Discussion:
How does science explain God?
Add Reply
Jahnu
2018-05-10 13:49:51 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
It doesn't.

Science does not explain God, because science has nothing sensible to
say about God. Science is not equipped to deal with consciousness.
Science only deals with matter and God is immaterial or spiritual, as
is the individual soul, so Science cannot explain conscious awareness.

"Science is ghastly silent about all and sundry that is really near to
our heart, that really matters to us. It cannot tell us about red and
blue, bitter and sweet, beautiful and ugly, good or bad, God and
eternity. Science sometimes pretends to answer questions in these
domains, but the answers are often so silly that we are not inclined
to take them seriously."

—Erwin Schrodinger, a Nobel prize winning physicist

A new religion has evolved in the global culture. It’s called
Scientism. Even though modern science has absolutely nothing sensible
to say about existence, the general population is convinced that
science has explained away the need for God and religion.

So-called scientific theories like Big Bang end evolution, even though
these are pure and unalloyed speculative myths, are being taught in
all the educational institutions of the world as scientific facts.

But who has decided that technological expertise is the best way to
measure our ability to understand the reality we live in? Those who
are influential in defining peoples' realities - the producers, the
scientists, the media, the politicians, etc. -- have made
technological advancement the barometer of human progress. They claim
that the advancement of technology is the most noble pursuit of the
human race, that it has made the world a better place to live in.

As proof, they list all the consumer gadgets we use and are dependent
upon - computers, cell-phones, televisions, cars, and so on. They say
that the intelligence to build these things shows that we have
advanced our understanding of nature and how she works far beyond our
ability in the middle ages.

But is this assertion correct? To build a computer, one certainly
requires advanced knowledge of physics and chemistry, but these
disciplines describe only a tiny part of the reality we perceive. A
far greater portion of existence is our conscious experience of it --
something most people don’t even think about.

Few people ponder the fact that their understanding of the world is
conditioned by the culture they grew up in. They automatically take it
for granted that the way they perceive the world is the correct one,
and that nature is best described in physical and chemical terms.
Modern science is very useful for making technology, in fact, it’s the
only thing it is useful for, and when we live in a world where the
masses are kept in awe and reverence of technological wonders, science
is a most important undertaking.

But the jubilation of modern people over the newest technology is no
different from the gaping wonder with which people in the middle ages
looked upon sorcerers and magicians firing off sulphur and gun powder.
The magicians did this to dupe their audiences and secure their
comfortable hold on society.

In the middle ages, in the West at least, the regents of society kept
people in ignorance so they were easy to control and manipulate, and
today the exact same means are used to enslave people in ignorance. In
the global culture the slaves have just been upgraded to a
middle-class with their own house and car. But the general mass of
people still slave their lives away in boring jobs and they are marred
by the same endless worries and miseries people have always suffered
from. They are still being ground down by taxation, victims of greedy
politicians, exactly like they’ve always been.

There is no basis for saying that advanced knowledge of mathematics
and physics enables a person to better understand the reality we live
in any more than the cave dweller of some 2000 years ago who
worshipped nature and various gods. If the modern culture is based on
a proper understanding of the world, why is it ruining nature and her
inhabitants at an alarming rate? If modern man is more advanced in his
understanding of nature, why is he in the process of destroying nature
with his industrial enterprises?

Despite the so-called advancement of modern society, people are still
unable to transcend their mental conditioning. The proof is that
modern society does not produce people with evolved consciousness.
Rather, we see the exact opposite taking place - in direct proportion
to the advancement of technology, people have become more and more
base and idiotic in the way they treat each-other. Some years ago, WHO
published a report saying that the biggest health crisis facing the
world in the new millennium is that more and more people will be born
with mental defects. Is that the symptom of an evolved society?

Society, as it is, is not equipped to facilitate self-realized human
beings. What need does a self realized person have for the plethora of
useless products being produced by the few conglomerates that control
world consumerism? Such enlightenment would indeed negate the
necessity for the technological advancement upon which the world's
finances now rely. That is why, in the current global culture, a
deliberate campaign exists to transform people into atheists.

In such a culture, religion is being ridiculed and has been replaced
with politics and sports. Instead of voting for a particular religion,
one now votes for politicians, who are mostly puppets of
multinationals corporations -- all in the name of serving the people,
of course. The modern consumer civilization has made the world into
one big marketplace - a worldwide altar where technology is worshiped
as the new opium of the masses.

Being fed endless propaganda from Hollywood where technology saves the
day, we quickly forget that technology, despite assurances to the
contrary, cannot save us from the onslaughts of nature. Time and time
again, technology comes up short in the fight against nature.

The new high-priests of society, now clad in white frocks instead of
black, fail to comprehend how the mechanisms of nature work. And how
could they? They also suffer from the delusion that everything is dead
matter. They are restricted by the assumption that their knowledge of
physical laws can explain the world.

More important, though, than understanding how physical matter works
is to understand how the the mind and consciousness work. As long as
we fail to understand the difference between matter and consciousness,
we will remain disconnected from our real selves and our lives will
basically be centered around satisfying bodily and mental needs

That's why atheism is dangerous - it keeps the consciousness trapped
in a 3-dimensional world of matter. It keeps the self from its rare
mission in the human life form which is to understand consciousness
and God. It cultivates a mechanistic conception of life where the
consciousness cannot see itself - a deception where the consciousness,
being absorbed in matter, forgets itself.

"Science cannot solve the ultimate mystery of Nature. And it is
because in the last analysis we ourselves are part of the mystery we
are trying to solve." - Max Planck

Every individual is duty-bound to develop their consciousness and
connect it with the Supreme consciousness - Sri Krishna. While Srila
Prabhupada was a nitya-siddha, he was also a social revolutionary, as
was the Lord he served - Sri Chaitanya Mahaprabhu. The political
correctness that predominates in the world and passes as social
etiquette should not stop us from assisting him in his mission - to
silence the atheistic class of men, and to inundate the world with
Krishna Consciousness.

Krishna says:

The living entities in this conditioned world are My eternal
fragmental parts. Due to conditioned life, they are struggling very
hard with the six senses, which include the mind. (Bg 15.7)

The living entity in the material world carries his different
conceptions of life from one body to another, as the air carries
aromas. Thus he takes one kind of body and again quits it to take
another. (Bg 15.8)

The living entity, thus taking another gross body, obtains a certain
type of ear, eye, tongue, nose and sense of touch, which are grouped
about the mind. He thus enjoys a particular set of sense objects. (Bg
15.9)

The foolish cannot understand how a living entity can quit his body,
nor can they understand what sort of body he enjoys under the spell of
the modes of nature. But one whose eyes are trained in knowledge can
see all this. (Bg 15.10)

The endeavoring transcendentalists who are situated in
self-realization can see all this clearly. But those whose minds are
not developed and who are not situated in self-realization cannot see
what is taking place, though they may try. (Bg 15.11)

https://www.youtube.com/user/jahnudvip?feature=watch

https://picasaweb.google.com/113672947796865733014/Jahnu

http://www.touchtalent.com//artist/118705/jahnu-das


Cloud Hobbit
2018-05-10 19:00:37 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Why would science have anything to say about the nonexistent?
Jahnu
2018-05-11 04:33:58 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Cloud Hobbit
Why would science have anything to say about the nonexistent?
That's right. That's why science has nothing to say about your
intelligence :D

In both religion and science, some people are dishonest, exploitative,
incompetent and exhibit other human failings. My concern here is with
the bigger picture.

