Religion In A Clubby Hole

Ha, the old Douglas Adams theory -``I refuse to prove that I exist`` says God, ``for proof denies faith and without faith I am nothing.``

I don`t think anyone has here has said that the absence of evidence is proof of God`s existence, just that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence (or, more accurately, proof of absence).

Till then, various Gods, Goblins and other fairy tales can claim to provide All the answers, brainwash the willing, create religiously blinded `faithful, be the cause of mob violence, and hold mainstream politics as hostage.

Re: # 290

But Quranic Allah does try to prove himself. See dialogue of Abraham with Allah in Quran.

#288, when overwhelming evidence gathers in support of a theory with numbers like probabilities that make alternative explanations non-existant, we cannot just dismiss those ``theories`` as mere theories- they become established theories and hence factual. The ``magical`` doesn`t appear ``magical`` if you study its mind based upon its creation- similar to what Stephen Hawkings mentions about the ``mind of God``- also, the question about who ``created`` the ``creator`` in its premise is illogical, it equates the created with the creator- it assumes that just because the created (created because it has attributes like change, origin, death etc) necessitates a creator, the creator (much different in its attributes from the created) also necessitates a creator. This would not be the case if the ``creator`` has different attributes than the ``created``- which puts to rest all attempts to place divinity on human beings etc.

After exhausting all the other alternatives, the only hypothesis that is logically deduced from empirical evidence provided by nature, is that an intelligent being created the heavens and the earth. This being cannot be ``human`` or like anything in the natural world, so to speak. The attributes of the universe that ``necessitate`` design (discussed above) as well as the attributes in us that ``necessitate`` design (discussed below) cannot be the attributes of a creator otherwise ``it`` would need a creator as well.

Thus, if the creator is ``different`` than creation, in the attributes that ``it`` possesses, the question ``Who created God?`` becomes logically meaningless. Intelligent design would apply only to things that were non-existent and then came into being and contain specific attributes that necessitate design. Thus God has to be eternal, unchanging and unlike creation.

I would recommend reading the article, God: The New Scientific Evidence at http://god.rationalreality.com

There are theories but we just don`t know how we `got here`, as in the `first cause`. To say therefore that it must have been sparked off by a magical being simply because it`s too difficult to imagine anything else is a non-sequiter. Maybe by 200005 we`ll know the answer.

I can understand the attraction of simply believing that a magical being waved a wand and started it all off, but who created the magical being? There would still be unanswered questions about this magical being even if most of the rest of the questions of origins would be taken care of.

Till then, various Gods, Goblins and other fairy tales can claim to provide All the answers, brainwash the willing, create religiously blinded `faithful, be the cause of mob violence, and hold mainstream politics as hostage.

#286, SR`s question was different, for the sake of argument he accepted the existance of a God but then wanted to know the necessity for that God to communicate giving rise to revelations etc. Regarding your question, as I mentioned earlier, the method of science that guides us to the truth in other endevours can also be applied to get to the truth in religious inquiry. There are some articles elaborating this at http://www.rationalreality.com, check the one titled, ``Koran & Critical Rationalism`` and another one titled ``Koran & Self- Reference``, greatly appreciate your interest in these issues-

masadi ji

If I understand him right, SR isn`t sure of the certainty and strength of the link between Whatever had to Preexist before the universe was born billions and billions of years ago and Vishnu-Jehova-God-al-Lah (let`s call the creature Vijegoal).

Why, for instance, had this Vijegoal had to indulge in all those specific and different behaviors of which Vishnu, Jehova, God, and al-Lah have been accused. With no-more-than half the power at his or her disposal, even a reasonably intelligent human could have conjured up more efficient and effective methods of achieving their various purported goals.

We can`t and shouldn`t hastily conclude that the Great Vijegoal itself, and not some other - even less wholesome - force, was responsible for Vishnu`s incarnations, Jehova`s whatever the fellow did, God`s undocumented siring of a child, and al-Lah strange and silly behaviors, including his holding his tongue forever after sending a message to an arab man?

Again, we can`t and shouldn`t rule out the possibility that gifted charlatans might be taking advantage of human beings constant fear and total ignorance about this supposedly all-powerful Vijegoal creature.

#284, you point isn`t clear logically speaking, and by this I mean no offense to you- It does not make much sense that the creator provided for the ``lower`` needs, like food, environment etc, for his creation- which is an emprical fact by the way- and forgot to or didnt care to provide for the ``higher`` need of one of his created species- a mind that asks questions and needs answers- that my friend is the position of revelation viz a viz the creator.

When science in the hands of its modern day ``prophets`` becomes an ideological machine, it loses its essence, similar to relgion, that encorages rational thinking- I refer particularly to the Quran- becomes an ideological machine in the hands of the mullahs. Both are equally harmful but science far exceeds in potential harm when used ideologically- nuclear weapons are the particular case in point.

If today we were to receive even one intelligent message from space, scientists as a whole after confirmation would conclude that yes, intelligent life in space has been confirmed. Yet, when millions of intelligent messages are found in our DNA, the same scientists don`t even look at it in consideration of an intelligent creator. Dogmatic (ideological) scientists today have perverted standards

The fact is that the world owes its being to something other than itself. The laws of nature did not create the universe since they cease to exist at the earliest point in creation. The laws of mechanics did not originate the laws of mechanics because when the universe was a singularity, they did not exist. The laws of evolution (whatever they are) don`t come about through the laws of evolution because in order to work they require a preexisting order and preexisting entities governed by that order.

Those who are interested can pursue the entire article on God & Science at http://god.rationalreality.com

Re: # 283 masadi {``...If ...we receive ... message from space, scientists ...would conclude ... intelligent life in space ... confirmed. Yet, ... intelligent messages .. in our DNA, ...scientists don`t even look at... an intelligent creator.

...The ... world owes its being to something other than itself. The laws of nature did not create the universe ... The laws ... did not exist [before creation]. The laws ... require a preexisting order and preexisting entities governed by that order...``}

Let us begin with your premise. An intelligent, neigh, an omniscient and omnipotent creater (God, Vishnu, al-Lah, Jehova, whatever) exists. Okay, no problems so far. No one can prove or disprove his/her/its existence. Its a matter of personal inclination. But, lets, for the moment grant that such a superbeing is an undisputed reality.

How do you extrapolate from that any of what you claim about the divine origin of present (or past) religions? God`s existence is one thing, but his alleged communication with us humans is quite another. One does not have to follow the other.

Santa Claus may well exist. But that still does not mean that He is the one who brings the presents at Christmas. That could easily be blamed on mummy and daddy. Hope you see the point.

...SR

re:#269 by parthaab
Though this forum is coming to an end and i am a late entrant (my apologies!), i just want to have my little say.
Religion is much understood in the world and is looked upon with cynicism in the west.
Let me narrate a popular joke to illustrate my point.
One American spiritual aspirant heard about this popular Guru somewhere in the hills of Himalayas and went there to learn if the Guru has any wisdom to impart. On reaching the hill top after a great effort, he asked the Guru: ``So, what is the truth?``. The Guru replied innocently ``The truth, my son, is the rainbow that u see in the sky``. American laughed and said ``surely it is not that simple. We know why a rainbow happens``. Crestfallen, the Guru replies ``You mean it is not the rainbow!``.
That pretty much sums up the cynicism in the outside world about religion. Much of the west has seen only wars, strife, murder, meyheim due to religion.
Religion, like Yogananda said, is just like a map to reach God. If u do not read that map well, u will not reach your destination.
The real thing is spirituality: search for God shorn of all pretenstions, all images. The way Paul Brunton did and wrote a book detailing his search (The search for secret India by Dr Paul Brunton). The way many many other sincere seekers have searched for centuries.
You seem to be either a cynic or an atheist masquerading as an intellectual. Now, i am also a man of science and live in the west but i have implicit faith in God and feel Him every moment of my life. My life will be a total waste without His presence.
There is no contradiction between science and spirituality as the Great masters saw it. People did not know the cause of death in thousands by that deaded scourge plague even 2 centuries ago until the causative microbe was discovered and seen under a microscope. Seeing is believing. Once Leeunhoeck discovered the microscope, all the microbes in the air and everywhere were waiting to be discovered. The technique was developed before belief in science gained ground.
Great masters have, similarly, left a plethora of techniques. They only entreat u to come and try it out. As somebody said: No great master has ever said ``OH my God, this is all a big scam``. You can look up Yogasutra by Patanjali on the website. It is now translated into english. Here is a way of reaching God, a step wise process, well detailed many centuries ago. Nobody said it is easy but the technique is there.

The truth is: God is the only reality!
There have been many, many spiritual masters who have seen and conversed with God. Ramakrishna Paramhamsa saw God in various forms (as Rama, Krishna, Jesus) and also as a pure light. Landscape of India is dotted with such people. He does exist but may see no reason in revealing Himself to most of us who are spiritual dwarfs still swimming in the sea of ignorance.
He has, however, revealed himself to some well meaning intellectuals if only for a fleeting second but even that has changed their lives. Ramana Maharishi had a death like experience when he was just 17 years old, had direct contact with the Spirit that never ever left him. He gave up everything to meditate near the holy hills of Arunachala for the rest of life and became the foremost proponent of Advaita, a school of spiritual thought that has many adherents even in the west (His foremost followers were 3 westerners: Arthrur Osborne, Major Chadwick, Paul Brunton).
St. Aqinos, the clergyman of 12th century Rome had a fleeting vision of creation while giving a sermon from the pulpit. He was writing a great religious treatise (deemed a masterpiece even before it was finished) that was expected to be finished soon and eagerly awaited by the public but soon after that vision he threw his life`s work in the dustbin saying ``compared to what has been revealed to me today, what i am doing seems like a straw``.
Jesus of Nazareth lived and talked with God everyday. It is a difficult task as he strode above the people of his times so much that even his own close followers sometimes doubted him (doubting Thomas) and even betrayed him (Judas, one of his closest associates).
I hope that people will turn more to spirituality than to be focussed on religious images, customs, beliefs etc that are meant mostly for the beginners who do not know how to organize their lives. The tragedy is: most people still belong to this group and few have grown beyond symbols, religious fanaticism (my religion is better than yours) etc.
Sridhar

Re: # 281

Hi Sridhar ( from India, I presume) ,

Should we ban the Koran and Bible?

Only one out of four Americans believes life on earth today has evolved through natural selection. Just under half of all Americans believe the natural world was created in its present form by God in six days as described in Genesis. They believe, incredibly, that the earth is only a few thousand years old.

Like megachurches, you will be amazed at the scale and subject matter of the religious books on display at an American bookstore. Particularly fascinating is the Religious Fiction section. Believe me, we`re not talking C.S. Lewis here. Check out the biggest shelf presence of the lot, the Left Behind series of novels by ``prophecy scholar`` Tim LaHaye with Jerry B Jenkins — 60 million volumes sold so far — and you will get an inkling of the intensity of the apocalyptic ``holy living in an unholy age`` crusade against science in modern America.

