- Prev: Why is Arjuna a Ksatriya?
- Next: Re: Madhudvisa and science
- Index: The Sudarsana Archive -- Date Index
- Thread: The Sudarsana Archive -- Topic Index
Date Index | Topic Index
Sudarsana Home madhudvisa@krishna.org
KJM@mfs1.ballarat.edu.au (Kevin Moore) wrote:
>In article <3oreuj$57g@dingo.cc.uq.oz.au> madhudvisa@krishna.org (Madhudvisa dasa ) writes:
><quoting me>
>>>If it solved all the problems about how the universe came into being, then
>>>cosmology would no longer be an interesting topic of study. It should also be
>>>pointed out that Big-Bang theory does not say what happened at the very
>>>beginning of the universe, because our knowledge about particle physics is not
>>>complete enough to be certain of how things behave at the sorts of
>>>temperatures and pressures that were present. Big-Bang is actually a class of
>>>theories which more or less agree with each other after the first few seconds,
>>>but which disagree dramatically beforehand. Sometimes the best answer that can
>>>be given is "We don't know but we are trying to find out".
>> So don't be so absolute about it. If you don't know then you have no
>> basis fro arguing against the existence of God. The scientific process
>> is not bad in itself, it is quite natural that we want to understand
>> things around us, but if you don't understand you can't rule out other
>> possibilities
>Where have I been absolute about anything here? The only person who is being
>absolute about anything is yourself.
You start becoming absolute below..
>Now as to ruling out other possibilities, I'm afraid that you are very wrong
>there. We are quite capable of ruling out other possibilities, provided that
>they make measurable predictions.
Much spiritual knowledge describes things which are beyond the
perception of your senses, therefore science cannot come to grips with
them. You choose to ignore them. BUT_YOU_CAN'T_PROVE_THEY_DON'T_EXIST!
>If their predictions turn out to be false
>upon measurement, then we reject them.
My "religious system" tells me I am not the material body, but rather
"I" am a spiritual entity currently present within this body. My
"religious system" describes consciousness as the symptom of the
presence of the soul within the body therefore my "religious system"
predicts that when "I" leave my body the consciousness will cease. This
is a perfectly valid scientific description of the soul and
consciousness. It is actually the absolute truth. Even if you don't
accept it as the absolute truth you have to accept it as a bona fide
theory...
>Most religious thinkers have learnt to
>avoid that trap by being so mealy mouthed about how the universe began that
>nobody could accuse them of saying anything at all beyond "God created it", a
>singularly meaningless phrase, which begs any number of questions.
We can answer all the questions as to how God created it completely
scientifically and to your satisfaction. I am prepared to do this if
you are prepared to listen...
>>>> If there is a "big-bang" in one of our big cities (like the one recently
>>>> in Oklahoma City) what is the immediate question? Everybody is asking
>>>> "Who did it?" and "Why did they do it?" this would seem to be the
>>>> natural response.
>>>You have missed a question here: "How did it happen?" This question has to
>>>be asked in order to see if there even was a who! Explosions can occur in
>>>many ways which don't require a who: e.g. a gas mains explosion. The question
>>>of "how?" was answered quite quickly in Oklahoma. In the case of the universe,
>>>however, it has not yet been fully answered.
>> I know how the universe was created. God created it. And I also have
>> all the scientific details from the Vedic scriptures. I know how and I
>> know why. It is the scientists who are floundering in the dark. "How
>> did the 'big bang' happen" is not the right question. It may not have
>> happened at all.
>So now who's being absolutist?
There are absolutes... (I can also support this statement with
sufficient scientific details as to how God created the universe..) If
I state an absolute truth as absolute that's one thing but if I become
so attached to a shaky theory that I teach it as a fact in schools
that's another...
>The good old pat answer: "God created it, so
>believe me".
Give me a fair go... I have lots of background material. Why don't you
ask me, "How did God create the universe?"
>As I said in a different context, Madhud, you have ceased to ask
>questions, and can therefore learn nothing. I may flounder in the dark, but at
>least I know better than to sit in the dark and call it light.
Why "Flounder in the dark" when you can come into the light?
krsna--surya-sama; maya haya andhakara
yahan krsna tahan nahi mayara adhikara
"Krishna is compared to the sunshine, and maya is compared to the
darkness. Wherever there is sunshine there cannot be darkness. As soon
as one takes to Krishna consciousness, the darkness of illusion (the
influence of the external energy) will immediately vanish."
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