"The Scientists' Bluff"

[Pankaja_Dasa]

"The Scientists' Bluff"

Los Angeles, April 19, 1973

http://www.prabhupadavani.org/Morning_Walks/Text/MW010.html

 

 

 

Karandhara: A group of, a group of people wanted that in school they should also teach that God created the earth and the people...

 

Prabhupada: Yes.

 

Karandhara: Not just say that it was created by chance, random biology. But scientists objected, said: "We cannot say that God created the earth because then everyone will take us as fools." And they defeated the measure. The scientists said "Everyone knows. The earth is just created by biological chemistry. If we say that God created the earth, everyone will think us as fools."

 

Prabhupada: The biology, chemistry, why don't you create? The biology and chemistry has advanced so much. Why don't you create? What is their answer?

 

Karandhara: In the future.

 

Prabhupada: That is their foolishness. Why future? If it is already created, biology and chemistry, and you know the process, why don't you create it by chemistry, biology?

--

 

Read this /images/graemlins/grin.gif Scientist say that Creation was created by material combination, NOW YOU SAY THIS. Can you prove it? SHOW ME. THEN I <font color="red">will</font color> believe.

 

This was like a PING, if you say something you have to be able to prove it. They can't. But because we are so conditioned to believe anything we hear we never say 'wait a minute. They cannot even prove it, WHY ARE THEY PRESENTING IT AS FACT? Maya.

 

Comments? /images/graemlins/smirk.gif

[krsna]

bluff

 

v., bluffed, bluff·ing, bluffs.

 

v.tr.

To mislead or deceive.

To impress, deter, or intimidate by a false display of confidence.

 

Games. To try to mislead (opponents) in a card game by heavy betting on a poor hand or by little or no betting on a good one.

 

v.intr.

To engage in a false display of strength or confidence.

 

bluff'a·ble adj.

bluff'er n.

 

 

Thesaurus:

 

bluff

 

verb

 

To cause to accept what is false, especially by trickery or misrepresentation: beguile, betray, cozen, deceive, delude, double-cross, dupe, fool, hoodwink, humbug, mislead, take in, trick.

 

Informal: bamboozle, have.

 

Slang:four-flush.

 

Idioms: lead astray, play false, pull the wool over someone's eyes, put something over on, take for a ride. See honest/dishonest.

[Kulapavana]

"Scientist say that Creation was created by material combination, NOW YOU SAY THIS. Can you prove it? SHOW ME. THEN I will believe."

 

well... the same argument can be easily turned around:

 

"NOW YOU SAY God created the world. Can you prove it? SHOW ME. THEN I will believe."

 

and then the brawl begins... /images/graemlins/wink.gif

 

ultimately, there are arguments for both views. we are convinced not so much by the arguments themselves, but by our desire to see things in a certain way. Krishna is the master of all mystics, and He remains very well hidden for those who HAVE NO DESIRE to find Him.

 

[Pankaja_Dasa]

 

 

Seeing the above argument, all the science is based on ONLY Theory. If you cannot prove it, then why should you talk?...

 

On the other hand Vaishnava's present the Bhagavad-gita, which is what THEY are looking for. The only way to accept it is by FAITH. And like you said:

 

`and He remains very well hidden for those who HAVE NO DESIRE to find Him.`

[Guest guest]

 

 

He remains very well hidden for those who HAVE NO DESIRE to find Him.

 

 

...for no logical reason, that is. It would make sense even to the simplest idiot that remaining hidden is hardly the solution to get people to see/know the truth. This excuse is wearing thin and I suspect there is no one out there who would take this seriously.

 

No offense, my friend. I personally know people who spent the better part of their lives trying to find him and he remained very well hidden for them as well. One guy searched long enough, got frustrated and somehow got convinced that the only way was to give up his material body. So he killed himself. Why? Because the good lord stayed hidden for him as well.

 

So I suggest you stop believing in such ideas. Like I said elsewhere, the same "well hidden" logic can used to defend the existence of Santa Claus too.

 

If there is a God out there, he remains very well hidden for devotee/atheist alike.

 

Cheers

[Kulapavana]

"Seeing the above argument, all the science is based on ONLY Theory."

