, science knows that there are various laws like gravity, action-reaction, inertia etc., which it discovers and uses in day-today applications. Ever paused to ponder who created these laws!
For these day-today applications, ranging from TV, microwave, satellite to an insignificant pin, we exploit the natural resources of earth - wood, iron, coal, silicon...who provided these elements?
This gigantic cosmic manifestation held and functioning like a perfect machine in empty nothingness! Who is the engineer behind it?
To breathe we need air, to see we need light, to cook we need fire, to drink we need water...who is the scientist behind it?
We take birth, get diseased, suffer old age and die...is it by our choice? Or are there forced upon us by a higher power!
The list to prove God's existence is endless...
Everything has comes into existence on it's own is a fool's theory. It is like seeing a beautiful car on the road and not understanding there is an engineer behind it.
Consciousness can come only from consciousness. Life can only come from life. We can choose to believe it...or we can choose to turn a blind eye towards it!
The burden of evidence lies with the person making the claim.
All that proof for the existence of your god isn't proof at all. Not by a long shot.
As for God's existence, science knows that there are various laws like gravity, action-reaction, inertia etc., which it discovers and uses in day-today applications. Ever paused to ponder who created these laws!
For these day-today applications, ranging from TV, microwave, satellite to an insignificant pin, we exploit the natural resources of earth - wood, iron, coal, silicon...who provided these elements?
This gigantic cosmic manifestation held and functioning like a perfect machine in empty nothingness! Who is the engineer behind it?
To breathe we need air, to see we need light, to cook we need fire, to drink we need water...who is the scientist behind it?
We take birth, get diseased, suffer old age and die...is it by our choice? Or are there forced upon us by a higher power!
The list to prove God's existence is endless...
Everything has comes into existence on it's own is a fool's theory. It is like seeing a beautiful car on the road and not understanding there is an engineer behind it.
Consciousness can come only from consciousness. Life can only come from life. We can choose to believe it...or we can choose to turn a blind eye towards it!
The burden of evidence lies with the person making the claim.
All that proof for the existence of your god isn't proof at all. Not by a long shot.
Is God Real?
Savage;1391087 wrote: The burden of evidence lies with the person making the claim.
All that proof for the existence of your god isn't proof at all. Not by a long shot.
Simply not a shot that hits home in your head, it certainly has hit the target in mine.
All that proof for the existence of your god isn't proof at all. Not by a long shot.
Simply not a shot that hits home in your head, it certainly has hit the target in mine.
Is God Real?
Mickiel;1391092 wrote: Simply not a shot that hits home in your head, it certainly has hit the target in mine.
Whether it hits home in your head or not; it isn't objective proof.
Whether it hits home in your head or not; it isn't objective proof.
Is God Real?
Savage;1391095 wrote: Whether it hits home in your head or not; it isn't objective proof.
It most certainly is objective proof in my view, just not in your view.
It most certainly is objective proof in my view, just not in your view.
Is God Real?
Mickiel;1391111 wrote: It most certainly is objective proof in my view, just not in your view.
That makes it subjective. Objective proof is, well, objective.
That makes it subjective. Objective proof is, well, objective.
Is God Real?
objectivedictionary wrote: Objective means that which belongs to, or proceeds
from, the object known, and not from the subject
knowing, and thus denotes what is real, in
opposition to that which is ideal -- what exists in
nature, in contrast to what exists merely in the
thought of the individual. --Sir. W.
Hamilton.
[1913 Webster]
subjectivedictionary wrote: subjective---2. Especially, pertaining to, or derived from, one's own
consciousness, in distinction from external observation;
ralating to the mind, or intellectual world, in
distinction from the outward or material excessively
occupied with, or brooding over, one's own internal
states.
[1913 Webster]
from, the object known, and not from the subject
knowing, and thus denotes what is real, in
opposition to that which is ideal -- what exists in
nature, in contrast to what exists merely in the
thought of the individual. --Sir. W.
Hamilton.
[1913 Webster]
subjectivedictionary wrote: subjective---2. Especially, pertaining to, or derived from, one's own
consciousness, in distinction from external observation;
ralating to the mind, or intellectual world, in
distinction from the outward or material excessively
occupied with, or brooding over, one's own internal
states.
[1913 Webster]
“Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities,
Voltaire
I have only one thing to do and that's
Be the wave that I am and then
Sink back into the ocean
Fiona Apple
Voltaire
I have only one thing to do and that's
Be the wave that I am and then
Sink back into the ocean
Fiona Apple
Is God Real?
Savage;1391115 wrote: That makes it subjective. Objective proof is, well, objective.
I believe both objectively and subjectively that God exist and both objective and subjective evidence supports my belief.
I believe both objectively and subjectively that God exist and both objective and subjective evidence supports my belief.
Is God Real?
Mickiel;1391119 wrote: I believe both objectively and subjectively that God exist and both objective and subjective evidence supports my belief.
What's your objective proof?
What's your objective proof?
Is God Real?
Savage;1391121 wrote: What's your objective proof?
Rather than go through the task of re-listing them, I have already listed over 100 objective proofs in this thread; My suggestion would be that you go through the task of reading them, that burden is on the reader. Simply list the proofs I have given that you disagree with, and we go from there.
Rather than go through the task of re-listing them, I have already listed over 100 objective proofs in this thread; My suggestion would be that you go through the task of reading them, that burden is on the reader. Simply list the proofs I have given that you disagree with, and we go from there.
-
littleCJelkton
- Posts: 1215
- Joined: Tue Jun 01, 2010 5:57 pm
Is God Real?
Mickiel;1391122 wrote: Rather than go through the task of re-listing them, I have already listed over 100 objective proofs in this thread; My suggestion would be that you go through the task of reading them, that burden is on the reader. Simply list the proofs I have given that you disagree with, and we go from there.
I agree that he would have to go back in the thread, but not to see your proofs because all of them are subjective. He would have to go back to see that with in that space that is behind your wall you have made subjective=objective as you are the only one in that space and have created a god for that space your in. Since that god is only there with me, Myself and I --> refering to mickel then to those of us outside your wall all evidence for that god is subjective, but since inside your wall you believe there is more than one person it is objective.
I agree that he would have to go back in the thread, but not to see your proofs because all of them are subjective. He would have to go back to see that with in that space that is behind your wall you have made subjective=objective as you are the only one in that space and have created a god for that space your in. Since that god is only there with me, Myself and I --> refering to mickel then to those of us outside your wall all evidence for that god is subjective, but since inside your wall you believe there is more than one person it is objective.
-
Vrindavana Das
- Posts: 41
- Joined: Fri Mar 23, 2012 1:43 am
Is God Real?
Savage;1391087 wrote: The burden of evidence lies with the person making the claim.
All that proof for the existence of your god isn't proof at all. Not by a long shot.
Two requests:
1. Please define God.
2. As you say - 'All that proof'...'is no proof'. Kindly define what 'proof' means.
Please define objectively and not subjectively.
All that proof for the existence of your god isn't proof at all. Not by a long shot.
Two requests:
1. Please define God.
2. As you say - 'All that proof'...'is no proof'. Kindly define what 'proof' means.
Please define objectively and not subjectively.
Is God Real?
Vrindavana Das;1391133 wrote: Two requests:
1. Please define God.
2. As you say - 'All that proof'...'is no proof'. Kindly define what 'proof' means.
Please define objectively and not subjectively.
God: When I read your post, it seemed to me you were talking about a Creator-God. I assumed you were talking about the Christian god. Perhaps I assumed too quickly. What God do you believe in?
Proof: 'confirmation of a fact by evidence'. Ie: not what I have read here.
1. Please define God.
2. As you say - 'All that proof'...'is no proof'. Kindly define what 'proof' means.
Please define objectively and not subjectively.
God: When I read your post, it seemed to me you were talking about a Creator-God. I assumed you were talking about the Christian god. Perhaps I assumed too quickly. What God do you believe in?
Proof: 'confirmation of a fact by evidence'. Ie: not what I have read here.
-
Vrindavana Das
- Posts: 41
- Joined: Fri Mar 23, 2012 1:43 am
Is God Real?
Savage;1391135 wrote: God: When I read your post, it seemed to me you were talking about a Creator-God. I assumed you were talking about the Christian god. Perhaps I assumed too quickly. What God do you believe in?
Proof: 'confirmation of a fact by evidence'. Ie: not what I have read here.
Yes, by God, I mean the Supreme Lord. That God is the same as Christian's God, or Jew's God, or Islam's God...
Please define Supreme Lord/God.
Proof can be direct evidence. It can also be indirect evidence - proof by perception.
To clarify; presence of current in electric wires cannot be seen directly. However, when we turn the switch on, the bulb lights up/microwave/a.c/washing machine start functioning. This is proof by perception - of current's existence in the electric cables. Am I right?
Proof: 'confirmation of a fact by evidence'. Ie: not what I have read here.
Yes, by God, I mean the Supreme Lord. That God is the same as Christian's God, or Jew's God, or Islam's God...
Please define Supreme Lord/God.
Proof can be direct evidence. It can also be indirect evidence - proof by perception.
To clarify; presence of current in electric wires cannot be seen directly. However, when we turn the switch on, the bulb lights up/microwave/a.c/washing machine start functioning. This is proof by perception - of current's existence in the electric cables. Am I right?
Is God Real?
Vrindavana Das;1391139 wrote: Yes, by God, I mean the Supreme Lord. That God is the same as Christian's God, or Jew's God, or Islam's God...
Please define Supreme Lord/God.
Proof can be direct evidence. It can also be indirect evidence - proof by perception.
To clarify; presence of current in electric wires cannot be seen directly. However, when we turn the switch on, the bulb lights up/microwave/a.c/washing machine start functioning. This is proof by perception - of current's existence in the electric cables. Am I right?
I don't believe in any supreme being, no matter how I would define it.
About the proof: Yes, both direct and indirect proof exist.
Still, how will you proof the existence of a supreme being?
Please define Supreme Lord/God.
Proof can be direct evidence. It can also be indirect evidence - proof by perception.
To clarify; presence of current in electric wires cannot be seen directly. However, when we turn the switch on, the bulb lights up/microwave/a.c/washing machine start functioning. This is proof by perception - of current's existence in the electric cables. Am I right?
I don't believe in any supreme being, no matter how I would define it.
About the proof: Yes, both direct and indirect proof exist.
Still, how will you proof the existence of a supreme being?
-
Vrindavana Das
- Posts: 41
- Joined: Fri Mar 23, 2012 1:43 am
Is God Real?
Savage;1391140 wrote: I don't believe in any supreme being, no matter how I would define it.
About the proof: Yes, both direct and indirect proof exist.
Still, how will you proof the existence of a supreme being?
You insisted on an object proof. You should give objective definition of God for an objective answer. When you could not give an objective definition of God, asking for an objective proof loses it's meaning. Till both agree on what they are proving/disproving, how can anything objective be established..it will remain subjective till such time.
About the proof: If proof by perception is correct, then we agree that if an automobile is standing on the road, then there is also an engineer who has made it.
Now, let us take only one example of the complex machinery of our ecosystem. We find that it is a self-sustained unit.
Sun-shine->water from oceans,lakes/rivers drying up -> clouds form -> rains happen -> plants grow -> animals eat plants -> animals eat animals -> Humans eat plants & animals -> rain water again goes into lakes/rivers/oceans -> sunshine ...Humans are but a part of this machinery of ecosystem.
If this self-sustained machine exists, with humans as a part of the system (direct proof), then there is also an engineer/scientist who has designed this system (indirect proof). That Creator certainly is not any human being. That Superior Being is God.
Like seeing the automobile, presence of an engineer can be deduced, similarly, this machinery of ecosystem proves the existence of a creator. A superior intelligence. A higher controller. He is God. Hence existence of that Superior Being is proved by indirect perception.
About the proof: Yes, both direct and indirect proof exist.
Still, how will you proof the existence of a supreme being?
You insisted on an object proof. You should give objective definition of God for an objective answer. When you could not give an objective definition of God, asking for an objective proof loses it's meaning. Till both agree on what they are proving/disproving, how can anything objective be established..it will remain subjective till such time.
About the proof: If proof by perception is correct, then we agree that if an automobile is standing on the road, then there is also an engineer who has made it.
Now, let us take only one example of the complex machinery of our ecosystem. We find that it is a self-sustained unit.
Sun-shine->water from oceans,lakes/rivers drying up -> clouds form -> rains happen -> plants grow -> animals eat plants -> animals eat animals -> Humans eat plants & animals -> rain water again goes into lakes/rivers/oceans -> sunshine ...Humans are but a part of this machinery of ecosystem.
If this self-sustained machine exists, with humans as a part of the system (direct proof), then there is also an engineer/scientist who has designed this system (indirect proof). That Creator certainly is not any human being. That Superior Being is God.
Like seeing the automobile, presence of an engineer can be deduced, similarly, this machinery of ecosystem proves the existence of a creator. A superior intelligence. A higher controller. He is God. Hence existence of that Superior Being is proved by indirect perception.
Is God Real?
Vrindavana Das;1391149 wrote: You insisted on an object proof. You should give objective definition of God for an objective answer. When you could not give an objective definition of God, asking for an objective proof loses it's meaning. Till both agree on what they are proving/disproving, how can anything objective be established..it will remain subjective till such time.
About the proof: If proof by perception is correct, then we agree that if an automobile is standing on the road, then there is also an engineer who has made it.
Now, let us take only one example of the complex machinery of our ecosystem. We find that it is a self-sustained unit.
Sun-shine->water from oceans,lakes/rivers drying up -> clouds form -> rains happen -> plants grow -> animals eat plants -> animals eat animals -> Humans eat plants & animals -> rain water again goes into lakes/rivers/oceans -> sunshine ...Humans are but a part of this machinery of ecosystem.
If this self-sustained machine exists, with humans as a part of the system (direct proof), then there is also an engineer/scientist who has designed this system (indirect proof). That Creator certainly is not any human being. That Superior Being is God.
Like seeing the automobile, presence of an engineer can be deduced, similarly, this machinery of ecosystem proves the existence of a creator. A superior intelligence. A higher controller. He is God. Hence existence of that Superior Being is proved by indirect perception.
Wrong.
Very flawed logic there. There is absolutely no reason why there has to be creator or an 'engineer' behind things we see. Why should there? Because cars are made by engineers and buildings require architects? That's just flawed analogy.
Evolution does not require an engineer. Evolution just happens. It is the product of natural processes, not a creator.
