zen Posted July 3, 2015 Posted July 3, 2015 Maybe not If you think God does not exist so be it. I am not here to make you believe that .... itna gussa kiyon ho rahe ho :giggle:
Crookbond Posted July 3, 2015 Posted July 3, 2015 Firstly' date=' nothing happens by chance. The inventors might not have been employing the accepted scientific practices but that doesn't mean it was 'by chance'.[b'] Unless you can prove through universally accepted procedures that the discovery of fire was 'by chance' we should shun the topic to save you from further embarassment. I have zero clue about what you've attributed to be me assumption. Can you provide links for the claim or Bhagwan kha Gaye? That argument is typical "Fear of Unknown" non sense. Even IF fire was indeed discovered "by chance" - the role of GOD can't be substantiated. Fire MAY have been discovered by chance because of hazaar other things.
The Outsider Posted July 3, 2015 Posted July 3, 2015 In your book that may be the case - say you are driving your car, you get lost, and come across a desolated hotel and find your long lost girl friend. So this was a scientific process where you drove your car, chose the road you wanted to be lost, picked the desolated hotel, and sensed that your long lost GF was in there - a wonderful victory of well though out procedures! :P I am happy if my assumption is wrong so in that case there is an agreement that God does not differentiate b/w religion and science. Only question for you is does God exist. Eventually, through science we may discover God, and that would be something that the religion has been saying since I don't even know when Eventually, one may discover there is a spaghetti monster orbiting the sun. This line of thought doesn't make sense. No one gets credit for making vague predictions that one day man will be able to fly, the credit is given to people who made flight possible. Similarly, if God is discovered one day credit will be to those who discover him, not to a concept which made vague arguments about his existence.
div Posted July 3, 2015 Posted July 3, 2015 Hinduism says Aham Brahmasmi,which means Iam the universe...now science says everything in the world is made of atoms and atoms are the combinations of proton,neutron and electrons...It shows how intelligent were our ancestors.
zen Posted July 3, 2015 Posted July 3, 2015 Eventually' date=' one may discover there is a spaghetti monster orbiting the sun. This line of thought doesn't make sense. No one gets credit for making vague predictions that one day man will be able to fly, the credit is given to people who made flight possible. Similarly, if God is discovered one day credit will be to those who discover him, not to a concept which made vague arguments about his existence.[/quote'] You are still stuck at the spaghetti monster :cantstop: If it can do that Science can take the credit, I have no issues with it :top: For me both "good" religion (as understood by man) and "good" science (not nuclear bombs) work for the benefit of the society .... And both have their limitations. Someone could say that he is thinking about abc in his brain. Science could open his brain but will only find an intricate system of cells which is not enough to conclude whether there is abc
zen Posted July 3, 2015 Posted July 3, 2015 Hinduism says Aham Brahmasmi' date='which means Iam the universe...now science says everything in the world is made of atoms and atoms are the combinations of proton,neutron and electrons...[b']It shows how intelligent were our ancestors. I hope that you are not a lawyer or your clients could struggle to win cases :P
zen Posted July 3, 2015 Posted July 3, 2015 After reading some of the deductions that some people of science only have made on this thread, I feel like appealing to their education institutions to refund their money :hysterical:
Crookbond Posted July 3, 2015 Posted July 3, 2015 You are still stuck at the spaghetti monster :cantstop: If it can do that Science can take the credit, I have no issues with it :top: For me both "good" religion (as understood by man) and "good" science (not nuclear bombs) work for the benefit of the society .... And both have their limitations. Someone could say that he is thinking about abc in his brain. Science could open his brain but will only find an intricate system of cells which is not enough to conclude whether there is abc Funny you mention that - nuclear bomb was a by-product of the scientific thought process of nuclear fission. Nuclear fission was the science, not nuclear bomb. There are great applications of nuclear fission like energy. I vaguely recollect that you're from Canada - 15% of power is generated via nuclear reactors (mostly in Ontario). So, you can't blame nuclear fission as "bad science"! It's like saying the invention of a knife is a bad science because people use knives for killing.
