How to beat Scientist

[Pankaja_Dasa 1]

 

 

Haribol

 

Before I came to KC I used to be into Science, and used to read books on space exploration etc, really used to be interested in it. But then as I got little bit religious I started to question science. Because of their main theories. I even in College gave a speech [if you can call it that hehe, its was diabolical] that the Universe was created with a big bang, the audience [if you can call it that heh] consisted of Muslims, Christians, and some of my so-called College friends. Nobody said a word about it for some odd reason. Maybe even religioulists are baffled how the creation took place, and don't believe thier own Scriptures? One thing that gets to me is how Science even though something may be theoretical this is presented as Fact, which is really baffling to even me.

 

My question is: Is theory based on facts or lies?

[Guest guest]

What would it matter?

[Pankaja_Dasa 1]

 

It matters to lot of people. But generally this is the one fall-down theory of the scientists, they cannot back this theory up with anything as far as I can see. Because the question always arises if the creation took place with a big bang 'who created the bang?'. But one thing which I do get from it is this, if from a single atom [or whatever they say] a whole Univese was created, then the potency of a single atom must be amazing indeed. Basically the more I think about it, the more silly it seems to get. What was surrounding the atom? Problem is the more you do this, the more room is leaves for speculations, the more you speculate to further you go away from the Truth. [see gita for that reff]

[Guest guest]

To those that have some knowledge of biology, I would be greatfull if you could help me with this situation.

IF you were presented with this question, what would you make of it.

 

Is the biological classification of life forms (taxonomy) acceptable to you as Kingdom, Phylum, Class, Order, Family, Genus, & Species or do you prefer 'kind' as the best way to classify life?

 

Thanks

das

[Guest guest]

 

It matters to lot of people. But generally this is the one fall-down theory of the scientists, they cannot back this theory up with anything as far as I can see. Because the question always arises if the creation took place with a big bang 'who created the bang?'.

 

 

That is the important question, the Prime Mover, the Primal Initiator who lit the fuse to the Big Bang. Or as devotees like to say the Cause of all Causes.

 

The rest of their theories we don't need to haggle with. Big Bang or steady state it is important to search out the Intelligent One behind the cosmic phenomena.

 

The idea of a cosmos suddenly arising from a big bang ,expanding and then ultimately contracting sounds similar to the material manifestation expanding from a small seed from Vishnu and then expanding and then contracting back into His spiritual form.

 

But as long as they give credit to the Supreme Lord all else can be wrong and they will be alright. But to have everything right and ignore the Lord is the true wrong and they suffer for it.

 

 

 

 

But one thing which I do get from it is this, if from a single atom [or whatever they say] a whole Univese was created, then the potency of a single atom must be amazing indeed.

 

 

 

Indeed amazing. Remember Supersoul is in the atom, so every material energy and possibility is also sitting inside the atom. From there anything is possible.

 

Even in this world we have the seed of the Banyan tree as an example. Tiny tiny seed from which a mountain of a tree develops.

 

 

 

Basically the more I think about it, the more silly it seems to get. What was surrounding the atom?

 

 

Krishna and His energies were/are surrounding the atom. There is no void.

 

 

Problem is the more you do this, the more room is leaves for speculations, the more you speculate to further you go away from the Truth. [see gita for that reff]

 

 

This is the difference between mental speculation and philosophical speculation. Philosophical speculation is based on referrences to Guru Shastra Sadhu and Supersoul whereas mental speculation never reaches beyond one's own conditioned mind.

 

[Gaea 0]

 

To those that have some knowledge of biology, I would be greatfull if you could help me with this situation.

IF you were presented with this question, what would you make of it.

 

Is the biological classification of life forms (taxonomy) acceptable to you as Kingdom, Phylum, Class, Order, Family, Genus, & Species or do you prefer 'kind' as the best way to classify life?

 

Thanks

das

 

 

 

From a bio perspective the KPCOFGS taxonomy system is of course far superior to just labelling things as "kind". When you use such generic terms there is no buffer for ontological distinction, which leads to ambiguity and mis-knowledge, which is of course counter to science..... have i misunderstood your question???