And about that God definition, well, let's say God is the omnipotent, benevolent and all-knowing creator of the universe. Now, if you believe in this god, can you prove to me he exists?
About the proof: If proof by perception is correct, then we agree that if an automobile is standing on the road, then there is also an engineer who has made it.
Now, let us take only one example of the complex machinery of our ecosystem. We find that it is a self-sustained unit.
Sun-shine->water from oceans,lakes/rivers drying up -> clouds form -> rains happen -> plants grow -> animals eat plants -> animals eat animals -> Humans eat plants & animals -> rain water again goes into lakes/rivers/oceans -> sunshine ...Humans are but a part of this machinery of ecosystem.
If this self-sustained machine exists, with humans as a part of the system (direct proof), then there is also an engineer/scientist who has designed this system (indirect proof). That Creator certainly is not any human being. That Superior Being is God.
Like seeing the automobile, presence of an engineer can be deduced, similarly, this machinery of ecosystem proves the existence of a creator. A superior intelligence. A higher controller. He is God. Hence existence of that Superior Being is proved by indirect perception.
Wrong.
Very flawed logic there. There is absolutely no reason why there has to be creator or an 'engineer' behind things we see. Why should there? Because cars are made by engineers and buildings require architects? That's just flawed analogy.
Evolution does not require an engineer. Evolution just happens. It is the product of natural processes, not a creator.
And about that God definition, well, let's say God is the omnipotent, benevolent and all-knowing creator of the universe. Now, if you believe in this god, can you prove to me he exists?
-
Vrindavana Das
- Posts: 41
- Joined: Fri Mar 23, 2012 1:43 am
Is God Real?
Savage;1391151 wrote: Wrong.
Very flawed logic there. There is absolutely no reason why there has to be creator or an 'engineer' behind things we see. Why should there? Because cars are made by engineers and buildings require architects? That's just flawed analogy.
Evolution does not require an engineer. Evolution just happens. It is the product of natural processes, not a creator.
And about that God definition, well, let's say God is the omnipotent, benevolent and all-knowing creator of the universe. Now, if you believe in this god, can you prove to me he exists?
You say evolution just happens. It is a product of natural processes and not creator.
Like you said, burden of proof lies with the person making the claim. Prove that statement. Objectively.
Very flawed logic there. There is absolutely no reason why there has to be creator or an 'engineer' behind things we see. Why should there? Because cars are made by engineers and buildings require architects? That's just flawed analogy.
Evolution does not require an engineer. Evolution just happens. It is the product of natural processes, not a creator.
And about that God definition, well, let's say God is the omnipotent, benevolent and all-knowing creator of the universe. Now, if you believe in this god, can you prove to me he exists?
You say evolution just happens. It is a product of natural processes and not creator.
Like you said, burden of proof lies with the person making the claim. Prove that statement. Objectively.
Is God Real?
Vrindavana Das;1391152 wrote: You say evolution just happens. It is a product of natural processes and not creator.
Like you said, burden of proof lies with the person making the claim. Prove that statement. Objectively.
Just to be clear: do you deny evolution or are you saying that evolution could co-exist with a creator?
edit: If you are familiar with evolution, you should know that the existence of a creator is not needed for the all the things we see in nature.
There is the big bang theory as well of course. The big bang explains how the universe expanded and developed from an extremely small point, and unimaginably dense and hot. It does not explain where that dot (or singularity, as its proper term is) originated from. That question hasn't been answered yet. But simply stating: "a creator must have been the start of it all" is very easy and most likely wrong.
Evolution, on the other hand, only tells us how life evolved AFTER life started and shows that plants, creatures,... evolve. And are not 'made'.
Btw: English is my fourth language, so forgive me any linguistic mistakes or clumsy sentences.
Like you said, burden of proof lies with the person making the claim. Prove that statement. Objectively.
Just to be clear: do you deny evolution or are you saying that evolution could co-exist with a creator?
edit: If you are familiar with evolution, you should know that the existence of a creator is not needed for the all the things we see in nature.
There is the big bang theory as well of course. The big bang explains how the universe expanded and developed from an extremely small point, and unimaginably dense and hot. It does not explain where that dot (or singularity, as its proper term is) originated from. That question hasn't been answered yet. But simply stating: "a creator must have been the start of it all" is very easy and most likely wrong.
Evolution, on the other hand, only tells us how life evolved AFTER life started and shows that plants, creatures,... evolve. And are not 'made'.
Btw: English is my fourth language, so forgive me any linguistic mistakes or clumsy sentences.
-
Vrindavana Das
- Posts: 41
- Joined: Fri Mar 23, 2012 1:43 am
Is God Real?
Savage;1391154 wrote: Just to be clear: do you deny evolution or are you saying that evolution could co-exist with a creator?
edit: If you are familiar with evolution, you should know that the existence of a creator is not needed for the all the things we see in nature.
There is the big bang theory as well of course. The big bang explains how the universe expanded and developed from an extremely small point, and unimaginably dense and hot. It does not explain where that dot (or singularity, as its proper term is) originated from. That question hasn't been answered yet. But simply stating: "a creator must have been the start of it all" is very easy and most likely wrong.
Evolution, on the other hand, only tells us how life evolved AFTER life started and shows that plants, creatures,... evolve. And are not 'made'.
Btw: English is my fourth language, so forgive me any linguistic mistakes or clumsy sentences.
Not correct.
Evolution, like Big-bang is a THEORY. What is the PROOF that it is correct?
Newton says there is Gravity. Einstein's relativity theory says there is No Gravity. Both theories have scientific instruments which function well, proving the correctness of their respective theories. How do you explain that? Obviously they are both incomplete and part of a bigger truth. Our theories necessarily need not be correct.
As for the theory of evolution & Big-bang. Can you give me one proof of something coming from nothing? Even Darwin said that evolution is just a theory. My friend, consciousness can only come from consciousness. Life comes only from life. You, I we are conscious, and a part of bigger consciousness...that complete consciousness/absolute truth is God.
edit: If you are familiar with evolution, you should know that the existence of a creator is not needed for the all the things we see in nature.
There is the big bang theory as well of course. The big bang explains how the universe expanded and developed from an extremely small point, and unimaginably dense and hot. It does not explain where that dot (or singularity, as its proper term is) originated from. That question hasn't been answered yet. But simply stating: "a creator must have been the start of it all" is very easy and most likely wrong.
Evolution, on the other hand, only tells us how life evolved AFTER life started and shows that plants, creatures,... evolve. And are not 'made'.
Btw: English is my fourth language, so forgive me any linguistic mistakes or clumsy sentences.
Not correct.
Evolution, like Big-bang is a THEORY. What is the PROOF that it is correct?
Newton says there is Gravity. Einstein's relativity theory says there is No Gravity. Both theories have scientific instruments which function well, proving the correctness of their respective theories. How do you explain that? Obviously they are both incomplete and part of a bigger truth. Our theories necessarily need not be correct.
As for the theory of evolution & Big-bang. Can you give me one proof of something coming from nothing? Even Darwin said that evolution is just a theory. My friend, consciousness can only come from consciousness. Life comes only from life. You, I we are conscious, and a part of bigger consciousness...that complete consciousness/absolute truth is God.
Is God Real?
Vrindavana Das;1391156 wrote: Not correct.
Evolution, like Big-bang is a THEORY. What is the PROOF that it is correct?
Newton says there is Gravity. Einstein's relativity theory says there is No Gravity. Both theories have scientific instruments which function well, proving the correctness of their respective theories. How do you explain that? Obviously they are both incomplete and part of a bigger truth. Our theories necessarily need not be correct.
As for the theory of evolution & Big-bang. Can you give me one proof of something coming from nothing? Even Darwin said that evolution is just a theory. My friend, consciousness can only come from consciousness. Life comes only from life. You, I we are conscious, and a part of bigger consciousness...that complete consciousness/absolute truth is God.
I never said something came from 'nothing'. I said that the origin of the small point in the big bang theory is as of yet still unknown. Just like a whole lot of things were once unknown. That just doesn't mean there has to be a creator behind it.
Still, what you're saying about that bigger consciousness/God: why would that be the case? I haven't read anything here that makes something like that even remotely probable.
Evolution, like Big-bang is a THEORY. What is the PROOF that it is correct?
Newton says there is Gravity. Einstein's relativity theory says there is No Gravity. Both theories have scientific instruments which function well, proving the correctness of their respective theories. How do you explain that? Obviously they are both incomplete and part of a bigger truth. Our theories necessarily need not be correct.
As for the theory of evolution & Big-bang. Can you give me one proof of something coming from nothing? Even Darwin said that evolution is just a theory. My friend, consciousness can only come from consciousness. Life comes only from life. You, I we are conscious, and a part of bigger consciousness...that complete consciousness/absolute truth is God.
I never said something came from 'nothing'. I said that the origin of the small point in the big bang theory is as of yet still unknown. Just like a whole lot of things were once unknown. That just doesn't mean there has to be a creator behind it.
Still, what you're saying about that bigger consciousness/God: why would that be the case? I haven't read anything here that makes something like that even remotely probable.
-
Vrindavana Das
- Posts: 41
- Joined: Fri Mar 23, 2012 1:43 am
Is God Real?
Savage;1391157 wrote: I never said something came from 'nothing'. I said that the origin of the small point in the big bang theory is as of yet still unknown. Just like a whole lot of things were once unknown. That just doesn't mean there has to be a creator behind it.
Still, what you're saying about that bigger consciousness/God: why would that be the case? I haven't read anything here that makes something like that even remotely probable.
So science cannot prove everything. Then where do we get the correct information? The answer is the revealed scriptures. After all science too was a part of religion in the bygone days.
As for reading about something that makes what I am saying even a remote possibility, I will provide some quotes from the scriptures to give you an insight.
Quote 1:
aham sarvasya prabhavo
mattah sarvam pravartate
iti matva bhajante mam
budha bhava-samanvitah
I am the source of all spiritual and material worlds. Everything emanates from Me. The wise who perfectly know this engage in My devotional service and worship Me with all their hearts. Bhagavad Gita (10.8)
Quote 2:
eko 'py asau racayituḿ jagad-aṇḍa-koṭiḿ
yac-chaktir asti jagad-aṇḍa-cayā yad-antaḥ
aṇḍāntara-stha-paramāṇu-cayāntara-sthaḿ
govindam ādi-puruṣaḿ tam ahaḿ bhajāmi
"I worship the primeval Lord, Govinda, the original Personality of Godhead. By His partial plenary expansion as Mahā-Viṣṇu, He enters into material nature. Then He enters every universe as Garbhodakaśāyī Viṣṇu, and He enters all the elements, including every atom of matter, as Kṣīrodakaśāyī Viṣṇu. Such manifestations of cosmic creation are innumerable, both in the universes and in the individual atoms." Brahma-saḿhitā (5.35)
Quote 3:
yasyaika-niśvasita-kālam athāvalambya
jīvanti loma-vilajā jagad-aṇḍa-nāthāḥ
viṣṇur mahān sa iha yasya kalā-viśeṣo
govindam ādi-puruṣaḿ tam ahaḿ bhajāmi
This verse describes Mahā-Viṣṇu as a plenary expansion of Kṛṣṇa. Mahā-Viṣṇu lies on the Causal Ocean, and when He exhales, millions of brahmāṇḍas, or universes, come from the pores of His body. Then, when Mahā-Viṣṇu inhales, all these brahmāṇḍas disappear. Thus the millions of brahmāṇḍas controlled by the Brahmās and other demigods come and go in this material world through the breathing of Mahā-Viṣṇu.
Brahma-saḿhitā (5.48)
Please note:
Krishna = Supreme Personality of Godhead
Bramha = Creator of their particular universe
Still, what you're saying about that bigger consciousness/God: why would that be the case? I haven't read anything here that makes something like that even remotely probable.
So science cannot prove everything. Then where do we get the correct information? The answer is the revealed scriptures. After all science too was a part of religion in the bygone days.
As for reading about something that makes what I am saying even a remote possibility, I will provide some quotes from the scriptures to give you an insight.
Quote 1:
aham sarvasya prabhavo
mattah sarvam pravartate
iti matva bhajante mam
budha bhava-samanvitah
I am the source of all spiritual and material worlds. Everything emanates from Me. The wise who perfectly know this engage in My devotional service and worship Me with all their hearts. Bhagavad Gita (10.8)
Quote 2:
eko 'py asau racayituḿ jagad-aṇḍa-koṭiḿ
yac-chaktir asti jagad-aṇḍa-cayā yad-antaḥ
aṇḍāntara-stha-paramāṇu-cayāntara-sthaḿ
govindam ādi-puruṣaḿ tam ahaḿ bhajāmi
"I worship the primeval Lord, Govinda, the original Personality of Godhead. By His partial plenary expansion as Mahā-Viṣṇu, He enters into material nature. Then He enters every universe as Garbhodakaśāyī Viṣṇu, and He enters all the elements, including every atom of matter, as Kṣīrodakaśāyī Viṣṇu. Such manifestations of cosmic creation are innumerable, both in the universes and in the individual atoms." Brahma-saḿhitā (5.35)
Quote 3:
yasyaika-niśvasita-kālam athāvalambya
jīvanti loma-vilajā jagad-aṇḍa-nāthāḥ
viṣṇur mahān sa iha yasya kalā-viśeṣo
govindam ādi-puruṣaḿ tam ahaḿ bhajāmi
This verse describes Mahā-Viṣṇu as a plenary expansion of Kṛṣṇa. Mahā-Viṣṇu lies on the Causal Ocean, and when He exhales, millions of brahmāṇḍas, or universes, come from the pores of His body. Then, when Mahā-Viṣṇu inhales, all these brahmāṇḍas disappear. Thus the millions of brahmāṇḍas controlled by the Brahmās and other demigods come and go in this material world through the breathing of Mahā-Viṣṇu.
Brahma-saḿhitā (5.48)
Please note:
Krishna = Supreme Personality of Godhead
Bramha = Creator of their particular universe
Is God Real?
So, what's your point? You believe every text that claims to be holy?
It's the beauty of science that it realises that not everything is known yet and that their is still a long way to go. This in contrast with religion.
I don't see the logic in going from 'science can't prove everything' (which is a statement that needs to be nuanced severely) to 'the answer is in revealed scriptures'.
It's the beauty of science that it realises that not everything is known yet and that their is still a long way to go. This in contrast with religion.