In 1999, George Bush gave the idea his blessing in an interview, saying that he favoured the teaching of ``different schools of thought`` and adding: ``I mean, after all, religion has been around a lot longer than Darwinism ... I believe God did create the world. And I think we`re finding out more and more and more as to how it actually happened.``

Since 9/11 you often hear the argument that the liberal western world must study and learn more about Islam in order to better comprehend the fundamentalist Muslim mind. Maybe so. But you do not often hear people advocating similar inquisitiveness about the fundamentalist Christian mind. Perhaps that too ought to change.

First of all let me congratulate all of you who have taken part in this debate. It has been a very fruitful discussion. The heartening point to note was that the sub-continentlites have started to think objectively. This had been a mistake on the part of our ancestors who could not see the world through the prism of religion and god and did not look at the world objectively, the way westerners started doing in 14th/15th century. The another thing which came out was the attitude of Pakistanis. Pakistan is labelled as soon-to-be-talibanised country. On the contrary, Pakistanis have turned out to be more open-minded than Indians as far as religion and God are concerned. Indians stick to their fixed positions either this way or that way.Pakistanis have a more balanced approach here.

Kindly bear with me to give my last words on the subject, as I am recahing a saturation stage.

In todays modern world, God has two meanings or rather two faces. One God is that which is described in the religous scriptures. This God teaches us morals and ethics. Let us call Him as Religous God. In 21st Century, you can do away with religous God because you can say that by now Humans have evolved enough to decide what is good or bad for them. Further, there are modern nation states which stand on the sound foundations of rule of law. So there morals, ethics, principles and ideals were required at one point of time in human history but they are not required now since we have become much more sensible now and can decide our fate.

Well, if your definition of God is limited to above, as is being brought out by Parthaab again and again, then we can definitely do away with God and in turn religion. No problem, I agree in toto.

But there is a problem here. There is another description of God prevailing in the modern world which is not proposed by any Mullah, Padri, Pundit, Granthi, Red-Indian, Bushman, Eskimo or an aborgeny. It comes from the very corridors of science. It comes from the greatest of human minds which are called scientists. When these scientists explore the outer space or the micro-biological world, they are stuck up again and again with question-- what is going on?? Is somebody there which is making the things happen?? This entity is also doubted in the form of God, the creator. Let us call Him as scientific God.

Most of the scientists claim that if at all the mystery of this scientific God can be resolved then it can be resolved at one point only. That is, at the time of creation. Because at that time things were most simple. After that , the world has turned to very complex and is turning out to be more complex as the researches are going on.And the most logical question comes at the point of creation is that whether the creation came out of its own or something ``pre-existed`` the creation?? So far the property of universe shows that there cannot be any effect without a cause. The creation is the effect so logically there must be a cause also.

So far the most accepted theory of creation is the Big-bang Theory which we all know. The theory further states that the Universe is expanding. But the Universe will not keep on expanding eternally--it will stop somewhere and then started shrinking resulting in the so-called ``Singularity`` and thereafter another Big-bang will take place.

The Universe consists of three things--matter, energy and space. When the Universe starts shrinking --what will happen to space. Will it shrink or only the matter will shrink. If you say and can prove conclusively that it is only the matter will shrink and not the space then we can conclude that there is no place of scientific God in this scheme of things. Because, in that case, space will pre-exists the creation and space then is eternal, without any end or begining and is absolute. In such a scenario, where would God exist--either within the space or in the singularity. In both cases, space will be the higher plane than God. In such a scenario, even if God exists, then it will exists beyond the space and will have no meaning once the creation starts.

Unfortunately(or fortunately??), scientists are of the view that the space also gets shrinked into the singularity. That is at the time of Big-bang, even space did not exist. So we come to the same old position--what existed before the creation??

In my last words, whichever way you look at the things, you reach a dead end and there you find God standing..... and .........smiling.

I have given up and accepted Him as the final truth. God is Great....Allah-o-Akbar...Ishwar Allah Tere Naam.

Thank you and God Bless You all. Thanks once again.

Re: # 277

Brfore I can preempt more charlatan science getting propounded on the site by the Islamists read this :

Sahih Bukhari Volume 4, Book 54, Number 421
Narrated Abu Dhar:
The Prophet asked me at sunset, ``Do you know where the sun goes (at the time of sunset)?`` I replied, ``Allah and His Apostle know better.`` He said, ``It goes (i.e. travels) till it prostrates Itself underneath the Throne and takes the permission to rise again, and it is permitted and then (a time will come when) it will be about to prostrate itself but its prostration will not be accepted, and it will ask permission to go on its course but it will not be permitted, but it will be ordered to return whence it has come and so it will rise in the west. And that is the interpretation of the Statement of Allah: ``And the sun Runs its fixed course for a term (decreed). That is The Decree of (Allah) The Exalted in Might, The All-Knowing.``

I am sure every body can understand that it is not a scientific theory but a view of the world utilizing common everyday metaphors ......................but the literalist idiots would like to see a scientific theory in it...............

