In the beginning, God created the Heavens and the Earth

A good academic article on God which only shows that Christians have allowed science to explore God/Creator and have time and again accommodated their findings, though within the limits created by God Himself. Now, we again see a paradox here and the Church knows that neither the physical proof of Gods existence nor His non-existence can ever be found. So, what is the harm in allowing this exploration to continue forever.

In my opinion, it is impossible to know whether God exists or not because of limited sensory organs given to human beings and their limited capacity to feel. This is the best position one can assume on his way to understand God. At the same time it is just foolish to think that God created Himself from nothing as if Nothing is something more powerful than God Himself. Another paradox!

Samar

Re: # 25

masadi,

.......... the chowk does not publish your ranting and raving because even though you are a self-proclaimed `scholar` they see you for what you really are - a blubbering lunatic ! ............ now shoo ! ........ you can publish your stuff on any one of the hundreds of jihadist sites out there - if not, send them to lulu ............

Gill Sahib,,,

Theory of relativity is the theory of the ‘large’ and quantum mechanics is the theory of the ‘small’ and the ‘twain do not seem to meet’ each other seamlessly.

This statement is talking about two versions of science i.e. one for large phenomenon and second for small phenomenon. Actually there are three or four this type of versions of science. I list them below:

(i) Science for large phenomenon = Relativity Theory

(ii) Science for small phenomenon = Quantum Theory

(iii) Science for ordinary size phenomenon = Classical Physics

I shall discuss the fourth version of science later on. Let me first ask you where is that ``logical consistency`` between various theories of science which you often claim to be existing...??? There are three or four versions of science at our disposal. All are different from one another and there may be just little logical connection, if any, between them. Where are your claims...???

Now I tell you about fourth version of science. Science officially accepts that small phenomenon is ``discrete`` in nature whereas ordinary phenomenon is ``continuous`` in nature. The same science also officially accepts that out of ordinary phenomenon, only the spin motion of spherical objects or the rotational motion such as motion of wheel etc. is ``discrete`` in nature whereas all other ordinary phenomenon is ``continuous`` is nature. (Reference: Lectures of Dr. Abdul Salam -- perhaps published by Pakistan Atomic Commission).

Now I again mention the complete list of versions of science below:

(i) Science for large phenomenon = Relativity Theory

(ii) Science for small phenomenon = Quantum Theory

(iii) Science for ordinary size phenomenon = Classical Physics

(iv) Science for ordinary size phenomenon but applicable to only spin or rotational motion = Neo-Classical Physics.

Apparently, science might have reached to the result that only spin or rotational motion could be discrete in nature through the application of Mathematics. In rotational motion like the motion of a wheel, some (inner) parts of wheel are closer to the center of wheel whereas obviously the outer parts of wheel are far away from center. This fact raises a mathematical problem that inner parts of wheel cover far less distence than outer parts in one complete rotation. Motion of let`s say minimum possible distance of inner parts does not corresponds to the motion of outer parts. In other words, minimum possible motion of outer parts of wheel has to be greater than the minimum possible motion of inner parts. This ``quantitative`` issue might have led scientists to believe that spin or rotational motion is ``discrete`` in nature.

Science is unfortunate because it believes only in mathematics and avoids to apply Logic in its procedures. It is due to this reason that various theories of science are really logically inconsistent.

Now I try to show that Logically, ordinary sized straight line motion also should be ``discrete`` in nature. Consider the ``rotational`` motion of wheels of Toyota car. (You can consider Suzuki or Mercedeze etc. i.e. whichever you can afford to consider). What science doesn`t know is that straight motion of body of car is perfectly logically connected with the rotational motion of its wheels. So if wheels are moving in discrete steps, then body of car just cannot move in any continuous fashion. Logically and actually, straight line motion is also discrete in nature.

So third and fourth versions of science can be ``unified`` in this way.