I don't see the logic in going from 'science can't prove everything' (which is a statement that needs to be nuanced severely) to 'the answer is in revealed scriptures'.
Is God Real?
Savage;1391154 wrote: Just to be clear: do you deny evolution or are you saying that evolution could co-exist with a creator?
edit: If you are familiar with evolution, you should know that the existence of a creator is not needed for the all the things we see in nature.
There is the big bang theory as well of course. The big bang explains how the universe expanded and developed from an extremely small point, and unimaginably dense and hot. It does not explain where that dot (or singularity, as its proper term is) originated from. That question hasn't been answered yet. But simply stating: "a creator must have been the start of it all" is very easy and most likely wrong.
Evolution, on the other hand, only tells us how life evolved AFTER life started and shows that plants, creatures,... evolve. And are not 'made'.
Btw: English is my fourth language, so forgive me any linguistic mistakes or clumsy sentences.
The big bang theory is not proof of creation or matter. Explosions destroy, they do not create. Nor are explosions self containing life, so the big bang theory defys biogenesis; life only comes from life, and no theory has disproven that. The big bang could in no manner of science hold the specfic requirements for earth to substain life, and then all other fragments it supposedly produced were dead. It is impossible for " Genes" to be produced by this imaginary explosion, nor could DNA or RNA be produced by this uncanny destruction.
The big bang theory is more philosophy than religion is, and more of a miracle than any biblical miracle, yet its adherents claim they do not believe in miracles. The only way for life to spontaneously appear is from other pre existing life. And God used evolution to produce any life that followed life. In emergant evolution the new properties are in each case effectively related to the systems from which they emerged. Neither evolution or life are related to an explosion in any manner of science.
edit: If you are familiar with evolution, you should know that the existence of a creator is not needed for the all the things we see in nature.
There is the big bang theory as well of course. The big bang explains how the universe expanded and developed from an extremely small point, and unimaginably dense and hot. It does not explain where that dot (or singularity, as its proper term is) originated from. That question hasn't been answered yet. But simply stating: "a creator must have been the start of it all" is very easy and most likely wrong.
Evolution, on the other hand, only tells us how life evolved AFTER life started and shows that plants, creatures,... evolve. And are not 'made'.
Btw: English is my fourth language, so forgive me any linguistic mistakes or clumsy sentences.
The big bang theory is not proof of creation or matter. Explosions destroy, they do not create. Nor are explosions self containing life, so the big bang theory defys biogenesis; life only comes from life, and no theory has disproven that. The big bang could in no manner of science hold the specfic requirements for earth to substain life, and then all other fragments it supposedly produced were dead. It is impossible for " Genes" to be produced by this imaginary explosion, nor could DNA or RNA be produced by this uncanny destruction.
The big bang theory is more philosophy than religion is, and more of a miracle than any biblical miracle, yet its adherents claim they do not believe in miracles. The only way for life to spontaneously appear is from other pre existing life. And God used evolution to produce any life that followed life. In emergant evolution the new properties are in each case effectively related to the systems from which they emerged. Neither evolution or life are related to an explosion in any manner of science.
Is God Real?
Mickiel;1391164 wrote: The big bang theory is not proof of creation or matter. Explosions destroy, they do not create. Nor are explosions self containing life, so the big bang theory defys biogenesis; life only comes from life, and no theory has disproven that. The big bang could in no manner of science hold the specfic requirements for earth to substain life, and then all other fragments it supposedly produced were dead. It is impossible for " Genes" to be produced by this imaginary explosion, nor could DNA or RNA be produced by this uncanny destruction.
The big bang theory is more philosophy than religion is, and more of a miracle than any biblical miracle, yet its adherents claim they do not believe in miracles. The only way for life to spontaneously appear is from other pre existing life. And God used evolution to produce any life that followed life. In emergant evolution the new properties are in each case effectively related to the systems from which they emerged. Neither evolution or life are related to an explosion in any manner of science.
Go read some stuff. All of the observable evidence supports the big bang theory.
Do not make the mistake to mistake between a theory and a scientific theory. Scientific theories as evolution and big bang are supported by observable evidence. There are no measurements that contradict these 'theories'
Now, I'm not a scientist (I study classical languages) but I know enough people who are and I am smart enough to understand what they're talking about and to read and understand texts by established scientists.
Big bang and evolution are way more than mere theories. They have loads of evidence backing them up.
And btw: the classical question for you, Mickiel: if life is only to appear from pre-existing life: where the hell did God come from? Who created the creator?
And lastly: I do not claim to know how life originated. I'm just saying that a creator is not the answer.
The big bang theory is more philosophy than religion is, and more of a miracle than any biblical miracle, yet its adherents claim they do not believe in miracles. The only way for life to spontaneously appear is from other pre existing life. And God used evolution to produce any life that followed life. In emergant evolution the new properties are in each case effectively related to the systems from which they emerged. Neither evolution or life are related to an explosion in any manner of science.
Go read some stuff. All of the observable evidence supports the big bang theory.
Do not make the mistake to mistake between a theory and a scientific theory. Scientific theories as evolution and big bang are supported by observable evidence. There are no measurements that contradict these 'theories'
Now, I'm not a scientist (I study classical languages) but I know enough people who are and I am smart enough to understand what they're talking about and to read and understand texts by established scientists.
Big bang and evolution are way more than mere theories. They have loads of evidence backing them up.
And btw: the classical question for you, Mickiel: if life is only to appear from pre-existing life: where the hell did God come from? Who created the creator?
And lastly: I do not claim to know how life originated. I'm just saying that a creator is not the answer.
Is God Real?
Savage;1391166 wrote: Go read some stuff. All of the observable evidence supports the big bang theory.
Do not make the mistake to mistake between a theory and a scientific theory. Scientific theories as evolution and big bang are supported by observable evidence. There are no measurements that contradict these 'theories'
Now, I'm not a scientist (I study classical languages) but I know enough people who are and I am smart enough to understand what they're talking about and to read and understand texts by established scientists.
Big bang and evolution are way more than mere theories. They have loads of evidence backing them up.
And btw: the classical question for you, Mickiel: if life is only to appear from pre-existing life: where the hell did God come from? Who created the creator?
Oh I believe in evolution, yet I see the orgin of evolution as God, not some imaginary explosion in space that orginated from nothing. In my view, God defintely used evolution on primordal man; it was simply part of his designing process. I don't think hes using " Physical Evolution" as dramatically now as he did then, physical evolution in humans is no longer necessary; humans are evolving Consciously now.
As far as where God came from or who created him; in my view, to avoid infinite regression, there must be at least one thing that has always been alive, and was the cause of all things, and is outside of all systems and began all systems. One thing that has no explination, no creation- to give all explinations; one thing which is all powerful- to explain power, and begin power; I view that one thing as God.
Do not make the mistake to mistake between a theory and a scientific theory. Scientific theories as evolution and big bang are supported by observable evidence. There are no measurements that contradict these 'theories'
Now, I'm not a scientist (I study classical languages) but I know enough people who are and I am smart enough to understand what they're talking about and to read and understand texts by established scientists.
Big bang and evolution are way more than mere theories. They have loads of evidence backing them up.
And btw: the classical question for you, Mickiel: if life is only to appear from pre-existing life: where the hell did God come from? Who created the creator?
Oh I believe in evolution, yet I see the orgin of evolution as God, not some imaginary explosion in space that orginated from nothing. In my view, God defintely used evolution on primordal man; it was simply part of his designing process. I don't think hes using " Physical Evolution" as dramatically now as he did then, physical evolution in humans is no longer necessary; humans are evolving Consciously now.
As far as where God came from or who created him; in my view, to avoid infinite regression, there must be at least one thing that has always been alive, and was the cause of all things, and is outside of all systems and began all systems. One thing that has no explination, no creation- to give all explinations; one thing which is all powerful- to explain power, and begin power; I view that one thing as God.
Is God Real?
Mickiel;1391167 wrote: Oh I believe in evolution, yet I see the orgin of evolution as God, not some imaginary explosion in space that orginated from nothing. In my view, God defintely used evolution on primordal man; it was simply part of his designing process. I don't think hes using " Physical Evolution" as dramatically now as he did then, physical evolution in humans is no longer necessary; humans are evolving Consciously now.
As far as where God came from or who created him; in my view, to avoid infinite regression, there must be at least one thing that has always been alive, and was the cause of all things, and is outside of all systems and began all systems. One thing that has no explination, no creation- to give all explinations; one thing which is all powerful- to explain power, and begin power; I view that one thing as God.
Big bang is supported by the available evidence. A creator is supported by none.
As far as where God came from or who created him; in my view, to avoid infinite regression, there must be at least one thing that has always been alive, and was the cause of all things, and is outside of all systems and began all systems. One thing that has no explination, no creation- to give all explinations; one thing which is all powerful- to explain power, and begin power; I view that one thing as God.
Big bang is supported by the available evidence. A creator is supported by none.
Is God Real?
Savage;1391168 wrote: Big bang is supported by the available evidence. A creator is supported by none.
None that you accept or see, I certainly see it, as have the vast majority of humans in history, and who are alive now! Your view is the minority by far. In fact, if you choose the scientific evidence, then history supports that science began from religion! Science took its orgin as a " Search for the divine!" Know your history. The scientific reveloution began as science " Broke away from the church." The very three men who built the foundations of Physics, Psychology and Biology, were all amateur theologians in the church; Isaac Newton, John Locke and John Ray, all took their orgins in religion.
None that you accept or see, I certainly see it, as have the vast majority of humans in history, and who are alive now! Your view is the minority by far. In fact, if you choose the scientific evidence, then history supports that science began from religion! Science took its orgin as a " Search for the divine!" Know your history. The scientific reveloution began as science " Broke away from the church." The very three men who built the foundations of Physics, Psychology and Biology, were all amateur theologians in the church; Isaac Newton, John Locke and John Ray, all took their orgins in religion.
Is God Real?
Mickiel;1391169 wrote: None that you accept or see, I certainly see it, as have the vast majority of humans in history, and who are alive now! Your view is the minority by far. In fact, if you choose the scientific evidence, then history supports that science began from religion! Science took its orgin as a " Search for the divine!" Know your history. The scientific reveloution began as science " Broke away from the church." The very three men who built the foundations of Physics, Psychology and Biology, were all amateur theologians in the church; Isaac Newton, John Locke and John Ray, all took their orgins in religion.
Lol.
A view that is the minority's is wrong? So when the great majority of the population believed the earth was flat they were right? Please.
You're the one that need to learn his history: the church has persecuted scientists throughout history. Btw scientists in classical times like Demokritos (Democritus) already disregarded religion.
When you speak of Newton, Locke and Ray: it was in those times in the Western world practically impossible to not be a theist. Purely because of the environment (which is thankfully now gone in some parts of the world). There are btw enough examples of early scientist who doubted their religion (eg Darwin).
The Church has always been concerned about science just because science explains things without the necessity of a god. Think about Galilei and Copernicus, thankfully those days are now behind us.
Lol.
A view that is the minority's is wrong? So when the great majority of the population believed the earth was flat they were right? Please.
You're the one that need to learn his history: the church has persecuted scientists throughout history. Btw scientists in classical times like Demokritos (Democritus) already disregarded religion.
When you speak of Newton, Locke and Ray: it was in those times in the Western world practically impossible to not be a theist. Purely because of the environment (which is thankfully now gone in some parts of the world). There are btw enough examples of early scientist who doubted their religion (eg Darwin).
The Church has always been concerned about science just because science explains things without the necessity of a god. Think about Galilei and Copernicus, thankfully those days are now behind us.
Is God Real?
I want to ask you something else aswell, Mickiel, how do you read the bible?
Is God Real?
Savage;1391171 wrote: Lol.
A view that is the minority's is wrong? So when the great majority of the population believed the earth was flat they were right? Please.
You're the one that need to learn his history: the church has persecuted scientists throughout history. Btw scientists in classical times like Demokritos (Democritus) already disregarded religion.
When you speak of Newton, Locke and Ray: it was in those times in the Western world practically impossible to not be a theist. Purely because of the environment (which is thankfully now gone in some parts of the world). There are btw enough examples of early scientist who doubted their religion (eg Darwin).
The Church has always been concerned about science just because science explains things without the necessity of a god. Think about Galilei and Copernicus, thankfully those days are now behind us.
Well one of the problems with the present and future, is forgetting our past; our true orgins. I would agree those old traditional falsehoods need to sray buried, but we can never forget our roots, no matter how civilized we become; and the root of modern civilization is religion, or the search for and influence of " The Divine!" We can never become so advanced that we have no root system. Some science may like the comfort of dismissing religion or the church, but its still their roots.
I don't blame science for leaving religion, they should have; but historically it was not religion that science had its war with, it was the church. And there is a difference between religion, and the Catholic church that tried to control science. The church tried to control religion as well. With science and the church, it was " A Rivalry, not contravention." Both were religious. They were two giants fuming at each other over the same ground! Both proclaimed to be the only way to divine revelation. It was this competition that first came into absolute focus with the late renaissance and the imprisionment of Galileo in 1633.
The real chasm was can we find the divine, or God, through apostolic succession from ancient prophets, or through searching the heavens of our own experience right now in the objective world without any priestly intercession. This was the root of the secularzation of science, and the beginning of its reveloution. No matter how far advanced science becomes, its root, its most powerful impetus was the unremitting search for the divine.
And no cynicism from any atheist can change that.
A view that is the minority's is wrong? So when the great majority of the population believed the earth was flat they were right? Please.
You're the one that need to learn his history: the church has persecuted scientists throughout history. Btw scientists in classical times like Demokritos (Democritus) already disregarded religion.
When you speak of Newton, Locke and Ray: it was in those times in the Western world practically impossible to not be a theist. Purely because of the environment (which is thankfully now gone in some parts of the world). There are btw enough examples of early scientist who doubted their religion (eg Darwin).
The Church has always been concerned about science just because science explains things without the necessity of a god. Think about Galilei and Copernicus, thankfully those days are now behind us.
Well one of the problems with the present and future, is forgetting our past; our true orgins. I would agree those old traditional falsehoods need to sray buried, but we can never forget our roots, no matter how civilized we become; and the root of modern civilization is religion, or the search for and influence of " The Divine!" We can never become so advanced that we have no root system. Some science may like the comfort of dismissing religion or the church, but its still their roots.
