- Prev: Re: The Zonal Acarya System
- Next: Did we actually go to the moon?
- Index: The Sudarsana Archive -- Date Index
- Thread: The Sudarsana Archive -- Topic Index
Date Index | Topic Index
Sudarsana Home madhudvisa@krishna.org
avan@alpha1.csd.uwm.edu (Anthony Paul Van Groningen) wrote:
>Madhudvisa dasa (madhudvisa@krishna.org) wrote:
>: avan@alpha1.csd.uwm.edu (Anthony Paul Van Groningen) wrote:
>:
>: Yes Einstein was a religious man, but this is his theory [it's not my
>: idea I took it from an elementary science book so argue with the
>: scientists not me!]
> What is his theory? Your obviously refering to relevtivity, which
> has nothing to do with a randomness in any way. In fact, it states that
> cause and effect of events cannot be violated. The theory (general and
> special relev. describe gravity and the equivalence of energy and mass
> (e=mc^2). I'm arguing it with you, because you use it as a premise to
> defeat modern cosmology!
There are two things here. The big bang and Einstein's theory of
relativity. His theory makes the BBT possible for the BB is a
transformation of energy into mass. So the actual BB would follow the
e=mc^2 rule. This is not random as you state. But the resulting
universe is created (according to the BBT) by random chemical
combinations in the "mass" created by the BB.
>: Once again, "This is not my idea." I accept Krishna's ideas but,
>: although there is no agreement among the scientists, there are so many
>: different "big bang" theories, scientists generally believe the matter
>: did not exist [as matter] before the "big bang" but was produced as a
>: result of the big bang. For the record Krishna agrees with you. He says
>: before the creation matter existed in an unmanifested form, called the
>: "pradhana". This pradhana was agitated by Krishna's glance and the
>: creation started. I suppose you could call Krishna's glance a "big
>: bang" if you really wanted to...
>
> Colorful, but possible. This is a tricky area, because the laws
> of physics do not apply to this period of time. And that is even stickier,
> because what does the beginning of time mean. There is a lot of dispute
> to this. I'm not sure I agree with "matter did not exist before...."
> The theory suggest that the univers existed as a singularity, of I
> think infinite mass and energy. You are very correct that there are many
> versions of the BBT, and even more alternatives to it.
The "Krishna theory" is MUCH more colorful!
The whole idea of the BBT precludes mass (at least the mass that
subsequently becomes the universe) existing prior to the BB because the
BB TRANSFORMS energy into mass. I suppose there could be other
universes hanging out there though...
We don't accept this idea as I have already said.
: >: the universe. The theory is there, but any good theory should be
>: >: backed up by practical experience. If it is a fact the universe
>: >: emerged from a "big bang" then we should see similar things
>: >: happening in nature. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>: > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>: > Why???? Nothing guarentees that.
>: Look around you. Everywhere things are working in the same way on
>: different scales.
> This is pure rhetoric. It is not NECCESSARILY(sp?) true! This
> is an old trick used to argue theism, called the Argument from Design.
> I don't wanna go in to that , but a good dialouge is by Hume.
The argument you are giving here is just a "scientific" way to defy
common sense...
> A clarification on the subject of fractals. These are mathematical
> entities, abstract ideas. When you look at tree, it is nice to model it
> using fractals, but at some point at the sub-atomic level the model
> breaks down. In other words, the tree stops branching. I've never heard
> of Mandelbrot'S theory. I know of his work, but not to a specific theory.
> If you know it can you please state, because I'm curious to what it is.
I've already stated it above. I went to a lecture he gave at the
Australian National University and what I've said about sums up what he
said. I am just using it because it is convenient, I (as I said before)
just believe Krishna. There are heaps of books but I'm not interested
in reading them...
>: > Of course we have never seen an explosion creating anything!
>:
>: Except the big bang which created the universe???
