Srila Prabhupada 100k audio file Sudarsana Button Bar Links FAQ Feedback Text Search Index What's New?

[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]

A Reasonable Case for God CAN be Presented Using Science



donl@physics1.physics.monash.edu.au wrote:

>(Madhudvisa dasa       ) writes:

>>donl@physics1.physics.monash.edu.au wrote:

>>>(Madhudvisa dasa       ) writes:
>>>

>>>>                     WHEN THE UNIVERSE WAS DARK...
>>>>                     =============================

Dear Don,

  It is not my intention [nor is it possible in your terms as the
  "authorities" you accept don't consider the spiritual component] to
  present a fully documented "scientific" paper here. 
  
  The idea was to show a reasonable argument can be put, using some of
  your scientific ideas, for a creation by God rather than a creation by
  nothing. I don't have any real interest in Mandelbrots fractals, his
  ideas just fit nicely with the idea of a creation of the universe along
  the same lines as we see creation going on before our eyes (ie: the
  birth of a child).  This is not an unreasonable notion. It doesn't
  matter if scientists have thought of it or not [they haven't because
  they are not looking for theories which include intelligent living
  entities above us]. The idea is still quite valid.

  Your [the scientific community's] refusal to at least even
  theoretically consider the existence of the soul, something different
  from matter whose symptom is consciousness, despite the very strong
  indications that such an entity exists, is unreasonable and
  closed-minded. A world-view based on spiritual concepts is not invalid.
  It may not make sense in your terms but you have to realize that,
  although you have your "negative enthropy" to create everything around
  us one who has seen the creator is not very convinced by such empty 
  talk. You can talk and talk (I've seen it in sci.astro and
  talk.origins) but you will never come to agreement and you will never
  reach a conclusion until you consider the spiritual component.

  It is true that science builds on the knowledge it has and it is, in
  one sense, a spiritual process. For ultimately a thoughtful person
  questioning the world around him will come to a higher platform of
  questioning but it may take a long time...

  Science has very nicely provided the philosophy which enables
  atheists to live lives free from responsibility for their activities.
  Science is their religion. If it wasn't for Charles Darwin and the Big
  Bang Theory they would find it difficult to justify their atheistic
  beliefs. Before Darwin the Western atheists didn't have any way of
  explaining the creation [without God's hand] so they were very grateful
  to him and the scientific world. They are holding on to these
  theories [evolution and the big bang] like grim death. Any slight
  criticism [or even questioning] brings hostile results. It's a faith,
  it's a religion, it's a dogma. It's supported by our imperfect sense
  perceptions and speculations therefore there is no guarantee it has
  anything to do with what is actually happening out there.

  Somebody told me [in another group]:

>Einstien said, "science is like looking at a face of a watch and trying
>to figure out how it works inside."  When we have theorys on how nature
>works, sometimes we will prove it wrong, sometimes we can never prove it
>wrong, because it is right. Re: The moon and the sun theory/fact!

  Exactly, it's a great statement. You can take a number of watches which
  all display the correct time but inside the watches the mechanics could
  be completely different. Externally they are identical. The same thing
  holds with the universe. You can develop many different models (like
  the workings of the different watches) which give the same result as we
  see in the sky (like all the watches display the same time). Just as
  you can't determine what the mechanism is inside the watch by looking
  at it, you can't tell the "mechanism" of the universe by looking
  through your telescope.

  So you can't actually tell what's going on out there. How absolutely
  ridiculous it is that you think you can understand how the universe was
  created billions of years ago. I don't know if you read about Dr. Frog
  but his story is very relevant. You [and everyone else] have become
  accustomed to these ideas, they have been thoroughly drummed into us by
  the education system and mostly everybody accepts them. They are not
  just scientific theories, they are the backbone of the modern
  hedonistic way of life. They are the mainstay of the "atheistic"
  religion.

  When talking about these two items [Darwinism and the big bang] we
  touch on matters very close to many peoples hearts for without them we
  might just have to consider God may exist after all.
  
  The conclusion of this discussion in another area [not scientists] 
  ended up like this:
                     
Jennacy Backo <aubrey@tristan.corsair.com> wrote:

>madhudvisa@krishna.org (Madhudvisa dasa       ) wrote:

 << snip >>

>Neither do the rest of us.  All the scientists are trying to do is give
>us a rational culmination of ideas, using data on information they have,
>to allow those of us who are not religiously-affiliated (like me) to have
>their own little "How The Universe Was Created" story.   So far, i think
>it's done rather well.

 << snip >>

>Therefore
>>  a thoughtful person has to at least consider that Krishna may exist and
>>  He may have created the universe.

>Okay, I will grant you that.  But nothing more.


I think that summarizes it. Enough said.


  Thank you. Hare Krishna.



Thank you. Hare Krishna!

Madhudvisa dasa       
(madhudvisa@krishna.org)     /sudarsana 
                                
All glories to His Divine Grace A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada!



References: