Religion In A Clubby Hole

Re: # 96

That way there is no end to it. ``Who created God``, ``Why somebody created God`` ``Why did God create us``. This type of chain of question can go on and on.

The humanity is asking a simple question ``Did anybody create us``. Some say `Yes. God created us``. Some dont agree. The final answer is yet to be found out. The Theists are satisfied that God created us. Now somebody has to prove them wrong.

I feel that there is no point in further complicating the question.

Re: # 97

An atheist is someone who believes that no god or gods exists. That belief is unprovable by definition - you can`t prove a negative. To claim there must be life on other planets is one thing. To claim they are green, 5 foot tall and living on the northern hemisphere of the third planet in the Alpha Centauri system is beyond reasonable speculation.

Re: # 97

While religous fervour continues to drive the irrational to murder thousands in the name of their god, increasing numbers of rational human beings will be drawn to the conclusion that allowing our lives to be dominated by the dubious demands of an unproven deity is a recipe for disaster. The onus is on believers not only to prove the existence of god, but also to prove that their beliefs can be a genuine force for the betterment of mankind.

Re: # 97

``The Theists are satisfied that God created us. Now somebody has to prove them wrong. ``

I do not believe in the Greek gods, the egyptian gods, the roman gods etc. I presume because you insist that their existence cannot be disproved then you must believe in (and worship!) them.

In fact you suggest that any proposition put forward, no matter how outrageous, must be believed in if it cannot be disproved.

``Camparing religion with science is an ego-trip for the religiously blinded.``

Well said.................compare a scientist with some religious person.........you would find the arrogance of the foul mouthed religious person nauseating......................

When scientists say universe is expanding I used to think what they meant was that matter is spreading deeper into empty space. Now I realize that actually space is stretching. There is no limit of universe in same way as earth has no edge. My idea of universe was that there is a center of universe and then a huge sphere of matter surrounding it and then limitless empty space. That’s not the fact. Matter is uniformly distributed all over the universe there is no center just as there is no edge. Space is folded in the same way as we fold long slender wire into a loop. The fact is that when universe was created some 14 billion years ago in a big bang the entire universe was compressed in just a point called singularity. All this is derivable through General theory of Relativity / Quantum Mechanics as well as a large part of this theory has been verified through observations. There are still some loose ends but there is general consensus on origin of universe.

What is not however clear is who set the initial parameters for singularity or if they were just random! Similarly we are stuck at the origin of evolution i.e. life evolved from mono-cellular life form in primordial sea is agreed. But whether rich organic sea made membrane which folded into cell and life began on its own due to presence of amino acids which are basic building blocks or first cell was seeded into primordial sea is a matter of debate.

Does any Mullah or Pundit understand this?

Romair:

You misunderstood my post. I had used your or my names in a hypothetical sense to make a general point, not about you and me specifically.

Personally, I have evolved beyond my ``brainwashing``. I have rejected all rituals, at least conceptually even if I might sometimes observe them for conformity, just like I offer sajdas and flowers when I visit a dargah. I have rejected the concept of avtars and I have more or less rejected the concept of rebirth. So, I certainly do not accept what I was told.

No one is arguing that science provides answers to these questions, at least not yet. So your repeating that argument is just fighting a straw man. All I am saying is that people generally are brainwashed from their childhood as to the ``right`` answers to these questions. We have been told at chowk that, in Islam particularly, one of the first things a child is told is not to question anything in the Quran and to question the Prophet`s credibility is the worst crime one could commit. If this is true, and a child grows into an adult with a daily dose of this brainwashing, how can one expect most people to retain a modicum of objectivity on this issue.

Think of a controlled experiment. 20 babies born on a day are raised by an institution where no religious training is provided , except for a general background on comparative relgions and no attempt is made to veer them towards atheism either. Do you believe that the percentage of these kids who would be attracted by various religious beliefs would be the same as in the society in general?

parthab #94 On 1. The answer is already there in Sam`s message of #84 (the part about God not having a big ego). 2. The answer is: God does not run a socialist state where you receive cradle to grave medical attention.

All that God cares about, as Sam noted, is that you be nice to one another, use the faculties you have (common sense, eyes, ears), and learn about things. (This is the Quranic message in a nutshell, and as I understand it is quite similar to the message of all the other religions of the world).