 

why then is SP talking about the science of KC? science is science, but myths and bogus theories are much more common in various religions than in true science.

 

you know that God created the world, and that is nice. but a true spiritual scientist will ask: HOW did He accomplish the Creation?

[Kulapavana]

In reply to:

--

 

He remains very well hidden for those who HAVE NO DESIRE to find Him.

 

--

...for no logical reason, that is. It would make sense even to the simplest idiot that remaining hidden is hardly the solution to get people to see/know the truth. This excuse is wearing thin and I suspect there is no one out there who would take this seriously.

-------------------------------

 

the reason is simple: freedom of choice. if He was speaking from behind a cloud every saturday morning, you would have NO choice.

 

you are mistaken, that the purpose of creation is "to get people to see/know the truth". the purpose of creation is to give you facility to live your life apart from God. and the system works very well, doesn't it? /images/graemlins/wink.gif

[Pankaja_Dasa]

 

Now this would be a good starting point. Problem is with you. Even after finding out Cigarettes are bad for you, you STILL smoke, why is that?

[Kulapavana]

many of the true believers smoke too, also despite knowing about the risks of smoking. shouldn't they know even BETTER than material scientists?

 

 

and whats more, as a true believer you know better that the material world is no place for a devotee. so why are you still attached to fame, profit and distinction, as well as to sense objects?

 

and knowing the glory of the Holy Name, why do you not tremble in extasy when chanting the name of Lord HARI?

[Pankaja_Dasa]

 

 

`many of the true believers smoke too, also despite knowing about the risks of smoking`

 

Isn't that a contradiction?

[Guest guest]

Krishna remains hidden to people who are not interested in searching for him (Krishna-anushilana).

 

But he reveals himself to people who chant his names constantly and have realized that he is the God of Love.

 

Gaudiya Vaishnavism preaches that Krishna is the Absolute and Supreme Lord, and that Krishna returned to earth 500 years ago as Sri Krishna Chaitanya. When he returned to earth he gave instructions to the people of the world - the Siksastakam (Mahaprabhu's eight verses of instruction). In those verses Mahaprabhu explained how people can escape from illusion and discover Truth. Mahaprabhu also explained how to attain perfect joy and happiness. Not through scientific research, scholarly debates, politics or economic development, but through constant meditation upon the Divine Names of God.

 

Scientific research, scholarly debates, political science and economic development are things totally separate from the path to God taught by Sri Chaitanya. Likewise, the knowledge of how to attain liberation, which is taught in the Upanishads, is a different path too. What to speak of the meat-eaters religions that preach about getting "salvation" by bathing in water or the blood of Jesus. These paths are completely different from the way to realize God that Sri Chaitanya taught.

 

 

[Guest guest]

 

...for no logical reason, that is. It would make sense even to the simplest idiot that remaining hidden is hardly the solution to get people to see/know the truth. This excuse is wearing thin and I suspect there is no one out there who would take this seriously.

 

No offense, my friend. I personally know people who spent the better part of their lives trying to find him and he remained very well hidden for them as well. One guy searched long enough, got frustrated and somehow got convinced that the only way was to give up his material body. So he killed himself. Why? Because the good lord stayed hidden for him as well.

 

 

 

Hi Shvu,

 

Seeing as how you are quite the intelligent rationalist, perhaps you can answer a question for me. Here is a short list of other things that were quite hidden from empirical perception for quite some time (some still are). My question: was/is the search for these things foolish, as you imply it is for God?

 

Take a moment to think about it before responding.

 

microorganisms

DNA

atoms

quarks

black holes

wormholes

dark matter

other planets

planets which can support life

extraterrestrial intelligence (i.e. SETI)

 

[Guest guest]

 

Apples and Oranges.

 

Science and associated research are grounded in reality. The scientist hypothesizes and carries out research to confirm the hypothesis. For the entire duration of the research, it is understood that the hypothesis may ultimately turn out to be wrong. The results of the research effort can be seen, understood and repeated consistently by others. The process is wholly objective.

