Big Knowledge!

[Guest guest]

From a transcript:

 

Hridy: Which one is superior?

Guest: One is you can uh make certain experiments… experimental studies.

Hridy: You cannot make experiments because… you can get a tiny little bit of knowledge. But to get big knowledge you can not make any experiments. It is impossible. You've never done it, you'll never do it. So therefore why call it superior? It's a hopeless failure. You'll never get conclusive knowledge in this way. And you're simply attached to this process because of your false pride.

 

ancient paztriot

[Guest guest]

Hridy:

 

My point is that if you try to objectively understand what God is, then you may come to a different conclusion. But if you already have desire that God not be there, then how will you understand?

 

Therefore, we find… Just like if we say that this issue is unknown at the present time, we accept that state… unknown factor, then why is it that everyone is trying to prove that God is not there?

 

He should… the duty of the scientists is not to prove something which he has imaged, but to actually study the real situation.

 

So my criticism is you are not trying to understand whether God is there or not. You are trying to prove that God is not there.

[Gauracandra 1]

Imagine a world where everything was one dimensional. The world would be a dot. Now imagine a two dimensional world. We can move flatly on a piece of paper. If a three dimensional object (say a pencil) came into a two dimensional world, we could (as two dimensional beings) experience a two dimensional slice of the three dimensional objected. In other words there is a dimensional order. In a three dimensional world we can see all orders below us (two and one). A two dimensional world can see a one dimensional world below it, but could never really see a three dimensional object. It could only possibly get a faint idea of a two dimensional aspect of a three dimensional object. We could right now be surrounded by fourth dimensional objects and never know it. What does a 4th dimensional object look like? I have no idea because I've never experienced one as a 3 dimensional being. Now God is beyond all orders and so sees everything below him. But we are infinitesimal beings trying to calculate whether God exists. It can't be done. The only way possible is if God descends and gives us the vision to see him. Our own mechanical processes will never succeed.

[Guest guest]

…that all these biologists and chemists, they're trying very hard to prove that God is not there. There is a big difference between objective investigation and simply trying to prove something that you've already decided before the proof is there. In other words, you've already come to your conclusion without any evidence that God is not there, and now you are simply trying to prove it. This is not scientific.

[Guest guest]

And then you simply try to twist things and in such a way so that it proves what you already believe by faith. Just like for example… I have another argument that if you are trying to explain something in an area where you have no direct experience, then you should… even if you are willing to present some theory… your theory should not contradict what has already been observed. Do you accept that?

Guest: That one has to make a careful study…

Hridy: Yeah, but I'm saying… I'm asking if you accept this statement:

 

If in a particular case you have no direct observation, then you should propose a theory which does not contradict those cases which are observable.

 

Guest: Let's say there might be some cases which are uh …which fall into this category… also there may be some others which may be not this way in the category.

Hridy: Yes, but at least… that may be true, but let us assuming… if there's some analogy, then in an analogous situation you cannot propose a theory which is contradictory to analogous situations which are observable. So therefore, my point is that if we see everywhere so many things are being created by persons… just like in this room… everything… the building, the paintings, the candle holders, microphone, the floor… everything has been produced by persons. So why in the case of the universe where we cannot observe what has come about, why propose something which is contradictory to everything has already been observed: namely that everything is created by persons? What is the logic behind that?