re:#272 by parthaab
In what is now believed to be the second Nicean council meeting at Constantinople in 4th century AD, older held dogmas about meditation, reincarnation etc were expunged from the christian belief system and deemed heretical.
A new Jesus then had to be resurrected without presenting his life but only his teachings. In his real life, Jesus not only taught but also meditated and attained salvation (Nirvikalpa samadhi per many eastern mystics) through a process well known to Yogis (read The autobiography of a yogi by Yogananda for more insights). However, the christian church had already deemed Jesus the only begotten son of God, so how could he be shown as somebody who toiled for salvation! He was already a son of God (or by some, God himself) at birth. So, again u will not find much about the early childhood of Jesus in modern bible, how he became a great spiritual power that he truly was.
The whole exercise of expunging all the undesirable elements from Jesus`s life to make him look divine, even to the extent of deeming his birth ``virgin birth``. This goes contrary to scientific teachings. Thus, controversy surrounds even his birth (http://www.askwhy.co.uk/christianity/0290.html). I am not a christian but i learnt more about the teachings of christianity from The autobiography that literally celebrates jesus as a true Yogi, at par with the best east has ever produced. Eastern yogis, sages believe Jesus attained the ``samadhi`` the same way as Buddha did, by intense penance, meditation. One German scholar actually says he visited and lived with Buddhist Llamas in Ladakh where old scrolls mention his name!
This is why one finds mostly Jesus`s teachings in bible and not a whole lot about his early life as a child and how he became a spiritual force.
Sridhar

#272, Parthab, {``The Jesus figure of the Gospels is clearly a constructed character, not a real person.``}

You are on to something here. If you look at some of the books that were considered and discarded from inclusion in the Bible, you will find the Gospels of Thomas, Mary, and Nicodemus. Some of these books were revered by a sect called Gnostics, who were eliminated by the ``real`` Christians for being heretics. Similarly, the Old Testament does not include several books that explained Genesis, incest practiced by Adam`s kids, and the lives of Enoch and others early humans. Some books made it, others were burned, some were hidden - all resulting in an ancient conspiracy to create a sanitized version of God, man, and prophets.

The Jesus figure of the Gospels is clearly a constructed character, not a real person. He spends his time telling us things, not living his life. He isn`t even shown working for a living. Whoever penned the gospels started off with the question, `Now what should our hero protagonist look like, to say the wise things we want to put in his mouth?`, and then they painted the required characteristics into their fable-hero.

Ask any religious person to prove there is a real live-and-kicking god out there. They won`t be able to. Yet they think it is rational to pursue religion. It isn`t. It`s time religion got abolished.

How this religion nonsense ever got a foothold in the world is baffling: probably it did so because the deceivers were cunning and the rest couldn`t read.

Religion is a load of mumbo-jumbo invented to deceive people, and it has no place in the modern world, where people can think for themselves and should be asking for proof of what is claimed.

kalihawa {``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.``}

Black wind,

So what does that make you? Some dark wind passed by the Dalai Lama?

Oriya boy turns Lord Shiva’s wife


After D K Panda, the Uttar Pradesh senior IPS officer who triggered a hue and cry by calling himself ‘Doosri Radha’, a teenager from Orissa’s Balasore district has become the talk of the town for claiming himself to be Goddess Parvati and ‘marrying’ Lord Shiva.

According to local newspapers, Bhawani Das, the son of hotelier Ashok Das, solemnised his marriage to Lord Shiva last Thursday with the full support and approval of his family.

According to reports, for the past one and a half years, Maa Bhagawati, another incarnation of Goddess Parvati, was entering Bhawani’s body at regular intervals and he had reportedly acquired a divine power to cure people of their ailments and predict their future.


A month ago, under the influence of the goddess, the boy expressed his desire to marry Lord Shiva who, according to him, was residing at the house of Gadhadhar Nayak — a retired officer of a nationalised bank, at Arad Bazar area of the town.

Bhawani’s family and Mr Nayak arranged the boy’s marriage with Lord Shiva last Thursday. The marriage was solemnised as per Hindu rites and tradition. Bhawani — dressed like a bride wearing a red saree, bangles, bindi et al — waited at his father’s place while an idol of Lord Shiva was brought in a baarat from Mr Nayak’s house. The procession was as colourful as any other Hindu marriage with music band and fireworks accompanying it. About hundred people took part as baaratis and a majority of them were women.

There is considerable debate about ``creation out of nothing`` in the forum.

Well, there cannot be anything as ``nothing`` in the universe. Even the empty space cannot be termed as ``nothing`` because science ,along with matter and energy, considers space also a part of universe. Scientifically speaking, the Universe consists of matter, energy and space. So far .it has been known that matter converts into energy and energy dissipates in the space. What happens to the energy after dissipating in space is not known--whether it gets converted back into matter or gets converted into energy or space or whatever. So far the reverse process is also not known. I dont think so far energy could be converted into matter(please correct me if I am wrong) then what to talk about space into energy and energy into matter.

So when ``nothing`` itself doesnt exist, there cannot be any question of any creation out of it. Well, if you mean ``nothing`` as empty space devoid of any matter or energy, then it may be too early to say-because so far we dont know whether space can be converted into matter or energy.But possibility cannot be ruled out.

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.

Religion and science :

Religion = Science of the mind.

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

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: # 255

``I do not understand the attempts to satisfy religious beliefs with science.``

Science ultimately will get dissolved in the religion. Whatever science will not be able to explain will be explained by the religion.

Re: # 263

talkative-mirror:

``Whatever science will not be able to explain will be explained by the religion. ``


Here’s a question that scientific research has so far not been able to answer:

Drugs crystallize in different polymorphic forms. It is very difficult to determine whether any particular drug form would change its polymorphic form during storage. If it does, it may change its physical properties and hence bio-availability. Academics and industry have spent a lot of resources trying to understand why drugs change form with-out any rhyme or reason. So far there is no answer.

