Religion In A Clubby Hole

Romair wrote:
``No, I am not sure there is a God. ``

you do understand that by saying this in any shape or form is an unforgivable sin? by this utterance, your sojourn in the nether depths of Hell is pretty much confimed - in any case, lemme say welcome to the club. :-)

UrsTruly:
you repeated your first-cause-that-was-uncaused mantra over again. i asked you something else. all i know is that origin of the universe is an open question and your final-terminal-point assumption is a self-serving assumption.

peace.

It may be too optimistic, but this may help - a last attempt :)

---

Romair, it seems that you are equating religion with science, and vice-versa, based primarily on your belief that both science and religion require their `believers` to make a ``leap of faith.``

But the word `faith` has always been used to describe very different things that really have nothing in common.

The `faith` of a scientist is quite different in its origin, its nature, its institutional support structure, and its practical consequences than the `faith` that of a typical religionist `believer.`

We may be all wrong, but if you tried to see why the two `faiths` are not of the same species, you will get a good idea of what people are trying to say.

Re: # 255

Buddha was an explorer, the only one with scientific temperament. Most of his early life was spent on quest for meaning of life. Others like Mohammed and Christ appear to be possessed men.

Religion and science :

Religion = Science of the mind.

Re: # 253

I do not understand the attempts to satisfy religious beliefs with science. After all, religion was never `invented` on scientific quest. While science is just the name given to the quest for knowledge that existed throughout mankind.

What relation exists between religion and science, when religion itself is a superstition, and has more to do with the `science of the mind`?

Re: # 245

And may I add `` More time for the pornography and the prostitutes ``. LOL.

Romair (varous):

BTW, there are several schools of thoughts in physics that I can point which are involved in the research of origin of Universe.

The mathematics can explain the origin as the singularity where everything is zero and nothing is known about before the origin. Physics does accept it. There is no history or information before the origin. The present day mathematics is based on the fact that no previous information can escape from the origin or this singularity. Theoretical Physicists continue to challenge the singularity and attempt to go around it.

Matter - Anti Matter: This school of thought believes that matter and anti-matter which annhilate each other came out of this singularity. At the singularity there was nothing or nothing about the information is needed to explain the Universe, other than that a big bang created matter and anti-matter particles some annhilated each other and some separated. These particles were produced in equal numbers, but the symmetry was disturbed by the violence of the big bang, and some matter particle coalsced and became the foundation of our Universe. Likewise, anti-matter universe must exist elsewhere.

Stephen Hawkins:
He has proposed time to be a vector, which has a real number axis and imaginary number axis. Our universe, according to this theory, lives on the real number axis, while the imaginary number (time) is through which the pre-singularity information came.

Continuing on his research, he recently proposed that black hole is really not that black, as he had said earlier where no information escaped. He now proposed that indeed some information does escape from such singularity. This according to him may allow the origin of universe to get information from prior to the singularity. While at singularity the time will be zero only in the real number axis, and will have some value in the imaginary number axis to bring information from prior to ``singularity``. I have read all of Stephen Hawkins books, and watched documentaries. You might find these readings may get to closer to science`s explanations, but not create a belief system, that theology forces to accept.

Brian Greene etc.:
Brian Greene from Columbia University has written at least two books, on String and Super String theory. One, I believe, is called Elegant Universe. I have read this book. He proposes, that there are vibrating and spinning strings of energy. Their vibration, spin and collection based on Quantum Mechanics wave theory form basic particles neede for the matter. Thus at the most elementary level there is only energy, and not matter. There is a young scientist, at Princeton, who is regarded as the modern day Einstein, his name is slipping my memory, is doing a lot of research in area. What I read that present day mathematics is inadequate to prove or disprove String and Super String Theories. New mathematical tools need to be evolved.

Multiple Diemensions:
We live in four demensional universe. According to this theory there are more dimensions (11, I believe). At the singularity (origin) information, as they call it, escaped through other dimensions, some of these dimensions are very small to be observed. This theory, as I understand, tries to explain gravity is escaped information from these extra dimensions.

Brian Greene in one his books, tries to explain it, by giving an example of an ant crawling on a wire and is able to observe the curve, and hence three dimensions, while a human standing on the distance could only see it as a line, and thus single dimension.

I have more faith in science than theology to find right answer. If you call it as my comfort zone, that suits me too. I call it as my thought space. In my thought space, there is no room to accept caste system, religious rituals etc., or the finality of 1,400 year old message or messenger. Or winged angels, a superior human being talking to a human messenger as the link between God and humans, which defines a questionable and unproven heirarchy that must not be questioned. My thought space does allow me to respect these view points, and be friends with them as long as they do not imposed upon me, just as I do not impose my thought space on others.

Anil

Romair,

Einstien`s predictions have come out of theories only. A system of clocks on a rocket has been actually made to fly around the earth on a very high speed and it was found out that they lost some time.

A classic example of science being corrected Newton`s carpuscular theory of light in which he attributed light to comprise of tiny particles. And when the shift was made towards `light as a wave` theory, an imaginary medium called ether was introduced to fill in the whole uinverse with, as a means for light `waves` to travel. After that, the idea of ether was also shunned in the face of modren work.

These are some clear examples of older science being falsified by itself, only under the agenda of honesty and progress.

Now which quranic ayat are you ready to drop?

