NDE's can be explained through string theory?

[Guest guest]

Where I see String Theory moving in the realm of religion is the idea of higher realms of reality. Atheism makes a certain sense if we believe all there is is what we see. Its atleast understandable that they don't believe in something they can't see. But every religion, be it Christianity, Buddhism, Hindusim, Shamanism etc.... all say effectively "There is a veil over what you see. There is something behind the veil that you can't see but is in fact there." Now if String Theory says there can be 11 dimensions, and in fact beings living in higher dimensions, this moves greatly into the religious view. I have never seen an angel. But if you tell me that one or two layers of reality above my layer of reality, there is life, that can see me, though I can't see it (because of orders of magnitude) then that suggests a wholly different world view. If angels can in theory exist then why can't something even outside of that exist? All of a sudden String Theory opens up possibilities that there is in fact a veil covering our view something all religions have said and all have in common.

[theist 1]

That's how I feel also. It's a mind opener. I can't understand the details but just the fact you mention alone makes it valuable.

[Guest guest]

 

Where I see String Theory moving in the realm of religion is the idea of higher realms of reality. Atheism makes a certain sense if we believe all there is is what we see. Its atleast understandable that they don't believe in something they can't see. But every religion, be it Christianity, Buddhism, Hindusim, Shamanism etc.... all say effectively "There is a veil over what you see. There is something behind the veil that you can't see but is in fact there." Now if String Theory says there can be 11 dimensions, and in fact beings living in higher dimensions, this moves greatly into the religious view. I have never seen an angel. But if you tell me that one or two layers of reality above my layer of reality, there is life, that can see me, though I can't see it (because of orders of magnitude) then that suggests a wholly different world view. If angels can in theory exist then why can't something even outside of that exist? All of a sudden String Theory opens up possibilities that there is in fact a veil covering our view something all religions have said and all have in common.

 

 

This is why I'm so fascinated by string theory. Nicely stated. The idea isn't necessarily that strings make up the soul, it's the idea of higher dimensions, of higher realities, where other entities, and other worlds exist. The idea that the chakras in the human body may correlate with string theory, and the relationship between string theory and acquisition of siddhis. It's a stepping stone to realizing God and seeing God as an accepted Reality worldwide. It's a huge stepping stone at that. I never said strings FORM consciousness or God, I believe it's the other way around. It's possible to take the Samkhya view and see the material as separate from the spiritual, and see strings as "playthings" or "toys" that we are playing around with on some level of consciousness. The idea that consciousness manipulates strings but does not produce them, and strings do not produce consciousness either. Just another possible alternative.

[Avinash 0]

 

It sounds like earlier theories were dovetailing with Buddhism with zero dimension corresponding to the Buddhist idea of the void. Buddha said, "I see the petal, the stem, the leaf, but no lotus flower." If we follow this meditation in this progression to the very end we eventually come to zero dimension.

 

Yes, Buddhism emphasises nothingness.

 

 

The reality is, beyond this illusion of a universe which can be broken down into smaller and smaller units we don't come to zero dimension or total lack of substance, rather just the opposite, we come to true substance or Brahman. It's just that this Brahman is transcendental substance and not readily identifiable by material means.

 

As per string theory, we have come to strings. If we go even further, we may reach Brahman. But one thing is certain:- zero dimension or total lack of substance or absolue nothingness does not exist.

 

 

If string helps bring us back from the abyss of the zero dimensional void for a while that is good but is that just a temporary rescue? Can string ever prove that substance comes from Substance? Will any theory in physics be able to?

 

If you are using the word substance to mean anything so long it is not absolue nothingness, then string theory does prove that substance comes from substance. Everything that we see in this material world has come from strings.

It is possible that string theory will be modified. But, if we go by existing developments in Science and the experimental results, then even the new theory should incorporate something (as opposed to absolute nothing) as the basic substratum.