I don't blame science for leaving religion, they should have; but historically it was not religion that science had its war with, it was the church. And there is a difference between religion, and the Catholic church that tried to control science. The church tried to control religion as well. With science and the church, it was " A Rivalry, not contravention." Both were religious. They were two giants fuming at each other over the same ground! Both proclaimed to be the only way to divine revelation. It was this competition that first came into absolute focus with the late renaissance and the imprisionment of Galileo in 1633.
The real chasm was can we find the divine, or God, through apostolic succession from ancient prophets, or through searching the heavens of our own experience right now in the objective world without any priestly intercession. This was the root of the secularzation of science, and the beginning of its reveloution. No matter how far advanced science becomes, its root, its most powerful impetus was the unremitting search for the divine.
And no cynicism from any atheist can change that.
Is God Real?
Savage;1391172 wrote: I want to ask you something else aswell, Mickiel, how do you read the bible?
I read it in awe of its unrelenting wisdom, its archaeological factness and its informative morality. I read it in a mind of " Learning", because I learn so much from it. I read it like I do a profound history book; I read it out of curiosity, and desire to understand it more than I do. I read it out of intellectual reward, because it rewards my intelligence. I read it out of conscious satisfaction, because I am more satisfied with it than any other book I have ever read, and I have read thousands. I read it because it magnifys my mind. I read it because it corrects me.
I read the bible because I like it, so I read it out of pleasure. I read it from a messed up point of view, because my head is messed up, and it gives me hope that no other book does.
I read it in awe of its unrelenting wisdom, its archaeological factness and its informative morality. I read it in a mind of " Learning", because I learn so much from it. I read it like I do a profound history book; I read it out of curiosity, and desire to understand it more than I do. I read it out of intellectual reward, because it rewards my intelligence. I read it out of conscious satisfaction, because I am more satisfied with it than any other book I have ever read, and I have read thousands. I read it because it magnifys my mind. I read it because it corrects me.
I read the bible because I like it, so I read it out of pleasure. I read it from a messed up point of view, because my head is messed up, and it gives me hope that no other book does.
-
Vrindavana Das
- Posts: 41
- Joined: Fri Mar 23, 2012 1:43 am
Is God Real?
Savage;1391162 wrote: So, what's your point? You believe every text that claims to be holy?
It's the beauty of science that it realises that not everything is known yet and that their is still a long way to go. This in contrast with religion.
I don't see the logic in going from 'science can't prove everything' (which is a statement that needs to be nuanced severely) to 'the answer is in revealed scriptures'.
Friend, with logic we understand the correctness of anything - religion, scriptures, science or scientific theories. I am not asking you to follow the scriptures blindly. Question them. At the same time, do not follow science also blindly. Question it. Be open and choose which gives you more satisfactory answers.
Scriptures explain everything. Even the things science cannot explain. What will you believe. Something that can explain everything or something that cannot explain everything?
Take for example the big bang theory. There are so many flaws that even a layman can see the futility.
=> A small point/seed which explodes into becoming a limitless universe and is still expanding!! Where is the proof? Please... :-5
=> What triggered the explosion when it was non-explosive for such a long time.
=> If the explosion happened in time & in space, that means 'big-bang' happened inside time and in space; therefore time & space existed before big-bang. Thus, time & space are superior or source of 'seed/point' or universe.
=> Who created time & space? Where did time & space come from? Science has NO answer!
=> A black hole is formed every time a star dies. It is because the mass of star becomes so dense that even light cannot escape and it ruptures through the fabric of space and time. Well, how come the 'seed' with such high density having material for all universe, billions of stars, planets etc. did not rupture the fabric of space and time before the big-bang?!! :guitarist
=> You, I, sun, moon, trees, plants...everything also existed within that 'seed'.
If so, where is the logic of evolution? Everything you, I, trees, plant, sun, moon....always existed!
Also, science relies on our imperfect senses. Any sound above or below the human's hearing frequency is inaudible to us. Any light above or below our visual band is 'unseen' by us. In twilight my mind tells me that a snake on the road is a rope! In extreme heat, my intelligence tells me that mirage on desert is an oasis! With such imperfect senses, mind and intelligence, how can we understand God, who is spiritual? Even the instruments used by science come from material elements, which in turn have their source in God. From inferior energy, presence of superior source can be proved only by perception.
To understand God, we have to take shelter of something superior - God himself!
Like at night, no matter how many searchlights and torches you put up to see the sun, will you see the sun? No. Sun can be seen only by it's own light. Similarly, God, who is self effulgent, will be revealed to you only when He reveals Himself. Only by God's light can you see God. That guiding light is the scriptures.
If there is sunlight, there is no reason to doubt the existence of the source - sun, even if I cannot see that sun due to cloudy sky. Similarly, if you exist, I exist...everything exists, then the source also exists. That source is God. He is the unifying principle of all theories - big bang, evolution, relativity; of all laws like inertia, gravity, friction; of all sciences like physics, biology, chemistry and origin of all beings like you, me, plants, animals. The source of all that be!
The same logic you are applying to understanding the theory of science, if you apply to understanding the science of religion, you will find perfect answers, with nothing unknown!
It's the beauty of science that it realises that not everything is known yet and that their is still a long way to go. This in contrast with religion.
I don't see the logic in going from 'science can't prove everything' (which is a statement that needs to be nuanced severely) to 'the answer is in revealed scriptures'.
Friend, with logic we understand the correctness of anything - religion, scriptures, science or scientific theories. I am not asking you to follow the scriptures blindly. Question them. At the same time, do not follow science also blindly. Question it. Be open and choose which gives you more satisfactory answers.
Scriptures explain everything. Even the things science cannot explain. What will you believe. Something that can explain everything or something that cannot explain everything?
Take for example the big bang theory. There are so many flaws that even a layman can see the futility.
=> A small point/seed which explodes into becoming a limitless universe and is still expanding!! Where is the proof? Please... :-5
=> What triggered the explosion when it was non-explosive for such a long time.
=> If the explosion happened in time & in space, that means 'big-bang' happened inside time and in space; therefore time & space existed before big-bang. Thus, time & space are superior or source of 'seed/point' or universe.
=> Who created time & space? Where did time & space come from? Science has NO answer!
=> A black hole is formed every time a star dies. It is because the mass of star becomes so dense that even light cannot escape and it ruptures through the fabric of space and time. Well, how come the 'seed' with such high density having material for all universe, billions of stars, planets etc. did not rupture the fabric of space and time before the big-bang?!! :guitarist
=> You, I, sun, moon, trees, plants...everything also existed within that 'seed'.
If so, where is the logic of evolution? Everything you, I, trees, plant, sun, moon....always existed!
Also, science relies on our imperfect senses. Any sound above or below the human's hearing frequency is inaudible to us. Any light above or below our visual band is 'unseen' by us. In twilight my mind tells me that a snake on the road is a rope! In extreme heat, my intelligence tells me that mirage on desert is an oasis! With such imperfect senses, mind and intelligence, how can we understand God, who is spiritual? Even the instruments used by science come from material elements, which in turn have their source in God. From inferior energy, presence of superior source can be proved only by perception.
To understand God, we have to take shelter of something superior - God himself!
Like at night, no matter how many searchlights and torches you put up to see the sun, will you see the sun? No. Sun can be seen only by it's own light. Similarly, God, who is self effulgent, will be revealed to you only when He reveals Himself. Only by God's light can you see God. That guiding light is the scriptures.
If there is sunlight, there is no reason to doubt the existence of the source - sun, even if I cannot see that sun due to cloudy sky. Similarly, if you exist, I exist...everything exists, then the source also exists. That source is God. He is the unifying principle of all theories - big bang, evolution, relativity; of all laws like inertia, gravity, friction; of all sciences like physics, biology, chemistry and origin of all beings like you, me, plants, animals. The source of all that be!
The same logic you are applying to understanding the theory of science, if you apply to understanding the science of religion, you will find perfect answers, with nothing unknown!
Is God Real?
Hello,
Excuse me for butting into a conversation right off on my first post on this forum, however I felt there were several key questions you asked that I felt I could answer, as I understand some of them are quite hard to wrap one's mind around:
I will now put down your questions, and answer them under mine to my best, please excuse me if I fail to do it coherently, English is not my first language.
=> A small point/seed which explodes into becoming a limitless universe and is still expanding!! Where is the proof? Please...
Proof can be found in quantum mechanics, I suggest you read a bit on the subject, there is tons of proof ranging between calculation of current expansion, star triangulation, redshift measurement, cosmic background radiation, and the list goes on. There is plenty of proof, however please also note nobody claims that the universe is limitless. It is, however, expanding, as dark matter/dark energy exert higher force on space than gravity.
=> What triggered the explosion when it was non-explosive for such a long time.
This sadly showed to me that you have no scientific background or any layman's interest on the subject.
The universe was subjected to a quantum well-up, an expansion. Not an explosion. In fact, it took more than several hundred thousand years for any light to shine in the initial darkness of space, as it was only an expansion with one initial element present, that being hydrogen. The first light came to being when vast clouds of hydrogen, under the force of gravity, accreted and collapsed into stars.
It was not "non-explosive for such a long time", as "time" as a concept is an object passing through space. Space did not exist in its current form, and time did not also - an object the size of the previous universe state was subjected to quantum laws, not newtonian. Time-space is actually hard to describe in a few sentences, but look at space as an ocean of "substance", not an empty void - you can compress it, you can stretch it, and "time" is the compensation of events within it - it stretches and compresses according to space. This is why time did not exist prior to quantum expansion, and this is also why time does not exist within black holes. (fun fact: as astronauts on the ISS move faster than Earth's rotation and further from the Earth's gravity field, they actually travel forwards in time several nanoseconds per flight compared to the people on Earth - also measured and confirmed by atomic clocks. Without our knowledge on this phenomena, we would have been unable to use GPS systems, as they have to compensate on Special Relativity)
=> If the explosion happened in time & in space, that means 'big-bang' happened inside time and in space; therefore time & space existed before big-bang. Thus, time & space are superior or source of 'seed/point' or universe.
Please view my previous response.
=> Who created time & space? Where did time & space come from? Science has NO answer!
Loaded question, I am afraid. The default question is "what", not "who". Otherwise you fall into the infinite regress paradox: "who created the who that created time and space". Time did not exist prior to the current universe state, thus there was no time for any event to take place prior to the quantum well-up.
And to answer "what created time and space", they are a property of the universe, not a material object - time is space not being dense enough for an event to take place, space is the current state of the universe, matter is the solid state of the universe's energy.
And if you are now wondering what created the energy etc, please note that on the quantum level (super-tiny, like the primordial universe and the current sub-atomic particles) matter and energy spontaneously creates itself, disappears, and reappears on other places, it is quite messy subject , but basically the super-tiny sized things behave on different laws than bigger objects, and spontaneous appearance and disappearance is something quite ordinary.
=> A black hole is formed every time a star dies. It is because the mass of star becomes so dense that even light cannot escape and it ruptures through the fabric of space and time. Well, how come the 'seed' with such high density having material for all universe, billions of stars, planets etc. did not rupture the fabric of space and time before the big-bang?!!
Space-time did not exist in its current form at all, please review my answers above.
=> You, I, sun, moon, trees, plants...everything also existed within that 'seed'.
If so, where is the logic of evolution? Everything you, I, trees, plant, sun, moon....always existed!
Nope, nope, and nope. This is pure nonsense.
The first element was hydrogen, EVERY SINGLE other element is created upon the moment a star dies.
Stars form when clouds of hydrogen well up and collapse under gravitational forces.
Planets and their moons form in the same way, which is called accretion - dust particles and large asteroids pile up, and the more they pile, the more combined gravity they project, pulling more mass towards them. The (almost) spherical shape is formed by the gravitational tidal forces of the stars in the centers of star systems.
EDIT: Where did you put Evolution into all of this? Evolution is the scientific theory explaining the diversity of species and the emergence of new species (speciation). It does not concern big bang theory, atomic theory, gravitational theory, or abiogenesis hypothesis.
Another EDIT: I decided to comment on your further musings below your questions, albeint unscientific, I decided they still merited a response.
Any sound above or below the human's hearing frequency is inaudible to us.
I am deaf on one ear. My other compensates and hears well outside of the normal hearing range ( hearing electronics, dog whistles but faintly, etc.)
In extreme heat, my intelligence tells me that mirage on desert is an oasis! With such imperfect senses, mind and intelligence, how can we understand God, who is spiritual?
We have technology to supplement our senses. And, sorry, no matter how much you will protest, there is zero evidence towards the existance of anything spiritual, and only materialistic reality is observable and empirically testable. Should you have proof of otherwise, please go submit it for peer review, and I will personally stand to congratulate you outside of the building during your Nobel Prize ceremony. So how can we understand something that has not been proven to exist? How do you think? We do not, it has not been proven to exist, it is not testable.
From inferior energy, presence of superior source can be proved only by perception. The same perception that tells you there is oasis in the desert heat? Please, appeals to feelings etc. do not belong in the scientific process. Empirical proof of existance or interaction with the material world, please.
Like at night, no matter how many searchlights and torches you put up to see the sun, will you see the sun? No.
Nope, luckily we got lenses that see into the sun's wavelength instead of torches. See where I am going with this? Science. If there is any interaction with the universe, it is detectable either by trace of action or actual force of interaction.
I exist...everything exists, then the source also exists. That source is God.
Nothing exists without a source? What is God's source, then? See my answers above for infinite regress paradox. You actually fell into it.
He is the unifying principle of all theories Nope, in your case it is the "god of the gaps" fallacy.
The same logic you are applying to understanding the theory of science, if you apply to understanding the science of religion, you will find perfect answers, with nothing unknown! "Magic man did it!" is not an answer, it is a forfeit of intelligence and scientific pursuit. We DO apply the same principles of science into religion, this is why religions cannot stand up to empirical testing, and fail time and time again.
I leave you with someone who can describe time-space stuff way better than me:
(youtube) /watch?v=fpb7NMR-XOo (URLs are not allowed, for some reason, paste this after the youtube.com address)
The "Did God create the universe?" episode of Stephen Hawking's show "Curiosity" can explain things way better than I could ever hope to.
Excuse me for butting into a conversation right off on my first post on this forum, however I felt there were several key questions you asked that I felt I could answer, as I understand some of them are quite hard to wrap one's mind around:
I will now put down your questions, and answer them under mine to my best, please excuse me if I fail to do it coherently, English is not my first language.
=> A small point/seed which explodes into becoming a limitless universe and is still expanding!! Where is the proof? Please...