Can you point me to some religious texts/religion which can answer this puzzle?

Re: # 268

But why should religion answer this question?? Is Drug-making a part of any religion?? Its a pure science and it is to be answered by further observation and experimentation. I dont think religion has any role to play in it. But if science completely fails to answer this question, then religous angle will definitely come-in. It would not be proper to answer it now, I feel.

Re: # 263 bolta:
>>>Science ultimately will get dissolved in the religion. Whatever science will not be able to explain will be explained by the religion.

What an unflinching idealism yaar....

Re: # 265

Its a bitter truth. The race will be won by religion and not science.

Science is now reaching a plateau. It is stagnating. It does not have a long life. yes Technology will progress. In the coming years, you will see more and more cheaper materials, cheaper gadgets, miniaturised components etc. But the basic science i.e. objective exploration of the nature will not move much further from now.

The recent survey has shown that more than 75% of the people of the world believe in God. The highest percentage is Philipines(91%) and then India(87%). Pakistan score was 78%(oops.. and we Indians thought Pakistan is a religous fundamentalist country). Now when science at its peak could not convince the world about non-existence of God, it is unlikely to do so in future.

So bolo God is Great.Allah-o-Akbar.Ishwar-Allah Tere Naam.

Re: # 266Gods and Goddesses

``Ishwar-Allah Tere Naam``

Which one do YOU believe in? Here is a list of the different Gods that Indians of yore believed and worshipped : P.S. Not started on the Persian or South American gods yet.

Below is a listing of the main gods and their websites.


Ambaa-L - An email-group devoted to the Divine Mother, offering hymns & texts singing Her glory.
Lord Ayyappa Sarana Ghosha - A website in Andrapradesh displaying Lord Ayyappa`s 108 names transliterated from the Telugu language.
Goddess Durga, India - This site from Dhanbad, India is dedicated to worship of Goddess Durga & portrays the festival of Durga Puja as it is celebrated in the autumn with different festivities & rituals all over India, but especially in Dhanbad.
Worship of Lord Ganesha - Ganesha`s 108 names; the importance of Ganesha Chaturthi; 55 famous Ganesha Temples in India, compliments of Shivaji Park, an online community in Mumbai.
God in Hindu Dharma and Temples, featuring many of the primary Hindu Gods.
The Eight Kuladevathas of Kerala - H.H. Sudheendra Thirtha Swamiji once told the Kerala community that their welfare would be adversely effected if they failed to continually worship their Kuladevathas or family Deities; he identified 8 important Kuladevathas for them to choose from & build temples to: Sri MahaGanapathi, Sri Lakshmi Narasimha Mahamaya, Sri Damodar, Sri Nagesh, Sri Ramanath Shantheri Kamakshi, Sri Mahalasa Narayani, Sri Mahalakshmi & Sri Devaki Krishna Ravalnath.
``Loving Ganesha, Hinduism`s Endearing Elephant-faced God`` - Himalayan Academy Publications continues its tradition of providing in-depth internet resources with the on-line release of the entire text of this very popular book by Satguru Sivaya Subramuniyaswami.
``Merging With Siva`` - Himalayan Academy Publications offers another on-line release of the entire text of this profound book on God Siva and all about God Realization by Satguru Sivaya Subramuniyaswami.
Lord Muruga - A must-see website for Tamils, Saivites and Muruga Bhaktars. Shakti Vel Muruga!
Lord Muruga - A comprehensive & informative website for Truth Seekers on the South Indian Deity, Bhagavan Sri Skanda, Son of Siva, also known as Lord Muruga & Lord Subramaniam.
Lord Muruga - An exceptionally good website in Tamil & English about worship of Lord Muruga in his Arupadai Veedu.
Sri Sita Rama & the Ramayana - A site dedicated to the glorification of The Ramayana and Lord Rama.

Re: # 269

When you have listed so many Hindu Gods & Godesses, it would be prudent to find out their meanings also.

I would only say that they are not God. They are Devis & Devtas and not Bhagwan/ Ishwar/Parmatma.

Re: # 266

``Ishwar-Allah Tere Naam``

Which one do YOU believe in? Here is a list of the different Gods that Egyptians of yore believed and worshipped : P.S. Not started on the Roman or Greek, gods yet.

Below is a listing of the main gods and their primary place of worship.

Amaunet - A female counterpart to Amon and one of the primordial gods of the Hermopolitian Ogdoad (group of eight gods). She was also worshipped at Thebes along with Amon and Mut.

Amon - Usually associated with the wind, or things hidden, and was also of the Hermopolitian Ogdoad. At Thebes he became Amon-Re, king of the gods. He was part of the Theban Triad, along with Mut and Khonsu.

Antaios - He was originally a double god, ``the two falcons``, that was later joined to create one, probably that of Horus.

Anuket - Worshipped at Elephantine, she was associated with the gazelle.

Apis - Seen as the bull with a solar disk between its horns, Apis was associated with Osiris and Ptah.

Aton - Also known as Aten, he was worshipped at Tell `Amarna.

Atum - A primordial god that was represented in the form of a human and a serpent. He was the supreme god in the Heliopolitan Ennead (group of nine gods) and formed with Re to create Re-Atum.