 

There is one question that I used to ponder on a lot in my school days. I think I was in 7th std when I started pondering over this. I had read that a point is zero-dimensional and a straight line (or straight line segment) contains infinite number of points. In just a few seconds I can draw a small straight line. This line, no matter how small it is, contains infinite number of points. So, I can draw infinite number of points in just a few seconds. If we call the act of drawing one point as an activity, then I have performed infinite number of activities. But how can I perform infinite number of activities in a finite amount of time.

 

This question lingered in my mind as I aged. I went through lots of books and Internet articles. I could see some answers related to this. But none of the answers satisfied me.

 

However if we define a point as the smallest possible object (or volume in space) that can exist, then a point is not zero-dimensional and a straight line of finite length does not contain infinite number of points. So, to draw a straight line of any finite length, I do not have to draw infinite number of anything.

[bija 0]

Avinash,

could you please help me understand something. Vaisnavism and Buddhism seem to be opposing philosophies. Considering there are three levels of devotees. I read that the devotee in the topmost realisation, actually comes back down to the middle platform to preach. And being situated on this middle platform he teaches that Buddhist philosophy is in opposition to Vaisnavism.

My question is, if the Mahabhagavata remains situated on the topmost platform, does he make these distinctions?

[Avinash 0]

I am sorry bija. I do have some knowledge of Gita and some other scriptures. But I do not have good knowledge related to sampradayas, Mahabhagavatas, different preaching methodologies used etc. However, if you have some questions related to Science (e.g. String Theory), I may be able to answer.

[bija 0]

Thank you Avinash.

 

Firstly I have to say, my knowledge of scripture is very limited. The recent posts in the thread made me think of a Stephen Hawking show I watched bits and pieces of last night. It talked about black holes, and that Hawking says that the black holes eventually become nothing, and that the matter they suck in also disappears( I think this is what the show said).

I just wondered, if Krsna is absolute. Could the concept of nothingness or void, actually exist in Him also. If not, then Hawkings theory would be false.

[Avinash 0]

As per string theory, space is not infinitely divisible. In other words, if we go on considering smaller and smaller space, then we ultimately reach a space dimension which cannot be divided further. So, absolute nothingness cannot exist.

 

The existing theories of black holes do not incorporate string theory. In fact, these do not even incorporate even earlier theories of Quantum Physics (i.e. earlier than string theory) completely. Only partial incorporation has been done.

 

But one thing is certain. As per string theory, black holes cannot vanish into absolute nothingness. So, the idea that black holes eventually become nothing is false. Some new theory of black holes should take care of this.

[Avinash 0]

Current theories of Big Bang do not incorporate Quantum Physics, at least not completely. Big bang theory, as it stands now, says that the universe came out of nothing. Before Big Bang, nothing - not even time existed. We could not ask "what was before Big Bang" because there was no before, Big Bang being the beginning of time.

But string theory allows us to try to find what was before Big Bang. Space and time did exist before Big Bang. Big Bang can be the beginning of the universe as we see now. But, it cannot be the ultimate beginning. In fact, there cannot be any ultimate beginning where ultimate beginning means a point in time before which (stretching back to infinity) nothing existed.

String theory banishes absolute nothingness.

"No thing existed, nor nothing existed"

-From creation hymn in Rig Veda

[Yegan 0]

If my memory is correct, I think Krishna said somewhere that he is the smallest among the small. Could be that these strings stuff are actually krishna because if I have understood properly from Avinash, nothing is smaller than the string.

Everything comes from these little strings so by extrapolation everything comes from krishna (since he is the smallest and hence the string itself)

If these strings which are apparently the "source of everything" then this could be another indication that these strings are krishna.

If these strings are cosmic all-pervading as Avinash pointed out, then they the the biggest among the big. Krishna also says he is the biggest among the big.

The string theory opens the door to more than three dimension (11), and in the scripture it is said that there are 64 dimensions. The numbers do not match but at least science and religion agree that we have more than 3 dimensions.