Everything else is bs created by human beings that contradicst the basic point of religion: this includes kowtowing to God (giving offerings in hindu temples, praising Him to high heaven five times a day in muslim mosques, doing the hajj on the assumption that this will ``wash away their sins``) in hopes of getting special favors; religious rituals (which are nothing more than superstitions for unthinking cowards, and which are rife among muslims - and among hindus and roman catholics even more so); a civil service of priests (mullahs among muslims - and among hindus and roman catholics even more organized). On chowk, the self-avowed non-religious individuals are in fact the ones most deeply imprisoned in the web of this form of ``religion``. chowk is littered with posts from hindus ridiculing other religions - a whole article was written on the horrible thought of hindus being ``misled`` into converting to christianity. you yourself were unable to rise above this when you ridiculed all religions in your article except your own.

To free oneself from this ``religous web`` that we ourselves have created, we must start with our own selves. Forget about hindu, muslim, christian. See people as individuals. Appreciate the complexity and grandeur of things around us (and scientific advancement makes more and more clear just how complex and grand creation is). That is all.

amansandhu/avkrishna: Sam must indeed have been a good dog during his earthly life to have been granted an audience with God. :-)

Re: # 95: that is where you are wrong. Romair`s assertion that ``logic`` dictates that there be a ``creator`` falls on its face when playing the ``creation`` game. To go on further and assign some kind of scientific credibility to this thinking is making a mockery of what science and faith actually mean. The circularity of using scripture to prove that God exists is completely unscientific, it is a faith based phenomenon. And this is the only ``proof`` that Creationists have.

Allah made all life, the proof is in the quran. (hain????)

Re: # 104: Where is the proof that this is created by God? One example would be good. Scripture are not proof. No empirical evidence sugggest morality is ordained and established by God. Siht Game theory provides more credible rationale for establishing morality than man made scriptures.

Try this: Three men are on an island. One of them is killed by another. In absence of divine mandates, how soon do you think a law against killing is established?

#107 Please re-read what I wrote at the end ``See people as individuals. Appreciate the complexity and grandeur of things around us (and scientific advancement makes more and more clear just how complex and grand creation is). That is all.``

Did I say above that scientific advancement provides proof of God? I dont think so.

And dont confuse things with riddles - if you have a point to make with those three men on the island, just make it. Lets not make things more complicated than they are.

khurram #: ``There is not enough data at present to form a reasonable hypothesis. So let`s keep looking. No need to resort to unprovable supernatural hypotheses.``

Finally, we have some sort of a discussion going. Thank God (no pun intended)! I was starting to get a bit tired of all these guys who keep letting logic dictated by their political views..........

More than enough data is already available, and science has already forumlated its laws, regarding the questions I asked.........Hence I cannot agree with your, ``not enough data`` theory............

Forget about religion, for a moment, and how gaps are getting filled. Just stick with science. You agree that, at the moment, science cannot answer these questions that I asked. You have stated that there isn`t enough data available. I am not sure in how much detail you have studied these questions, and the data that is available or unavailable...........If you haven`t studied them, then I suggest you do. It is a fascinating area of study.......

From what I have seen and studied, the answers to these questions are not a problem of data, i.e. if we keep researching and science advances enough, the questions will get answered. It is actually a paradoxical anamoly, i.e the more data that is becoming available, the more it seems to indicate that science cannot answer these questions.

It is like defining the value of infinite. Will infinite be defined, if more mathematical data becocmes available? Or are we becoming more and more sure that infinite is becoming more and more undefinable, as more and more data is becoming available? Or suppose, people want to find out whether a nuclear explosion can take place, without an atomic reaction taking place. Should they say that maybe science will discover that it can be done, so we should simply wait. Or if more and more data is becoming available that it cannot be done, then should they accept the results?..........I would suggest that science demands the later............

1. Science (and logic), itself, through its own laws, dictates that things cannot be created from nothing. This is a core fact on which scientific thought is built. If you take away this principle, science itself comes crashing down. There is more than enough data available to support this. Hence we accept this fact.

Now, you can keep hoping that enough data will become available, someday, that proves that things can be created from nothing. I think you would be living in a dreamland and will have to keep waiting. Or you can accept the hard scientific research that matter and energy have to be created from other things. Isn`t this what Einstein proved? ``Proved,`` being the key word. E=mc2 is proven. As are other equations related to matter and energy. They do not require more data. Much like 2 + 2 = 4. It is not going to become 5, if we wait long enough for more data..............More data will simply solidify the fact that it is equal to 4..........

So, lets set aside religion. Do you, at least agree with the hard scientific facts that matter cannot be created from nothing? i.e. if there is a vacuum, air isn`t just going to appear there from nothing? Or do you plan to keep waiting for more data, which, magically, proves that air can appear? Much like people keep waiting for God to show them a sign.......