zen Posted July 3, 2015 Posted July 3, 2015 Funny you mention that - nuclear bomb was a by-product of the scientific thought process of nuclear fission. Nuclear fission was the science' date=' not nuclear bomb. There are great applications of nuclear fission like energy. I vaguely recollect that you're from Canada - 15% of power is generated via nuclear reactors (mostly in Ontario). So, you can't blame nuclear fission as "bad science"! It's like saying the invention of a knife is a bad science because people use knives for killing.[/quote'] :hysterical:
swatpulla Posted July 3, 2015 Posted July 3, 2015 I think both religious and atheist are wrong in trying to shove their opinion down each others throats Only difference being that the tools used by religious people to shove their opinion is usually those made up stories. Atheists on the other hand rely on science and evidence.
zen Posted July 3, 2015 Posted July 3, 2015 Only difference being that the tools used by religious people to shove their opinion is usually those made up stories. Atheists on the other hand rely on science and evidence. Atheists are a minority, if I am not wrong .... And there is no evidence based on science that says God does not exists. Atheist rely on putting the burden of proof on religious folks, who may not be all inclined towards science .... And of course God is not from the reality TV show world :P What difference does it make if a few people think God does not exist? :dontknow:
swatpulla Posted July 3, 2015 Posted July 3, 2015 Atheists are a minority' date=' if I am not wrong .... [b']And there is no evidence based on science that says God does not exists. Atheist rely on putting the burden of proof on religious folks, who may not be all inclined towards science .... And of course God is not from the reality TV show world :P What difference does it make if a few people think God does not exist? :dontknow: There is NO EVIDENCE based on science that can prove "anything" to not exist. So following that logic, everything can be debated to exist. In short, Galactus, Silver Surfer, Fantastic 4 and Justice League are as likely to exist as God. :om: But is that a good enough argument to devote your life to that dodgy existence? No. The impudence atheists show while dismissing religion is to be expected. Religion is in direct conflict with the foundations of science. It suppresses your analytical abilities and forces you to believe in things that are nothing but someone's imaginations finding a pen and paper. These delusions may have worked well in the past, but now it is time morality and sense takes over. Brainwashing has to stop, and I consider this a human rights issue.
zen Posted July 3, 2015 Posted July 3, 2015 There is NO EVIDENCE based on science that can prove "anything" to not exist. So following that logic, everything can be debated to exist. In short, Galactus, Silver Surfer, Fantastic 4 and Justice League are as likely to exist as God. :om: But is that a good enough argument to devote your life to that dodgy existence? No. The impudence atheists show while dismissing religion is to be expected. Religion is in direct conflict with the foundations of science. It suppresses your analytical abilities and forces you to believe in things that are nothing but someone's imaginations finding a pen and paper. These delusions may have worked well in the past, but now it is time morality and sense takes over. Brainwashing has to stop, and I consider this a human rights issue. Why are you dishing out old wine in new bottle? Please refer to spaghetti monster argument :haha: .... The world's youngest major religion is Islam and you can study what Prophet Mohammad has said (or you could dismiss it as a myth), then work your self backwards .... Note reading about religion (and God) and understanding it are also two different things :P Why should what Atheist think be a concern? Carbon monoxide was only detected in the 18th century .... I don't think religion (as is supposed to be understood) and science are in direct conflict. Yes, some people on both sides may have made it appear to be that way If you knew science, it is imagination that brought in new ideas. Aeroplanes were invented because someone imagined that us to be flying .... if you claim to pursue scientific methods, you shouldn't try to present your opinion as a fact :winky:
The Outsider Posted July 3, 2015 Posted July 3, 2015 Funny you mention that - nuclear bomb was a by-product of the scientific thought process of nuclear fission. Nuclear fission was the science' date=' not nuclear bomb. There are great applications of nuclear fission like energy. I vaguely recollect that you're from Canada - 15% of power is generated via nuclear reactors (mostly in Ontario). So, you can't blame nuclear fission as "bad science"! It's like saying the invention of a knife is a bad science because people use knives for killing.[/quote'] Thanks for posting this. I had similar thoughts in mind while replying to him, but refrained from posting on them because someone clearly doesn't understand the difference between a scientific result and its application.