[Guest guest]

But generally this is the one fall-down theory of the scientists, they cannot back this theory up with anything as far as I can see.

 

A large number of experimental observations support the big-bang theory. Please note. I am not saying that there are no problems with the theory. There are. personally, I myself am sceptical towards this theory. But it does not mean that those who believe in this theory cannot cite anything for their belief. They can cite many experimental results.

 

But one thing which I do get from it is this, if from a single atom [or whatever they say] a whole Univese was created, then the potency of a single atom must be amazing indeed.

 

The size was like that of an atom. But it was not an atom the way we think of atoms at present. But, of course, the pwer was amazing indeed!

 

 

What was surrounding the atom?

 

Nothing if we constrain ourselves to our 3d space dimensions.

[Pankaja_Dasa 1]

 

 

Nothing if we constrain ourselves to our 3d space dimensions.

--

 

What does that mean?

[Pankaja_Dasa 1]

In reply to:

Problem is the more you do this, the more room is leaves for speculations, the more you speculate to further you go away from the Truth. [see gita for that reff]

 

__

This is the difference between mental speculation and philosophical speculation. Philosophical speculation is based on referrences to Guru Shastra Sadhu and Supersoul whereas mental speculation never reaches beyond one's own conditioned mind.

 

 

 

The main thing that scientist claim for evoultion if Dinosaurs and say about different periods you know like Creatatious [right spelling?] etc. 250 Million years ago. Then they say no human remains have been found older than these, so the conclution they come to is, first there were Dinosaurs then Humans, interesting conversation I heard with Prabhupada was that, how will humans evolve? This question Prabhupada asked somebody. I wonder what Scientists will say to that? I sort of know the answer..

 

They say about the Big Crunch, when everything is rolled back. And it all starts over again later on. Well what is so different about this, and saying God created this Universe? Wouldn't that make more sence? I am starting to think it does. Because if from a single atom as Scientists claim this UNIverse was created then Krishna can easliy create trillions of Universes will a trillion atoms. What is the astomishment? If a tree can generate trillions of trees with a single seed.

 

ERm, I read on another thread can Krishna pass an elephant through the eye of a needle?? I was thinking can Krishna pass a trillion elephants through the eye of a needle? I was actually convinced He can lol. /images/graemlins/tongue.gif

[Guest guest]

Krishna can do anything He likes.

[Guest guest]

Gaea,

 

 

"From a bio perspective the KPCOFGS taxonomy system is of course far superior to just labelling things as "kind". When you use such generic terms there is no buffer for ontological distinction, which leads to ambiguity and mis-knowledge, which is of course counter to science..... have i misunderstood your question???"!

 

 

 

You have understood the question very well given the way it was blasted out of nowhere, and your response was informative. Thank you.

 

 

 

 

Pankaja_Dasa,

 

"My question is: Is theory based on facts or lies?"

 

 

A good lie is based on fact, IMO, however, I consider the theory of abio-genesis and evolution, bad lies.

 

 

 

Guest,

 

"The rest of their theories we don't need to haggle with."

 

So their theories become truth in generations to come?

 

 

"Big Bang or steady state it is important to search out the Intelligent One behind the cosmic phenomena."

 

And how are future generations going to know this?

 

das.

 

 

[Avinash 0]

Avinash:Nothing if we constrain ourselves to our 3d space dimensions.

 

Pankaj: What does that mean?

 

Avinash: That atom sized universe contained the entire space time. So, it was not covered with anything that we can perceive. However, it is quite possible that it was (and is) covered with some higher dimension(s).

[Pankaja_Dasa 1]

 

The spiritual atmosphere.!

[Guest guest]

My quote:

That is the important question, the Prime Mover, the Primal Initiator who lit the fuse to the Big Bang. Or as devotees like to say the Cause of all Causes.

 

The rest of their theories we don't need to haggle with. Big Bang or steady state it is important to search out the Intelligent One behind the cosmic phenomena.

 

 

Your question:

"The rest of their theories we don't need to haggle with."

 

So their theories become truth in generations to come?

 

 

It is good to keep the context. The point is to remember the Supreme Intelligent Being behind all this cosmic phenomena. If we get the interactions of the cosmic forces right or wrong in the end it is of little or no consequence.