 

None of the above is true for religion which is purely subjective. It is not grounded in reality (invisible god, afterlife, flying monkeys and what not). There is no hypothesis - the existence of a god is presupposed without evidence & is never questioned at any point of time. The various people in history who claimed to have found god have failed to transmit their alleged findings to others. The Buddha who claimed to have found enlightenment could not pass on his experience successfully to others. Consequently, there has not been another Buddha in 2600 years. It is not possible in religion to follow the path set by a Guru and arrive at the goal in a specified period of time. The problem is further compounded by the fact that every Guru says something different and in many cases the good stuff supposedly comes after death!. In short, the results are not consistent, measurable or reproducible, which makes them worthless for anyone.

 

When a scientist comes up with a discovery, one can reproduce it and perhaps build on it. When a religious person comes up with stories of the paranormal, one cannot validate them; one cannot reproduce them. All one can do is place faith in him and either believe his words or reject him as bogus. Beyond this, there is nothing that can be done.

 

See the big difference(s)?

 

The theist's position fails due to inconsistency. His God is a product/creation of his culture and his times. To illustrate, the Jewish God does not look like Jackie Chan and the Indian God does not look like Michael Jordan. The Jewish God looks like a Jew and the Indian god looks like an Indian. To go further, why does God have to look like a human anyway? Humans have eyes to see, a nose to breathe and a mouth to eat and talk. A creator God does not need to breathe air in & out & so does not require a nose. He does not need eyes to see for that implies he cannot see if he closes his eyes and so on. What makes more sense – that there exists a creator god with sense organs that serve no purpose or that this creator was created by man in his own image to explain his existence?

 

The various internal conflicts and strife; the irreconcilable differences between various religions is clear evidence of the false, untenable nature of religion. As the questions become increasingly challenging, the more shaky religion becomes. One has to be really credulous to overlook the various contradictions associated with religion and remain a theist. There do exist such people which is why religion and hence, the god men thrive. Theists never ask basic questions which challenge the foundation of religion.

 

Some dictionary definitions:

 

Hypothesis: A tentative theory about the natural world; a concept that is not yet verified but that if true would explain certain facts or phenomena - "a scientific hypothesis that survives experimental testing becomes a scientific theory".

 

Credulous: Disposed to believe on little evidence - "the gimmick would convince none but the most credulous"

Showing a lack of judgment or experience - "so credulous he believes everything he reads"

 

Cheers

 

 

[Guest guest]

 

Science and associated research are grounded in reality. The scientist hypothesizes and carries out research to confirm the hypothesis. For the entire duration of the research, it is understood that the hypothesis may ultimately turn out to be wrong. The results of the research effort can be seen, understood and repeated consistently by others. The process is wholly objective.

 

 

What is reality? To the bacteria reality is a very subjective thing, it has no possible understanding or awareness of the varied universe around it. The same condition exists for every creature on earth up to human life. Humans have a capacity to understand reality to a certain degree, certainly more then lower species of life. Still humans have various subjective understandings of reality dependent on their varying experiences. Is science based on reality if the scientist is postulating theories based on a subjective and relative understanding of reality? For example; if I am unaware of space plasma and I create a theory on how the aurora borealis works utilizing hypothesis and observations which exclude space plasma because of my ignorance of it's existence, is that theory which I create based on reality?

 

The point is that what we think is reality may not be reality due to our subjective experience of reality. We may be objective in our method and analysis in our scientific method but that doesn't change the subjective nature of our relationship to reality. We may be able to present a seemingly objective thesis on the mechanisms of the natural world but that doesn't guarantee we will be correct in our method or our conclusion. We are limited by ignorance of what we don't know. We don't know what we don't know. Take the movie The Matrix as an example of the power of ignorance. The people in the matrix thought they were on earth like we are, but in truth they were in a virtual reality while their bodies were in a state of stasis while connected to the matrix.. The controller of the matrix would not allow them to know the reality behind their subjective reality. The same thing can be happening for us. We exist in reality which exhibits very powerful forces of nature, vastly more powerful then ourselves. So we can logically deduce that there is potential in our reality of some kind of power which is beyond our control. We are very tiny specks on a tiny rock in the middle of a vast and mysterious universe. Like the bacteria who is unable to comprehend human society we are potentially in the same position vis-a-vis the cosmic situation we find ourselves in.

