kdconod@delphi.com (Kevin D. Conod) wrote:
>>Madhudvisa dasa says:
>>What bothers me is science has the audacity to claim there is no God,
>>although they can't prove such a claim,
>Science has _never_ made such a claim. I challenge you to find a paper
>published in a professional scientific journal proving that God does not
>exist. If you do I'll eat my hat. Science _does not_ repeat _does not_
>tell you how to live your life. It gives you the facts, it's up to you as
>to what to do with them. For example, scientific research does not tell you
>to stop smoking. It will tell you however, that smoking leads to a higher
>_risk_ of dying horribly from cancer.
>Science has discovered many facts which contradict sacred writings, which
>has led some _people_ to conclude that there is no God. Others are able
>reconcile these facts with their faith. Your statement should have read:
>"What bothers me are people who have the audacity to claim there is no
>God..."
I have just written a reply in a different thread in aus.religion which
addresses these issues. I have included it below for your information.
donl@physics1.physics.monash.edu.au wrote:
>(Madhudvisa dasa ) writes:
>>donl@physics1.physics.monash.edu.au wrote:
>>>(Madhudvisa dasa ) writes:
>>>
>>>> WHEN THE UNIVERSE WAS DARK...
>>>> =============================
Dear Don,
It is not my intention [nor is it possible in your terms as the
"authorities" you accept don't consider the spiritual component] to
present a fully documented "scientific" paper here.
The idea was to show a reasonable argument can be put, using some of
your scientific ideas, for a creation by God rather than a creation by
nothing. I don't have any real interest in Mandelbrots fractals, his
ideas just fit nicely with the idea of a creation of the universe along
the same lines as we see creation going on before our eyes (ie: the
birth of a child). This is not an unreasonable notion. It doesn't
matter if scientists have thought of it or not [they haven't because
they are not looking for theories which include intelligent living
entities above us]. The idea is still quite valid.
Your [the scientific community's] refusal to at least even
theoretically consider the existence of the soul, something different
from matter whose symptom is consciousness, despite the very strong
indications that such an entity exists, is unreasonable and
closed-minded. A world-view based on spiritual concepts is not invalid.
It may not make sense in your terms but you have to realize that,
although you have your "negative enthropy" to create everything around
us one who has seen the creator is not very convinced by such empty
talk. You can talk and talk (I've seen it in sci.astro and
talk.origins) but you will never come to agreement and you will never
reach a conclusion until you consider the spiritual component.
It is true that science builds on the knowledge it has and it is, in
one sense, a spiritual process. For ultimately a thoughtful person
questioning the world around him will come to a higher platform of
questioning but it may take a long time...
Science has very nicely provided the philosophy which enables
atheists to live lives free from responsibility for their activities.
Science is their religion. If it wasn't for Charles Darwin and the Big
Bang Theory they would find it difficult to justify their atheistic
beliefs. Before Darwin the Western atheists didn't have any way of
explaining the creation [without God's hand] so they were very grateful
to him and the scientific world. They are holding on to these
theories [evolution and the big bang] like grim death. Any slight
criticism [or even questioning] brings hostile results. It's a faith,
it's a religion, it's a dogma. It's supported by our imperfect sense
perceptions and speculations therefore there is no guarantee it has
anything to do with what is actually happening out there.
Somebody told me [in another group]:
>Einstien said, "science is like looking at a face of a watch and trying
>to figure out how it works inside." When we have theorys on how nature
>works, sometimes we will prove it wrong, sometimes we can never prove it
>wrong, because it is right. Re: The moon and the sun theory/fact!
Exactly, it's a great statement. You can take a number of watches which
all display the correct time but inside the watches the mechanics could
be completely different. Externally they are identical. The same thing
holds with the universe. You can develop many different models (like
the workings of the different watches) which give the same result as we
see in the sky (like all the watches display the same time). Just as
you can't determine what the mechanism is inside the watch by looking
at it, you can't tell the "mechanism" of the universe by looking
through your telescope.
So you can't actually tell what's going on out there. How absolutely
ridiculous it is that you think you can understand how the universe was
created billions of years ago. I don't know if you read about Dr. Frog
but his story is very relevant. You [and everyone else] have become
accustomed to these ideas, they have been thoroughly drummed into us by
the education system and mostly everybody accepts them. They are not
just scientific theories, they are the backbone of the modern
hedonistic way of life. They are the mainstay of the "atheistic"
religion.
When talking about these two items [Darwinism and the big bang] we
touch on matters very close to many peoples hearts for without them we
might just have to consider God may exist after all.
The conclusion of this discussion in another area [not scientists]
ended up like this:
Jennacy Backo <aubrey@tristan.corsair.com> wrote:
>madhudvisa@krishna.org (Madhudvisa dasa ) wrote:
<< snip >>
>Neither do the rest of us. All the scientists are trying to do is give
>us a rational culmination of ideas, using data on information they have,
>to allow those of us who are not religiously-affiliated (like me) to have
>their own little "How The Universe Was Created" story. So far, i think
>it's done rather well.
<< snip >>
>Therefore
>> a thoughtful person has to at least consider that Krishna may exist and
>> He may have created the universe.
>Okay, I will grant you that. But nothing more.
I think that summarizes it. Enough said.
Thank you. 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