>:
> Again rhetoric. It created our conception of the universe (Big
> open, dark, stars, galaxy....). It created the structures that we see,
> but these are only human classifications. No energy or matter was created
> I'll leave that to Krishna.
It certainly did create our CONCEPTION of the universe, but is the
universe really like that? Who knows? Certainly not the scientists. It
is at best a model which only partly explains what we observe.
>:
>: No. Not at all. The big bang theory doesn't violate the laws of physics
>: as you have said. The idea is it turns energy [where did the energy
>: come from anyhow?] into mass. So you have plenty of energy stored up in
>: dynamite or atomic bombs, I'm just asking you to turn it into something
>: practical using the same process you say produced the universe.
> I think you miss understood me here. The text ask for validation of
> the BBT by "creating anything...with an explosion". No energy or matter
> can be created by an explosion. That is a principle on which the theory
> rest on. Thus, nothing can be created, by an explosion, imposion, in
> fact by anything! Matter my be converted from energy of an explosion,
> or vice versa. Please note, for this is a critical flaw in the text's
> argument, that it ask the theory to prove itself by breking the principle
> of conservation of matter and energy. Once again, it ask to prove
> the theory by dissproving it. That is absurd reasoning.
I have to give you this point on technical grounds only.. I shouldn't
have said "created.. with an explosion" because as you say it's a
transformation. BUT WHERE DID THE ENERGY COME FROM? (Krishna of course)
>: First of all which particular big bang theory do you say there is
>: "ample support and proof" for?. As you say there are lots of them, at
>: most only one of them could be correct. There is some apparent evidence
>: to support an expanding universe (red shifts, etc) but that is subject
>: to interpretation also.
> Hmmm. You have points that neither of us have an expertise in.
> This is just my free time reading. Ther is ample support, for the
> gerneral version of the BBT, meaning the univers started as a singularity
> which rapidly expanded. This as the text says is a result of much
> scientific work, by Einstein and others. I will state, that Einsteins
> General Theory, is probably the most well-proven theory in the history
> of human thought. No theory (scientific or religous dogma) has been
> more consistent with expiermental data.
> There is a lot of evidence for specifc theories of the BBT, and
> weakness (ie the Dark matter mystery), and I don't mean to 100% behind
> the BBT. I do feel that the reasoning behind the theory (remeber, the text
> claims to use reasoning to persuade the reader) is a 100 time stronger
> than the reasoning in the text ( or any dogma for that matter).
Waffle, waffle, waffle.... (the scientists are VERY good at this!)
>: >: You have probably (like myself before I came to Krishna
>: >: consciousness) blindly accepted the vague ramblings on the "big
>: > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>: > Yeah?!? Vauge to you maybe, because you more than likely haven't
>: > taken the time to understand it (in no way do I imply that I understand
>: > it completey).
>:
>: No scientist understands the creation. How can they? They weren't there
>: and it was a long time ago. The evidence is pretty thin now. If it
>: isn't a vague theory why haven't they been able to formulate it into
>: something that there is at least some agreement with among the
>: scientists?
> I think a lot of the above pertains to this point. Let me say
> though, that ther is nothing vauge about a physical theory. It may not be
> perfect, but it is clearly defined, in math. It is just our ignorance
> that keeps us from understading this theroy or that theroy, in more
> than an implicit sense.
Traditional physics is not vague but have you looked into what they are
talking about now? It's very vague and not at all clearly defined.
>: > Physics is a very precise science, expressed in the
>: > language of math, not english or Sanskrit. Mathematics does not leave
>: > room for vaugeness. It is your argument that is vauge.
Try reading the sci.physics... groups. Try reading the "Farce of
Physics" postings. Many physicists are not very happy with the vague
direction physics is headed in.
>: Krishna consciousness is a very precise science but I'm not so sure
>: about physics, particularly not "new physics". It is very
>: speculative...
> Modern physics rest on to branches: Cosmology, and Quantum Mechanics.