And if ordinary motion is also discrete in nature then there is no essential difference between Classical Physics and Quantum Physics. You can say that Quantum phenomenon still remains ``probabilistic`` which is not the case with Classical Physics. Although I am having doubts in this ``probabilistic`` aspect of Quantum Physics but for the time being, I can confidently say that Quantum Physics and Classical Physics can be unified at least in the aspect of continuous vs discrete nature of motion because actually both are discrete in nature.

Note: You can consider this ``unification`` of 3rd and fourth versions of science, and the partial ``unification`` of Classical Physics and Quantum Physics as a gift to science by philosophy. In one of your previous interacts you had quoted the statement of a so-called scientist that perhaps philosophy could never help science in finding out the so-called ``unification`` theory.

So after having excluded the 4th version of science, and after correcting the third version of science, and after removing a wrong and inaccurate difference of second version with remaining two, I am listing down the current list below:

(i) Science for large phenomenon = Relativity Theory

(ii & iii with minor difference of ``probabilistic`` aspect in ii) Science for small phenomenon (probabilistic) plus Science for ordinary size phenomenon (non-probabilistic)

I think there should be many similar mistakes in Special Reletivity Theory which might have led scientists to believe is some different kind of science for ``large`` phenomenon. Don`t worry. At some time philosophy shall resolve this confusion also.

You may say that actual meaning of ``unification`` is not which I have taken here because ``unification`` theory has to do with weak and strong forces of nature etc. etc. You may say like this. But you did need above nature of ``unification`` as well. Philosophy has given you many gifts in past and shall continue to do so in future as well. Don`t worry! Philosophy shall help you out in future as well.

Regards!

khuram:

Your obsession with philosophy is irksome. Listen, try to understand. Science does not exclude philosophy but it is different from philosophy. If scientific theories could be determined by philosophical conjectures only, the philosophers would be doing science. You might conjure up all kinds of theories using your philosophical arguments but none of them would be scientific until they are supported and verified by empirical evidence. Science without empiricism reduces to philosophy. Science is logical although it is distinctly different from logic, in the same way as it is distinctly different from philosphy. Science does not have a quarrel with philosophy (or logic), it is philosophy (as you`re using it) that seems to have a quarrel with science.

You probably do not sufficiently comprehend what the physicists mean by unification. Relativeity and quantum mechanics are different from each other at the present time but they will be linked together and made one by the unified theory. Even if they are not unified, both of them are good science in their own respective spheres. Unification is needed to go beyond our present state of knowledge. We`ll understand the physics of big bang and the beginning of our universe better when both theories are unified. Unification is thus a step forward; it doesn`t belie relativity or quantum mechanics, per se.

Progress in science is slow and it`s not just a leap of faith or for that matter a philosophical conjecture; sometime it takes a long time, a very long time, before a difficulty is overcome.

Let me give you an example. The proof of Fermat`s Last Theorem was found after three hundred years. There was a gap of nearly three hundred years between Newton`s theory of gravitation and Einstein`s theory of relativity. So don`t rush yet to pass judgement on science. People are working day and night to unify physics. Likewise, medical scientists are working hard to find cures for cancer and other incurable diseases. Many of these scientists don`t give two hoots to philosophy.

Be well,

Mohammad Gill

``...the bigger issue with which the scientists are concerned is whether He created the universe as a matter of fact. Or, whether He indeed is the First Cause. Will they ever be able to answer the question: “Who created God” convincingly? ...``

I don`t think it is the scientists who are concerned with these questions.

Re: # 34

Dear Gill Sahib, That’s what I think also to be true, because the highest degree one can attain in Science is Doctor of Philosophy. Both go hand in hand. Philosophy is as much based on logic as science, or even more. What science does is it authenticates Philosophy, it has yet to invalidate any philosophical thought. Philosophy is based upon reason, and Science is about testing those reasons in a controlled environment. Very nice article. Thanks.