 

 

None of the above is true for religion which is purely subjective. It is not grounded in reality (invisible god, afterlife, flying monkeys and what not).

 

 

If you cannot comprehend reality fully then such a statement is self contradictory. Religion may postulate a better understanding of reality then science. It depends on the religion and on the scientific theory. Postulating an axiom like the above is irrational.

 

There is no hypothesis - the existence of a god is presupposed without evidence & is never questioned at any point of time.

 

 

The great philosophers disagree. God is not "presupposed" in all religions. Some religions are based on presuppostion others are based on philosophical theories and conclusions.

 

 

The various people in history who claimed to have found god have failed to transmit their alleged findings to others.

 

 

So whats all this thing I hear about people who claim to experience God due to following some type of teaching? You can call them all liars if you like, is that rational science?

 

 

The Buddha who claimed to have found enlightenment could not pass on his experience successfully to others.[ Consequently, there has not been another Buddha in 2600 years.

 

 

And you would "know" objectively these things how?

 

 

It is not possible in religion to follow the path set by a Guru and arrive at the goal in a specified period of time.

 

 

If a guru says that if you live your life in such and such a fashion that at the end of your life you will go to heaven, how can you possbily know that that is incorrect. Any real guru won't make specific guarantees beyond that. So I don't know who you refer to in the above.

 

 

The problem is further compounded by the fact that every Guru says something different and in many cases the good stuff supposedly comes after death!. In short, the results are not consistent, measurable or reproducible, which makes them worthless for anyone

 

 

Every guru doesn't say something different. Generally speaking here on earth we have these things called "religions". "Religions" are philosophical and theological schools of thought. Generally speaking almost all gurus belong to a traditional school of thought or "religion". They then usually teach the tenents of that "religion". There are some "spiritual teachers" or "gurus" as you call them, who do not teach according to the tenents of any particular religion, but they are in the tiny minority.

 

You can believe that everybody who claims to have had spiritual experiences and or communion with God to be delusional or liars if you please. But that is your subjective opinion, there is no empirical method which can disprove the existence of God nor the experiences people have of God. So your theory is unscientific and irrational.

[Guest guest]

Sakhyamuni Buddha lived 2600 years ago but he is not the only Buddha in history. All Buddhists accept that many, many others have attained the same state of experience. Indeed during the lifetime of Buddha he himself said that many of his students, becoming enlightened, had attained the same attainment of Nirvana that he had attained.

 

Krishna said in the gita that reincarnation is a fact - a fact that Buddha also declared to be true.

 

The most fundamental implication of "reincarnation" is that when someone's body dies the Self doesn't die (actually Buddhists have a slightly different slant on this, but in the end they certainly do agree that there is a continuation of a being from lifetime to lifetime).

 

Science starts out with an hypothesis and tests to see if it is true. Well, the sages have started out with the hypothesis that the soul doesn't die when the body dies, and the sages, through a process of meditation, have realized the truth that a person does not die. Of course someone may not have faith that the sages can know the ultimate answer to this question - does a Self survive after death - but nevertheless the yoga process does bring a soul to realize that they are a particle of immortal bliss. Many people have realized that they are satchitananda - immortal consciousness and bliss. So the experiments of the sages can be verified, and repeated. Notwithstanding the fact that these realizations are 'subjective' they are nevertheless real. Just as real as the experience "I see the natural world".

 

- Muralidhar

[Pankaja_Dasa]

 

 

`Take a moment to think about it before responding.

 

microorganisms

DNA

atoms

quarks

black holes

wormholes

dark matter

other planets

planets which can support life

extraterrestrial intelligence (i.e. SETI)`

 

Science says Black Holes have no time, where space as it is doesn't exsist. How did they find this out? Did they stumble accross this. /images/graemlins/laugh.gif What is so different about this and Eternal time. That's being a Hypocrite.

[Avinash]

Science says Black Holes have no time, where space as it is doesn't exsist. How did they find this out? Did they stumble accross this.

 

Science talks in terms of frames of reference. Compared to another frame of reference, the time in Black hole's reference does not flow or in other words the time remains the same. The phrase "compared to another frame" is important.