Hathor - The goddess of love, dance and alcohol was depicted as a cow. At Thebes she was also the goddess of the dead. She was worshipped at Dendera as the consort of Horus and Edfu, and was associated with Isis at Byblos.

Horus - The earliest royal god was the shape of a falcon, with the sun and moon as his eyes. The sky-god was the ruler of the day. The many forms of Horus are; Re-Harakhti, Harsiesis, Haroeris, Harendotes, Khenti-irti, Khentekhtay (the crocodile-god), and Harmakhis, which is Horus on the horizons, in which the Sphinx of Giza is considered to be his aspect.

Isis - The mother of Horus and sister and consort of Osiris was worshipped at Philae. Associated with Astarte, Hathor, Nut and Sothis, she was later worshipped over the entire Roman Empire.

Khnum - Resembling a human with a rams head, he was worshipped in Hypselis, Esna, Antinoe and Elephantine.

Khonsu - the moon god was the son of Amon and Mut. The main temple at Karnak is dedicated to him.

Min - God of fertility coalesced with Amon and Horus. Min was mainly worshipped at Coptos and Akhmim.

Mut - Worshipped at Thebes, she was a consort of Amon and part of the Theban Triad (group of three gods).

Nut - Mother of the sun, moon and heavenly bodies.

Osiris - He is regarded as the dead king that watches over the nether world and is rejuvenated in his son Horus. As the symbol of eternal life he was worshipped at Abydos and Philae.

Ptah - Worshipped in Memphis, he coalesced with Sokaris and Osiris.

Re - He was the sun god of Heliopolis. From the fifth Dynasty onwards he becomes a national god and is combined with the supreme deity Amon.

Serapis - He was mainly worshipped in Alexandria and was later worshipped by the Greeks as Zeus. He was never fully accepted by the Egyptians in the Ptolemaic period.

Sekhmet - She was part of the Memphite Triad with Ptah and Nefertem. She was the mistress of war and sickness.

Seth - The son of Geb and Nut in the Heliopolitan Ennead was in the form of an animal that has no zoological equivalent. This powerful god was regarded as god of the desert, making him a god of foreign lands.

Shu - He was an ancient cosmic power and was regarded as the god of the air and the bearer of heaven.

Sobek - He was a crocodile god and was worshipped at the Faiyum and Ombos. During the middle Kingdom he coalesced with Re, Sobek-Re, and was worshipped as primordial deity and creator-god.

Thoth - He was worshipped as a baboon in Hermopolis. He was the god of sacred writings and wisdom.

The kings of ancient Egypt were an integral part of religion. They formed a bridge over the chasm dividing the people and the gods.

Re: # 267

None of them.

Because religion has moved since and One, Single, Monotheist, Formless, Omnipresent, All powerful God described as Allah in Quoran, Ishawar in Bhagwadgita and simply God in christianity is the most accepted definition of God in which most of the believers have faith.

The concept of Ishwar/Allah does not subscribe to multiple Gods each responsible for some natural process. It is one single God who is the creator, preserver and destructor of the worlds.

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.

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?

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.............

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 ..........

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

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.

Re: # 245

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

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

mannyd, thanks. :)

Romair:

You are in a pointless discussion. We have all ``admitted defeat`` and accepted that science has not provided answers to the mysteries of life and death and may never do so. Now, can we get to the other debate that people want to engage in, i.e., the myths and superstitions purveyed by religions that they know what scientists do not? And why is Satya Baba a charlatan but long dead people claiming to be prophets or Gods were not so?

parthaab:

I have never accepted Sai Baba`s miracles to be anything but tricks. I was only giving him as a benchmark. Why is it easy to dismiss him as a charlatan while accepting equally ridiculous claims of long-dead people based on hearsay.

Re: # 242

dost-mitttar,

....... i think by now you have an appreciation for the pain of the pakistani people at the hands of their omniscient military :)

..... so be gentle ........

Satya Sai baba has been challenged several times to submit his `miracles` to scrutiny. He is escaping every time into she shelter of the hundreds of gullible devotees that surround him. Not only the Bible but many religious books and mythologies contain such stories as walking on water, lifting up a mountain or breaking the moon. They never happened. They are just myths ascribed to prophets to make them look great and extraordinary. This very attempt has distorted the picture of the prophets and separated them from the people. Christ did not require walking on water to prove his greatness. His Sermon on the Mount, service to the people and chastisement of anything in sincere were sufficient to make him respectable. On the other hand by ascribing miracles to great men, the usefulness of their lives was lost, since people worshipped them rather than adopting the way of life which they taught and showed by example. If `miracles alone would make a man great, every juggler would be great.

The belief in god has little to do with miracles. The faith is an expression of the slave mind of man. The vested interests in slavery divert attention and side track thinking of miracles. The greatness of anyone consists in honest living and service to the people but never in making `miracles.` Those who talk of miracles are either dupes or cheats.

Re: # 240

I think Mr.Parthaab, you are confusing many things together. That is, God, religion and the deeds done by human beings in the name of religion.

Let us take Islam. Today there is cry of Jehad from certain quarters in Islam. But the thing is that out of 114 or chapters in the Holy Quoran, Jehad is mentioned in only one or two chapters. Further, Jehad is permissible under certain conditions. In balance 113 or so chapters Quoran teaches tolerance only. But if a few people hijack the whole religion out of muscle power, then the religion is not to be blamed. Yes..we ordinary people have to fight continously with whatever resources we have against these demagouges.