Proof can be found in quantum mechanics, I suggest you read a bit on the subject, there is tons of proof ranging between calculation of current expansion, star triangulation, redshift measurement, cosmic background radiation, and the list goes on. There is plenty of proof, however please also note nobody claims that the universe is limitless. It is, however, expanding, as dark matter/dark energy exert higher force on space than gravity.
=> What triggered the explosion when it was non-explosive for such a long time.
This sadly showed to me that you have no scientific background or any layman's interest on the subject.
The universe was subjected to a quantum well-up, an expansion. Not an explosion. In fact, it took more than several hundred thousand years for any light to shine in the initial darkness of space, as it was only an expansion with one initial element present, that being hydrogen. The first light came to being when vast clouds of hydrogen, under the force of gravity, accreted and collapsed into stars.
It was not "non-explosive for such a long time", as "time" as a concept is an object passing through space. Space did not exist in its current form, and time did not also - an object the size of the previous universe state was subjected to quantum laws, not newtonian. Time-space is actually hard to describe in a few sentences, but look at space as an ocean of "substance", not an empty void - you can compress it, you can stretch it, and "time" is the compensation of events within it - it stretches and compresses according to space. This is why time did not exist prior to quantum expansion, and this is also why time does not exist within black holes. (fun fact: as astronauts on the ISS move faster than Earth's rotation and further from the Earth's gravity field, they actually travel forwards in time several nanoseconds per flight compared to the people on Earth - also measured and confirmed by atomic clocks. Without our knowledge on this phenomena, we would have been unable to use GPS systems, as they have to compensate on Special Relativity)
=> If the explosion happened in time & in space, that means 'big-bang' happened inside time and in space; therefore time & space existed before big-bang. Thus, time & space are superior or source of 'seed/point' or universe.
Please view my previous response.
=> Who created time & space? Where did time & space come from? Science has NO answer!
Loaded question, I am afraid. The default question is "what", not "who". Otherwise you fall into the infinite regress paradox: "who created the who that created time and space". Time did not exist prior to the current universe state, thus there was no time for any event to take place prior to the quantum well-up.
And to answer "what created time and space", they are a property of the universe, not a material object - time is space not being dense enough for an event to take place, space is the current state of the universe, matter is the solid state of the universe's energy.
And if you are now wondering what created the energy etc, please note that on the quantum level (super-tiny, like the primordial universe and the current sub-atomic particles) matter and energy spontaneously creates itself, disappears, and reappears on other places, it is quite messy subject , but basically the super-tiny sized things behave on different laws than bigger objects, and spontaneous appearance and disappearance is something quite ordinary.
=> A black hole is formed every time a star dies. It is because the mass of star becomes so dense that even light cannot escape and it ruptures through the fabric of space and time. Well, how come the 'seed' with such high density having material for all universe, billions of stars, planets etc. did not rupture the fabric of space and time before the big-bang?!!
Space-time did not exist in its current form at all, please review my answers above.
=> You, I, sun, moon, trees, plants...everything also existed within that 'seed'.
If so, where is the logic of evolution? Everything you, I, trees, plant, sun, moon....always existed!
Nope, nope, and nope. This is pure nonsense.
The first element was hydrogen, EVERY SINGLE other element is created upon the moment a star dies.
Stars form when clouds of hydrogen well up and collapse under gravitational forces.
Planets and their moons form in the same way, which is called accretion - dust particles and large asteroids pile up, and the more they pile, the more combined gravity they project, pulling more mass towards them. The (almost) spherical shape is formed by the gravitational tidal forces of the stars in the centers of star systems.
EDIT: Where did you put Evolution into all of this? Evolution is the scientific theory explaining the diversity of species and the emergence of new species (speciation). It does not concern big bang theory, atomic theory, gravitational theory, or abiogenesis hypothesis.
Another EDIT: I decided to comment on your further musings below your questions, albeint unscientific, I decided they still merited a response.
Any sound above or below the human's hearing frequency is inaudible to us.
I am deaf on one ear. My other compensates and hears well outside of the normal hearing range ( hearing electronics, dog whistles but faintly, etc.)
In extreme heat, my intelligence tells me that mirage on desert is an oasis! With such imperfect senses, mind and intelligence, how can we understand God, who is spiritual?
We have technology to supplement our senses. And, sorry, no matter how much you will protest, there is zero evidence towards the existance of anything spiritual, and only materialistic reality is observable and empirically testable. Should you have proof of otherwise, please go submit it for peer review, and I will personally stand to congratulate you outside of the building during your Nobel Prize ceremony. So how can we understand something that has not been proven to exist? How do you think? We do not, it has not been proven to exist, it is not testable.
From inferior energy, presence of superior source can be proved only by perception. The same perception that tells you there is oasis in the desert heat? Please, appeals to feelings etc. do not belong in the scientific process. Empirical proof of existance or interaction with the material world, please.
Like at night, no matter how many searchlights and torches you put up to see the sun, will you see the sun? No.
Nope, luckily we got lenses that see into the sun's wavelength instead of torches. See where I am going with this? Science. If there is any interaction with the universe, it is detectable either by trace of action or actual force of interaction.
I exist...everything exists, then the source also exists. That source is God.
Nothing exists without a source? What is God's source, then? See my answers above for infinite regress paradox. You actually fell into it.
He is the unifying principle of all theories Nope, in your case it is the "god of the gaps" fallacy.
The same logic you are applying to understanding the theory of science, if you apply to understanding the science of religion, you will find perfect answers, with nothing unknown! "Magic man did it!" is not an answer, it is a forfeit of intelligence and scientific pursuit. We DO apply the same principles of science into religion, this is why religions cannot stand up to empirical testing, and fail time and time again.
I leave you with someone who can describe time-space stuff way better than me:
(youtube) /watch?v=fpb7NMR-XOo (URLs are not allowed, for some reason, paste this after the youtube.com address)
The "Did God create the universe?" episode of Stephen Hawking's show "Curiosity" can explain things way better than I could ever hope to.
Is God Real?
Is God real? Well he's real to most, false to some, and interestingly unknown to many. God is real mostly in personal experience, penertrating knowledge that opens the consciousness to obvious facts, and to a keen scientific mind that is still interested in the divine.
And I want to examine God from all these points of view.
And I want to examine God from all these points of view.
-
Vrindavana Das
- Posts: 41
- Joined: Fri Mar 23, 2012 1:43 am
Is God Real?
Hi,
My apologies for the delayed response.
I have gone through your various interesting explanations. Although I think we are discussing God and not science, still I will respond to your points. As the post will become very long if I respond to all points here, I will take them one-by-one in different posts.
Also, please understand that I am not discarding science as wrong. I am saying it is still learning and evolving. Science coexists along with God. Perfect science, in-fact, emanates from God.
Townes;1391372 wrote: Proof can be found in quantum mechanics, I suggest you read a bit on the subject, there is tons of proof ranging between calculation of current expansion, star triangulation, redshift measurement, cosmic background radiation, and the list goes on. There is plenty of proof, however please also note nobody claims that the universe is limitless. It is, however, expanding, as dark matter/dark energy exert higher force on space than gravity.
To cut a long story short, as the name suggests - it is Big bang THEORY; not Big bang FACT!
I think you should give the scientific community credit of more intelligence than what you are willing to give here.
If you still want to discuss the 'proofs'; I will certainly applaud for your Noble prize winning Big bang 'fact'.
You said universe is not limitless. At the same time, you say it is expanding. Do you see the paradox here? Can you put a figure to the size of universe to clarify the above?
The universe was subjected to a quantum well-up, an expansion. Not an explosion. In fact, it took more than several hundred thousand years for any light to shine in the initial darkness of space, as it was only an expansion with one initial element present, that being hydrogen. The first light came to being when vast clouds of hydrogen, under the force of gravity, accreted and collapsed into stars. It was not "non-explosive for such a long time", as "time" as a concept is an object passing through space. Space did not exist in its current form, and time did not also - an object the size of the previous universe state was subjected to quantum laws, not newtonian. Time-space is actually hard to describe in a few sentences, but look at space as an ocean of "substance", not an empty void - you can compress it, you can stretch it, and "time" is the compensation of events within it - it stretches and compresses according to space. This is why time did not exist prior to quantum expansion, and this is also why time does not exist within black holes. (fun fact: as astronauts on the ISS move faster than Earth's rotation and further from the Earth's gravity field, they actually travel forwards in time several nanoseconds per flight compared to the people on Earth - also measured and confirmed by atomic clocks. Without our knowledge on this phenomena, we would have been unable to use GPS systems, as they have to compensate on Special Relativity)
Thank you for the interesting facts. There are many things which are already there in religious texts which you are claiming to be gift of modern science to the world. In-fact, many things science does not know and many science cannot explain are also there.
Kindly go through VEDA - Vedas and Vedic Knowledge Online - Vedic Encyclopedia, Bhakti-yoga in vedas, Library
Scriptures give us information on the exact structure of the universe, exact distance between various planets, the size of universe, nature of time, creation of space and elements...everything.
If you want to blindly follow science, without questioning it and carry an opinion on religion, without even bothering to know what is inside religious texts....my friend, then you have an unscientific bias towards religion
I will answer the others after I get a response from you.
Yes, one last one...
"Magic man did it!" is not an answer, it is a forfeit of intelligence and scientific pursuit. We DO apply the same principles of science into religion, this is why religions cannot stand up to empirical testing, and fail time and time again.
Without knowledge of science of God, or religious texts, it is foolish to assume religion has failed time and again. I am afraid, it shows the shallowness of your knowledge. Science changes every time a new scientist gives a new THEORY. Religious texts have been the same since time immemorial; with all explanations science is learning NOW!
My apologies for the delayed response.
I have gone through your various interesting explanations. Although I think we are discussing God and not science, still I will respond to your points. As the post will become very long if I respond to all points here, I will take them one-by-one in different posts.
Also, please understand that I am not discarding science as wrong. I am saying it is still learning and evolving. Science coexists along with God. Perfect science, in-fact, emanates from God.
Townes;1391372 wrote: Proof can be found in quantum mechanics, I suggest you read a bit on the subject, there is tons of proof ranging between calculation of current expansion, star triangulation, redshift measurement, cosmic background radiation, and the list goes on. There is plenty of proof, however please also note nobody claims that the universe is limitless. It is, however, expanding, as dark matter/dark energy exert higher force on space than gravity.
To cut a long story short, as the name suggests - it is Big bang THEORY; not Big bang FACT!
I think you should give the scientific community credit of more intelligence than what you are willing to give here.
If you still want to discuss the 'proofs'; I will certainly applaud for your Noble prize winning Big bang 'fact'.
You said universe is not limitless. At the same time, you say it is expanding. Do you see the paradox here? Can you put a figure to the size of universe to clarify the above?
The universe was subjected to a quantum well-up, an expansion. Not an explosion. In fact, it took more than several hundred thousand years for any light to shine in the initial darkness of space, as it was only an expansion with one initial element present, that being hydrogen. The first light came to being when vast clouds of hydrogen, under the force of gravity, accreted and collapsed into stars. It was not "non-explosive for such a long time", as "time" as a concept is an object passing through space. Space did not exist in its current form, and time did not also - an object the size of the previous universe state was subjected to quantum laws, not newtonian. Time-space is actually hard to describe in a few sentences, but look at space as an ocean of "substance", not an empty void - you can compress it, you can stretch it, and "time" is the compensation of events within it - it stretches and compresses according to space. This is why time did not exist prior to quantum expansion, and this is also why time does not exist within black holes. (fun fact: as astronauts on the ISS move faster than Earth's rotation and further from the Earth's gravity field, they actually travel forwards in time several nanoseconds per flight compared to the people on Earth - also measured and confirmed by atomic clocks. Without our knowledge on this phenomena, we would have been unable to use GPS systems, as they have to compensate on Special Relativity)
Thank you for the interesting facts. There are many things which are already there in religious texts which you are claiming to be gift of modern science to the world. In-fact, many things science does not know and many science cannot explain are also there.
Kindly go through VEDA - Vedas and Vedic Knowledge Online - Vedic Encyclopedia, Bhakti-yoga in vedas, Library
Scriptures give us information on the exact structure of the universe, exact distance between various planets, the size of universe, nature of time, creation of space and elements...everything.
If you want to blindly follow science, without questioning it and carry an opinion on religion, without even bothering to know what is inside religious texts....my friend, then you have an unscientific bias towards religion
I will answer the others after I get a response from you.
Yes, one last one...
"Magic man did it!" is not an answer, it is a forfeit of intelligence and scientific pursuit. We DO apply the same principles of science into religion, this is why religions cannot stand up to empirical testing, and fail time and time again.
Without knowledge of science of God, or religious texts, it is foolish to assume religion has failed time and again. I am afraid, it shows the shallowness of your knowledge. Science changes every time a new scientist gives a new THEORY. Religious texts have been the same since time immemorial; with all explanations science is learning NOW!
Is God Real?
Religious texts have not been the same since time immemorial, look at the changes the bible has undergone throughout the ages. And even so, being unchanged for several centuries does NOT make something true.
Is God Real?
Savage;1391672 wrote: Religious texts have not been the same since time immemorial, look at the changes the bible has undergone throughout the ages. And even so, being unchanged for several centuries does NOT make something true.
So what is that something that makes it true? Do you believe you have a mind? Can you give me proof we have a mind but you do believe that we have a brain, don`t you? The problem with atheists is they speculate too much that they make things complicated when the fact it`s very simple.
So what is that something that makes it true? Do you believe you have a mind? Can you give me proof we have a mind but you do believe that we have a brain, don`t you? The problem with atheists is they speculate too much that they make things complicated when the fact it`s very simple.
Om namo bagavate vasudevaya, " God is the Cause of All causes."
Is God Real?
Vrindavana Das;1391671 wrote:
To cut a long story short, as the name suggests - it is Big bang THEORY; not Big bang FACT!
Without knowledge of science of God, or religious texts, it is foolish to assume religion has failed time and again. I am afraid, it shows the shallowness of your knowledge. Science changes every time a new scientist gives a new THEORY. Religious texts have been the same since time immemorial; with all explanations science is learning NOW!
Hi, here are the two sentences I have absolute objections about.
Please look up the term "scientific theory". There are no facts in science outside of mathematics. A theory is not what you see as a layman's term theory which means a hunch or an assertion.
A scientific theory is a collection of observable properties, testable models, and confirmed predictions based on them.
