Religion In A Clubby Hole

Religion In A Clubby Hole
Parthasarathy B person,
Please careful, if not some fanatic put real religion in chubby hole.

207 ***Romair is confusing probabilistic thinking for faith.

Mr. Black circle man, more like Romair confusing swordfish with lawnmower.

Too many amateur type bishop and deacon talking trash re religion here. My thinking for miimum discussion requirement of divine doctor degree for any sober opinion on important religious bullshit. You really want Romair no clue capitan telling you about 13 commandments of hell? You want seek professional rabbinical pundit opinion about sobriety from hamidm2? DM, OK for now, old age give passport to endless eloquence on dead stuff. Kaalchakra, too goody goody affirmative action pope, not good for communal disharmony. Time to stuff old turkey in mouth and call it nighty night.

hamidm mian #205: ``........... it is silly to use ``science`` to argue about religious concepts like god ``

I am not doing this, in this discussion. However, do keep in mind that science is the main argument used by indivduals to disprove the concept of God..............What other argument do they use? But let`s stay away from that..........Let`s stick with science alone, with or without any divine intervention...........

````......... science ``overturns`` its laws all the time and it still does not come ``crashing`` down as you have suggested ............. it is called progess ........``

- Anytime any scientific law is overturned, any other laws built on that law, will come crashing down. If 2 + 2 is proven to be 5 someday, then any proof that used 2 + 2 = 4 will become invalid...........Similarly, if science proves that matter can be created out of nothing, then all laws on energy and matter will crash. Which is basically all the laws that govern the scientific description of our universe............

- Secondly, one cannot simply live on hope and wish that some laws will be overturned. One cannot have faith in science for one problem and not have faith in science for another problem. If science is as complete, as you say it is, then why are you unwilling to accept the laws that science has established. Under what precedence and logic and research are you stating that one fine day, science will undo its own law that matter and energy cannot be created out of nothing? It seems to me like nothing except wishful thinking........

- Since you have stated that science overturns its laws, ``all the time,`` could I request you to list some it overturned; especially since it happens, ``all the time.`` The only reason under which science would overturn a law (as far as my limited knowledge goes) is if the law was based on inconclusive reasoning to begin with. Or if the experiments carried out to prove it, were wrong, to begin with. However, for certain things there is complete proof. For example, gravity pulls things towards the earth. Now the magnitude of gravity or its causes may not be completely understood and may change. But the fact that things fall down, is a scientifically proven fact. Now if it turns out that we actually live in a Matrix type world with Keanue Reeves, then things may actually be going up and only seem like going down.........

Scientific, ``progress`` is actually based on proving new laws, either through experimentation or through mathematical extrapolations, from previous laws. This allows mankind to do things that it could not do before. Will science one day allow us to meet alien beings. Maybe. Maybe not. No law saying it won`t. But no law saying it can, yet. In this case, DM`s, ``at least not yet`` theory is valid........

Will science one day prove that the earth is made of jello and swiss cheese, and overturn the fact that it is made of various other elements. One can keep hoping that science will do that someday, just to win an argument. But I doubt science will prove that, since it has already proven otherwise.

Similarly, will science one day prove that matter and energy can be created out of nothing. When it has itself proven that this cannot be done, beyond a shadow of a doubt. The chance of this is about as much as proving that earth is made of jello and swiss cheese.

But I suppose some people can keep hoping and be convinced of thier hope, simply because such a hope is the basis of their ideological beliefs...............they are unwilling to think outside the deceptively secure box they have locked themselves into.........

Romair is confusing probabilistic thinking for faith.

There is nothing in science that says everything scientists know today may not be considered wrong tomorrow.

Romair (various)

First of all, let me say that we are not discussing the limits of science but whether religion is anything other than a superstition and not something that provides rational answers to questions that science does not.

In that context there are only two groups, not four. Those who think that relgion is a structure based on superstition and hearsay and those who say that it fills the void left by science and should command the same respect.