> Cosmology is governed by Einstiens General theory, which I will say
> again, is a well-tested theory. QM is based on various principles
> (Schrodinger equations, Uncertainity Principle,...). The truth is that
> QM is also very well tested, but may seem speculative, because it is
> very difficult for us to carry out the expierments to support the theory.
> (One reason, is our government's withdrawl from the super-collider program).
> One source on this would be Roger Penrose's new book, which gives a brief
> explanation of QM. (So does Brief History, but it is rather weak). Science
> goes through a proccess of speculation (theory) and expiermentation to
> support the theory. You may get the wrong idea that it is speculative,
> because you might of read about some new theory in pop. media, which has
> not had the time or the expierment corrobaration to support it.
>
More waffle..
>: Of course we have only so much space to explain things and you can't
>: explain everything in one go. Anyhow I'm not so interested in analysing
>: the big bang theory in great detail, I'm suggesting you do it to so you
>: can understand it's not plausible. It's not really a even a theory.
>: You can explain a good scientific theory in a way that covers all the
>: observed evidence, but such a statement can't be formed for the big
>: bang theory.
> There are many theories which don't comply to experiemental data 100%.
> Newton's theories break down at high speed's and intenese gravity, but
> it works for us here on earth. But according to your definition, this must
> be a bad theory. It really nice of you to want me to analyze this so I
> can see how ludicrous it is, but can't you see that it is a much more
> detailed and reasonable theory, than your creationist myth? (also, the
> BBT is a theory, just that a theory)
You don't know how much scientific detail we have. The scriptures are a
completely different from the creationist nonsense you have heard from
the Christians...
>: > That is a popular misconception, that science comes up with facts.
>: > In truth, science only hopes to make models of the universe we live in.
>: > In the public eye these may be facts, but never to the scientist.
>: Exactly. Just what I am trying to explain.
> Models are better than lies.
How do you know God lies? This is the whole problem with your
presentation. You are starting with the preconceived idea that God
doesn't exist and everything in the scriptures is lies. I have put
forward a perfectly good alternative but you have this idea that God
doesn't exist. This is not reasonable. Actually God does exist but He
only reveals Himself to those who want to see Him:
naham prakasah sarvasya yoga-maya-samavrtah
mudho 'yam nabhijanati loko mam ajam avyayam
"I am never manifest to the foolish and unintelligent. For them I am
covered by My eternal creative potency [yoga-maya]; and so the deluded
world knows Me not, who are unborn and infallible."
There is no point in going through this presentation point by point and
trying to defeat it as it is perfectly logical. It supports my
world-view [which just happens to be the absolute truth] accepting
Krishna as the Supreme Personality of Godhead. It accepts what Krishna
says in Bhagavad-gita as the truth. These are the premises of my
presentation. There is nothing wrong with accepting there premises.
Your scientists can neither disprove God no can they put forward any
other conclusive explanation of the creation of the universe. Therefore
a thoughtful person has to at least consider that Krishna may exist and
He may have created the universe.
>: No. I have never said science is evil. If they go to the trouble of
>: making computers then it's good because we can us them for Krishna.
>: But life was going on quite nicely before we had tv and computers. You
>: don't need these things actually but because you have made them we can
>: use them for Krishna. That makes your effort worthwhile.
> I'm not sure what to make of this. I think your implying that I
> am some pawn of Krishna. To say that life was better before technology,
> is purely a matter of relativism. What constitutes a nice life. There
> was war back then too, more disease, higher infant mortality, sin,....
>
We have a little independence. We are tiny samples of Krishna. Krishna
is unlimited and we are small. But qualitatively we are the same. So
Krishna has unlimited independence and we have limited independence.
You have noted correctly that they suffered in the olden days as well.
We haven't changed the amount of suffering we have just transformed it
into a different form.