If I am to blatantly quote an explanation: "A scientific theory is a set of principles that explain and predict phenomena. Scientists create scientific theories with the scientific method, when they are originally proposed as hypotheses and tested for accuracy through observations and experiments. Once a hypothesis is verified, it becomes a theory."
Here are some such theories:
Big Bang Theory
Atomic Theory
Theory of Gravity
Theory of Relativity
Theory of Evolution
What you are mistaking as a hunch is known in sciense as a hypothesis - it is a proposed idea, that is still into testing, that can be proven either true or false based on current existing data, to eventually become theory or be discarded.
Theories can also be discarded or changed if newly gained knowledge shows inconsistencies in the models as new data is introduced.
This whole "theory" thing is a common misconception of what a scientific theory is as opposed to a normal everyday use of the word theory. There is no fact of gravity, fact of evolution or fact of atoms. They are as close to a fact as there can be, but they are still named scientific theories.
"Without knowledge of science of God, or religious texts, it is foolish to assume religion has failed time and again. I am afraid, it shows the shallowness of your knowledge. Science changes every time a new scientist gives a new THEORY. Religious texts have been the same since time immemorial; with all explanations science is learning NOW!"
As of this, my disagreement comes from both the repeated misuse of "theory" instead of "hypothesis", and the religious texts provide little to no actual factology that is consistent with the world around us. They were mostly created in the Iron Age, and present within themselves with understandings that people of those times shared, however they are not consistent with the universal model that science has uncovered about reality.
You also mention that I am having some bias against religion, please mind that I have, in fact, read the wholes or parts of (differs from case to case) several religious texts, of course mostly the most widespread ones, abrahamic religions chiefly.
And as a last remark of my "We DO apply the same principles of science into religion, this is why religions cannot stand up to empirical testing, and fail time and time again. ", I stand by it. The scientific method is a brutal process of peer review, where every scientist competing in the scientific arenas is expected to prove by rigorous testing that his hypothesis holds merit, and virtually every scientist would try to disprove others in order to get more publicity and renown. I mean, really, who would not want to destroy the unifying theory of biology that is evolution, and get so many Nobel Prizes for it that he gets a neck pain? Breaking the current model of the universe? Yes, please. I would like that Nobel Prize too.
However, when the claims of a religious texts are tested in the same way, they do not hold ground - this is why 6-day creation, the flood, flat Earth, etc. are not science. I am afraid most, if not all, claims that the books did contain some of the current scientific truths are called ad-hoc explanations - instead of finding something through those books, one waits for a discovery to be made through science, and tries to equate a vague passage from a book in a translation to vaguely represent the current scientific discovery, this the "fail time and time again" statement of mine.
I will check the link that you have provided, any specifics I should look for there as notable examples?
EDIT: "Can you put a figure to the size of universe to clarify the above?" - 46 billion light years in diameter, as observed by redshift spectrum change and expansion speed calculations. Please, note that there is a drift area of half a billion light years (1/92th), as there are also optical lensings due to distant quasars and other "beacon" objects used for more precise measurements via redshift.
To cut a long story short, as the name suggests - it is Big bang THEORY; not Big bang FACT!
Without knowledge of science of God, or religious texts, it is foolish to assume religion has failed time and again. I am afraid, it shows the shallowness of your knowledge. Science changes every time a new scientist gives a new THEORY. Religious texts have been the same since time immemorial; with all explanations science is learning NOW!
Hi, here are the two sentences I have absolute objections about.
Please look up the term "scientific theory". There are no facts in science outside of mathematics. A theory is not what you see as a layman's term theory which means a hunch or an assertion.
A scientific theory is a collection of observable properties, testable models, and confirmed predictions based on them.
If I am to blatantly quote an explanation: "A scientific theory is a set of principles that explain and predict phenomena. Scientists create scientific theories with the scientific method, when they are originally proposed as hypotheses and tested for accuracy through observations and experiments. Once a hypothesis is verified, it becomes a theory."
Here are some such theories:
Big Bang Theory
Atomic Theory
Theory of Gravity
Theory of Relativity
Theory of Evolution
What you are mistaking as a hunch is known in sciense as a hypothesis - it is a proposed idea, that is still into testing, that can be proven either true or false based on current existing data, to eventually become theory or be discarded.
Theories can also be discarded or changed if newly gained knowledge shows inconsistencies in the models as new data is introduced.
This whole "theory" thing is a common misconception of what a scientific theory is as opposed to a normal everyday use of the word theory. There is no fact of gravity, fact of evolution or fact of atoms. They are as close to a fact as there can be, but they are still named scientific theories.
"Without knowledge of science of God, or religious texts, it is foolish to assume religion has failed time and again. I am afraid, it shows the shallowness of your knowledge. Science changes every time a new scientist gives a new THEORY. Religious texts have been the same since time immemorial; with all explanations science is learning NOW!"
As of this, my disagreement comes from both the repeated misuse of "theory" instead of "hypothesis", and the religious texts provide little to no actual factology that is consistent with the world around us. They were mostly created in the Iron Age, and present within themselves with understandings that people of those times shared, however they are not consistent with the universal model that science has uncovered about reality.
You also mention that I am having some bias against religion, please mind that I have, in fact, read the wholes or parts of (differs from case to case) several religious texts, of course mostly the most widespread ones, abrahamic religions chiefly.
And as a last remark of my "We DO apply the same principles of science into religion, this is why religions cannot stand up to empirical testing, and fail time and time again. ", I stand by it. The scientific method is a brutal process of peer review, where every scientist competing in the scientific arenas is expected to prove by rigorous testing that his hypothesis holds merit, and virtually every scientist would try to disprove others in order to get more publicity and renown. I mean, really, who would not want to destroy the unifying theory of biology that is evolution, and get so many Nobel Prizes for it that he gets a neck pain? Breaking the current model of the universe? Yes, please. I would like that Nobel Prize too.
However, when the claims of a religious texts are tested in the same way, they do not hold ground - this is why 6-day creation, the flood, flat Earth, etc. are not science. I am afraid most, if not all, claims that the books did contain some of the current scientific truths are called ad-hoc explanations - instead of finding something through those books, one waits for a discovery to be made through science, and tries to equate a vague passage from a book in a translation to vaguely represent the current scientific discovery, this the "fail time and time again" statement of mine.
I will check the link that you have provided, any specifics I should look for there as notable examples?
EDIT: "Can you put a figure to the size of universe to clarify the above?" - 46 billion light years in diameter, as observed by redshift spectrum change and expansion speed calculations. Please, note that there is a drift area of half a billion light years (1/92th), as there are also optical lensings due to distant quasars and other "beacon" objects used for more precise measurements via redshift.
Is God Real?
rajakrsna;1391673 wrote: So what is that something that makes it true? Do you believe you have a mind? Can you give me proof we have a mind but you do believe that we have a brain, don`t you? The problem with atheists is they speculate too much that they make things complicated when the fact it`s very simple.
To give you a proof of mind? I will jump to that. (Sorry for taking over, Savage, I am a ninja in that way) A mind is a concept that encompasses the observable properties of the brain, mostly the thought process (testable and provable), the sentience test (it is a test of displaying properties of self-awareness, passable by several animals, including all the Great Apes family), and the ability to expand brain functions, observable and testable in most mammals, and currently, in 3-4 computers. And yes, a proof of mind can be given, as far as evidence of its existance is concerned.
And yes, the Bible today is nothing like the Bible of 1st Century AD. Half of it was deleted in 16th Century, as the church at that time considered some of the gospels to be heretical, even though they were cannonical to that time (Jesus having a relationship, etc.)
To give you a proof of mind? I will jump to that. (Sorry for taking over, Savage, I am a ninja in that way) A mind is a concept that encompasses the observable properties of the brain, mostly the thought process (testable and provable), the sentience test (it is a test of displaying properties of self-awareness, passable by several animals, including all the Great Apes family), and the ability to expand brain functions, observable and testable in most mammals, and currently, in 3-4 computers. And yes, a proof of mind can be given, as far as evidence of its existance is concerned.
And yes, the Bible today is nothing like the Bible of 1st Century AD. Half of it was deleted in 16th Century, as the church at that time considered some of the gospels to be heretical, even though they were cannonical to that time (Jesus having a relationship, etc.)
Is God Real?
Go right ahead, Townes, my answer would have been similar anyway 
You see it a lot, believers claiming things can't be proven or explained so it has to be god, while science HAS provided answers. Most famous one: Bill O'Reilly's "tides come in, tides go out, you can't explain that".
Even so, even if science cannot explain certain things (there are still quite a lot of things that science cannot explain as of yet), that doesn't mean a god has to be the cause of those things. That's just a god of the gaps.
You see it a lot, believers claiming things can't be proven or explained so it has to be god, while science HAS provided answers. Most famous one: Bill O'Reilly's "tides come in, tides go out, you can't explain that".
Even so, even if science cannot explain certain things (there are still quite a lot of things that science cannot explain as of yet), that doesn't mean a god has to be the cause of those things. That's just a god of the gaps.
-
Vrindavana Das
- Posts: 41
- Joined: Fri Mar 23, 2012 1:43 am
Is God Real?
Townes;1391747 wrote: Hi, here are the two sentences I have absolute objections about.
Please look up the term "scientific theory". There are no facts in science outside of mathematics. A theory is not what you see as a layman's term theory which means a hunch or an assertion.
A scientific theory is a collection of observable properties, testable models, and confirmed predictions based on them.
If I am to blatantly quote an explanation: "A scientific theory is a set of principles that explain and predict phenomena. Scientists create scientific theories with the scientific method, when they are originally proposed as hypotheses and tested for accuracy through observations and experiments. Once a hypothesis is verified, it becomes a theory."
Here are some such theories:
Big Bang Theory
Atomic Theory
Theory of Gravity
Theory of Relativity
Theory of Evolution
What you are mistaking as a hunch is known in sciense as a hypothesis - it is a proposed idea, that is still into testing, that can be proven either true or false based on current existing data, to eventually become theory or be discarded.
Hi,
Like you say, "there are no facts in science outside of mathematics", this statement proves that all others - physics, biology etc. are hypothesis and not fact. They are 'relative truths' till the time a new one gives a better answer & explanation. They are not 'absolute truth'. That is exactly what I mean by word 'theory'.
Theories can also be discarded or changed if newly gained knowledge shows inconsistencies in the models as new data is introduced.
Exactly!
All the theories of science, have evolved over time. They are discarded and changed with time (for reasons cited by you). Thus, science is not perfect. So, expecting an imperfect science to prove/disprove the existence of perfect God is .....perfectly foolish!
Think objectively and rationally, something that itself is evolving and changing, how can you depend on such science to prove the existence of God!
This whole "theory" thing is a common misconception of what a scientific theory is as opposed to a normal everyday use of the word theory. There is no fact of gravity, fact of evolution or fact of atoms. They are as close to a fact as there can be, but they are still named scientific theories.
Being 'close to fact' is relative. 'Being fact' is absolute. Both are different. Thus the word theory is appropriately used for scientific hypothesis and not 'fact'.
"Without knowledge of science of God, or religious texts, it is foolish to assume religion has failed time and again. I am afraid, it shows the shallowness of your knowledge. Science changes every time a new scientist gives a new THEORY. Religious texts have been the same since time immemorial; with all explanations science is learning NOW!"
As of this, my disagreement comes from both the repeated misuse of "theory" instead of "hypothesis", and the religious texts provide little to no actual factology that is consistent with the world around us. They were mostly created in the Iron Age, and present within themselves with understandings that people of those times shared, however they are not consistent with the universal model that science has uncovered about reality.
You also mention that I am having some bias against religion, please mind that I have, in fact, read the wholes or parts of (differs from case to case) several religious texts, of course mostly the most widespread ones, abrahamic religions chiefly.
You couldn't be more wrong my friend. Original Religious texts 'the holy Vedas' have emanated from the breathing of Supreme Lord. I know this would be difficult for you to digest, but then it is a fact! Vedas tell us that the universal creation is continually manifested and annihilated by the will of the Supreme Lord. When He exhales lying on the causatic ocean (in line with what you said about space being a sea of 'substance' and not void), universes emanate from the pores of His body - cosmic manifestation. Life of all these universes is equal to the duration of this one breath of Lord. When He inhales, all the universes enter into His body - cosmic annihilation. (In line with what you said about time being able to stretch - in one breath of Lord, billions of years go by!)
As per scriptures, time is calculated in following way:
Atomic time is measured according to its covering a particular atomic space. That time which covers the unmanifest aggregate of atoms is called the great time.
Time and space are two correlative terms. Time is measured in terms of its covering a certain space of atoms. Standard time is calculated in terms of the movement of the sun. The time covered by the sun in passing over an atom is calculated as atomic time. The greatest time of all covers the entire existence of the nondual manifestation. All the planets rotate and cover space, and space is calculated in terms of atoms. Each planet has its particular orbit for rotating, in which it moves without deviation, and similarly the sun has its orbit. The complete calculation of the time of creation, maintenance and dissolution, measured in terms of the circulation of the total planetary systems until the end of creation, is known as the supreme kāla.
The division of gross time is calculated as follows: two atoms make one double atom, and three double atoms make one hexatom. This hexatom is visible in the sunshine which enters through the holes of a window screen. One can clearly see that the hexatom goes up towards the sky. The atom is described as an invisible particle, but when six such atoms combine together, they are called a trasareṇu, and this is visible in the sunshine pouring through the holes of a window screen.
In the life-cycle of earth, there are 4 ages.
Present age: Kali yuga - Duration of 4,32,000 years. Approx 5,000 years have passed.
Previous age: Dwapar yuga - Duration (Kali yuga x 2) = 8,64,000 years
Previous age: Treta yuga - Duration (Kali yuga x 3) = 12,96,000 years
Previous age: Satyuga - duration (Kali yuga x 4) = 17,28,000 years
Total life of one such cycle = 43,20,000 years.
Mention of each age, the lifestyle of people, problems, account of natural catastrophes, diseases - everything is mentioned there. So, scriptures are timeless and not 'understandings that people of those times shared' like you say. They are empirical truths and true for all times.
And as a last remark of my "We DO apply the same principles of science into religion, this is why religions cannot stand up to empirical testing, and fail time and time again. ", I stand by it. The scientific method is a brutal process of peer review, where every scientist competing in the scientific arenas is expected to prove by rigorous testing that his hypothesis holds merit, and virtually every scientist would try to disprove others in order to get more publicity and renown. I mean, really, who would not want to destroy the unifying theory of biology that is evolution, and get so many Nobel Prizes for it that he gets a neck pain? Breaking the current model of the universe? Yes, please. I would like that Nobel Prize too.