 

If you are inside a black hole (assuming that you survive) and I am here in Earth, then according to me, the time for you does not change. But it does not mean that you will also feel the same. You will feel the passage of time.

 

Space exists in black hole. It is just that geometry there is not Euclidean, which we are so used to. In reality, Euclidean geometry does not hold even here on Earth. It is just that the error we get on Earth if we assume Euclidean geometry is negligible in most cases. But we cannot make such an approzimation inside a black hole due to huge gravity.

 

No, Scientists did not just stumble across black holes. Black holes were theorized based on General theory of relativity. The gravitational effects of some objects indicate that these objects are very likely to be black holes.

[Pankaja_Dasa]

 

 

'If you are inside a black hole (assuming that you survive) and I am here in Earth, then according to me, the time for you does not change. But it does not mean that you will also feel the same. You will feel the passage of time.'

 

I am not sure what the Vedas say's about Black Holes. If indeed they even exsist.

 

[Guest guest]

Shiva says...

 

 

...there is no empirical method which can disprove the existence of God nor the experiences people have of God.

 

 

The second part of this statement is redundant as it requires the validity of the first half and since the first half is under the spotlight, it is unnecessary to mention the second part at this time.

 

Whatever else I can say would just be a rehash of what has already been said and so I will save myself some hard typing. Instead, I will quote briefly from Cliff Walker to answer those theists who demand proof from atheists. It is simple 3rd grade logic that you cannot prove a negative, but clearly, many theists either skipped 3rd grade or were not paying attention in class.

 

---

 

The atheist makes no claims about gods, but simply observes what is observable and detects what is detectable. It is the theist who makes an existential claim (a claim that the thing described, a god, actually exists). The atheist makes no such claim, but maintains the default position: "I don't see any gods" (or, "I don't detect any gods"; or, "I don't conceive that gods exist"). "One cannot prove a negative, nor is that demanded in [the theistic] system of logic. Since negative is not susceptible to proof, the person posting the positive assertion has the burden of maintaining the assertion." For this reason, it is the theist -- not the atheist -- who is responsible for backing up her or his claim. Though many atheists are able to provide very strong arguments for the nonexistence of a deity, it is not the atheist's job to make any case whatsoever. The reason for this is simple: Nobody can prove that a thing does not exist unless it cannot possibly exist (such as a square circle).

 

The most reasonable approach is to demand proofs for any claim and to demand extraordinary proofs for extraordinary claims. What we presently know and can verify about nature is the result of centuries of hard work, diligent thought, and tedious experiment. All scientific work is published so it can be examined and cross-examined by other scientists. When new evidence demonstrates that we have been mistaken about something, science abandons the old idea without remorse.

 

Since atheism makes no claims and theism tends to make extraordinary claims, claims that contradict the known limits of nature, the reasonable presumption is atheism -- until theism backs up its extraordinary claims with lots of solid evidence.

 

---

 

Cheers

[krsna]

The height of your accomplishments will equal the depth of your

convictions.

 

-- William F. Scolavino

 

[Yesu_Bhaktan]

but don't worry we are always here to help. /images/graemlins/wink.gif

 

 

Since atheism makes no claims and theism tends to make extraordinary claims,...

 

 

 

Atheism makes the extraordinary claim that there is no God. To the theist you are someone who is blind denying the existence of the Sun and theist's are superstitious fable believers to you.

 

 

 

...claims that contradict the known limits of nature,

 

 

 

The limits of nature according to who...you? Hardly the known limits of nature but certainly theists contradict the limitations of atheists.

 

 

[krsna]

 

 

 

 

The worst moment for the atheist is when he is really thankful and has nobody to thank.

Dante Gabriel Rossetti (1828 - 1882)

 

I always admired atheists. I think it takes a lot of faith.

Diane Frolov and Andrew Schneider, Northern Exposure, Seoul Mates, 1991

 

The opposite of the religious fanatic is not the fanatical atheist but the gentle cynic who cares not whether there is a god or not.

Eric Hoffer (1902 - 1983)

 

I believe in God, only I spell it Nature.

Frank Lloyd Wright (1869 - 1959)

 

If there were no God, there would be no Atheists.

G. K. Chesterton (1874 - 1936)

 

I have too much respect for the idea of God to make it responsible for such an absurd world.