In short, I think this string theory has some connection with religion.

[Yegan 0]

Something that we can think upon:

"There is no truth beyond Me. Everything rests upon Me, as pearls are strung on a thread"

(Lord Krishna, Bhagavad-Gita 7.7)

[Guest guest]

 

If my memory is correct, I think Krishna said somewhere that he is the smallest among the small. Could be that these strings stuff are actually krishna because if I have understood properly from Avinash, nothing is smaller than the string.

Everything comes from these little strings so by extrapolation everything comes from krishna (since he is the smallest and hence the string itself)

If these strings which are apparently the "source of everything" then this could be another indication that these strings are krishna.

If these strings are cosmic all-pervading as Avinash pointed out, then they the the biggest among the big. Krishna also says he is the biggest among the big.

The string theory opens the door to more than three dimension (11), and in the scripture it is said that there are 64 dimensions. The numbers do not match but at least science and religion agree that we have more than 3 dimensions.

In short, I think this string theory has some connection with religion.

 

 

While scripture says there are 64 dimensions, it doesn't say that there are 64 chakras, right? Perhaps the dimensions that string theory correlates to are the presence of the 4 dimensions of space and time, PLUS the 7 chakras in the human body totalling 11 dimensions.

[Guest guest]

 

Thank you Avinash.

 

Firstly I have to say, my knowledge of scripture is very limited. The recent posts in the thread made me think of a Stephen Hawking show I watched bits and pieces of last night. It talked about black holes, and that Hawking says that the black holes eventually become nothing, and that the matter they suck in also disappears( I think this is what the show said).

I just wondered, if Krsna is absolute. Could the concept of nothingness or void, actually exist in Him also. If not, then Hawkings theory would be false.

 

 

Hawking reversed his position on this recently didn't he?

 

I believe he said that information is not lost when it gets sucked into a black hole, it slowly radiates out, or something like that.

[Guest guest]

 

While scripture says there are 64 dimensions, it doesn't say that there are 64 chakras, right? Perhaps the dimensions that string theory correlates to are the presence of the 4 dimensions of space and time, PLUS the 7 chakras in the human body totalling 11 dimensions.

 

I have heard there are even higher chakras than the crown chakra. Some say up to 12. These higher chakras are said to connect with higher parts of us, or aspects of our multidimensional self.

[Avinash 0]

 

Hawking reversed his position on this recently didn't he?

 

I believe he said that information is not lost when it gets sucked into a black hole, it slowly radiates out, or something like that.

 

Yes, he reversed. Earlier he said that information is lost. That was against what Quantum Physics says. Hawking knew that. But nobody had used Quantum Physics to study black holes. As per existing knowledge of black holes, which was based on general theory of relativity, information should be lost. Later Hawking incorporated Quantum Physics into black holes theories to some extent and found that information is not lost.

[theist 1]

Yes Avinash that is what I meant. Everything we see as substance in the material world has come from another substance. A desk has come from wood. Wood from a tree that came from a seed. And all this changing of substance to different forms has come from and is dependent on the existence of changeless Substance in the form of Krsna and His Spiritual Sky.

 

I see it similar to someone standing on the bank of a lake. The person's reflection is cast onto the lake. The movement of the air on the water makes the image cast upon the lake to appear as though it is changing

sometimes hardly at all under the influence of a soft breeze and sometimes violently under a very strong wind. But the form of the person who is casting the relection from the bank remains unchanged.

 

That person of course is Krsna, Who is eternal Substance and the movements of air are the modes of nature.

 

These scientists have very strong brains, no doubt about it. But they are like someone who, having fallen into the lake, remains trying analyze all the changes of the image they see around them under the influence of the wind.

 

If their science leads them to bow to the Supremacy of the Lord then all is well but if they just become more and more engrossed in trying to figure it out then they just become more bound by maya.