Actual Model of universe already exists! What is the need to speculate? Please check the link.
However, when the claims of a religious texts are tested in the same way, they do not hold ground - this is why 6-day creation, the flood, flat Earth, etc. are not science. I am afraid most, if not all, claims that the books did contain some of the current scientific truths are called ad-hoc explanations - instead of finding something through those books, one waits for a discovery to be made through science, and tries to equate a vague passage from a book in a translation to vaguely represent the current scientific discovery, this the "fail time and time again" statement of mine.
I will check the link that you have provided, any specifics I should look for there as notable examples?
Please go through the link provided. You will get all specific information there.
EDIT: "Can you put a figure to the size of universe to clarify the above?" - 46 billion light years in diameter, as observed by redshift spectrum change and expansion speed calculations. Please, note that there is a drift area of half a billion light years (1/92th), as there are also optical lensings due to distant quasars and other "beacon" objects used for more precise measurements via redshift.
Also, please go through Srimad Bhagavatam Canto 5 Chapter 21 and the sub-links for specific details of the size of the universe and movements of sun in the universe.
Please look up the term "scientific theory". There are no facts in science outside of mathematics. A theory is not what you see as a layman's term theory which means a hunch or an assertion.
A scientific theory is a collection of observable properties, testable models, and confirmed predictions based on them.
If I am to blatantly quote an explanation: "A scientific theory is a set of principles that explain and predict phenomena. Scientists create scientific theories with the scientific method, when they are originally proposed as hypotheses and tested for accuracy through observations and experiments. Once a hypothesis is verified, it becomes a theory."
Here are some such theories:
Big Bang Theory
Atomic Theory
Theory of Gravity
Theory of Relativity
Theory of Evolution
What you are mistaking as a hunch is known in sciense as a hypothesis - it is a proposed idea, that is still into testing, that can be proven either true or false based on current existing data, to eventually become theory or be discarded.
Hi,
Like you say, "there are no facts in science outside of mathematics", this statement proves that all others - physics, biology etc. are hypothesis and not fact. They are 'relative truths' till the time a new one gives a better answer & explanation. They are not 'absolute truth'. That is exactly what I mean by word 'theory'.
Theories can also be discarded or changed if newly gained knowledge shows inconsistencies in the models as new data is introduced.
Exactly!
All the theories of science, have evolved over time. They are discarded and changed with time (for reasons cited by you). Thus, science is not perfect. So, expecting an imperfect science to prove/disprove the existence of perfect God is .....perfectly foolish!
Think objectively and rationally, something that itself is evolving and changing, how can you depend on such science to prove the existence of God!
This whole "theory" thing is a common misconception of what a scientific theory is as opposed to a normal everyday use of the word theory. There is no fact of gravity, fact of evolution or fact of atoms. They are as close to a fact as there can be, but they are still named scientific theories.
Being 'close to fact' is relative. 'Being fact' is absolute. Both are different. Thus the word theory is appropriately used for scientific hypothesis and not 'fact'.
"Without knowledge of science of God, or religious texts, it is foolish to assume religion has failed time and again. I am afraid, it shows the shallowness of your knowledge. Science changes every time a new scientist gives a new THEORY. Religious texts have been the same since time immemorial; with all explanations science is learning NOW!"
As of this, my disagreement comes from both the repeated misuse of "theory" instead of "hypothesis", and the religious texts provide little to no actual factology that is consistent with the world around us. They were mostly created in the Iron Age, and present within themselves with understandings that people of those times shared, however they are not consistent with the universal model that science has uncovered about reality.
You also mention that I am having some bias against religion, please mind that I have, in fact, read the wholes or parts of (differs from case to case) several religious texts, of course mostly the most widespread ones, abrahamic religions chiefly.
You couldn't be more wrong my friend. Original Religious texts 'the holy Vedas' have emanated from the breathing of Supreme Lord. I know this would be difficult for you to digest, but then it is a fact! Vedas tell us that the universal creation is continually manifested and annihilated by the will of the Supreme Lord. When He exhales lying on the causatic ocean (in line with what you said about space being a sea of 'substance' and not void), universes emanate from the pores of His body - cosmic manifestation. Life of all these universes is equal to the duration of this one breath of Lord. When He inhales, all the universes enter into His body - cosmic annihilation. (In line with what you said about time being able to stretch - in one breath of Lord, billions of years go by!)
As per scriptures, time is calculated in following way:
Atomic time is measured according to its covering a particular atomic space. That time which covers the unmanifest aggregate of atoms is called the great time.
Time and space are two correlative terms. Time is measured in terms of its covering a certain space of atoms. Standard time is calculated in terms of the movement of the sun. The time covered by the sun in passing over an atom is calculated as atomic time. The greatest time of all covers the entire existence of the nondual manifestation. All the planets rotate and cover space, and space is calculated in terms of atoms. Each planet has its particular orbit for rotating, in which it moves without deviation, and similarly the sun has its orbit. The complete calculation of the time of creation, maintenance and dissolution, measured in terms of the circulation of the total planetary systems until the end of creation, is known as the supreme kāla.
The division of gross time is calculated as follows: two atoms make one double atom, and three double atoms make one hexatom. This hexatom is visible in the sunshine which enters through the holes of a window screen. One can clearly see that the hexatom goes up towards the sky. The atom is described as an invisible particle, but when six such atoms combine together, they are called a trasareṇu, and this is visible in the sunshine pouring through the holes of a window screen.
In the life-cycle of earth, there are 4 ages.
Present age: Kali yuga - Duration of 4,32,000 years. Approx 5,000 years have passed.
Previous age: Dwapar yuga - Duration (Kali yuga x 2) = 8,64,000 years
Previous age: Treta yuga - Duration (Kali yuga x 3) = 12,96,000 years
Previous age: Satyuga - duration (Kali yuga x 4) = 17,28,000 years
Total life of one such cycle = 43,20,000 years.
Mention of each age, the lifestyle of people, problems, account of natural catastrophes, diseases - everything is mentioned there. So, scriptures are timeless and not 'understandings that people of those times shared' like you say. They are empirical truths and true for all times.
And as a last remark of my "We DO apply the same principles of science into religion, this is why religions cannot stand up to empirical testing, and fail time and time again. ", I stand by it. The scientific method is a brutal process of peer review, where every scientist competing in the scientific arenas is expected to prove by rigorous testing that his hypothesis holds merit, and virtually every scientist would try to disprove others in order to get more publicity and renown. I mean, really, who would not want to destroy the unifying theory of biology that is evolution, and get so many Nobel Prizes for it that he gets a neck pain? Breaking the current model of the universe? Yes, please. I would like that Nobel Prize too.
Actual Model of universe already exists! What is the need to speculate? Please check the link.
However, when the claims of a religious texts are tested in the same way, they do not hold ground - this is why 6-day creation, the flood, flat Earth, etc. are not science. I am afraid most, if not all, claims that the books did contain some of the current scientific truths are called ad-hoc explanations - instead of finding something through those books, one waits for a discovery to be made through science, and tries to equate a vague passage from a book in a translation to vaguely represent the current scientific discovery, this the "fail time and time again" statement of mine.
I will check the link that you have provided, any specifics I should look for there as notable examples?
Please go through the link provided. You will get all specific information there.
EDIT: "Can you put a figure to the size of universe to clarify the above?" - 46 billion light years in diameter, as observed by redshift spectrum change and expansion speed calculations. Please, note that there is a drift area of half a billion light years (1/92th), as there are also optical lensings due to distant quasars and other "beacon" objects used for more precise measurements via redshift.
Also, please go through Srimad Bhagavatam Canto 5 Chapter 21 and the sub-links for specific details of the size of the universe and movements of sun in the universe.
Is God Real?
Vrindavana Das;1391759 wrote:
All the theories of science, have evolved over time. They are discarded and changed with time (for reasons cited by you). Thus, science is not perfect.
...Think objectively and rationally, something that itself is evolving and changing, how can you depend on such science to prove the existence of God!
Yep, but you are missing the fact that any interaction with an object or state is measurable, even if a hypothetical being itself would be outside of current measurements, its actions would not be.
We depend on science for our survival, it is the strength of our species, and for 3 hundred years of actual science progress, we have discovered the mechanics of the cosmos all the way from the smallest quantum state to the largest quasar.
Being 'close to fact' is relative. 'Being fact' is absolute. Both are different. Thus the word theory is appropriately used for scientific hypothesis and not 'fact'.
Nope, if you insist on viewing facts as facts as far as semantics goes, a hypothesis is something to be tester, and a theory is a collection of already tested and proven such facts. It is pure semantics, and scientists do not like the absolute state of a "fact", as no knowledge can be viewed as absolute as per its definition "You have absolute knowledge, do you know of something you may not know of?". Word games. Feel free to view a scientific theory as a collection of proven, observable, testable, and predictable facts. Gravity, atoms, evolution, etc. are as close to the word "fact" as science would allow.
You couldn't be more wrong my friend. Original Religious texts 'the holy Vedas' have emanated from the breathing of Supreme Lord. I know this would be difficult for you to digest, but then it is a fact! Vedas tell us that the universal creation is continually manifested and annihilated by the will of the Supreme Lord.
Umm, the holy book is the word of god > because it says so > because it is infalliable > because it is the word of god. Circular reasoning. Please provide testable proof, it is ALL us atheists are asking about, really. Not assertions and circular reasoning.
As per scriptures, time is calculated in following way:
Atomic time is measured according to its covering a particular atomic space. That time which covers the unmanifest aggregate of atoms is called the great time.
Time and space are two correlative terms. Time is measured in terms of its covering a certain space of atoms. Standard time is calculated in terms of the movement of the sun. The time covered by the sun in passing over an atom is calculated as atomic time. The greatest time of all covers the entire existence of the nondual manifestation. All the planets rotate and cover space, and space is calculated in terms of atoms. Each planet has its particular orbit for rotating, in which it moves without deviation, and similarly the sun has its orbit. The complete calculation of the time of creation, maintenance and dissolution, measured in terms of the circulation of the total planetary systems until the end of creation, is known as the supreme kāla.
The division of gross time is calculated as follows: two atoms make one double atom, and three double atoms make one hexatom. This hexatom is visible in the sunshine which enters through the holes of a window screen. One can clearly see that the hexatom goes up towards the sky. The atom is described as an invisible particle, but when six such atoms combine together, they are called a trasareṇu, and this is visible in the sunshine pouring through the holes of a window screen.
Eh, ok here I am completely confused. Two atoms make two atoms, not double atom, the fusion between two is called hot fusion and produces energy and a new element. It goes to Helium and Iron. What is this double atoms, triples, hexatoms,etc?
I have no knowledge of such events?
As for how science views time, it is the stretching of the space "fabric" as objects create events within the Higgs field. It varies for every single object and time is not absolute under any condition. Time itself is a biproduct of space, and can also be viewed as essentially one and the same thing.
In the life-cycle of earth, there are 4 ages.
Present age: Kali yuga - Duration of 4,32,000 years. Approx 5,000 years have passed.
Previous age: Dwapar yuga - Duration (Kali yuga x 2) = 8,64,000 years
Previous age: Treta yuga - Duration (Kali yuga x 3) = 12,96,000 years
Previous age: Satyuga - duration (Kali yuga x 4) = 17,28,000 years
Total life of one such cycle = 43,20,000 years.
43 million years? As the Universe is observed to be 14.5~ Billion years old, and even the Earth is 4.3 billion years of age, you seem to be off mark there. 65mil years ago Dinosaurs walked the Earth.
Mention of each age, the lifestyle of people, problems, account of natural catastrophes, diseases - everything is mentioned there. So, scriptures are timeless and not 'understandings that people of those times shared' like you say. They are empirical truths and true for all times.
Then please make testable predictions based on them, this is the scientific way to go.
Actual Model of universe already exists! What is the need to speculate? Please check the link.
The current model relies on the higgs boson and still gives way for dark matter and dark energy, as they are as of yet not understood by us, and they still cannot be directly observed, only their interactions and traces.
Please go through the link provided. You will get all specific information there.
I will. I do confess that I am a bit too skeptical, as no data you have given here so far matches tested calculations, but if that is what you get as source, I will check it, and also should I find anything particular that I find even closely related to reality there, I will pass it to my physics colleagues to check out, and ask here on further stuff.
Also, please go through Srimad Bhagavatam Canto 5 Chapter 21 and the sub-links for specific details of the size of the universe and movements of sun in the universe.[/QUOTE]
All the theories of science, have evolved over time. They are discarded and changed with time (for reasons cited by you). Thus, science is not perfect.
...Think objectively and rationally, something that itself is evolving and changing, how can you depend on such science to prove the existence of God!
Yep, but you are missing the fact that any interaction with an object or state is measurable, even if a hypothetical being itself would be outside of current measurements, its actions would not be.
We depend on science for our survival, it is the strength of our species, and for 3 hundred years of actual science progress, we have discovered the mechanics of the cosmos all the way from the smallest quantum state to the largest quasar.
Being 'close to fact' is relative. 'Being fact' is absolute. Both are different. Thus the word theory is appropriately used for scientific hypothesis and not 'fact'.
Nope, if you insist on viewing facts as facts as far as semantics goes, a hypothesis is something to be tester, and a theory is a collection of already tested and proven such facts. It is pure semantics, and scientists do not like the absolute state of a "fact", as no knowledge can be viewed as absolute as per its definition "You have absolute knowledge, do you know of something you may not know of?". Word games. Feel free to view a scientific theory as a collection of proven, observable, testable, and predictable facts. Gravity, atoms, evolution, etc. are as close to the word "fact" as science would allow.
You couldn't be more wrong my friend. Original Religious texts 'the holy Vedas' have emanated from the breathing of Supreme Lord. I know this would be difficult for you to digest, but then it is a fact! Vedas tell us that the universal creation is continually manifested and annihilated by the will of the Supreme Lord.
Umm, the holy book is the word of god > because it says so > because it is infalliable > because it is the word of god. Circular reasoning. Please provide testable proof, it is ALL us atheists are asking about, really. Not assertions and circular reasoning.
As per scriptures, time is calculated in following way:
Atomic time is measured according to its covering a particular atomic space. That time which covers the unmanifest aggregate of atoms is called the great time.