Re: # 250

roamir mian,

okay ......... you win and i will accept your argument that god created this mess ...... isn`t that what you are trying to say in your own convoluted way by invoking einstein and your own special interpretation of ``something cannot be created out of nothing`` (astaghfirullah) ......... i would like to remind you that, to the contrary, i have not used science to prove or disprove god .......... all i was saying is that the character of god as pushed by believers (that includes urstruly, naqshbandi, tahmed and you) is quite abhorrent ...........personally, i have no idea whether he exists or does not exist .......

......... you remind me of this foolish creationist i saw on tv the other day trying to use ``science`` to prove his point - it is rather pitiful ............ and i should know better than to argue with a fauji - i can still remember my father lecturing my doctor sister on medicine ! ............ it is not your fault - old habits die hard ..........

hamidm mian #241: You are still stuck in an ideological view, i.e. you claim to know the one truth. And are going to reject any science that points in some other direction........Make up your mind. Do you want to accept or reject science, as and when it fits your views. I think if your, ``ideology`` had stated that energy and matter cannot be created from nothing, you would be ridiculing anyone who was making the current argument you are making........

I don`t want to rub it in any furthur, since your argument is as amusing as the one Naqshbandi makes about his flying historical pirs. I supposed if we use your argument, then one day science will prove that pirs actually could fly, even if all established evidence proclaims they could not..........

``.... .... if you remember you had asked me to give you an example of how/when scientific ``laws`` were proven wrong - i gave you one (one that most children are familiar with) ``

You had stated that physical laws are being turned over, ``all the time.`` I said they weren`t being turned all the time. Only in cases, when the original law did not use the correct parameters. Now over to Eintein and Newton.

You have made a big enough fool of yourself, by commenting on issues you have no knowledge of, simply to support your ideology. So I feel bad doing this, but it must be done. Because I don`t like ideologues, i.e. people who think they have the answer and reject any science that refutes it.......

Are you stating that Einstein, ``overturned`` Newton? Are you really serious? Did you study this or do you only have Mr. Google to thank for this? If Einstein overturned Newton, then why the hell are all the schools and universities in the world, still teaching us that every action has an equal and opposite reaction? That there is a force called Gravity? That F = ma? Which part of this became wrong, after Einstein? Do enlighten us?

This is what Einstein did. Now kindly open up your know-it-all ideology-filled MBA mind and listen: Newton`s laws are still valid, within the frame of reference he formulated them. Which is why they are still taught, along with Einstein`s. Einstein showed that, in a situation in which the amount of gravity is larger than what Newton`s frame of reference considers, the laws will not give an accurate answer. They will be, ``slightly`` off. He showed tiny variations, depending on the amount of gravity in mass, time etc. The orbit of a planet next to the sun will be somewhat different that one that is furthur away. The variations of time are so tiny, even in a different frame of refernece, that even the most sophisticated of clocks cannot calcuate them yet. We only know them through theories.

Similarly, it has been furthur proven that even Einstein`s laws require a certain variation if we get to extreme gravity situations, like Black Holes. I assume this is the area where Stephen Hawkings is working. I will start studying that, if I get time....

I would hardly call any of this, ``overturning.`` Or Einstein proving Newton, ``wrong.`` And each and every one of these discoveries furthur proves that energy and matter, though interchangeable, are still not spontaneously creatable.............

Now do you undersand, why it is so frustrating to debate with ideologues, who will not offer any explanation for their beliefs, nor do they understand the subject they are debating, nor do they recognize science, yet will not change their views..........

There is, indeed a paradox in scientific and logical thought.........accept it.........or provide scientific counterarguments........not simple wishful thinking........or remain stuck on your ideology. But if you are going to remain stuck on your ideology, which goes against science, then don`t complain when Naqshbandi says his pirs used to fly and Urstruly says that God`s existence can be proven. Infact, there is more of a chance of pirs actually flying then things getting created from thin air, if you ask me.............

Here is an article on why `creation out of nothing` is only a pseudo-paradox.

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/adolf_grunbaum/explanation.html

Re: # 241

hamidm:

``unknowingly you have proven einstein`s formula e=mc2 : a very very small amout of grey matter (mass) can be converted into a very very large amount of nonsense (energy) !!!!! ``

LOL...


Is raja pakistani aka romair a representative of paki education/military or just an aberration???

Re: # 226

``Today you will say I can get a DNA test done to confirm that. But again that test will be a conducted by a Laboratory of which you know nothing. You will have a ``belief`` that the test is right. ``

thats where regulation/validation steps in. a tablet that a person takes is also not tested for its efficiency and safety. but statistical as well as other sciences are used to validate the process and ensure that the system does what it is supposed to do, hence leaving a very small probability to chance.

Romair,

Let me say this one more time.

The fact that matter and energy cannot be created out of nothing does not lead to any kind of paradox.

If not for religion, people would have more spare time to engage in sex and other fun stuff. At least three days out of a week would be freed up for more football. Thousands of tax-free buildings, many many expensive religious schools, billions of madrassas churning out bearded tornadoes would not exist. Little boys would be safe from weird men wearing frocks. People would piss on the wailing wall and would bang their heads in the direction of Saudi Arabia only because of the price of gas. The rivers would be safe from sexual assault by millions of unwashed and filthy bodies and men would only shave their heads for pussy.

#215 *** LOL.. That is funny. No Hamidm could not say that. I know who can. ***

mannyd, thanks. :)