Religion In A Clubby Hole

Folks,

I have sensed that romair mian is trying to escape thru patli gali. He no longer wants to talk about god. Lena pakarna, jaane naa paye........

dost-mittar #206,
``...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.``

Are you kidding?
No serious student of theology believes in either of the 2 options.

#220 Janab,

Mirza Ghalib said.

Chalta hoon thori door her aik raah ro ke saath,
Pehchaanta nahin hoon abhi raahbar ko mein,

Kuch aesa hi masla hay. But its always good to see friendly people present. :)

Romair # various,

If you look at my post # 120 carefully you will realize that my statement that ``science will someday explain ...`` refers to the emergence of organic life out of inorganic matter. You have not produced any evidence to show that this would somehow be a paradox. There is no known law of science that rules it out.

Regarding, creation of matter and energy out of nothing, what I said was this may not be a meaningful question since we may not be able to talk meaningfully about `before` the creation of time.
There is no paradox here. All we know is something exists. Was there nothing before that? Was there even a before?

I am not claiming that science answers everything. But neither of your examples is valid as an example of limitation of science.

malikjahanzeb sahib, we see you here far less frequently than many people see God. Kya masla hai, Janab? :)

Anil # 217,
The way human knowledge has evolved in the last 200 years, compared to the last 4,000 years is massive, and it is only going to increase, unless something catastrophic happens that push back human civilization back by thousands of years. Personally, I see OBL in this light.

I dont think humans have evolved more now than before. the tremendous changes that we are seeing in the world can be attributed to the discovery of electricity which has completetly changed the world.

#197
to Romair bhai, aap ne group 4 mein beth ker abhi tak kiya `khatta` hay?

Please keep us posted with the latest research. Also, please enlighten us wiht your methodology of this `unbaised research`. We in groups-other-than-four are desparate for some enlightenment.

LOL

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

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

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

Who says 2+2 is always equal to 4? Yes, 2 apples plus 2 apples is equal to 4 Apples. That is 2 multiplied by an apple plus 2 multiplied by an apple is 4 multiplied by an apple. But I claim that 2 zeroes plus 2 zeroes is equal to 8 zeroes.

I do not see science or god crumbling.....

GT

Re: # 208

romair,

...... i will not dignify your clueless query about ``broken laws`` with an answer except for two words: newton and einstein

.................every sophomore knows that einstein showed that newton`s three laws of motion were only approximately correct, breaking down when objects approached the velocity of light ................. some of them even know that newton`s law of gravitation was also only approximately correct, breaking down in the presence of very strong gravitational fields........ they might not understand all the implications but they do know that it was a significant theoretical shift and that the same thing can happen again ............... and it happens all the time in medicine when a theory that was considered to be ``true`` for many many years is overturned when new evidence is found ..........

....... please contact dr. gill for more answers or take a class in elementary physics ............

Re: # 212
Hamidm Sahib:

And Heisenberg`s Principle of Uncertainty (the foundation of Quantum Mechanics) showed both Newton and Einstein (for discarding the constant in his equation) theories fail in case of very small particles, distances and time.

Romair:
2 + 2 = 4 is not law. It is decimal number system to represent mathematical information. Some higher involved intelligence may have even better system of representation. I would certainly not call the mathematical system of representation of information as law.

Physical laws are different. Newtonian physics is based on space being absolute, while Einstein said velocity of light which dobservable Universe is constant, where the momentum and hence the energy would be so great that all matter will explode and dissipate into energy. It was from the laws of Thermodynamics (Lord Kelvin - I presume) who defined the Absolute Zero as the coldest temperature when all energy is Zero. The third aspect of this Universe is defined by Maxwell`s laws of Electromagentism. The fourth one is Laws of Quantum Mechanics, including Heisenberg`s principle of uncertainty and Schrodinger`s wave equations. There are attempts to come up with Grand Unified Theory.

The way human knowledge has evolved in the last 200 years, compared to the last 4,000 years is massive, and it is only going to increase, unless something catastrophic happens that push back human civilization back by thousands of years. Personally, I see OBL in this light.

Anil