Time and space are two correlative terms. Time is measured in terms of its covering a certain space of atoms. Standard time is calculated in terms of the movement of the sun. The time covered by the sun in passing over an atom is calculated as atomic time. The greatest time of all covers the entire existence of the nondual manifestation. All the planets rotate and cover space, and space is calculated in terms of atoms. Each planet has its particular orbit for rotating, in which it moves without deviation, and similarly the sun has its orbit. The complete calculation of the time of creation, maintenance and dissolution, measured in terms of the circulation of the total planetary systems until the end of creation, is known as the supreme kāla.
The division of gross time is calculated as follows: two atoms make one double atom, and three double atoms make one hexatom. This hexatom is visible in the sunshine which enters through the holes of a window screen. One can clearly see that the hexatom goes up towards the sky. The atom is described as an invisible particle, but when six such atoms combine together, they are called a trasareṇu, and this is visible in the sunshine pouring through the holes of a window screen.
Eh, ok here I am completely confused. Two atoms make two atoms, not double atom, the fusion between two is called hot fusion and produces energy and a new element. It goes to Helium and Iron. What is this double atoms, triples, hexatoms,etc?
I have no knowledge of such events?
As for how science views time, it is the stretching of the space "fabric" as objects create events within the Higgs field. It varies for every single object and time is not absolute under any condition. Time itself is a biproduct of space, and can also be viewed as essentially one and the same thing.
In the life-cycle of earth, there are 4 ages.
Present age: Kali yuga - Duration of 4,32,000 years. Approx 5,000 years have passed.
Previous age: Dwapar yuga - Duration (Kali yuga x 2) = 8,64,000 years
Previous age: Treta yuga - Duration (Kali yuga x 3) = 12,96,000 years
Previous age: Satyuga - duration (Kali yuga x 4) = 17,28,000 years
Total life of one such cycle = 43,20,000 years.
43 million years? As the Universe is observed to be 14.5~ Billion years old, and even the Earth is 4.3 billion years of age, you seem to be off mark there. 65mil years ago Dinosaurs walked the Earth.
Mention of each age, the lifestyle of people, problems, account of natural catastrophes, diseases - everything is mentioned there. So, scriptures are timeless and not 'understandings that people of those times shared' like you say. They are empirical truths and true for all times.
Then please make testable predictions based on them, this is the scientific way to go.
Actual Model of universe already exists! What is the need to speculate? Please check the link.
The current model relies on the higgs boson and still gives way for dark matter and dark energy, as they are as of yet not understood by us, and they still cannot be directly observed, only their interactions and traces.
Please go through the link provided. You will get all specific information there.
I will. I do confess that I am a bit too skeptical, as no data you have given here so far matches tested calculations, but if that is what you get as source, I will check it, and also should I find anything particular that I find even closely related to reality there, I will pass it to my physics colleagues to check out, and ask here on further stuff.
Also, please go through Srimad Bhagavatam Canto 5 Chapter 21 and the sub-links for specific details of the size of the universe and movements of sun in the universe.[/QUOTE]
-
Vrindavana Das
- Posts: 41
- Joined: Fri Mar 23, 2012 1:43 am
Is God Real?
Townes;1391765 wrote: Umm, the holy book is the word of god > because it says so > because it is infalliable > because it is the word of god. Circular reasoning. Please provide testable proof, it is ALL us atheists are asking about, really. Not assertions and circular reasoning.
Actually, the scriptures are full of all proofs and evidences you are looking for. However, you must read them to know them.
For instance, scriptures say - of all animal stool, cow dung is pure. Cow dung is used in the homes in Indian villages since time immemorial for coating on the floors and walls. After meals, which happen on floor mostly, a mixture of cow-dung and water is used to mop the portion of floor where food was had.
Modern science today has discovered that cow dung has antiseptic properties. How does a simple village folk know and has been using for generations that which science has discovered today?
Chanting of the syllable AUM. Science has found out that the vibrations of chanting has beneficial effect on various glands and organs of our body. This syllable has been derived from the timeless Vedas.
Hitler used the symbol 'Swastika' which too has been derived from the Vedas.
Yoga - which even science admits has beneficial effect on various parts of body and helps in curing many ailments. That is a gift of vedic scriptures to the world. Does the benefit derived from yoga need anyone's testimony today?!!
The whole world knows Ayurveda. As the name suggests ayur + veda. It is a branch of Vedic science. Today world is turning more and more towards natural therapy from allopathy. Allopathy only provide short-term relief and has many side-effects. Ayurveda, on the other hand has no side effects and heals naturally.
The proofs are innumerable and testable. You can search the net for validity of truth in the points submitted above.
43 million years? As the Universe is observed to be 14.5~ Billion years old, and even the Earth is 4.3 billion years of age, you seem to be off mark there. 65mil years ago Dinosaurs walked the Earth.
43 million is the age of one cycle (of 4 yugas). There are many such cycles that keep on happening till complete annihilation. Vedas tell us that 43 million years = 1 cycle = one day of Bramha (creator of universe) = his 12 hours. Similarly, his 12 hour night = our 43 million years. This way, when 100 years of Bramha are over. He dies. Thus 43 million x 2 = 24 hours of Bramha = 86 million years. 86 million x 365 days x 100 years = life of Bramha = life of universe = 31,39,000 million years. (this is my calculation and could be wrong). Do you see the stretchable feature of time that you mentioned here? 100 years in one part of universe = our 31,39,000 million human years!
Then please make testable predictions based on them, this is the scientific way to go.
Here are some predictions for our age - modern age, as per scriptures. You can see for yourself the validity of the statements made in timeless scriptures for our present modern age.
Religion, truthfulness, cleanliness, tolerance, mercy, duration of life, physical strength and memory will all diminish day by day because of the powerful influence of the age of Kali.
In Kali-yuga, wealth alone will be considered the sign of a man's good birth, proper behavior and fine qualities. And law and justice will be applied only on the basis of one's power.
Men and women will live together merely because of superficial attraction, and success in business will depend on deceit. Womanliness and manliness will be judged according to one's expertise in sex, and a man will be known as a brāhmaṇa just by his wearing a thread.
A person's spiritual position will be ascertained merely according to external symbols, and on that same basis people will change from one spiritual order to the next. A person's propriety will be seriously questioned if he does not earn a good living. And one who is very clever at juggling words will be considered a learned scholar.
A person will be judged unholy if he does not have money, and hypocrisy will be accepted as virtue. Marriage will be arranged simply by verbal agreement, and a person will think he is fit to appear in public if he has merely taken a bath.
A sacred place will be taken to consist of no more than a reservoir of water located at a distance, and beauty will be thought to depend on one's hairstyle. Filling the belly will become the goal of life, and one who is audacious will be accepted as truthful. He who can maintain a family will be regarded as an expert man, and the principles of religion will be observed only for the sake of reputation.
As the earth thus becomes crowded with a corrupt population, whoever among any of the social classes shows himself to be the strongest will gain political power.
Losing their wives and properties to such avaricious and merciless rulers, who will behave no better than ordinary thieves, the citizens will flee to the mountains and forests.
Harassed by famine and excessive taxes, people will resort to eating leaves, roots, flesh, wild honey, fruits, flowers and seeds. Struck by drought, they will become completely ruined.
The citizens will suffer greatly from cold, wind, heat, rain and snow. They will be further tormented by quarrels, hunger, thirst, disease and severe anxiety.
The maximum duration of life for human beings in Kali-yuga will become fifty years.
By the time the age of Kali ends, the bodies of all creatures will be greatly reduced in size, and the religious principles of followers of varṇāśrama will be ruined. The path of the Vedas will be completely forgotten in human society, and so-called religion will be mostly atheistic. The kings will mostly be thieves, the occupations of men will be stealing, lying and needless violence, and all the social classes will be reduced to the lowest level of śūdras. Cows will be like goats, spiritual hermitages will be no different from mundane houses, and family ties will extend no further than the immediate bonds of marriage. Most plants and herbs will be tiny, and all trees will appear like dwarf śamī trees. Clouds will be full of lightning, homes will be devoid of piety, and all human beings will have become like asses.
Actually, the scriptures are full of all proofs and evidences you are looking for. However, you must read them to know them.
For instance, scriptures say - of all animal stool, cow dung is pure. Cow dung is used in the homes in Indian villages since time immemorial for coating on the floors and walls. After meals, which happen on floor mostly, a mixture of cow-dung and water is used to mop the portion of floor where food was had.
Modern science today has discovered that cow dung has antiseptic properties. How does a simple village folk know and has been using for generations that which science has discovered today?
Chanting of the syllable AUM. Science has found out that the vibrations of chanting has beneficial effect on various glands and organs of our body. This syllable has been derived from the timeless Vedas.
Hitler used the symbol 'Swastika' which too has been derived from the Vedas.
Yoga - which even science admits has beneficial effect on various parts of body and helps in curing many ailments. That is a gift of vedic scriptures to the world. Does the benefit derived from yoga need anyone's testimony today?!!
The whole world knows Ayurveda. As the name suggests ayur + veda. It is a branch of Vedic science. Today world is turning more and more towards natural therapy from allopathy. Allopathy only provide short-term relief and has many side-effects. Ayurveda, on the other hand has no side effects and heals naturally.
The proofs are innumerable and testable. You can search the net for validity of truth in the points submitted above.
43 million years? As the Universe is observed to be 14.5~ Billion years old, and even the Earth is 4.3 billion years of age, you seem to be off mark there. 65mil years ago Dinosaurs walked the Earth.
43 million is the age of one cycle (of 4 yugas). There are many such cycles that keep on happening till complete annihilation. Vedas tell us that 43 million years = 1 cycle = one day of Bramha (creator of universe) = his 12 hours. Similarly, his 12 hour night = our 43 million years. This way, when 100 years of Bramha are over. He dies. Thus 43 million x 2 = 24 hours of Bramha = 86 million years. 86 million x 365 days x 100 years = life of Bramha = life of universe = 31,39,000 million years. (this is my calculation and could be wrong). Do you see the stretchable feature of time that you mentioned here? 100 years in one part of universe = our 31,39,000 million human years!
Then please make testable predictions based on them, this is the scientific way to go.
Here are some predictions for our age - modern age, as per scriptures. You can see for yourself the validity of the statements made in timeless scriptures for our present modern age.
Religion, truthfulness, cleanliness, tolerance, mercy, duration of life, physical strength and memory will all diminish day by day because of the powerful influence of the age of Kali.
In Kali-yuga, wealth alone will be considered the sign of a man's good birth, proper behavior and fine qualities. And law and justice will be applied only on the basis of one's power.
Men and women will live together merely because of superficial attraction, and success in business will depend on deceit. Womanliness and manliness will be judged according to one's expertise in sex, and a man will be known as a brāhmaṇa just by his wearing a thread.
A person's spiritual position will be ascertained merely according to external symbols, and on that same basis people will change from one spiritual order to the next. A person's propriety will be seriously questioned if he does not earn a good living. And one who is very clever at juggling words will be considered a learned scholar.
A person will be judged unholy if he does not have money, and hypocrisy will be accepted as virtue. Marriage will be arranged simply by verbal agreement, and a person will think he is fit to appear in public if he has merely taken a bath.
A sacred place will be taken to consist of no more than a reservoir of water located at a distance, and beauty will be thought to depend on one's hairstyle. Filling the belly will become the goal of life, and one who is audacious will be accepted as truthful. He who can maintain a family will be regarded as an expert man, and the principles of religion will be observed only for the sake of reputation.
As the earth thus becomes crowded with a corrupt population, whoever among any of the social classes shows himself to be the strongest will gain political power.
Losing their wives and properties to such avaricious and merciless rulers, who will behave no better than ordinary thieves, the citizens will flee to the mountains and forests.
Harassed by famine and excessive taxes, people will resort to eating leaves, roots, flesh, wild honey, fruits, flowers and seeds. Struck by drought, they will become completely ruined.
The citizens will suffer greatly from cold, wind, heat, rain and snow. They will be further tormented by quarrels, hunger, thirst, disease and severe anxiety.
The maximum duration of life for human beings in Kali-yuga will become fifty years.
By the time the age of Kali ends, the bodies of all creatures will be greatly reduced in size, and the religious principles of followers of varṇāśrama will be ruined. The path of the Vedas will be completely forgotten in human society, and so-called religion will be mostly atheistic. The kings will mostly be thieves, the occupations of men will be stealing, lying and needless violence, and all the social classes will be reduced to the lowest level of śūdras. Cows will be like goats, spiritual hermitages will be no different from mundane houses, and family ties will extend no further than the immediate bonds of marriage. Most plants and herbs will be tiny, and all trees will appear like dwarf śamī trees. Clouds will be full of lightning, homes will be devoid of piety, and all human beings will have become like asses.
Is God Real?
As I said let`s put this thing to an end by votation. Those who believe in the existence of God & those who do not. Whoever gets the most number of votes wins. Deal or no deal? You can even let the People`s Republic of China vote. Hahaha
Om namo bagavate vasudevaya, " God is the Cause of All causes."
Is God Real?
rajakrsna;1391862 wrote: As I said let`s put this thing to an end by votation. Those who believe in the existence of God & those who do not. Whoever gets the most number of votes wins. Deal or no deal?
Sigh. The existence of something is not up to vote.
And it's not about 'winning'.
Sigh. The existence of something is not up to vote.
And it's not about 'winning'.
Is God Real?
Savage;1391863 wrote: Sigh. The existence of something is not up to vote.
And it's not about 'winning'.
Atheists & theists go to war. So, why just put the war aside & let democracy take over.
And it's not about 'winning'.
Atheists & theists go to war. So, why just put the war aside & let democracy take over.
Om namo bagavate vasudevaya, " God is the Cause of All causes."
Is God Real?
rajakrsna;1391864 wrote: Atheists & theists go to war. So, why just put the war aside & let democracy take over.
My god.
See what I did there?
My god.
See what I did there?
Is God Real?
Savage;1391865 wrote: My god.
See what I did there?
No matter how we explain it to you guys-atheists the existence of God you will never believe neither do we believe in your explanations that God is a myth. So why dont we put this issue to a vote?
See what I did there?
No matter how we explain it to you guys-atheists the existence of God you will never believe neither do we believe in your explanations that God is a myth. So why dont we put this issue to a vote?
Om namo bagavate vasudevaya, " God is the Cause of All causes."