We can't change the "quality" of our lives because we are destined to
enjoy a certain amount of pleasure in this life and we are also
destined to suffer a certain amount of pain. Our life doesn't begin
with our birth in this body, we, like Krishna, are eternal spirit
souls. While we are in the material world we take birth in different
bodies and we create our own future by our activities.
You know the laws of physics. A similar set of laws operate
on a more subtle platform, this is called karma. When we do something
"good" that generates "good karma" and some time in the future we will
enjoy as a result. If we do something sinful, on the other hand, we
generate "bad karma" which causes suffering for us in the future. At
the time of death we probably have not yet experienced all the
reactions that are due to us, there is still more karma we haven't
suffered or enjoyed yet. So we have to take birth again in the material
world. We are put into the womb of our next mother according to the
type of karma we have to experience. If we have lots of "good karma" we
can get promoted to the heavenly planets, if we have been sinful we can
be sent to hell. If we acted like an animal in this life and were in
animal consciousness at the time of death [just thinking how to eat
nicely, have sex nicely, sleep comfortably and to keep ourselves safe]
then we will be placed within the womb of an animal.
So our suffering and enjoyment is fixed when we get a particular type
of body. Your science can eliminate one type of suffering but nature
counteracts this by creating another type of suffering to take its
place. We have not improved the "quality of life" it has remained the
same. We have eliminated some types of suffering and as a result
produced new suffering. The net result is zero. The Indian example is
if one is carrying a pot of water he can transfer it from his head to
one shoulder, then to the other shoulder and so on but he is still
carrying the weight. Science is like that. Look at medicine. So many
advances but are there less sick people now? Actually now we have so
many terrible diseases... There are so many examples, the pollution,
the anxiety, the stress, the environment... So many problems created to
make life a bit more comfortable but the end result is zero.
>: >: We can see the "Scientific Process" is imperfect by looking at the
>: >: history of science. Western scientists have continually disproved
>: >: the theories held by their predecessors, in retrospect Western
>: >: science can be seen as a collection of incorrect and imperfect
>: >: guesses. The scientists would generally accept this critique
>: >: however they would have us believe they are learning from their
>: >: mistakes and their guesses are becoming more accurate. While there
>: >: is a glimmer of truth in this, how long will it take? If the
>: >: perfect knowledge is available from a perfect source why not take
>: >: advantage of it?
>
> Here is the reason that i've taken so much time on this.
> Religion is fine for ethics, and for a definition of the first cause.
> It must learn, however, to live in harmony, or butt out off science.
Science is a religious process to. The scientists will eventually
accept Krishna, it just takes longer, that's all.
> The scientific process is the only method that is applicable to
> describing the world we live in today, in a physical sense. I don't
> wanna sound like I'm throughly convinced of the whole big bang deal,
> but must state that a physical description of the begining of the universe
> to the present day is the only logical and reasonable description.
But you haven't read the Srimad Bhagavatam [which gives a better method
than science].
> On a lighter note, there is a anecdote in a book called the
> "The hitchiker's Guide to the Galaxy", in which the author (Douglas Adams)
> describes a race of green creatures which have something like 40 arms.
> (They were the first race to invent deorderant before the wheel). The
> believ that the universe was sneezed out of the nose of some guy named
> the great alkeseizure, or something, and live in fear of the coming
> of the great white hankerchef. :}
Funny thing about that, I read all the Douglas Adams books and they are
quite amazing... it was soon after that I became a Hare Krisna...
Thanks for the questions. "so long and thanks for all the fishes..."
:-)
Please consider Krishna consciousness, not sentimentally, but from a
scientific point of view and at least open your mind up far enough to
consider that there might be a God, His name might be Krishna, and He
may just be standing on the bank of the Yamuna river with His flute to
His lips. And from that flute comes the most enchanting music...
Thank you very much. Hare Krishna.
Thank you. Hare Krishna!
Madhudvisa dasa
(madhudvisa@krishna.org) /sudarsana
All glories to His Divine Grace A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada!
Sudarsana Home madhudvisa@krishna.org