 

How to interject God consciousness into science is a great undertaking and there seem to be few who can take it on.

[Avinash 0]

 

These scientists have very strong brains, no doubt about it. But they are like someone who, having fallen into the lake, remains trying analyze all the changes of the image they see around them under the influence of the wind.

 

If their science leads them to bow to the Supremacy of the Lord then all is well but if they just become more and more engrossed in trying to figure it out then they just become more bound by maya.

 

How to interject God consciousness into science is a great undertaking and there seem to be few who can take it on.

 

One good thing I find in the way Science is progressing is that it is always trying to find root cause. Aristotle said that various things behave the way they behave is because it is their tendency. It is the tendency of things to fall. It is the tendency of wind to blow, tendency of water to flow, and so on. No need was felt to find as to why they have these tendencies. The tendencies were considered to be fundamental.

Then, advancements happened in Science by which we could know causes for various kinds of motion. Newton gave his laws of motion. He also gave the theory of gravitation. A large number of previously unexplained phenomena could now be explained. But again no reason was given as to why there is gravity. Gravity was thought to be a fundamental force in nature and no reason was felt to find its cause.

Along came Einstein and he explained that gravity is because of the curvature of space-time continuum. In the meantime, various developments happened in Particle Physics by which we learnt how things that we see around are because of various elementary particles: electrons, protons, neutrons, various vector bosons and many others.

When we talk of elementary particles, then we find that electrons, protons and neutrons were thought to be the basic paritcles that make up the matter that we see. These three kinds of particles were thought to be most elementary and their causes were not known.

Then we learned about quarks and we came to know how quarks make protons, neutrons and various other kinds of particles.

Now, we know that all of these are because of tiny strings vibrating in multi-dimensions.

As you see Science finds the cause of something. Then it finds the cause of that cause and so forth. So, it is moving closer and closer to root cause. God is the ultimate root cause. So, isn't scientific knowledge moving closer and closer to the knowledge of God?

[theist 1]

"Root cause" Good points. I accept what you so said in such a knowledgable way. (Makes me wonder why you aren't writting small books on these various topics.) Seriously Avinash.

 

I agree. I see them as potentially doing a type of overly intricate and time consuming samkya-yoga. The test is if they ever accept God as the Original Cause of all causes or if they just choose to keep searching in the material sphere. I think Maya will always let them find one more theory to distract themselves with, but some will no doubt see the Light.

[Avinash 0]

Sorry for the long post, but I could not make it shorter and still communicate all that I wanted to.

I have not written any books of my own. Though I have reviewed some small books on Science written by

some others. They gave me the draft copies of the books they were writing. I reviewed the books and made

comments. They made modifications as per my comments. After a few rounds of review by me and

corresponding modification by them, when I said that I did not have any further comments to make, then

they sent the books for publication.

I haven't writeen my own books because the time that I could spend in writing books, I utilize that time in

teaching. Often it happens that somebody is preparing for some examination and wants me to clarify some of

his doubts. He may be my colleague, friend or some relative. Sometimes the person whom I teach himself

does not approach me but his parents approach.

Sometimes it also happens that some people ask me some questions out of curiosity and not because they

are preparing for some examination. Then, I discuss with them various topics on Science. Often the

discussion moves from one topic to another.

Based on whatever I have studied and whatever I have experienced during discussions, I can say that one

should have child-like wonder towards the universe. A sense of wonder produces curiosity. And curiosity

makes one try to find cause of things i.e. why things are the way they are. Even after finding the cause, the

sense of wonder should not cease. If it ceases, then we will not try to find the cause of that cause.

We often say to others, "Look how beautiful the world is! Things are so precise. Even a minute change in

certain initial parameters would have created a completely different world."

We make such statements to make them appreciate the world. But how many really appreciate the way we

want them to? Many rubbish our claims. Many think, "What is there to wonder. I know everything. I have

read in Science books."