I agree with you that certain miracles are mentioned in the scriptures of all religions including Quoran. But the fact is that Jesus, Prophet Mohammed are not revered because of the miracles they performed. The are revered for the overall message they have given to mankind.

I dont agree that faith in God is a sign of slave mentality. Faith in God or for that matter in anything comes from within. From one`s own self. It cannot be taught or forced upon anybody.

Caste system was based upon faith in karma and rebirth. It laid down that wicked characters were destined to be born in lower castes. So the assumption of division of labour and specialization of functions do not hold good in respect of the caste system. On the contrary, caste system held people apart in isolations in grades of degradation ending in untouchability. Therefore caste system is antisocial and inhuman. It subsisted in early times when people were religiously superstitious. In this age of democracy and equality, caste system is not only outmoded, but opposed to social justice and love for equality.

Division of labour is a social convenience and skills can be hereditarily communicated. But there should be no bar on change of professions according to change of tastes and no profession should be held inferior to another. In the caste system there was arrogance of intellectual professionalism in the Brahmins, while manual labour and tasks of sanitation were deemed menial and loathsome.

Re: # 239

Caste system is prevalent in only One religion i.e. Hinduism. It is not there in Islam, Christianity, Budhism and Sikhism.

Even Hindusim has now accepted it to be a scourage and efforts are being made to eradicate caste-system altogether.

The prejudice against atheism is a fact. People are accustomed to consider atheism wicked. Bible and Quran rail at ``unbelievers``.

``The American Atheist`` recounts the disabilities imposed upon the atheists in U.S.A. It tells that ``Atheists cannot adopt. Atheist cannot have blank dog tags in the army. Atheists cannot join the Masons Scouts or V.F.W. without first lying by taking an oath of belief in god. Atheists are now excluded from government employment, unless they lie. Atheists have difficulty with passports. Atheists cannot even purchase time on most T.V. and radio stations.``

phir ham apni bajatay hein.

dhoom dhoom tananana, tana na na ray.........

Re: # 237

yes.Why not.........

Kal kya hoga kisko pata,
Abhi zindagai ka lelo mazaa.........

Would somebody explain to me what is the point we are trying to make here ?

Re: # 233

God created Man or Man created God??

Re: # 234 yeah but these older folks are getting into some obscure discussions in which one is trying to disprove what other doesn`t want to talk about.

Re: # 235

Apni apni daphli aur apna apna raag(One`s own drum and one`s own drumbeat)

hamidm mian #231: ``newton and einstein.....heisenberg .......``

Do explain to me how Einstein and Hiesenberg discard what I am saying. Don`t they simply prove it even more........It is, infact, Einstein`s e = mc2, which shows that while energy and matter can switch from one to the other, if one is 0, the other will be 0..........

`` if you try hard enough you can come up with a scenario where given a different set of conditions, the definition of ``nothing`` might be different ...........``

Do point me to these scenarios. This what I am asking you to do. If you are so sure that the scientific theorires around energy and matter are wrong, then educate me. Seriously speaking. I am more than happy to change my mind. Unlike yourself, I don`t have ideological beliefs. I try to follow science........

One cannot pick and chose science, i.e. accept it when it suits our ideologies. And simply state that it is false and will be proven false, if it does not suit our ideologies. As I keep saying, you are stuck in an ideological comfort zone. Anything that challenges is simply discarded........

Can one present enough scenarios, where the tooth fairy exists also? Science says the tooth fairy does not exist. But I am sure it will be proven to be false, someday. After all, I believe the tooth fairy does exist..........

I thought I had my hands full debating with Urstruly, how word of mouth hadith could not have passed accruately, over 200 years. He says it can be done, without explaining how. I suppose there is a tiny outside chance that it could. Though highly unlikely. Some small statistical probability. However it is more difficult to get you to admit that science does not allow matter and energy to be created from nothing. Science says there is not even a tiny probability of this happening. Yet you are convinced that it can be done...........Yet keeping it a secret from me, how you know..........

Re: # 232


romair mian,

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) !!!!!

.... .... 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) and now you want to go back to your ``0=0 interpretation`` of poor einstein`s theory ...... the way i understand it is that all he said was that energy (including radiation and light) has the properties of mass and one form of energy can be transformed into another .......... but i don`t think science has discovered all forms of energy yet and there is no definition of ``nothing`` ...... and yes, i am perfectly willing to believe that one day someone will be able to prove that under certain conditions einstein`s theory might not hold up (just like newton`s) ......... what happens if a particle is accelerated to a million times the speed of light ? .......will it disappear or become a form of energy that we cannot see, feel or measure .?......... . i am willing to bet that it becomes god !

........ now i have exhausted my knowledge of particle physics and have nothing more to add except point out, once again, that my beef is with the character of god not with his existence .......

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???

romair,

........ i see you are still stuck on that energy thing ..... let me repeat what i said :`` i will not dignify your clueless query about ``broken laws`` with an answer except for two words: newton and einstein ``

...... and you might want to read anil`s follow-up with heisenberg .......

..... it is futile arguing with a fauji who knows everything ......... if you try hard enough you can come up with a scenario where given a different set of conditions, the definition of ``nothing`` might be different ........... are you sure that we know everything about particle physics ?.......... if so, then you can tell all those folks to stop wasting their time and money playing around at cern, fermi and stanford ...............

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.``

Yes this is true. And all the laws you quoted and all the research that is being done, is furthur solidifying the fact that matter and energy cannot be created out of nothing........