zen Posted July 3, 2015 Posted July 3, 2015 :hysterical: .... if it is so hard to deduce the meaning of a simple line, how can one expect some of the sciencewalas to even comprehend the subject of God I may have to seriously consider starting" refund tuition fees" movement for them :orderorder:
zen Posted July 3, 2015 Posted July 3, 2015 :blink: :blink: ("IF" science is not helping you out, let me spoon feed you - ironically, he did not understand what I implied :secret: )
zen Posted July 4, 2015 Posted July 4, 2015 Some interesting news from the world of science: In a newly published study, physicists propose that parallel universes really exist and that they interact and influence one another by a subtle force of repulsion. Griffith University academics are challenging the foundations of quantum science with a radical new theory based on the existence of, and interactions between, parallel universes. In a paper published in the prestigious journal Physical Review X, Professor Howard Wiseman and Dr Michael Hall from Griffith’s Center for Quantum Dynamics, and Dr Dirk-Andre Deckert from the University of California, take interacting parallel worlds out of the realm of science fiction and into that of hard science. The team proposes that parallel universes really exist, and that they interact. That is, rather than evolving independently, nearby worlds influence one another by a subtle force of repulsion. They show that such an interaction could explain everything that is bizarre about quantum mechanics. Quantum theory is needed to explain how the universe works at the microscopic scale, and is believed to apply to all matter. But it is notoriously difficult to fathom, exhibiting weird phenomena which seem to violate the laws of cause and effect. As the eminent American theoretical physicist Richard Feynman once noted: “I think I can safely say that nobody understands quantum mechanics.” However, the “Many-Interacting Worlds” approach developed at Griffith University provides a new and daring perspective on this baffling field. “The idea of parallel universes in quantum mechanics has been around since 1957,” says Professor Wiseman. “In the well-known “Many-Worlds Interpretation”, each universe branches into a bunch of new universes every time a quantum measurement is made. All possibilities are therefore realized – in some universes the dinosaur-killing asteroid missed Earth. In others, Australia was colonized by the Portuguese. “But critics question the reality of these other universes, since they do not influence our universe at all. On this score, our “Many Interacting Worlds” approach is completely different, as its name implies.” Professor Wiseman and his colleagues propose that: The universe we experience is just one of a gigantic number of worlds. Some are almost identical to ours while most are very different; All of these worlds are equally real, exist continuously through time, and possess precisely defined properties; All quantum phenomena arise from a universal force of repulsion between ‘nearby’ (i.e. similar) worlds which tends to make them more dissimilar. Dr Hall says the “Many-Interacting Worlds” theory may even create the extraordinary possibility of testing for the existence of other worlds. “The beauty of our approach is that if there is just one world our theory reduces to Newtonian mechanics, while if there is a gigantic number of worlds it reproduces quantum mechanics,” he says. “In between it predicts something new that is neither Newton’s theory nor quantum theory. “We also believe that, in providing a new mental picture of quantum effects, it will be useful in planning experiments to test and exploit quantum phenomena.” The ability to approximate quantum evolution using a finite number of worlds could have significant ramifications in molecular dynamics, which is important for understanding chemical reactions and the action of drugs. Professor Bill Poirier, Distinguished Professor of Chemistry at Texas Tech University, has observed: “These are great ideas, not only conceptually, but also with regard to the new numerical breakthroughs they are almost certain to engender.” Publication: Michael J. W. Hall, et al., “Quantum Phenomena Modeled by Interactions between Many Classical Worlds,” Phys. Rev. X 4, 041013, 23 October 2014; doi:10.1103/PhysRevX.4.041013 Link Link :P
div Posted July 4, 2015 Posted July 4, 2015 I hope that you are not a lawyer or your clients could struggle to win cases :P No, Iam not a lawyer.:winky:
div Posted July 4, 2015 Posted July 4, 2015 Only difference being that the tools used by religious people to shove their opinion is usually those made up stories. Atheists on the other hand rely on science and evidence. Spirituality is not just about going to temples or doing pujas...What Bhagavad-Gita says this world is maya or just an illusion and only Brahma exists. Now some quantum physicists are saying that the world can't exist without an independent observer and your thoughts affect your reality, so you can see some similarity there ..As far as atheists are concerned they believe this world is real. DfPeprQ7oGc
Recommended Posts