What I find funny is that there are many who are not at all aware of any development that has happened in

Science in the last few decades and they feel that they do not have anything further to know.

I once met a person who had never heard of general theory of relativity. During a discussion with him I said,

"We know things fall because of gravity. But why is there gravity?"

Before I could say any further, he just laughed and made some comment to the effect "What kind of question

you are asking? Why is gravity? Gravity is there because it is there. That's all."

There is nothing bad if somebody has not heard of theory of relativity. There are various things that I am not

aware of and many others have good knowledge on these things. But what I really found bad was his belief

that just because he had not read anything on why gravity exists, it was stupid to wonder about this.

On another occasion I told somebody that it is possible for some particles to come out a black hole if they

are moving faster than light. He was shocked. He said that it was impossible for anything to move faster than

light. I told him that Heisenberg uncertainty principle allowed something to move faster than light for a short

distance. He was not interested in listening to me any further because he was fully convinced that nothing

could ever move faster than light and he was not interested in revising his knowledge.

I have come across various such situations. I do not try to explain things to them because it is a waste of

time to try to teach somebody if he is not interested. I just tell them that if they study further, they will know

what I meant.

You must have seen similar situations arising in these forums. In the past there have been various hit and

run cases. Often somebody belonging to some other religion copied and pased some contents from

anti-Hinduism web sites to show how various things written in our scriptures are ridiculous. They were not

really interested in learning anything. They were fully convinced that whatever they had read in those web

sites was correct. No matter how hard one tried to explain to them that what they had read was not really in

scriptures, they did not listen. Initially I used to respond to them, but soon I stopped. Now if I find

somebody copying and pasting incorrect materials, I do not even respond to them because they are not

really interested in a response.

However, there have also been people who have shown genuine interest. And I like answering them to the

best of whatever little knowledge I have got. The most recent example is Imranhasan. He has expressed a

large number of doubts and I tried to answer those because I found him really interested.

I wrote the above to explain that you can teach somebody something only if he is curious. And the curiosity

towards what we see around us best comes from child like wonder. But if we tell people that things are

wonderful does not always make them wonder. Because there is a big difference between experiencing

something oneself and just hearing from others.

The sense of wonder should be inculcated from the childhood itself. Otherwise, the sense of wonder dies

fast as one ages. And the sense of wonder comes only by living close to nature. That is why I have written

in some posts of mine that parents should let children see the beauty of the world. Let them see flowers,

trees, butterflies. Let them notice how beautiful and colourful flowers and butterflies are. Let them notice how

many different varities of trees are. Let them see sunrise and sunset. Let them appreciate the beautiful

western horizon during sunset. Let them watch birds going towards their nests in evening.

Even as one grows up, he should try to find time to observe and appreciate natural (i.e. non man-made)

objects.

I really appreciate Scientists who are working in Modern Physics because they have not left their sense of

wonder. They are always trying to find why things are the way they are. After all, how many people wonder

why space and time exist? How many even feel that it is something to wonder about? For majority, space and

time are to be taken for granted. In fact, for majority, many things are to be taken for granted.

It is their sense of wonder that motivates them to find root cause. You have written that Scientists may find (because of Maya) yet another theory. It is good if that theory is closer to root cause. However, the problem, as you have idicated is that because of one theory after another it may take them very long to ultimately see the light. They may spend very long time in the "tunnel".

I understand this is a problem. But I do not see any better alternative. Some may claim that the Scientists should immediately believe that everything is because of God. But even this belief does not give us all the answers. This belief says that God is the root cause, but it does not say how from that root cause the universe has come to its current state. For this, we do need theories. Another problem is that there are so many beliefs related to God. Everybody claims that what he says is correct. Whom do Scientists agree with? What I find as the biggest problem is that if they just make some statement because of their belief and do not substantiate it with any actual observations, then others will not agree with him. They will turn away from this belief i.e. away from God. We have learnt this from history.