``It means that you think someday science may prove that energy and matter can be created out of nothing.``
I neither said nor implied that. I am not a scientist but I do know that science has just started to explore our universe. So far, we do not even fully know what lies in the innermost bowels of our little planet and what is shaping our climate. Scientists have just started trying to discover how our solar system was created and that ``sitaron se aage jehaan aur bhi hain``. When I say that one day they might find out how the universe was created (or maybe scientists from some other solar system have already solved the mystery!) I am not saying that their explanation will be that energy and matter can be created out of nothing. That is your assumption. What they will find out I obviously do not know and wont even be alive to find out if they ever did.

``It is hard for me to answer it, because my parents never did this to me.``
I am sure that you believe this to be the case, but to many it would appear that you are so thoroughly indoctrinated that you don`t even realise it. Do you believe that Shri Satya Sai Baba is a god? Why not? There are very intelligent people - Ph.Ds, scientists, engineers, even ministers who have met him and believe so. Many of his companions would swear that he performs deeds that only god can perform and he has a divine message to deliver. And yet, you have no problem believing stories of illiterate nomads more than a thousand years ago who were persuaded by a fellow nomad that he was the last messenger of God. Is there no correlation in your belief that God whispered to Mohammad again and again and the fact that one of the first things you were told was the kalima and the horrible consequences of questioning the holy quran or the credibility of the Prophet?

romair mian,

......... science ``overturns`` its laws all the time and it still does not come ``crashing`` down as you have suggested ............. it is called progess ........

........... it is silly to use ``science`` to argue about religious concepts like god - that iand teenage pregnancies are better debated using philospophy, anthropology, sociology and other social ``sciences`` ............. science and religion are two separate things and should be kept apart ........... that is why i find people who push ``creationism`` as a scientific theory rather silly .............. no sane person disagrees with the theory of evolution because they can see it at work all around them - even religious nuts rush out to get the flu shot every year because of a new strain of the virus that ``appears`` on the scene ............ they seem to have no problem with evolution in groundhogs and groundnuts yet throw a fit when extending the logic to human beings ............ i am not saying that it is a ``fact`` that you are descended from a monkey, but the empirical evidence is overwhelming (not to speak of my observations !)

hamidm mian #202: You could have simply answered with a Yes or No :-) I will assume your answer to be a Yes......

``but the concept of god is ............``

As I said, I was not discussing this. You incorrectly assumed I was..........

``..... unlike you i am not an expert in physics so i cannot debate this issue with you ......... all i know is that today`s science is not perfect and complete, but it offers the best available answers based on the current body of knowledge ...................... the issue is not that science is perfect, thus for us to discuss the laws of particle pysics here would be stupid - at least i don`t consider myslef to be qualified ...........``

I agree science (and logical reasoning) is the best way to approach problems. Which is why I get frustrated when someone says, someday such and such law of science will be overturned by science, itself. They say it with so much confidence, yet without any reason or logic or scientific proof. They are just convinced that it will happe. They seem to have nothing but, ``faith`` in their argument...........

I am not a physicist either. Which is why I am hoping someone from pure sciences could assist us in this discussion. When I didn`t find anyone, I was hoping all of you who feel science will one day answer anything could provide the answers. Now I find out that none of you are too sure either...........

But anyways, now that you have agreed to keep religion out of the debate, let`s discuss the science part. Science is based on certain rules and laws. Those laws are then used to prove furthur laws. If any of these foundation laws is proven to be wrong, then the building of laws that are constructed on top of these foundation laws, comes crashing down also......

i.e. if one fine day, as some people on this site believe, science proves that it was wrong, and that things or energy can be created from nothing, then any law or equation (or event) that has matter or energy involved in it, will come crashing down. Brand new rules and laws covering matter and energy will come into existence. This basically covers the whole gamut of the universe, since the universe is based on matter and energy, going from one form to another..........

If that happens, we will basically have proven that in our solar system a brand new earth could simply appear out of nowhere. One fine day, you would be sitting having a drink, and hamidm3 mian would appear next to you (as in Bewitched)...............

I am not saying this sarcastically, I just want to see if you agree about the affect, the changing of such a fundamental rule of science will have..........

Re: # 200

romair:

``If you, like Anil and DM think science will someday prove its own well-established laws to be false, then point me to some scientific research in that direction........ ``

in 1800 no one was doing any research on aviation, did it mean that inter-continental flight were never going to be a reality?