Your obsession with philosophy is irksome.

ok


Listen, try to understand. Science does not exclude philosophy but it is different from philosophy. If scientific theories could be determined by philosophical conjectures only, the philosophers would be doing science.

I know – science is a minor part of Philosophy. And remember that philosophers had and have been doing science forever, along with other important things as well. Your Einstien was also a philosopher, basically. The modern name “theoretical scientist” has no meaning other than a philosopher who is doing science


You might conjure up all kinds of theories using your philosophical arguments but none of them would be scientific until they are supported and verified by empirical evidence.

I have given you empirical evidence. Wait for next raining. When it will start, go on long drive on your land cruiser. You will find the empirical proof on the windscreen before you.

Secondly you are wrong that theory is “scientific” if it is supported by empirical evidence. Real fact is that theory is “scientific” if it is published by any so-called (stupid) peer reviewed journal. I challenge you on this thing. I can give you many empirical evidences for various things. But believe me, you will never accept my views as scientific. But also believe me. If I get some of my works published by peer-reviewed journal, only than you will consider my work scientific. Actually you have no confidence at all. That’s why you cannot decide matters at your own.

And third thing. I do not need to get my work published by those journals. Philosophies do not need external certifications. But they do affect the minds of readers. I know I am able enough that I can affect other’s minds. I can convince other people. People may not openly accept it however.



Science without empiricism reduces to philosophy. Science is logical although it is distinctly different from logic, in the same way as it is distinctly different from philosphy. Science does not have a quarrel with philosophy (or logic), it is philosophy (as you`re using it) that seems to have a quarrel with science.

I myself am supporter of empiricism. But unlike science, I don’t mistakenly disregard rational inquiry. Philosophy is the name of rational inquiry. If science is disregarding rational inquiry, it means that science is in state of quarrel with philosophy. I only want to restore the true status of philosophy. I think I will have to fight with science for this purpose.


You probably do not sufficiently comprehend what the physicists mean by unification. Relativeity and quantum mechanics are different from each other at the present time but they will be linked together and made one by the unified theory. Even if they are not unified, both of them are good science in their own respective spheres. Unification is needed to go beyond our present state of knowledge. We`ll understand the physics of big bang and the beginning of our universe better when both theories are unified. Unification is thus a step forward; it doesn`t belie relativity or quantum mechanics, per se.

Obviously scientists have made so many sciences which are not consistent with one another. Ok, lets see how will they “unify” different things. By the way, what is the empirical evidence of big bang…???



Progress in science is slow and it`s not just a leap of faith or for that matter a philosophical conjecture; sometime it takes a long time, a very long time, before a difficulty is overcome.

Agree. But I am only telling one important reason for such delays. You should include logical inquiry into the procedures of science. Things shall become more transparent and clear than before.



Let me give you an example. The proof of Fermat`s Last Theorem was found after three hundred years. There was a gap of nearly three hundred years between Newton`s theory of gravitation and Einstein`s theory of relativity. So don`t rush yet to pass judgement on science. People are working day and night to unify physics. Likewise, medical scientists are working hard to find cures for cancer and other incurable diseases. Many of these scientists don`t give two hoots to philosophy.

I have all respect for practical scientists. I do appreciate their achievements and contributions. But philosophy is also important. It is another thing that only a few people can really understand this fact.

Regards!

Re: # 36

Very rightly said: ``Science authenticates Philosophy``....

If there were no philosophy, science would be having NOTHING to authenticate. Purpose of philosophy is to GENERATE right or wrong NEW IDEAS.

Then science segregates right ideas from wrong ones through empirical process.

Science itself doesn`t generate any new ideas. Philosophy has the primary role towards the progress of over-all knowledge of humanity. Role of science is secondary. Because it only validates and applies already existing ideas.

Regards!

Dear Gill saab:

A few `non-scientific` points due to my limitations...