There was a time when Church said that everything in the universe moved round Earth. It was a sin to question this belief? What was the result? Many people expressed agreement (even if they did not believe) with what Church said. But this continued only so long Church was powerful. Soon Church lost its power. People were no longer as afraid of Church as they were earlier. They remembered how Church tortured those who disagreed with it. They revolted and moved away from its teachings. As they moved away, many moved away from many good teachings in Christianity as well.

After all, what is the reason that it is often considered unscientific to talk of God? Aristotle used to mention God often. He said that things on Earth are not perfect because humans have made them imperfect. But he called moon, Sun, stars as perfect because those were outside the influence of humans. Descarte believed that one thing moves another and he called God as the first Mover. So, he also believed in God. Earlier many Scientists openly talked of God and nobody called their statements as ridiculous. But now, if anybody talks of God to explain anything, others try their best to explain the same thing without mentioning God.

Why is it so? There can be various reasons. One reason that I want to point out here is that they were forced to agree with certain things without questioning. "Agree or perish." If you force somebody to agree with you, it is very natural that he will disagree with you (though he may pretend to agree some times) even if what you are saying is correct.

If, because of some reason, somebody moves away from some teachings of a religion, it often happens that he moves away from almost all teachings of all religions. Even now, for many Scientists intelligent design means creationism as explained by many Christians. If the scientists find something wrong with this creationism, they often have the tendency to think that it is impossible for there to be any intelligent hand behind the universe.

It is good to question and not accept everything blindly. But, what I find wrong with many scientists is that they think any theory that involves God must be wrong and they try to give other theories that do not involve God. If it is unscientific to believe in things related to God, because such a belief is blind belief, then it is unscientific to immediately jump to the conclusion that there is no God. After all, believing that something is impossible unless proved impossible, is also a blind belief.

So, let scientists contunue with their quest but let them not keep their minds closed and think that God is an impossibility. If they keep the possibility of God open and carry out studies to find root cause, at least some of them will realise the ultimate truth or it least reach close to it.

[shvu 1]

I will play my Santa Claus card...

 

 

But, what I find wrong with many scientists is that they think any theory that involves God must be wrong and they try to give other theories that do not involve God. If it is unscientific to believe in things related to God, because such a belief is blind belief, then it is unscientific to immediately jump to the conclusion that there is no God.

Can you replace God by Santa Claus in the above statement and explain what the diference is? If there is none, would you say the scientist needs to keep an open mind on the existence of Santa Claus and not dismiss the concept outright for lack of evidence? I would also object to the use of 'immediately jump to the conclusion that there is no God' as we have 1000s of years of evidence to show how life works. It is not a momentary, impulsive decision to drop a certain hypothesis.

 

 

After all, believing that something is impossible unless proved impossible, is also a blind belief

A square circle is an impossiblity that can be accepted without requests for evidence. The presence of a mango tree in the north pole is a similar impossiblity where one would not challenge the statement for lack of evidence. If one posits a God, with no evidence, it raises a billion other questions and instead of solving the problem of origin, it only aggravates it. Such a baseless hypothesis is rejected outright as science would prefer to work towards a solution and not away from it. It is a matter of being realistic to only consider theories which have reasonably good possiblities of turning into reality. For all the above reasons, a scientist of this time will not attach any value to religious stories which have no semblance of reasonable hypothesis. No scientific progress can be made with the concept of a God as no evidence can be collected to support this claim and so only one of these two things can be done with it -- either accept it as a blind artice of faith or reject it.

 

Rejecting such a hypothesis is obviously not an indication of a closed, narrow mind as can be explained by the Santa Claus example. It comes after careful evaluation of what is seen and perceived.

 

Cheers

[Avinash 0]

 

Can you replace God by Santa Claus in the above statement and explain what the diference is? If there is none, would you say the scientist needs to keep an open mind on the existence of Santa Claus and not dismiss the concept outright for lack of evidence?