you are right, currently we don`t have tools and sience has its limitation in explaining the creation of universe and humans. but i think you have quite a high expectation about human achievements in science and technology. we have just crawled out of a cave, there is a new world yet to explore. we humans are still unaware of a majority of things that work within our body. but whatever progress we have made in saving lives is done through scientific advancements, not by following any religious doctrine.

so don`t get agitated, it took humans ~ 7000 years (starting from 5000 B.C.) to visit the moon, which is the nearest of all the celestial bodies. unless we destroy each other in the name of some ideology (be it nationalist, communist, religious etc.) science will progress forward. we have not reached the zenith of scientific achievement. we are not cruising along the galaxies. our sun is just a tiny speck in the vast universe. so expecting us to have a answer for everthing is just too much at this stage.

Re: # 201

roamir mian,

..... unlike you i am not an expert in physics so i cannot debate this issue with you ......... all i know is that today`s science is not perfect and complete, but it offers the best available answers based on the current body of knowledge ........... unlike religion, it does not claim perfection and therefore if you, or any one else, can prove it wrong i am sure science will be grateful and move on to the next step .....if einstein could prove newton to be wrong, you can return the favor ............heck, you might even win a nobel prize for that ......... based on my meager understanding of particle physics, nothing is cast in concrete yet ....... but the concept of god is ............ and therein lies the rub ..........

........... th issue is not that science is perfect, the issue is that the concept of god is not perfect and is a bad idea to start with ............. for us to discuss the laws of particle pysics here would be stupid - at least i don`t consider myslef to be qualified ...........

Hamid mian #198: ``and, by the way, where did you learn that ``basic`` scientific postulates never change .........``

OK. Now you are finally debating the question. It`s the first reply you have made, without mentioning God. It`s good to see that you are over your knee jerk reaction of associating anyone who disagrees with you as someone pushing religion. Hopefully the other two individuals, whom I interact with on this site (DM and Anil) will start looking at my arguments in this sense also.............

So let`s discuss this..........from your comments I will conclude that you also agree that there is a paradox, and that science has agreed that matter and energy cannot be created out of nothing. And that you do not know of any research or direction of research, which is proving this to be wrong, i.e. more and more data is only solidifying this theory. Not proving it wrong..........This is what I have found in whatever I have had a chance to study......

So can we agree on this............Yes or No.........

After this, we can debate the affects of changing postulates of science...........

hamdim mian#196: ``so you, of all people, independently and without any outside influence were able to figure out that since energy and matter cannot be created out of ``nothing`` there must be a god who runs around talking to prophets in caves``

How many times do I have to tell you that it cannot be proven whether God exists or does not exist. I am not trying to prove anything like that. It is the tenth time I am stating this. You seem to have this paranoia then that anyone who asks you a question, is a religious nutcase, then you need to handle that, on your own..........

If you cannot counter the questions I have asked, simply admit that you cannot. Why are you trying to answer them by bringing God into the equation. Simply answer the questions. I have asked scientific questions, without bringing God into the equation. Yet you want to bring Him in again and again........

I am afraid I will have to move you from group 3 to group 2. It is getting harder and harder for me to figure out who is more indoctrinated - those of group one or group two. The moment anyone challenges any of either`s long held beliefs, they don`t answer the question. They start accusing the questioner...........

So forget about religion. We are talking science. If science has itself, stated that matter and energy cannot be created from nothing. And the big bang theory is based on mass being created out of energy (and not out of nothing), how in the world did the initial building blocks - be they energy or matter - get created?

I am not trying to prove anything about God. So kindly get that out of your system. Just answer the question. If you cannot answer it admit it is a paradox. And we will stop there. If you, like Anil and DM think science will someday prove its own well-established laws to be false, then point me to some scientific research in that direction........

It is possible I am wrong. Maybe it is being proven that matter and energy can be created out of nothing. I want to learn. And since you and DM and some others, are so learned and confident, educate me, also.

If you cannot answer the question and the paradox, nor do you know of anyone who has, then accept my argument.............The third option is, of course, to neither answer the question, nor accept my argument, but to equate me with those who hung burned scientists............

I have to say, in that sense, Urstruly is quite a bit kinder. He only declares me an Ahmedi, when he cannot answer a question I ask him. Your group (you are now in group 2 with DM and Anil), accuse me of being, ``indoctrinated,`` or of burning others at the stake.............