1. If philosophy is to be seen as an ideological position then theologians would qualify as much as rational thinkers.

2. ``Who created god?`` cannot be a scientific query, for if one believes in an imaginary creation then questioning it is itself proving it. Who creates a fantasy? However, when you talk about going beyond Time and Space, then you in fact take the leap into a non-rational endeavour. It can be satisfying for the basis of all knowledge is seeking - whether it is the galaxy or god.

3. I shall turn your question around: Does not science take the `religious` lead when it comes up with a `eureka` moment?

Let me share something I wrote elsewhere:

Religion itself cannot be placed in an isolated groove; it must be seen for its role in determining the course of a society, its input in helping us cull an individual/group identity, and its political motivation...Faith, by its very nature, is an excluding institution. One is not faithful to or devout in one’s own faith if one admits other faiths as real and possible alternatives. A religion provides for conformity in judgment. It cannot survive if it provides choices, for in doing so it will threaten its own credibility.

Regards,
F

#36 by Kulharee on April 24, 2007 6:33am PT

[Re: # 34

Dear Gill Sahib, That’s what I think also to be true, because the highest degree one can attain in Science is Doctor of Philosophy. Both go hand in hand. Philosophy is as much based on logic as science, or even more. What science does is it authenticates Philosophy, it has yet to invalidate any philosophical thought. Philosophy is based upon reason, and Science is about testing those reasons in a controlled environment. Very nice article. Thanks. ]

When has science tested philosophical thoughts in a controlled environment? If it has been audacious enough, then it negates the purpose of philosophy to be able to take leaps of ideas. That is its prerogative, its very essence.

Yet, I would like to be enlightened with some examples, if that is possible. Thanks.
- - -
And Dr. Gill I do think you bring in a great deal of stimuli to challenge thought processes.

Khurram,

Your thoughts are interesting.

I agree with you on #35. But on other points, I tend to agree with Mr. Gill. I don’t think science is in the business of authenticating philosophy. Science follows the data and it can take it to places where no philosophy had gone before. This, by no means, demeans philosophy but to say that science authenticates philosophy is a leap in my opinion. I mean which philosophy Galileo had in mind when he deviated from geocentric model?

You are right that philosophies do not need external certifications and still influence minds. Well, good for philosophy but, once again, it’s the evidentiary nature of science that requires it to have external certification and for good reasons. After all, when you get sick, you go to a doctor and what makes him/her qualified to prescribe you medicines is his/her knowledge coupled with an external certification.

Rafi

Re: # 40

Farzana Ji, in classical sense, Philosophy is about ethics, governance, etc, but metaphysics is all about reasoning and logic. I took very elementary level courses in my undergrad and there is no universally agreed upon definition of even what Philosophy means, except that everyone agrees that it about ideas shared among a group (or Philo – friends). Before it was known that earth was round, it was merely an idea, later proven. There are even disagreements over the nature of what constitutes reason. That in itself should be a notion to think of certain branches of Philosophy are more based on Logic and less about conventional wisdom. I believe that the foundation of physical science is Philosophy.

Re #41, rafi_aamer,
``I agree with you on #35. But on other points, I tend to agree with Mr. Gill...``

rafi shaib,
#35 has been my only contribution on this board. The others are from another fine gentleman who spells his name with a single `r`

Re: kulharee & khuram,
``Science authenticates philosophy..``

Who tells science how to authenticate?

Re: # 44

If you look at Philosophy is an external form of the answer, not a whole, then everything begins to make sense. Scientific proof can be seen as an answer – to whether prove something or invalidate. The reason that it generates so much debate in itself is an indication that there is ‘something’ to argue about.

Re: # 44 by khurram:

``Who tells science how to authenticate?``

Nobody. The discipline stresses on `replicable` experiments. If A can send a rocket to a certain location in the moon using method P, then B should be able to do the same using method P. Some degree of `error` is allowed for.

I am told the `kundalini yoga` is all about trying to replicate the `God experience` .... I do not believe this though. Brought it up because the discussion is deviating toward `philosophy` :)

Regards.