 

It is widely accepted that Santa Claus is a myth and that elders themselves give gifts to children and say that Santa gave (personally I do not like this practice, but that is a different topic). However, there is no such wide acceptance that the existence of God is a myth.

 

 

I would also object to the use of 'immediately jump to the conclusion that there is no God' as we have 1000s of years of evidence to show how life works. It is not a momentary, impulsive decision to drop a certain hypothesis.

 

Yes, it is true that we have been able to explain various phenomena without mentioning God. This does not prove absence of God. I agree that it does not prove presence of God either. So, it is perfectly all right if Scientists explain things without resorting to any mention of God. However, what is wrong is the tendency to suspect a theory just because the theory suggests (though not necessarily prove) that there may be God. To give an example, Big Bang theory says that everything including space and time got created a few billion (between 13 and 14) years ago. That made Scientists wonder as to what caused Big Bang. Religionists claimed that if something came into existence, then it must have some cause. They claimed that Big Bang proves that there is a Creator. This worried scientists.

 

Then, Hawking incorporated Quantum Physics into General theory to some extent and showed that time and space could exist even before Big Bang and hence there was no necessity of a first creator. This made Physicists including Stephen Hawking heave a sigh of relief. They were happy that it was not necessary to assume a first creator as there was no first creation.

 

I like Quantum Big Bang theory more than classical Big Bang theory. The reason is that if a theory does not incorporate Quantum Physics (which is proved by various experimental results), then that theory cannot be accurate. Quantum Big Bang theory must be more accurate. This is why I like it better. However, I do not like the idea that this theory should be accepted because it allows us to explain things without mentioning God.

 

I am not saying that one must accept a theory just because it mentions God. I can give various false theories all of which include God. But, at the same time, a theory should not be suspected just because it suggests there may be God.

 

 

A square circle is an impossiblity that can be accepted without requests for evidence.

It is by definition. We have defined the words circle and square such that a square circle is, by definition, an impossibility. But the way people describe God does not make God an impossibility.

 

 

The presence of a mango tree in the north pole is a similar impossiblity where one would not challenge the statement for lack of evidence.

It is possible to see if any mango tree exists in north pople. But we cannot have similar verification related to God.

 

Not to Shvu but to those who will start shouting at me by saying that they have evidence of God - Please note. Here I am talking about the kind of evidence that we use to verify if a mango tree exists in a certain place. In other words I am talking about our sense perceptions. I agree this is not always perfect, but this is what is relevant in this post.

 

 

If one posits a God, with no evidence, it raises a billion other questions and instead of solving the problem of origin, it only aggravates it. Such a baseless hypothesis is rejected outright as science would prefer to work towards a solution and not away from it. It is a matter of being realistic to only consider theories which have reasonably good possiblities of turning into reality.

I agree. I agree that Scientists should not immediately accept whatever some theists say. However, it is wrong to think that a theory that does not involve God must be better than a theory that does.

 

 

For all the above reasons, a scientist of this time will not attach any value to religious stories which have no semblance of reasonable hypothesis. No scientific progress can be made with the concept of a God as the concept will remain unchanged with time. No evidence can be collected to support this claim and only one of these two things can be done with it -- either accept it as a blind artice of faith or reject it.

 

Personally I also do not believe in various things written in religious books. For example, if some Purana says that no life form could exist during a certain period (because it was Brahma's night) and we have fossils to believe that life did exist at that time, then I will believe that life existed. Of course, those who believe that it is impossible for Puranas to be wrong will object by saying that palaeontologists use sense perceptions, which could be wrong. But if I have to choose between something for which there is evidence and something which is contrary to evidence, then I will choose the former.

Similary I also find it impossible to believe in various stories in religious books.