Georges Duhamel (1884 - 1966)

 

I'm a born-again atheist.

Gore Vidal (1925 - )

 

I once wanted to become an atheist, but I gave up - they have no holidays.

Henny Youngman (1906 - 1998)

 

Nobody talks so constantly about God as those who insist that there is no God.

Heywood Broun (1888 - 1939)

 

An atheist is a man who has no invisible means of support.

John Buchan (1875 - 1940)

 

I don't know if God exists, but it would be better for His reputation if He didn't.

Jules Renard (1864 - 1910)

 

I'm still an atheist, thank God.

Luis Bunuel (1900 - 1983)

 

It is the final proof of God's omnipotence that he need not exist in order to save us.

Peter De Vries

 

When I told the people of Northern Ireland that I was an atheist, a woman in the audience stood up and said, "Yes, but is it the God of the Catholics or the God of the Protestants in whom you don't believe?"

Quentin Crisp

 

You've got your phenomenon on one hand. Concrete and knowable. On the other hand you've got the incomprehensible. You call it God, but to me, God or no, it remains just that, the unknowable.

Robin Green and Mitchell Burgess, Northern Exposure, A Wing and a Prayer, 1994

 

Shake off all the fears of servile prejudices, under which weak minds are servilely crouched. Fix reason firmly in her seat, and call on her tribunal for every fact, every opinion. Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason than that of blindfolded fear.

Thomas Jefferson (1743 - 1826)

 

If God did not exist, it would be necessary to invent him.

Voltaire (1694 - 1778)

 

How can I believe in God when just last week I got my tongue caught in the roller of an electric typewriter?

Woody Allen (1935 - )

 

If it turns out that there is a God, I don't think that he's evil. But the worst that you can say about him is that basically he's an underachiever.

Woody Allen (1935 - )

 

To you I'm an atheist; to God, I'm the Loyal Opposition.

Woody Allen (1935 - )

[Guest guest]

 

...there is no empirical method which can disprove the existence of God nor the experiences people have of God.

 

 

 

The second part of this statement is redundant as it requires the validity of the first half and since the first half is under the spotlight, it is unnecessary to mention the second part at this time

 

 

 

It isn't redundant. Your analysis is incorrect. Proof of God and proof of peoples experience of God are two different things. God may exist and people may think they have experienced God when they have not.

 

 

 

The atheist makes no claims about gods, but simply observes what is observable and detects what is detectable.

 

 

 

Like the bacteria who detects what is detectable...to the bacteria.

 

 

The atheist makes no such claim, but maintains the default position: "I don't see any gods" (or, "I don't detect any gods"; or, "I don't conceive that gods exist"). "

 

 

 

The "default claim" is not atheism. By the study of the natural world and the mathematical probability of things existing as they are the default claim is theism. You may want to investigate the Anthropic Principle

 

 

 

 

Stephen Hawking: "The universe and the Laws of Physics seem to have been specifically designed for us. If any one of about 40 physical qualities had more than slightly different values, life as we know it could not exist: Either atoms would not be stable, or they wouldn't combine into molecules, or the stars wouldn't form heavier elements, or the universe would collapse before life could develop, and so on..."

 

Albert Einstein: "Everyone who is seriously interested in the pursuit of science becomes convinced that a spirit is manifest in the laws of the universe a spirit vastly superior to man, and one in the face of which our modest powers must feel humble."

 

Fred Hoyle (British astrophysicist): "A common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a superintellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as with chemistry and biology, and that there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature. The numbers one calculates from the facts seem to me so overwhelming as to put this conclusion almost beyond question."

 

George Ellis (British astrophysicist): "Amazing fine tuning occurs in the laws that make this [complexity] possible. Realization of the complexity of what is accomplished makes it very difficult not to use the word 'miraculous' without taking a stand as to the ontological status of the word." (

 

Paul Davies (British astrophysicist): "There is for me powerful evidence that there is something going on behind it all....It seems as though somebody has fine-tuned nature&#8217;s numbers to make the Universe....The impression of design is overwhelming".

 

Paul Davies: "The laws [of physics] ... seem to be the product of exceedingly ingenious design... The universe must have a purpose".