So let`s not mention the word God in the next reply. Just stick to the scientific discussion..........

Hamidm

Romair bhai believes not only in God/god, but also in the Quran, that it is the word of God, and the very last one God will ever care to send down, and so on and so forth. He finds enough `science` in Quran to convince him that God and only God must have actually come up with those words.....

And this does not represent indoctrination. I guess none of his Christian and Hindu friends know science well enough to arrive at those same self-evident conclusions :)

Re: # 197

romair,


.............. i am waiting with bated breath for your answers when you find them ........ and, by the way, where did you learn that ``basic`` scientific postulates never change ......... science is not like religion - there is nothing sacred ....... the laws that you so simple mindedly keep on quoting can change and probably will .......... it won`t be ``new science``, new rules will simply replace old rules when people know more ....... if you are serious about understanding this stuff i suggest that you drop whatever you are doing and start working on the unified theory - who knows, being the brilliant know-it-all that you are, you might be able to prove einstein wrong !

I think there are four kinds of intelligent and well-informed groups, when it comes to science and religion:

1. Urstruly group: This group`s members analyse everything with reason, as they step back logically towards the paradox of creation. They eventually get to the point where one has to figure out how the intial building blocks of the world were created. A question, beyond science or the human thinking capacity.

They, then fill this paradox with religion. At that point, they stop using reason. They cannot prove God exists, or who created God, but just have, ``faith``.......If one points out their lack of reasoning, they declare the person to be an Ahmedi..........

2. Dost-mittar group: This group reaches the paradox also. They fill the pardox with science. They assume that while science cannot answer this question today, it will answer it someday. They also stop reasoning at that point. They have no idea how science will prove it. They just have, ``faith`` that it will. When when points them to scientific laws, which are the basis of science, itself, indicating that science has already proven that it cannot answer this paradox, they declare the person to be, ``indocrinated,`` with the thinking that led to people being burned at the stake.........

3. Hamidm group: This group is intelligent enough to reach the paradox also. They are also intelligent enough to realize, unlike the first two groups, the limitations of science and religion. However, they do not try to fill the paradox with anything. They just ignore it, and are least bothered by it. They figure, who cares. I want to live life and enjoy it..........

4. The fourth group reaches the paradox, and realizes the limitations of science and religion, like group 3. However, it tries to keep researching for answers........

In my experience, the first two groups are the most confident in their views. They consider the other group to be complete idiots. Anyone who does not agree with them is automatically bracketed into the other group. Either with us or against us. They see every argument as an attack on them. They are, infact, in a state of blissful ignorance. Primarily because, they, themselves, are operating on a, ``faith`` based approach of thinking, i.e. they cannot answer any questions, regardless of how many times one asks them, yet they are confident that they are on the righteous path...........In many cases, the let their political and social views on reglion, overshadow any reasonable thinking.........

The third group is usually the happiest. They know they don`t have the answers, but are least bothered..........

The fourth group is usually the least confident, because it know it does not have any answers. It is also not happy like group three. Infact it is in a state of inquisitive frustration, because it wants to find the answers, through reason. Not through a misguided, ``I don`t have answers, but I know I am right`` approach of group one and two.............

I sympathesize with the simplistic approach of those in group one and two. I envy those in group three. However, I would prefer to be in group four.........

romair mian,

`` It is hard for me to answer it, because my parents never did this to me. I don`t think anyone should indoctrinate anyone on anything. ``

........... do you mean to say that after years of doing ``kadam mar``, meditation, research in computer ``science``, dabbling in international business, starting tehreek-i-insaaf, studying the mating habits of the bo weevil and observing that the earth revolves around the sun and not vice versa, you came to the conclusion that god exists !.............. your parents never told you about him ? ............... so you, of all people, independently and without any outside influence were able to figure out that since energy and matter cannot be created out of ``nothing`` there must be a god who runs around talking to prophets in caves, burinig bushes and punishing people for sodomy and other unnatural acts .............. wah, bhai, wah !............. so in fact, we can say that you discovered god ! .... subhanallah !............. you really are a piece of work - and the scary part is that it is still work in progress !

p.s. what is the definition of ``nothing`` and what if five hundred years from now scientists discover that nothing is someting - kind of like neutrinos .............