But if we talk of the kind of evidence that scientists use, then there is no fool-proof evidence to prove that God exists and also there is no evidence to prove that He does not. Therefore, it will be wrong to blindly accept or reject the hypothesis of God. Therefore, carry out researches keeping both options open without worrying if the results are taking one closer to the idea of God or away from it. If the studies are carried out without any bias, then the results will anyway lead us closer to whatever is the reality.

[Avinash 0]

When I wrote that a square circle is by definition an impossibility, then I was talking of circles that we can see. But space is quantized. Therefore a circle is not really a continuous curve whose no part is a straight line, but it is a polygon of various small sides. (Small here means Planck length.)

 

If we take a smaller circle, then the number of sides in the Polygon will be smaller. If we keep on reducing the size of the circle, then we may reach a circle in which the number of sides is 4. It is possible for such a circle to be a square.

[bija 0]

Thank you for sharing your insights Avinash. We receive gifts in many ways, and to hear anothers perspectives, on beauty, science, and the absolute is a treasure.

I would like to share a little on beauty and simplicity. One of my main interests at the moment is a concept, or a way of seeing the living entity as an organism that evolves. And how sometimes the organism will go through, spiritual emergence to reach it's potential and part in relation to the whole. For certain individuals there can be a block in the process of spiritually evolving and the organism can experience a complete reworking of the self and it's concepts. Personally I encountered this phenomenon, which some open minded proffesionals call a spiritual emergence crisis. Which in essence is a positive encounter for the living organism. To promote it's evolution and growth. This process occured over a ten year period for me. It involved a total reworking of the full self.

This is of great interest for many people either proffesionaly or personally. One thing it did to me is, slow my life right down. It gave me time to appreciate nature, to see beauty in insects, bird life, meaningful relationships, to see a great design in and through all things. To look up at the sky at night and be in awe at the vast space between unlimited stars.

There is a greater force at work in this fragile cosmos, than pure self will. Personally I am not so concerned how people define this living force, but in my encounters it is tangible and real. Science is a good thing, especially when it lines up with the greater design and purpose.

Thank you for sharing your insights. The many fields of science compliment and uplift the great diversity and wonder manifest in this universe.

[shvu 1]

 

It is widely accepted that Santa Claus is a myth and that elders themselves give gifts to children and say that Santa gave (personally I do not like this practice, but that is a different topic). However, there is no such wide acceptance that the existence of God is a myth.

 

I have some things to say here, but that would be construed as an argument set towards 'defeating' you, which the admin is not happy about.

 

I am not sure if I should respond or not...Let me think about it.

 

Cheers

[Guest guest]

The difference between God and Santa Clause is that their natures are very different. Santa Clause is a good samaritan, a generous giver. God is considered the unseen force behind all things, the creator of all and the destroyer of all. The origin of everything, and the destination of everything. Santa Clause is no such thing. By replacing God with Santa Clause, you're taking a completely different stance on the nature of everything, and it just doesn't work, simply because Santa Clause is NOT GOD. However, if you want to just label Santa Clause as God, yet keep the same function of God while labelling God as Santa Clause, then there really is no difference between God and Santa Clause, and the scientist has to keep an open-mind about the existence of "Santa Clause" then if he wants to find him.

 

As for the nature of science accepting God, I do not believe scientists will ever accept God as God, they will get it down to a set of ideas that describe the operation of the universe, but they will not transcend that. Their philosophy is based on empirical evidence, and God is considered unknowable through empirical evidence, so unless a scientist has a personal revelation of God, his mindset will most likely be one in which God does not exist. Science explains the How, it is philosophy and religion's job to explain the WHY. There are many things right now that scientists cannot explain as for the REASON the universe works a certain way. When or if they boil it all down to string theory and figure out how it builds up to other laws, they'll have most of the reasons why certain things work a certain way. They won't have ALL, however, as they will not be able to explain WHY string theory is the fundamental theory of everything and why it is the cause of the universe. There's always a question of Why that will be unresolved, and that is where science will have to leave it to philosophers and religion to speculate.