 

Alan Sandage (winner of the Crawford prize in astronomy): "I find it quite improbable that such order came out of chaos. There has to be some organizing principle. God to me is a mystery but is the explanation for the miracle of existence, why there is something instead of nothing."

 

John O'Keefe (astronomer at NASA): "We are, by astronomical standards, a pampered, cosseted, cherished group of creatures.. .. If the Universe had not been made with the most exacting precision we could never have come into existence. It is my view that these circumstances indicate the universe was created for man to live in."

 

George Greenstein (astronomer): "As we survey all the evidence, the thought insistently arises that some supernatural agency - or, rather, Agency - must be involved. Is it possible that suddenly, without intending to, we have stumbled upon scientific proof of the existence of a Supreme Being? Was it God who stepped in and so providentially crafted the cosmos for our benefit?"

 

Arthur Eddington (astrophysicist): "The idea of a universal mind or Logos would be, I think, a fairly plausible inference from the present state of scientific theory."

 

Arno Penzias (Nobel prize in physics): "Astronomy leads us to a unique event, a universe which was created out of nothing, one with the very delicate balance needed to provide exactly the conditions required to permit life, and one which has an underlying (one might say 'supernatural') plan."

 

Roger Penrose (mathematician and author): "I would say the universe has a purpose. It's not there just somehow by chance."

 

Tony Rothman (physicist): "When confronted with the order and beauty of the universe and the strange coincidences of nature, it's very tempting to take the leap of faith from science into religion. I am sure many physicists want to. I only wish they would admit it."

 

Vera Kistiakowsky (MIT physicist): "The exquisite order displayed by our scientific understanding of the physical world calls for the divine."

 

Robert Jastrow (self-proclaimed agnostic): "For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries."

 

Frank Tipler (Professor of Mathematical Physics): "When I began my career as a cosmologist some twenty years ago, I was a convinced atheist. I never in my wildest dreams imagined that one day I would be writing a book purporting to show that the central claims of Judeo-Christian theology are in fact true, that these claims are straightforward deductions of the laws of physics as we now understand them. I have been forced into these conclusions by the inexorable logic of my own special branch of physics."

 

Alexander Polyakov (Soviet mathematician): "We know that nature is described by the best of all possible mathematics because God created it."

 

Ed Harrison (cosmologist): "Here is the cosmological proof of the existence of God &#8211; the design argument of Paley &#8211; updated and refurbished. The fine tuning of the universe provides prima facie evidence of deistic design. Take your choice: blind chance that requires multitudes of universes or design that requires only one.... Many scientists, when they admit their views, incline toward the teleological or design argument."

 

Edward Milne (British cosmologist): "As to the cause of the Universe, in context of expansion, that is left for the reader to insert, but our picture is incomplete without Him [God]."

 

Barry Parker (cosmologist): "Who created these laws? There is no question but that a God will always be needed."

 

Drs. Zehavi, and Dekel (cosmologists): "This type of universe, however, seems to require a degree of fine tuning of the initial conditions that is in apparent conflict with 'common wisdom'."

 

Arthur L. Schawlow (Professor of Physics at Stanford University, 1981 Nobel Prize in physics): "It seems to me that when confronted with the marvels of life and the universe, one must ask why and not just how. The only possible answers are religious. . . . I find a need for God in the universe and in my own life."

 

Henry "Fritz" Schaefer (Graham Perdue Professor of Chemistry and director of the Center for Computational Quantum Chemistry at the University of Georgia): "The significance and joy in my science comes in those occasional moments of discovering something new and saying to myself, 'So that's how God did it.' My goal is to understand a little corner of God's plan."

 

Wernher von Braun (Pioneer rocket engineer) "I find it as difficult to understand a scientist who does not acknowledge the presence of a superior rationality behind the existence of the universe as it is to comprehend a theologian who would deny the advances of science."

 

Carl Woese (microbiologist from the University of Illinois) "Life in Universe - rare or unique? I walk both sides of that street. One day I can say that given the 100 billion stars in our galaxy and the 100 billion or more galaxies, there have to be some planets that formed and evolved in ways very, very like the Earth has, and so would contain microbial life at least. There are other days when I say that the anthropic principal, which makes this universe a special one out of an uncountably large number of universes, may not apply only to that aspect of nature we define in the realm of physics, but may extend to chemistry and biology. In that case life on Earth could be entirely unique."