 

Now how would devotees challenge all these theories that they may consider to be wrong? On what basis and to what end would they argue? What would they base their srguments on beyond similar processes being used by the material scientists. And how would they know they are right and the scientists are wrong since the sastra and predessor acaryas have not elaborately spoken on these theories? And if they put up some elaborate theory in physics and related that as prove of God what happens if their speculative theory is in time proven to be false? Ou goes the proof of God along with it?

 

Their is already enough examples in given to us in modern science to prove that we are not the body. THAT is an essential point we must emphasize for the good of those present and future generations.

 

Same with the examples of unimaginable complexity that point to an Intelligent Being vs. the absurd notion that over time inert molecules bumped together and became conscious living entities. Remember Frankenstein "It's Alive!!" haha

 

We must have a solid goal in mind when we debate. Otherwise our energies become dissipated fruitlessly.

 

"The intelligence of the irresolute is many branched."

 

What is our goal. To establish spirit over matter and eternal individuality of that spirit under the Supreme individual.

 

It's wise to pick our battles well.

[Guest guest]

****Now how would devotees challenge all these theories that they may consider to be wrong?****

 

 

 

 

IMO, if a devotee only considers these theories to be wrong, then he/she would appear to be on the same platform as any speculative person. If he/she comes to the conclusion that these theories (abio-genesis/evolution) may well be correct, then what is their position regarding Bhagavad Gita, Srimad Bhagavatam, Srila Prabhupada and Sri Krishna, as these theories clearly contradict everything they live and stand for?

 

 

 

 

 

****And if they put up some elaborate theory in physics and related that as prove of God what happens if their speculative theory is in time proven to be false? Ou goes the proof of God along with it?****

 

 

 

 

 

It is not about putting up elaborate theories, this would be a waste of time from a scientific point of view, science by its very nature, is unable to step outside the physical (naturalistic) realm. At best science can give good reason to understand God.

In a sense Einstein was the perfect scientist.

Srila Prabhupada, seemed to give a lot of time and energy (please correct me if I am wrong) bringing to the surface, the foolish side of modern science, so why is this a problem for devotees today, especially the ones who have a good scientific brain.

 

 

 

*****Their is already enough examples in given to us in modern science to prove that we are not the body. THAT is an essential point we must emphasize for the good of those present and future generations.*****

 

 

That is good, but how is this point going to be emphasized in the current atmosphere?

 

das.

 

[Guest guest]

 

*****Their is already enough examples in given to us in modern science to prove that we are not the body. THAT is an essential point we must emphasize for the good of those present and future generations.*****

 

 

That is good, but how is this point going to be emphasized in the current atmosphere?

 

das.

 

 

Yes the is the point that needs to be stressed. Simply repeating flowery stories from past authors is not enough in today's world. Personally I love those old stories with their lotus flower language but modern people are conditioned to not take the essence from them but rather reject them out of hand as primitive fables.

 

Star with this understanding. Everything in the natural world from a small stream flowing down the Himalayas to the ocean and becoming the river Ganges along the way to the tiny world of quarks speaks to the existence of God. IMO the entire creation is coded scripture from which the Lord can reveal Himself. It all points to Him.

 

Now a devotee who knows scientific terminology can show the hand of the Lord through that same terminology for more ready acceptance within today's atmosphere. That according to his realization and creative use of his speaking abilitity. And there lies the essential point. A devotee must first actually perceive God within the natural world before he can reveal Him in the natural world.

 

The debate on Intelligent Design is where this is all happening presently but how many Eastern trained devotees are participating. Some for God only knows what reason oppose it!!

 

Presently there are many who work in the scientific field and then take it off to come to the Sunday feast where they wear tilak and do their devotee stuff. Of course I am not speaking of dress but of living in two worlds as if they are separate or even in opposition and trying to go back and forth between the two.

 

God is there all through science. The difference between a devotee scientist and an atheist scientist is not the discpline itself but the way it is approached.

 

Why do many devotees oppose science? We should oppose the atheistic spin on science that's all.

 

Just add Krishna then it's perfect.