There are many experiments that take place in the world, which do (or did) not take all the parameters into consideration. At the same time, one has to prove they are wrong, before overturning them. That is what science demands. One cannot assume they are wrong.

I have asked all of you to spefically point out any research that is even hinting towards the direction that matter and energy can be created out of nothing. You have answered all the questions, except the one I have asked. The only answer to that question, you have presented, is that science is wrong. And will itself fix this problem. How you know this to be true, you cannot explain. But you just know........

It`s like someone saying, while I cannot answer who created God or when I will find Him. I will one day find Him. And if science of today says I cannot, well then the science must be wrong. When asked, can you point me to any scientific theories which are hinting that you will find God. They say no, but certain scientific laws were altered, hence any law that states I cannot find God, will be overtuned also!!

This is called ideology. Being set on one result and declaring any research to be false, if it points away from that result...............One cannot play both sides of the game. One cannot push science when it suits one`s purposes. And then disregard it when it doesn`t..........

Using this logic, one day we will discover Santa Claus and his reindeers as well. Let`s keep hoping!! If science today says, Santa Claus cannot fly. Don`t worry. The science is wrong. It will, no doubt, get overturned one day...........Why? Well because we know Santa Claus exists and can fly............

I think yourself, DM and Hamidm mian are ideologically stuck in a comfort zone. And are completely unwilling to even consider anything, even if it is proven through science, that challenges your comfort zones. Much like people who follow religion are stuck in a comfort zone. Give them any science, and they will simply say, the science is wrong and will be overturned someday. How? They don`t know. It just will..........Much like what the three of you are arguing........

Are you willing to even consider the possibility that the science maybe correct and your comfort zones are false. That the fact that matter and energy cannot be created out of nothing, will not be overturned............That perhaps your ideology that science cannot have a paradox is incorrect............

Anil/hamidm/DM #: I am quite amazed by your comments. I thinkyou are following ideologies and not science. You have come up with conclusions that you want to be correct, and are trying to find the science that will support your conclusions. When you cannot find the science, or if the science points in exactly the opposite direction of your conclusions, then you completely discard the science. And simply state that one fine day it will be overturned.........

That is not how one should pursue science. Science should be pursued with an open mind. One should let it lead and follow along and accept the coclusions it generates. Not first define the results, and only accept the science that points to those results........

I have presented specific proven scientific theories on the creation of matter and energy. Not a single one of you has presented a single fact that can deny these theories and the paradoxes they create. Not one. DM is usually quite fast on Google and finds something, when he is commenting about things he doesn`t understand. Even he hasn`t found anything.....

Hamidm mian has said, he has no idea about anything that will show how matter and energy can be created out of nothing. He has even gone on to admit that he even has no clue about the field he is discussing. He admits that science, itself, states that matter and energy cannot appear from thin air, i.e. this is no longer an unknown. It is a proven scientific known. Yet he still states that, No, someday his views will be proven correct. Some day, the same science will, itself, state that it was wrong. How, why, when and where, he has no idea. It will just happen. Because it must to suit his view that science can solve anything everything!

Anil has compared me to those who burned scientists on the stake! Why? Simply because I am stating a proven scientific fact, i.e. energy and matter cannot be created from nothing. And I am highlighting the paradox it creates. I am arguing science. However, this paradox creates a dent in his belief system. A dent that he has not presented any argument to fill. He is not going to allow proven scientific laws to change his belief system. The belief system must remain correct, regardless of what science states........

Not one single person has presented any info on the incorrectness of the scientific fact, I presented. They have pointed to some other experiments that were carried out without considering all the parameters. And have extrapolated that, due to this, all experiments (specifically those that do not suit their views of the world) will someday be overturned also..........

If one uses this line of reasoning, then I state that one day science will prove that the earth is made of jello and cheese. The current proof and experimentation that it is not made of jello and cheese is wrong........I believe it is made of jello and cheese, and it will be proven someday.....

Truly amazing!!

There are no four or three or five groups. There are only two groups--one those who believe and others who do not believe.

The believers(atlest in this forum) are also well aware of modern scientific theories look at the world as a whole. They also do not negate the existence of God. They try to analyse the world objectively and whereever they find the gaps they try to fill those voids with the hypothesis of God. They find that when God is filled in those voids ,the things become clear to them and that generates their faith in God.

The non-believers do not think objectively like above--they have a particular mindset. They do not have any reason why they disprove the existence of God. They only point to the wrongdoings in the name of God /religion etc. done by the believers to which they dont agree.

The thinking of belivers is absolute whereas the thinking of non-believers is relative.

Dost-mittar #206: ``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.``

As I told you, this is not what I am discussing. I was simply discussing what science has or has not proven. And trying to figure out the views of people who have ideological beliefs, and will not accept scientific proof, if it violates their ideological beliefs.

``What they will find out I obviously do not know and wont even be alive to find out if they ever did.``

If one uses this argument, then everything is up for grabs. Anyone can use this argument. Maybe they will find that Santa Claus and the Easter bunny actually exist. As does the tooth fairy. Should we assume that, this will happen........

I would like to suggest to you that you view the things that science has already proven and disproven, and formed laws around. And you accept those, even if they lead to results that go against, things that you ideologically believe in......

In fact, I find it kind of odd that you, of all people, set aside scientific beliefs when they do not suit your ideological beliefs, and state that alien beings may prove them wrong someday. While at the same time, you critique others of having ideological beliefs.

You need to make up your mind. Do you follow science or not? I follow it. And do not denounce it, if it doesn`t suit my purposes............

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