The second point is regarding organic life appearing from inorganic life: Aristotle thought that organic life could appear from inorganic life. As do you, it seems like. But since then, science has proven this to be impossible. Do you know of any example in the world, from anytime, where organic life, spontaneously, appeared from inorganic life? Even Dr. Abdus Salam says it cannot happen. Out of the billions and gazzillions of examples of organic life being created in the world, from ameoba to human beings, can you provide me with one example which contradicts this......Or can you, at least, provide a theory, which if fed with more data, could prove the creation of organic life from inorganic life?

Once again, if you research this area, what does science tell you? As more and more, ``data`` is becoming available, isn`t science proceeding in the direction of telling us that organic life just cannot appear from inorganic life?

Once again, let`s just look at it from a scientific point of view. No need to worry about filling the gaps. Just talk about science. I think people get too emotional when religion becomes involved. And refuse to think logically. So even if you are an athiest, could you throw light on which direciton more and more data is taking us, with respect to the questions mentioned above? To me, the argument, ``let`s wait for some miraculous data,`` which will turn every scientific research on its head, upside, is not a good enough argument.

The appearance of such data will have to be a, ``miracle.`` And scientific thought does not recognize miracles............

Chaltahai # 66

``Who created God?``

This is not a new question. This question was first addressed and answered by Aristotle who put forth two philosophical concepts to answer that question. These two concepts are:

1. Cause and Effect

2. Theory of Prime Mover

The idea of Cause and Effect is what Romair has explained in his post number 65 in detail by enlisting several scietific examples that come under our perpetual observation. In short, this philosophical concept entails that there must be a Creator that must Cause an Effect. The logic works backward for eaxmple we can ask the following questions in this order:

Q Who made this Chair?

A. It is made by a carpenter named Chaltahi

Q. How did he made it?

A. He took wood and nails..........

Q. Who created wood?

A. Don`t know, Wood comes from trees

Q. Who made trees?

A. Don`t know, Trees are made of cellulose formed by hydrocarbons

Q Who made the hydrocarbons

A. Don`t know, hydrocarbons are made of atoms and subatomic particles.

Q. who made the subatomic particles and atoms

A. Dont know. Subatomic particles are an intermediate form of matter and energy

Q. Who made energy

A. Don`t know but........


So Aristotle used this line of logic and arrived at the idea of Prime Mover - One that Causes the First Creation. He is the Absolute First, the God. If there is no God then our line of logic must breakdown at a known terminal point, but it doesn`t; it can`t, hence there is God.

Re: # 110

Cause and Effect Theory

Q. Who told you about God?

A. My parents

Q. Who told them about God?

A. Their parents

Q. Who told them about God?

A. Their parents

Q. Who told their parents about God?

A. Somebody who `knew` there was God

Q. How did he `know` there is God?

A. Because he was having delusions

Q. How do you know he was deluded?

A. Because I tell you so.

Q. How do you know?

A. Because I `know`

QED. Cause and Effect Theory

Dost-mittar #103: `` had used your or my names in a hypothetical sense to make a general point, not about you and me specifically.``

If one is going to present a hypothesis, then one needs to ensure that the samples used in the hypothesis, prove one`s hypothesis. Otherwise the hypothesis becomes invalid.

``No one is arguing that science provides answers to these questions, at least not yet. So your repeating that argument is just fighting a straw man.``

I am always quite amazed how people can simply write off such debates, with such simplicity. I think they want to avoid indulging in such debates, because they may prove the limitations of their arguments. Religious folks tend to avoid the debate, because it leads to questions they cannot answer. And non-religious or anti-religous folks tend to do the same.........

How can you simply state that science cannot provide answers to these questions, ``yet?`` Have you even studied the questions, and the direction science is proceeding towards? Or are you living in a comfortable state fo ignorance, where you have assumed that someday science will provide the answers and hasn`t done so because enough data isn`t available? My experience has been that whenever I discuss this subject, people simply state what you and Khurram have done, i.e. the, ``not yet`` argument.

The fact is that science has already concluded the answers. It has already proven the questions to be a paradox. It has proven them to be the limiting boundary of science. This assumption that science or human logic is a boundless phenomenon is incorrect. Human mind and its capacity to inquire and research is, infact, finite. Science is a creation of this finite capability, hence it will always be finite, also........

We don`t have to fill this gap with the concept of God or anything else, if you don`t want. But, at least, accept the finiteness of the scientific thought and human intelligence. Or provide a valid counter-argument. Maybe, I haven`t researched the subject enough. Maybe, something can appear from nothing. You, and others, are doing neither. To simply state that some scientific miracle will happen, at sometime in the future, if we wait long enough, is too limiting an approach. Science, itself, does not support such thinking.............