donl@physics1.physics.monash.edu.au wrote:
>(Madhudvisa dasa ) writes:
>>donl@physics1.physics.monash.edu.au wrote:
><snip>
>>>Well, come down to our level and show us some perfect knowledge and help us
>>>solve the problems of high temperature superconductors, porous silicon, grand
>>>unified field theory, truly efficient solar cells, car panels that won't
>>>crumple at the slightest touch etc.
>> This world is designed to be frustrating. Nothing will ever be perfect
>> here. If it were we would have no impetus to go to the spiritual world.
>> You will never be able to solve all the problems.
>Oh good tactic ... evade the question.
As far as understand things I can help but the list you have mentioned
includes mainly techinical knowledge. The only thing that seems a
little interesting is the "unified field theory", we could probably do
something there. You can solve many of these problems by austerity.
Austerity means you have to undergo some difficulty. You could do
research to find new materials for car panels and better solar cells
and spend your life in that way. But really is that a very great
achievement? You will still get old and die and you will be completely
ignorant of where you are going.
Personally, I want to use my life for things which have a permanent
effect and I don't want to come back to the material world again. (it's
not really a very nice place) If the scientists want to make better
solar-cells and so on that's alright, we can take them and use them for
Krishna, that makes their effort worthwhile. But I am not going to
waste my time doing it, I have much better things to do.
>
><snip>
>>>Look ... I do not mind you espousing your ideas and philosophies ... that is
>>>what this newsgroup is for. However, when you introduce "science" then be
>>>prepared to justify your claims properly. So far you have not backed up a
>>>single statement.
>>
>> The difficulty is we are working on a different premise. Your premise
>> is everything can be explained by chemical reactions only. My premise
>> is matter doesn't move without the touch of spirit. You say "life" is a
>> combination of chemicals. I know "life" is a spiritual force completely
>> different from matter. There is much evidence supporting my view and I
>> have presented some of it but because you do not accept my premise that
>> there is a spiritual component as well as a material one you don't
>> accept my evidence.
>You don't even know what premise I'm starting from. All I suggested is that
>you use and misuse the name of science for your own ends.
I assume you accept the "scientific" premise that everything can be
explained in terms of matter since you are defending them.
>I do not solely work on the premise that "life = chemical reactions only".
Good. A thoughtful man.
>However, science opens up the possbility that it does. Science has in fact
>opened my eyes that as well as the supernatural possibility, there exists the
>possibility of a natural origin.
God is not natural?
>So science actually gives you a much broader outlook on life.
It gives hope to the atheists and it is used by them to "bash" the
theists. Just look at the poor Christians on the net. The atheists
[equipped with the weapon of "science"] rip them to threads.
It allows you to discard all those annoying morals and go for it. Enjoy
to the max... [I just read some statistics on the net usage and it
seems almost 90% of the bandwith is being used by people downloading
pornographic giff's -- that's the result of your science -- they think
that's where the pleasure is -- but it's an elusive thing, difficult to
find where the actual pleasure is..]
>> I see, from my perspective, that science has failed to justify it's
>> claims and can not back up the notion that like comes from chemicals.
>> We see life coming from life around us all the time... that is
>> sufficient evidence that life comes from life. But you say, without
>> proof, without experiments, without even any real idea of how it
>> happens that life comes from chemicals. This is sentiment not science.
>(An aside ...
>Logic 101
>Life --> life shows that it may be sufficient condition but it does not say
>it is necessary.
>But getting back to the discussion at hand ...)
>You think this way because you haven't opened your own mind up to the
>possibility that life and the universe arose without cause. Maybe it did and
>maybe it didn't ... I am not claiming either and never have (you can check
>my previous postings).
We don't have to assume this or that we know because we accept
Krishna's word for it. This is perfect knowledge. [you may or may not
accept this but it is still perfect knowledge!]
>(I am not an evoultionary biologist so I must admit that I cannot say for
>certain how close we are to understanding this process, if it all. If I do
>find someone (maybe talk.origins?) I will let them tell both of us.)
Don't worry, they don't understand it either.
>I look forward to reopening this discussion if we ever do find and
>cross the boundary between life and non-life. How would your philosophy deal
>with that? I am open to *all* the possibilities ... I am actually sorry that
>you are not.
Life means spirit. Spirit and matter are two different energies of
Krishna, but they are both energies of Krisna. Spirit ENTERS matter at
the opportune moment, so given the right circumstances spirit enters
matter. If you can reproduce these circumstances it may be possible...
But the life, the spirit ENTERS mater. It is always DIFFERENT from
matter.
>> 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