 

 

 

One cannot prove a negative, nor is that demanded in [the theistic] system of logic. Since negative is not susceptible to proof, the person posting the positive assertion has the burden of maintaining the assertion." For this reason, it is the theist -- not the atheist -- who is responsible for backing up her or his claim. Though many atheists are able to provide very strong arguments for the nonexistence of a deity, it is not the atheist's job to make any case whatsoever. The reason for this is simple: Nobody can prove that a thing does not exist unless it cannot possibly exist (such as a square circle).

 

Professor Harold Morowitz: "The probability for the chance of formation of the smallest, simplest form of living organism known is 1 to 10-340,000,000. This number is 1 to 10 to the 340 millionth power! The size of this figure is truly staggering, since there is only supposed to be approximately 10-80 (10 to the 80th power) electrons in the whole universe!"

 

 

Dr. Emile Borel, who discovered the laws of probability": The occurrence of any event where the chances are beyond one in ten followed by 50 zeros is an event which we can state with certainty will never happen, no matter how much time is allotted and no matter how many conceivable opportunities could exist for the event to take place."

 

 

[Guest guest]

<blockquote>In reply to:

<hr>

...there is no empirical method which can disprove the existence of God nor the experiences people have of God.

 

The second part of this statement is redundant as it requires the validity of the first half and since the first half is under the spotlight, it is unnecessary to mention the second part at this time

<hr>

</blockquote>

 

Einstein envisioned ideas that nobody had ever known before (at least in recorded history - who can say what might be known by intelligent beings "long, long ago in a galaxy far, far away")

 

When Einstein's ideas were tested people saw the reality of atomic power - nuclear weapons.

 

A purely mental thing such as "E=mc2" can be verified as correct through experimentation.

 

Similarly, the claim of the rishis that "you can realize Brahman and experience the fact that your inner self is sat-chit-ananda (eternal, immortal knowledge and bliss) is something that can be verified. Many people have attained liberation and bliss. They have become free of all pain and suffering in this world. And among those liberated souls some have had the realization "God Exists". And just as it is a fact that you cannot understand "E=mc2" without having a sufficient amount of previous knowldege, a person needs to attain release from illusion (Maya) before he can know the Reality of Krishna. Many people saw Krishna when he was on earth but were unable to see Krishna's spiritual nature.

 

Again, atheists may say this:

"I don't see any gods" (or, "I don't detect any gods"; or, "I don't conceive that gods exist").

 

And yes it is true - they have no experience of Krishna or God. But then this doesn't necessarily imply that NOBODY AT ALL can know God. There may be people who have direct experience of God, just as there are people today who have direct experience "Bin Laden is alive!" God is hidden from the view of people who are driven by desires to get "non-God" things - sex, drugs, rock'n'roll, $'s, power.

 

Further, a person may argue, "the world is flat", and the evidence immediately available to us through our senses seems to confirm this fact. After all, logic tells us that if the world is round and there were people on the bottom of the world then surely they will fall off the bottom of the world and drop down to some place below the earth. Because if I get an orange and put ants on it then the ants on the bottom will fall off.

 

The things that seem logical at first glance often turn out to be wrong.

 

Logic is not a valid way of approaching and understanding God. And neither is science. Only through God's grace can anyone have knowledge of God.

 

Science, and psuedo science such as "intelligent design", will never be able to reveal the living God, Sri Krishna.

 

 

[Yesu_Bhaktan]

 

Science, and psuedo science such as "intelligent design", will never be able to reveal the living God, Sri Krishna.

 

 

Interesting that you call the endeavors of the atheistic camp of science "science" and those that give credit to God psudeo science.

 

As said before no scientific endeavor can reveal Go just as no philophical or religious approach can reveal God. The Lord reveals Himself.

 

He can reveal Himself as He chooses through modern science. Through ID we can see that He is willing to give a peek into His existence by revealing there is a Supreme Intelligence Who has desinged the universe and the way it works.