I have been a scientist for more than 40 years, having studied at
Cambridge and Harvard. I researched and taught at Cambridge
University, was a research fellow of the Royal Society, and have more
than 80 publications in peer-reviewed journals. I am strongly
pro-science. But I am more and more convinced that that the spirit of
free inquiry is being repressed within the scientific community by
fear-based conformity. Institutional science is being crippled by
dogmas and taboos. Increasingly expensive research is yielding
diminishing returns.

Bad religion is arrogant, self-righteous, dogmatic and intolerant. And
so is bad science. But unlike religious fundamentalists, scientific
fundamentalists do not realize that their opinions are based on faith.
They think they know the truth. They believe that science has already
solved the fundamental questions. The details still need working out,
but in principle the answers are known.

Science at its best is an open-minded method of inquiry, not a belief
system. But the "scientific worldview," based on the materialist
philosophy, is enormously prestigious because science has been so
successful. Its achievements touch all our lives through technologies
like computers, jet planes, cell phones, the Internet and modern
medicine. Our intellectual world has been transformed through an
immense expansion of scientific knowledge, down into the most
microscopic particles of matter and out into the vastness of space,
with hundreds of billions of galaxies in an ever-expanding universe.

Science has been successful because it has been open to new
discoveries. By contrast, committed materialists have made science
into a kind of religion. They believe that there is no reality but
material or physical reality. Consciousness is a by-product of the
physical activity of the brain. Matter is unconscious. Nature is
mechanical. Evolution is purposeless. God exists only as an idea in
human minds, and hence in human heads.

These materialist beliefs are often taken for granted by scientists,
not because they have thought about them critically, but because they
haven't. To deviate from them is heresy, and heresy harms careers.

Since the 19th century, materialists have promised that science will
eventually explain everything in terms of physics and chemistry.
Science will prove that living organisms are complex machines, nature
is purposeless, and minds are nothing but brain activity. Believers
are sustained by the implicit faith that scientific discoveries will
justify their beliefs. The philosopher of science Karl Popper called
this stance "promissory materialism" because it depends on issuing
promissory notes for discoveries not yet made. Many promises have been
issued, but few redeemed. Materialism is now facing a credibility
crunch unimaginable in the 20th century.

As I show in my new book, "Science Set Free," unexpected problems are
disrupting the sciences from within. Many scientists prefer to think
that these problems will eventually be solved by more research along
established lines, but some, including myself, think that they are
symptoms of a deeper malaise. Science is being held back by
centuries-old assumptions that have hardened into dogmas.

Despite the confident claim in the late 20th century that genes and
molecular biology would soon explain the nature of life, the problems
of biological development remain unsolved. No one knows how plants and
animals develop from fertilized eggs. Many details have been
discovered, hundreds of genomes have been sequenced, but there is
still no proof that life and minds can be explained by physics and
chemistry alone.

The technical triumph of the Human Genome Project led to big
surprises. There are far fewer human genes than anticipated, a mere
23,000 instead of 100,000. Sea urchins have about 26,000 and rice
plants 38,000. Attempts to predict characteristics such as height have
shown that genes account for only about 5 percent of the variation
from person to person, instead of the 80 percent expected. Unbounded
confidence has given way to the "missing heritability problem."
Meanwhile, investors in genomics and biotechnology have lost many
billions of dollars. A recent report by the Harvard Business School on
the biotechnology industry revealed that "only a tiny fraction of
companies had ever made a profit" and showed how promises of
breakthroughs have failed over and over again.

Despite the brilliant technical achievements of neuroscience, like
brain scanning, there is still no proof that consciousness is merely
brain activity. Leading journals such as Behavioural and Brain
Sciences and the Journal of Consciousness Studies publish many
articles that reveal deep problems with the materialist doctrine. The
philosopher David Chalmers has called the very existence of subjective
experience the "hard problem." It is hard because it defies
explanation in terms of mechanisms. Even if we understand how eyes and
brains respond to red light, the experience of redness is not
accounted for.

In physics, too, the problems are multiplying. Since the beginning of
the 21st century, it has become apparent that known kinds of matter
and energy make up only about 4 percent of the universe. The rest
consists of "dark matter" and "dark energy." The nature of 96 percent
of physical reality is literally obscure.

Contemporary theoretical physics is dominated by superstring and M
theories, with 10 and 11 dimensions respectively, which remain
untestable. The multiverse theory, which asserts that there are
trillions of universes besides our own, is popular among cosmologists
in the absence of any experimental evidence. These are interesting
speculations, but they are not hard science. They are a shaky
foundation for the materialist claim that everything can be explained
in terms of physics.

Good science, like good religion, is a journey of discovery, a quest.
It builds on traditions from the past. But it is most effective when
it recognizes how much we do not know, when it is not arrogant but
humble.

Rupert Sheldrake, Ph.D., is a biologist and author of Science Set
Free. He was a Fellow of Clare College, Cambridge University, where he
was Director of Studies in cell biology, and was Principal Plant
Physiologist at the International Crops Resaerch Institute for the
Semi-Arid Tropics in Hyderabad, India. From 2005-2010 he was Director
of the Perrott-Warrick Project, funded from Trinity College,
Cambridge. His web site is www.sheldrake.org.
https://www.youtube.com/user/jahnudvip?feature=watch

https://picasaweb.google.com/113672947796865733014/Jahnu

http://www.touchtalent.com//artist/118705/jahnu-das

http://youtu.be/B46rjU_q_cM
John Locke
2018-05-10 19:57:27 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Jahnu
It doesn't.
Science does not explain God, because science has nothing sensible to
say about God...
..your god postulation doesn't even warrant hypothesis status.
There's no observations, no evidence..it's not testable and
verifiable. Of course science has nothing "sensible' to say...there's
nothing even remotely sensible about an imaginary deity.
Jahnu
2018-05-11 04:38:21 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by John Locke
..your god postulation doesn't even warrant hypothesis status.
There's no observations, no evidence..it's not testable and
verifiable. Of course science has nothing "sensible' to say...there's
nothing even remotely sensible about an imaginary deity.
God is totally verifiable. God will verify Himself to anyone with a
brain. That's why you are excluded.

A question a thoughtful person might ask (again, that excludes you)
is, what is God made of? The Vedic version teaches us that God is made
of eternity, knowledge, and bliss. Note how ingenious this definition
of God is. As usual the Vedic version reigns supreme.

Brahma, god of creation, says:

Krishna who is known as Govinda is the Supreme Godhead. He has an
eternal blissful spiritual body. He is the origin of all. He has no
other origin and He is the prime cause of all causes.

=> Brahma-samhita, 5.1

It also makes perfect sense that eternity, knowledge and bliss is the
substance of God. We can test it on ourselves. As souls, ie. atomic
fragments of God, we consist of the same spiritual substance as God,
and this fact should be somehow measurable. It's like, by examining
one drop of the ocean one gets an understanding of the entire ocean.
The very fact that all living entities instinctively gravitate towards
these three factors, indicates that this is our natural state. All
living entities seek eternity, knowledge, and bliss. We all have the
distinct experience that these three are the prime moving factors of
our core existence.

We are all pleasure seeking. We all try to learn something. And we all
try to preserve our being. Some people say - I don't seek eternity. It
must become boring in eternity. But we all seek eternity in the sense
that we try to preserve our being. The survival instinct together with
the mating instinct are the strongest instincts in all living
entities.

Besides, boredom is a factor of material existence, As souls on the
spiritual plane we will never get bored playing with Krishna. Who
would not want to be eternally young and blissful? Does anyone want
his or her happiness to end, because it's just so boring being happy?
The only reason one would want his existence to end is if it's
miserable.

In reality we are happy all the time. Who wants bliss to end? Who sits
in a real happy frame of mind, and thinks - gee, I wish this happiness
would end... nobody does that. Thus it is a direct observable fact
that all living entities gravitate towards eternity, knowledge and
bliss, exactly as predicted in the Vedic version.

By connecting with our real identities as souls we become re-situated
in God's substance of eternity, knowledge and bliss. By connecting
with our real selves we connect with eternity, knowledge and bliss.The
method to do so is to invoke the name of God and petition Him. This is
done in this age by chanting the Hare Krishna Mantra.

hare krsna hare krsna krsna krsna hare hare
hare rama hare rama rama rama hare hare

"This mantra, consisting of 16 words and 32 syllables, is the only
means against evil in this age. After searching through all the Vedic
literature, one cannot find a method of religion more sublime for this
age than the chanting of Hare Krsna."

--- Kali-santarana Upanishad
https://www.youtube.com/user/jahnudvip?feature=watch

https://picasaweb.google.com/113672947796865733014/Jahnu

http://www.touchtalent.com//artist/118705/jahnu-das

http://youtu.be/B46rjU_q_cM
Cloud Hobbit
2018-05-11 06:46:15 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
God is totally verifiable. God >will verify Himself to anyone >with a
brain. That's why you are >excluded.
What about the list of the brightest minds the world has seen who don't believe in any gods?

https://www.brainz.org/50-most-brilliant-atheists-all-time/

I think everybody on the list have very good brains. Somehow they couldn't verify any gods.

Why do you post this crap that nobody agrees with and what reason do have for posting it here where you know it won't be well received?

I think it's you missing out on the intelligence it takes to examine any theistic religion and not come to the conclusion that they are all complete fabrication. Obviously the work of the people from whatever culture they were.

If any of the gods men have imagined were real why wouldn't any of them ever simply make an occasional appearance?

Certainly, if there were one almighty God it would be snap to do.

Any of the real ones owe us a visit. The fact that that never happens is kind of what scientists call "a big fucking clue."
duke
2018-05-11 21:05:44 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Jahnu
It doesn't.
Science does not explain God, because science has nothing sensible to
say about God.
Yet science professes that our universe appeared as a singularity of all things
into nothingness. God did it.

the dukester, American-American


*****
The Purpose of the NT Word of God is not to inform as it did in
the OT,but instead to form us in the very image of Jesus Christ.
*****
John Locke
2018-05-11 22:48:07 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by duke
Post by Jahnu
It doesn't.
Science does not explain God, because science has nothing sensible to
say about God.
Yet science professes that our universe appeared as a singularity of all things
into nothingness. God did it.
...for what reason ? Was your god bored with its
tomato garden ?
Kevrob
2018-05-12 01:46:41 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by John Locke
Post by duke
Post by Jahnu
It doesn't.
Science does not explain God, because science has nothing sensible to
say about God.
Yet science professes that our universe appeared as a singularity of all things
into nothingness. God did it.
...for what reason ? Was your god bored with its
tomato garden ?
If Yahooey was a member of a super-intelligent, higher order,
perhaps multi-dimensional order of beings, that by Clarke's
third law would seem to us to be as ghodz, the babble stories
might make sense if he were the equivalent of a retarded child
of that race, kept safe somewhere, and allowed to use our 4-D
space-time as a playpen, with us as his rubber duckies, toy soldiers,
action figures and Barbie dolls.

I'm sure I stole that from some SF writer, comics scripter or TV/film
Sci-Fi production.

Kevin R
John Baker
2018-05-12 04:16:15 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Kevrob
Post by John Locke
Post by duke
Post by Jahnu
It doesn't.
Science does not explain God, because science has nothing sensible to
say about God.
Yet science professes that our universe appeared as a singularity of all things
into nothingness. God did it.
...for what reason ? Was your god bored with its
tomato garden ?
If Yahooey was a member of a super-intelligent, higher order,
perhaps multi-dimensional order of beings, that by Clarke's
third law would seem to us to be as ghodz, the babble stories
might make sense if he were the equivalent of a retarded child
of that race, kept safe somewhere, and allowed to use our 4-D
space-time as a playpen, with us as his rubber duckies, toy soldiers,
action figures and Barbie dolls.
I'm sure I stole that from some SF writer, comics scripter or TV/film
Sci-Fi production.
'Q' from Star Trek TNG. <G>
Post by Kevrob
Kevin R
Kevrob
2018-05-12 13:48:18 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by John Baker
Post by Kevrob
Post by John Locke
Post by duke
Post by Jahnu
It doesn't.
Science does not explain God, because science has nothing sensible to
say about God.
Yet science professes that our universe appeared as a singularity of all things
into nothingness. God did it.
...for what reason ? Was your god bored with its
tomato garden ?
If Yahooey was a member of a super-intelligent, higher order,
perhaps multi-dimensional order of beings, that by Clarke's
third law would seem to us to be as ghodz, the babble stories
might make sense if he were the equivalent of a retarded child
of that race, kept safe somewhere, and allowed to use our 4-D
space-time as a playpen, with us as his rubber duckies, toy soldiers,
action figures and Barbie dolls.
I'm sure I stole that from some SF writer, comics scripter or TV/film
Sci-Fi production.
'Q' from Star Trek TNG. <G>
Close. Q didn't "create" humanity. Trelaine from the Original
Series is so similar there's an ST novel retconning him as a Q.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Squire_of_Gothos

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Q-Squared

See also South Park, Eric Cartman as the ghod of the Sea People,
or, Lisa Simpson in "The Genesis Tub." (Treehouse of Horror VII)

Kevin R
duke
2018-05-12 16:14:29 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by John Locke
Post by duke
Post by Jahnu
It doesn't.
Science does not explain God, because science has nothing sensible to
say about God.
Yet science professes that our universe appeared as a singularity of all things
into nothingness. God did it.
...for what reason ? Was your god bored with its
tomato garden ?
God had a good reason, but he didn't tell me.

the dukester, American-American


*****
The Purpose of the NT Word of God is not to inform as it did in
the OT,but instead to form us in the very image of Jesus Christ.
*****
Jahnu
2018-05-13 01:43:18 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by duke
Yet science professes that our universe appeared as a singularity of all things
into nothingness. God did it.
The funny thing is, atheists always like to point out how lame the
'God did it' explanation of the theists is.

And then they come up with something even more lame and improbable -
the point did it. hahaha :) Seriously, how stupid can you get? Listen
to these idiots.


----but, but, but there is no magic involved in creating life. It's
all a natural process. If you ask me what exactly is that natural
process, I have no idea, I just call it a natural process to make it
sound like it's science, to fool creationists into thinking, that I
know what I'm talking about.

These poor religious fanatics, they need some magical, invisible pixie
sitting in the sky, to explain nature, but me? Forget it, I don't need
magic to explain nature, because it's all a naturall process.

You see, first there was a point... I call the point a singularity to
make it sound less ridiculous, I fabulate it's a point of all mass,
space, and time, so no need to worry about what was outside the point,
because there was nothing outside the point - no space, no time, no
mass, no condencity, no nothing, you understand? There was only the
point, and from that point a universe came out, just like that, for no
apparent reason, it just happened, see? No magic involved... it's all
a natural process, and as we all know natural processes are very
scientic.

I won't get into what happened with the natural processes after the
universe popped into existence - how life evolved out of chemicals and
then transmuted from an amoeba into a talking human being. Don't worry
yourself about all these annoying details, all you have to understand
is that it's completely natural and scientific.... and that it
happened over long, long time. That's all you have to know.

Also, don't worry yourself that noone with a brain actually believes
the world created itself out of a bunch of chemicals, don't worry that
the most prominent and brainy scientists on the planet support the
idea of ID - Intelligent Design, simply because it makes more sense.

That's totally inconsequential. All you have to know, is that it's all
completely natural. It doesn't matter you have no clue what it means
or entails. You simply have to repeat it like a mantra, just try it -
natural process, natural process, natural natural process process, no
magic, no magic, magic magic no no... see how good it makes you feel?

"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." - Fred
Hoyle, astrophysicist

https://www.youtube.com/user/jahnudvip?feature=watch

https://picasaweb.google.com/113672947796865733014/Jahnu

http://www.touchtalent.com//artist/118705/jahnu-das

http://youtu.be/B46rjU_q_cM
duke
2018-05-14 21:58:01 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Jahnu
Post by duke
Yet science professes that our universe appeared as a singularity of all things
into nothingness. God did it.
The funny thing is, atheists always like to point out how lame the
'God did it' explanation of the theists is.
And then they come up with something even more lame and improbable -
the point did it. hahaha :) Seriously, how stupid can you get? Listen
to these idiots.
----but, but, but there is no magic involved in creating life. It's
all a natural process. If you ask me what exactly is that natural
process, I have no idea, I just call it a natural process to make it
sound like it's science, to fool creationists into thinking, that I
know what I'm talking about.
Only God, the one the brainless atheists ignore, can answer.
Post by Jahnu
These poor religious fanatics, they need some magical, invisible pixie
sitting in the sky, to explain nature, but me? Forget it, I don't need
magic to explain nature, because it's all a naturall process.
You see, first there was a point... I call the point a singularity to
make it sound less ridiculous, I fabulate it's a point of all mass,
space, and time, so no need to worry about what was outside the point,
because there was nothing outside the point - no space, no time, no
mass, no condencity, no nothing, you understand? There was only the
point, and from that point a universe came out, just like that, for no
apparent reason, it just happened, see? No magic involved... it's all
a natural process, and as we all know natural processes are very
scientic.
I won't get into what happened with the natural processes after the
universe popped into existence - how life evolved out of chemicals and
then transmuted from an amoeba into a talking human being. Don't worry
yourself about all these annoying details, all you have to understand
is that it's completely natural and scientific.... and that it
happened over long, long time. That's all you have to know.
Also, don't worry yourself that noone with a brain actually believes
the world created itself out of a bunch of chemicals, don't worry that
the most prominent and brainy scientists on the planet support the
idea of ID - Intelligent Design, simply because it makes more sense.
That's totally inconsequential. All you have to know, is that it's all
completely natural. It doesn't matter you have no clue what it means
or entails. You simply have to repeat it like a mantra, just try it -
natural process, natural process, natural natural process process, no
magic, no magic, magic magic no no... see how good it makes you feel?
"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." - Fred
Hoyle, astrophysicist
https://www.youtube.com/user/jahnudvip?feature=watch
https://picasaweb.google.com/113672947796865733014/Jahnu
http://www.touchtalent.com//artist/118705/jahnu-das
http://youtu.be/B46rjU_q_cM
the dukester, American-American


*****
The Purpose of the NT Word of God is not to inform as it did in
the OT,but instead to form us in the very image of Jesus Christ.
*****
Cloud Hobbit
2018-05-11 22:42:03 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Science only deals with reality.

That leaves gods out.
duke
2018-05-30 16:39:07 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Fri, 11 May 2018 15:42:03 -0700 (PDT), Cloud Hobbit
Post by Cloud Hobbit
Science only deals with reality.
That leaves gods out.
God drives reality if anything.

the dukester, American-American


*****
The Purpose of the NT Word of God is not to inform as it did in
the OT,but instead to form us in the very image of Jesus Christ.
*****
Davej
2018-05-12 16:18:12 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Jahnu
It doesn't.
Science does not explain God, because science has nothing sensible to
say about God. Science is not equipped to deal with consciousness.
Science only deals with matter and God is immaterial or spiritual...
Yeah, I guess if it doesn't exist and isn't even plausible then
science has nothing sensible to say about it. Good thing GAWD is
getting so much attention from people like you. Maybe you can
build an altar and deliver a few goats, onyx stones, badger's
skins and ram's skins dyed red.
Malcolm McMahon
2018-05-13 14:07:03 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Jahnu
It doesn't.
Science does not explain God, because science has nothing sensible to
say about God. Science is not equipped to deal with consciousness.
Science only deals with matter and God is immaterial or spiritual, as
is the individual soul, so Science cannot explain conscious awareness.
Science finds observations in need of explanation, and tries to explain them.
God is not an observation, but a theory in search of something to explain.
Alex W.
2018-05-14 01:31:45 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Malcolm McMahon
Post by Jahnu
It doesn't.
Science does not explain God, because science has nothing sensible to
say about God. Science is not equipped to deal with consciousness.
Science only deals with matter and God is immaterial or spiritual, as
is the individual soul, so Science cannot explain conscious awareness.
Science finds observations in need of explanation, and tries to explain them.
God is not an observation, but a theory in search of something to explain.
Sounds good, but there is more to it than that, IMO.

Gods are an answer to the emotional needs of humans. Our over-developed
brains burden us with too much imagination, too much scope for random
worries and abstract thought. This leads to questions. We start to
wonder about the purpose of this marvellous unique centre of the
universe that is each and every one of us. We start to contemplate the
cessation of this miraculous existence. And this is where gods come
into play. They purport to give us answers, and in doing so they
provide comfort and certainty. That this comfort is illusory and the
certainty is self-delusion is irrelevant ...
Malcolm McMahon
2018-05-14 08:50:15 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Alex W.
Post by Malcolm McMahon
Post by Jahnu
It doesn't.
Science does not explain God, because science has nothing sensible to
say about God. Science is not equipped to deal with consciousness.
Science only deals with matter and God is immaterial or spiritual, as
is the individual soul, so Science cannot explain conscious awareness.
Science finds observations in need of explanation, and tries to explain them.
God is not an observation, but a theory in search of something to explain.
Sounds good, but there is more to it than that, IMO.
Gods are an answer to the emotional needs of humans. Our over-developed
brains burden us with too much imagination, too much scope for random
worries and abstract thought. This leads to questions. We start to
wonder about the purpose of this marvellous unique centre of the
universe that is each and every one of us. We start to contemplate the
cessation of this miraculous existence. And this is where gods come
into play. They purport to give us answers, and in doing so they
provide comfort and certainty. That this comfort is illusory and the
certainty is self-delusion is irrelevant ...
But the only relevance to science would lie in psychology. Yes, science can
explain the prepensity to believe in god. That's not the same thing as
explaining God.
Alex W.
2018-05-15 01:16:33 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Malcolm McMahon
Post by Alex W.
Post by Malcolm McMahon
Post by Jahnu
It doesn't.
Science does not explain God, because science has nothing sensible to
say about God. Science is not equipped to deal with consciousness.
Science only deals with matter and God is immaterial or spiritual, as
is the individual soul, so Science cannot explain conscious awareness.
Science finds observations in need of explanation, and tries to explain them.
God is not an observation, but a theory in search of something to explain.
Sounds good, but there is more to it than that, IMO.
Gods are an answer to the emotional needs of humans. Our over-developed
brains burden us with too much imagination, too much scope for random
worries and abstract thought. This leads to questions. We start to
wonder about the purpose of this marvellous unique centre of the
universe that is each and every one of us. We start to contemplate the
cessation of this miraculous existence. And this is where gods come
into play. They purport to give us answers, and in doing so they
provide comfort and certainty. That this comfort is illusory and the
certainty is self-delusion is irrelevant ...
But the only relevance to science would lie in psychology. Yes, science can
explain the prepensity to believe in god. That's not the same thing as
explaining God.
Sorry, I was thinking of hard sciences.
%
2018-05-15 01:23:42 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Alex W.
Post by Malcolm McMahon
Post by Alex W.
Post by Malcolm McMahon
Post by Jahnu
It doesn't.
Science does not explain God, because science has nothing sensible to
say about God. Science is not equipped to deal with consciousness.
Science only deals with matter and God is immaterial or spiritual, as
is the individual soul, so Science cannot explain conscious awareness.
Science finds observations in need of explanation, and tries to explain them.
God is not an observation, but a theory in search of something to explain.
Sounds good, but there is more to it than that, IMO.
Gods are an answer to the emotional needs of humans.  Our over-developed
brains burden us with too much imagination, too much scope for random
worries and abstract thought.  This leads to questions.  We start to
wonder about the purpose of this marvellous unique centre of the
universe that is each and every one of us.  We start to contemplate the
cessation of this miraculous existence.  And this is where gods come
into play.  They purport to give us answers, and in doing so they
provide comfort and certainty.  That this comfort is illusory and the
certainty is self-delusion is irrelevant ...
But the only relevance to science would lie in psychology. Yes, science can
explain the prepensity to believe in god. That's not the same thing as
explaining God.
Sorry, I was thinking of hard sciences.
are you anybody
Poul Nielsen
2018-05-14 09:08:06 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Jahnu
It doesn't.
Science does not explain God, because science has nothing sensible to
say about God. Science is not equipped to deal with consciousness.
Science only deals with matter and God is immaterial or spiritual, as
is the individual soul, so Science cannot explain conscious awareness.
"Science is ghastly silent about all and sundry that is really near to
our heart, that really matters to us. It cannot tell us about red and
blue, bitter and sweet, beautiful and ugly, good or bad, God and
eternity. Science sometimes pretends to answer questions in these
domains, but the answers are often so silly that we are not inclined
to take them seriously."
—Erwin Schrodinger, a Nobel prize winning physicist
A new religion has evolved in the global culture. It’s called
Scientism. Even though modern science has absolutely nothing sensible
to say about existence, the general population is convinced that
science has explained away the need for God and religion.
So-called scientific theories like Big Bang end evolution, even though
these are pure and unalloyed speculative myths, are being taught in
all the educational institutions of the world as scientific facts.
But who has decided that technological expertise is the best way to
measure our ability to understand the reality we live in? Those who
are influential in defining peoples' realities - the producers, the
scientists, the media, the politicians, etc. -- have made
technological advancement the barometer of human progress. They claim
that the advancement of technology is the most noble pursuit of the
human race, that it has made the world a better place to live in.
As proof, they list all the consumer gadgets we use and are dependent
upon - computers, cell-phones, televisions, cars, and so on. They say
that the intelligence to build these things shows that we have
advanced our understanding of nature and how she works far beyond our
ability in the middle ages.
But is this assertion correct? To build a computer, one certainly
requires advanced knowledge of physics and chemistry, but these
disciplines describe only a tiny part of the reality we perceive. A
far greater portion of existence is our conscious experience of it --
something most people don’t even think about.
Few people ponder the fact that their understanding of the world is
conditioned by the culture they grew up in. They automatically take it
for granted that the way they perceive the world is the correct one,
and that nature is best described in physical and chemical terms.
Modern science is very useful for making technology, in fact, it’s the
only thing it is useful for, and when we live in a world where the
masses are kept in awe and reverence of technological wonders, science
is a most important undertaking.
But the jubilation of modern people over the newest technology is no
different from the gaping wonder with which people in the middle ages
looked upon sorcerers and magicians firing off sulphur and gun powder.
The magicians did this to dupe their audiences and secure their
comfortable hold on society.
In the middle ages, in the West at least, the regents of society kept
people in ignorance so they were easy to control and manipulate, and
today the exact same means are used to enslave people in ignorance. In
the global culture the slaves have just been upgraded to a
middle-class with their own house and car. But the general mass of
people still slave their lives away in boring jobs and they are marred
by the same endless worries and miseries people have always suffered
from. They are still being ground down by taxation, victims of greedy
politicians, exactly like they’ve always been.
There is no basis for saying that advanced knowledge of mathematics
and physics enables a person to better understand the reality we live
in any more than the cave dweller of some 2000 years ago who
worshipped nature and various gods. If the modern culture is based on
a proper understanding of the world, why is it ruining nature and her
inhabitants at an alarming rate? If modern man is more advanced in his
understanding of nature, why is he in the process of destroying nature
with his industrial enterprises?
Despite the so-called advancement of modern society, people are still
unable to transcend their mental conditioning. The proof is that
modern society does not produce people with evolved consciousness.
Rather, we see the exact opposite taking place - in direct proportion
to the advancement of technology, people have become more and more
base and idiotic in the way they treat each-other. Some years ago, WHO
published a report saying that the biggest health crisis facing the
world in the new millennium is that more and more people will be born
with mental defects. Is that the symptom of an evolved society?
Society, as it is, is not equipped to facilitate self-realized human
beings. What need does a self realized person have for the plethora of
useless products being produced by the few conglomerates that control
world consumerism? Such enlightenment would indeed negate the
necessity for the technological advancement upon which the world's
finances now rely. That is why, in the current global culture, a
deliberate campaign exists to transform people into atheists.
In such a culture, religion is being ridiculed and has been replaced
with politics and sports. Instead of voting for a particular religion,
one now votes for politicians, who are mostly puppets of
multinationals corporations -- all in the name of serving the people,
of course. The modern consumer civilization has made the world into
one big marketplace - a worldwide altar where technology is worshiped
as the new opium of the masses.
Being fed endless propaganda from Hollywood where technology saves the
day, we quickly forget that technology, despite assurances to the
contrary, cannot save us from the onslaughts of nature. Time and time
again, technology comes up short in the fight against nature.
The new high-priests of society, now clad in white frocks instead of
black, fail to comprehend how the mechanisms of nature work. And how
could they? They also suffer from the delusion that everything is dead
matter. They are restricted by the assumption that their knowledge of
physical laws can explain the world.
More important, though, than understanding how physical matter works
is to understand how the the mind and consciousness work. As long as
we fail to understand the difference between matter and consciousness,
we will remain disconnected from our real selves and our lives will
basically be centered around satisfying bodily and mental needs
That's why atheism is dangerous - it keeps the consciousness trapped
in a 3-dimensional world of matter. It keeps the self from its rare
mission in the human life form which is to understand consciousness
and God. It cultivates a mechanistic conception of life where the
consciousness cannot see itself - a deception where the consciousness,
being absorbed in matter, forgets itself.
"Science cannot solve the ultimate mystery of Nature. And it is
because in the last analysis we ourselves are part of the mystery we
are trying to solve." - Max Planck
Every individual is duty-bound to develop their consciousness and
connect it with the Supreme consciousness - Sri Krishna. While Srila
Prabhupada was a nitya-siddha, he was also a social revolutionary, as
was the Lord he served - Sri Chaitanya Mahaprabhu. The political
correctness that predominates in the world and passes as social
etiquette should not stop us from assisting him in his mission - to
silence the atheistic class of men, and to inundate the world with
Krishna Consciousness.
The living entities in this conditioned world are My eternal
fragmental parts. Due to conditioned life, they are struggling very
hard with the six senses, which include the mind. (Bg 15.7)
The living entity in the material world carries his different
conceptions of life from one body to another, as the air carries
aromas. Thus he takes one kind of body and again quits it to take
another. (Bg 15.8)
The living entity, thus taking another gross body, obtains a certain
type of ear, eye, tongue, nose and sense of touch, which are grouped
about the mind. He thus enjoys a particular set of sense objects. (Bg
15.9)
The foolish cannot understand how a living entity can quit his body,
nor can they understand what sort of body he enjoys under the spell of
the modes of nature. But one whose eyes are trained in knowledge can
see all this. (Bg 15.10)
Sai Baba once said only science is real
Jahnu
2018-05-17 14:22:40 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Mon, 14 May 2018 11:08:06 +0200, Poul Nielsen
Post by Poul Nielsen
Sai Baba once said only science is real
And Sai Baba was, of course, a total idiot.

Here let me shake some ashes out of my sleeve, then people will think
I'm God...

Seriously, how stupid can you get?


Krishna says:

And whoever, at the end of his life, quits his body remembering Me
alone at once attains My nature. Of this there is no doubt. (Bg. 8.5)

Whatever state of being one remembers when he quits his body, O son of
Kunti, that state he will attain without fail. (Bg 8.6)




https://www.youtube.com/user/jahnudvip?feature=watch

https://picasaweb.google.com/113672947796865733014/Jahnu

http://www.touchtalent.com//artist/118705/jahnu-das

http://youtu.be/B46rjU_q_cM
WangoTango
2018-05-29 23:20:02 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Jahnu
It doesn't.
Same reason it doesn't explain Gnomes.
Christopher A. Lee
2018-05-30 04:20:55 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Tue, 29 May 2018 19:20:02 -0400, WangoTango
Post by WangoTango
Post by Jahnu
It doesn't.
Same reason it doesn't explain Gnomes.
But how does it explain Jesper?
Cloud Hobbit
2018-05-30 04:27:45 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by WangoTango
Same reason it doesn't explain Gnomes.
Post by Christopher A. Lee
But how does it explain Jesper?
Possibly some gene splicing experiment gone horribly wrong.

Trying to splice human, bovine, and porcine DNA but somehow they got a horse's ads.
Olrik
2018-05-30 04:29:24 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Christopher A. Lee
On Tue, 29 May 2018 19:20:02 -0400, WangoTango
Post by WangoTango
Post by Jahnu
It doesn't.
Same reason it doesn't explain Gnomes.
But how does it explain Jesper?
Condom failure?
--
Olrik
aa #1981
EAC Chief Food Inspector, Bacon Division
Cloud Hobbit
2018-05-30 05:18:47 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Olrik
Condom failure?
What does that say about his parents?

Are they crazy too, or is Jesper the result of some whacko gene possessed by one of them, or is he a self made asshole?

Enquiring minds want to know.
hypatiab7(hypatiab7)
2018-05-30 07:09:46 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Christopher A. Lee
On Tue, 29 May 2018 19:20:02 -0400, WangoTango
Post by WangoTango
Post by Jahnu
It doesn't.
Same reason it doesn't explain Gnomes.
But how does it explain Jesper?
He was born that way. No cure.
Don Martin
2018-05-31 01:49:54 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Tue, 29 May 2018 23:20:55 -0500, Christopher A. Lee
Post by Christopher A. Lee
On Tue, 29 May 2018 19:20:02 -0400, WangoTango
Post by WangoTango
Post by Jahnu
It doesn't.
Same reason it doesn't explain Gnomes.
But how does it explain Jesper?
At least that is easier than trying to explain anything TO him.
--
aa #2278 Never mind "proof." Where is your evidence?
BAAWA Chief Assistant to the Assistant Chief Heckler
Fidei defensor (Hon. Antipodean)
Je pense, donc je suis Charlie.
WangoTango
2018-05-31 22:56:38 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Christopher A. Lee
On Tue, 29 May 2018 19:20:02 -0400, WangoTango
Post by WangoTango
Post by Jahnu
It doesn't.
Same reason it doesn't explain Gnomes.
But how does it explain Jesper?
Well, with 7+ Billion of us, on this ball of mud, there's bound to be a
significant number of mentally defective units out there.
On the up side, they're pretty easy to spot. It seems buying into magic
and myth as if it were real is a good indicator of damage.
Jahnu
2018-06-02 04:03:26 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by WangoTango
Same reason it doesn't explain Gnomes.
Atheism doesn't explain anything, at all.

Atheists are unable to give any account of the fact that we exists,
except by saying -- but, but the chemicals did it, just like that,
poof.

Seriously, you'd really have to be a non-thinking fool to subscribe to
such nonsense.But that's what happens when a person becomes an atheist
- all his intellectual faculties shut down.


----but, but, but there is no magic involved in creating life. It's
all a natural process. If you ask me what exactly is that natural
process, I have no idea, I just call it a natural process to make it
sound like it's science, to fool creationists into thinking, that I
know what I'm talking about.

These poor religious fanatics, they need some magical, invisible pixie
sitting in the sky, to explain nature, but me? Forget it, I don't need
magic to explain nature, because it's all a naturall process.

You see, first there was a point... I call the point a singularity to
make it sound less ridiculous, I fabulate it's a point of all mass,
space, and time, so no need to worry about what was outside the point,
because there was nothing outside the point - no space, no time, no
mass, no condencity, no nothing, you understand? There was only the
point, and from that point a universe came out, just like that, for no
apparent reason, it just happened, see? No magic involved... it's all
a natural process, and as we all know natural processes are very
scientic.

I won't get into what happened with the natural processes after the
universe popped into existence - how life evolved out of chemicals and
then transmuted from an amoeba into a talking human being. Don't worry
yourself about all these annoying details, all you have to understand
is that it's completely natural and scientific.... and that it
happened over long, long time. That's all you have to know.

Also, don't worry yourself that noone with a brain actually believes
the world created itself out of a bunch of chemicals, don't worry that
the most prominent and brainy scientists on the planet support the
idea of ID - Intelligent Design, simply because it makes more sense.

That's totally inconsequential. All you have to know, is that it's all
completely natural. It doesn't matter you have no clue what it means
or entails. You simply have to repeat it like a mantra, just try it -
natural process, natural process, natural natural process process, no
magic, no magic, magic magic no no... see how good it makes you feel?

"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." - Fred
Hoyle, astrophysicist



https://www.youtube.com/user/jahnudvip?feature=watch

https://picasaweb.google.com/113672947796865733014/Jahnu

http://www.touchtalent.com//artist/118705/jahnu-das

http://youtu.be/B46rjU_q_cM
Yosemite Sam
2018-06-02 18:01:32 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Jahnu
Post by WangoTango
Same reason it doesn't explain Gnomes.
Atheism doesn't explain anything, at all.
Atheists are unable to give any account of the fact that we exists,
except by saying -- but, but the chemicals did it, just like that,
poof.
Atheists are defined as such. Several skin bound tomes refer to the
atheists as several DNA different than shale. We know and it is
partially known by the existent species that atheists prefer their
own temperatures while hedging towards the other side than the rest
of the antipodal.
Atheist ------------------------------
2018-06-02 19:27:47 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Jahnu
Atheism doesn't explain anything, at all.
Atheism explains only that we don't buy the "a god exists" assertion.

That's all, just that, nothing more.
--
There is no verifiable evidence of any god(s). None whatsoever.
Extortion (Believe or Burn) is *THE* foundation of Christianity.
Sycophant: a compulsive ass-kisser of un-evidenced dictator god.
Jahnu
2018-06-03 10:12:56 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Atheist ------------------------------
Atheism explains only that we don't buy the "a god exists" assertion.
...asserted the atheist :D

See, that's all an atheist can do - assert stuff.
Post by Atheist ------------------------------
That's all, just that, nothing more.
Atheism has jack squat to say about the reality we live in.

--but, but reality popped out of a point, like... poof.

"Science is ghastly silent about all and sundry that is really near to
our heart, that really matters to us. It cannot tell us about red and
blue, bitter and sweet, beautiful and ugly, good or bad, God and
eternity. Science sometimes pretends to answer questions in these
domains, but the answers are often so silly that we are not inclined
to take them seriously."

Erwin Schrodinger, a Nobel prize winning physicist



https://www.youtube.com/user/jahnudvip?feature=watch

https://picasaweb.google.com/113672947796865733014/Jahnu

http://www.touchtalent.com//artist/118705/jahnu-das

http://youtu.be/B46rjU_q_cM
WangoTango
2018-06-12 21:27:49 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Jahnu
Post by WangoTango
Same reason it doesn't explain Gnomes.
Atheism doesn't explain anything, at all.
Atheists are unable to give any account of the fact that we exists,
except by saying -- but, but the chemicals did it, just like that,
poof.
Flaunting your ignorance of abiogenesis and evolution as usual.
Andrew
2018-06-14 09:18:48 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
<>
Post by WangoTango
Post by Jahnu
Atheists are unable to give any account of the fact that we exists,
except by saying -- but, but the chemicals did it, just like that,
poof.
Flaunting your ignorance of abiogenesis and evolution as usual.
Apparently you believe in the "goo to you" deception contrary to
the laws of science.
Jahnu
2018-06-14 11:28:54 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by WangoTango
Flaunting your ignorance of abiogenesis and evolution as usual.
Only the mindless masses, the indoctrinated general population believe
abiogenesis and evolution.

In science they know evolution and abionenesis are pure belief without
any scientific basis.

Obviously you belong to the indoctrinated masses who just lap up
whatever snot they feed you on TV.

In science they know what's going on.

"From my earliest training as a scientist I was very strongly
brainwashed to believe that science cannot be consistent with any kind
of deliberate creation. That notion has had to be painfully shed. I am
quite uncomfortable in this situation, the state of mind I now find
myself in. But there is no logical way out of it. I now find myself
driven to this position by logic. There is no other way in which we
can understand the precise ordering of the chemicals of life except to
invoke the creations on a cosmic scale. . . We were hoping as
scientists that there would be a way round our conclusion, but there
isn’t."

--Sir Frederick Hoyle and Chandra Wickramsinghe, There Must Be A God,
Daily Express, Aug. 14, 1981. & Hoyle On Evolution. Nature, Nov. 12,
1981, 105

The hypothesis that life evolved from inorganic matter is still to
this day a matter of belief. - Matematician J. W. N. Sullivan

"Scientists who go about teaching that evolution is a fact of life are
great con-men, And the story they are telling may be the GREATEST HOAX
EVER." -- Dr.T.N.Tahmisian, Atomic Energy Commission

"We must concede that there are presently no detailed Darwinian
accounts of the evolution of any biochemical or cellular system, only
a variety of wishful speculations." -- Franklin Harold, Emeritus
Professor of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology at Colorado State
University, in an Oxford University Press text.

"Darwinian evolution - whatever its other virtues - does not provide a
fruitful heuristic in experimental biology. This becomes especially
clear when we compare it with a heuristic framework such as the atomic
model, which opens up structural chemistry and leads to advances in
the synthesis of a multitude of new molecules of practical benefit.
None of this demonstrates that Darwinism is false. It does, however,
mean that the claim that it is the cornerstone of modern experimental
biology will be met with quiet skepticism from a growing number of
scientists in fields where theories actually do serve as cornerstones
for tangible breakthroughs." --U.S. National Academy of Sciences
member Philip Skell

"[The] Darwinian claim to explain all of evolution is a popular
half-truth whose lack of explicative power is compensated for only by
the religious ferocity of its rhetoric." --National Academy of
Sciences member Lynn Margulis

"Mutations have a very limited ‘constructive capacity’ . No matter how
numerous they may be, mutations do not produce any kind of evolution."
--Past president of the French Academy of Sciences Pierre-Paul Grasse

"The absence of fossil evidence for intermediary stages between major
transitions in organic design, indeed our inability, even in our
imagination, to construct functional intermediates in many cases, has
been a persistent and nagging problem for gradualistic accounts of
evolution." --Late American paleontologist Stephen Jay Gould

"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." - Fred
Hoyle, astrophysicist

"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." - Wernher von Braun

"The gift of mental power comes from God, Divine Being, and if we
concetrate our minds on that truth, we become in tune with this great
power." - Nikola Tesla

"The most beautiful system of the sun, planets, and comets, could only
proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent and powerful
Being." - Isaac Newton



https://www.youtube.com/user/jahnudvip?feature=watch

https://picasaweb.google.com/113672947796865733014/Jahnu

http://www.touchtalent.com//artist/118705/jahnu-das

http://youtu.be/B46rjU_q_cM
hypatiab7(hypatiab7)
2018-05-30 07:00:46 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Jahnu
It doesn't.
Mashed potatoes deleted.

Science doesn't explain a god or gods because there are none to explain.
You have never proved differently.
aaa
2018-05-30 10:50:52 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by hypatiab7(hypatiab7)
Post by Jahnu
It doesn't.
Mashed potatoes deleted.
Science doesn't explain a god or gods because there are none to explain.
You have never proved differently.
There are none to explain physically because God is spiritual. The
spiritual can only be explained philosophically. This is why we have the
Bible. So the Bible is actually a book of philosophy. This is why
science can neither prove nor disprove the philosophy of the Bible. The
Bible is beyond the scope of science.

Can you realize your atheist mistakes now?
--
God's spiritual evidence:

Truth, love, wisdom, compassion, knowledge, consciousness, intelligence,
happiness, faith, courage, justice, peace, freedom, and life itself.
Siri Cruise
2018-05-31 00:32:33 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Jahnu
It doesn't.
Science does not explain God, because science has nothing sensible to
It doesn't because it assumes the universe is mechanical, there are no agents or
free will. It's a simplifying assumption that doesn't cause any problems except
for experimental psychologists because other researchers can allow themselves to
have or have not free will without consequences.

But the hoops experimental psychologists must leap and dance through are quite
amusing.

Christian and other religious scientists can do science just fine by assuming
that miracles (events agented by a god) are rare and what they themselves are
studying are not miracles but mechanics. For example suppose it is assumed
evolution is almost always by random or human mutations, but there was just a
handful of tweaks that changed a round worm to a chordate, a reptile to a
mammal, a mammal to a primate, a primate to human. Such tweaks would be
indistinguishable from the background of random mutations, but would still be
the result of undetectable design.
--
:-<> Siri Seal of Disavowal #000-001. Disavowed. Denied. Deleted. @
'I desire mercy, not sacrifice.' /|\
I'm saving up to buy the Donald a blue stone This post / \
from Metebelis 3. All praise the Great Don! insults Islam. Mohammed
%
2018-05-30 15:36:10 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Siri Cruise
Post by Jahnu
It doesn't.
Science does not explain God, because science has nothing sensible to
It doesn't because it assumes the universe is mechanical, there are no agents or
free will. It's a simplifying assumption that doesn't cause any problems except
for experimental psychologists because other researchers can allow themselves to
have or have not free will without consequences.
But the hoops experimental psychologists must leap and dance through are quite
amusing.
Christian and other religious scientists can do science just fine by assuming
that miracles (events agented by a god) are rare and what they themselves are
studying are not miracles but mechanics. For example suppose it is assumed
evolution is almost always by random or human mutations, but there was just a
handful of tweaks that changed a round worm to a chordate, a reptile to a
mammal, a mammal to a primate, a primate to human. Such tweaks would be
indistinguishable from the background of random mutations, but would still be
the result of undetectable design.
do you have webbed toes
duke
2018-05-31 16:47:41 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Siri Cruise
Post by Jahnu
It doesn't.
Science does not explain God, because science has nothing sensible to
It doesn't because it assumes the universe is mechanical, there are no agents or
free will. It's a simplifying assumption that doesn't cause any problems except
for experimental psychologists because other researchers can allow themselves to
have or have not free will without consequences.
So you think the moon would go to Vegas and gamble and catch a few shows!! The
universe evolves following it's moment of creation by God. God saw you and I
coming on the scene 13.8 billion years ago.
Post by Siri Cruise
But the hoops experimental psychologists must leap and dance through are quite
amusing.
Christian and other religious scientists can do science just fine by assuming
that miracles (events agented by a god) are rare and what they themselves are
studying are not miracles but mechanics. For example suppose it is assumed
evolution is almost always by random or human mutations, but there was just a
handful of tweaks that changed a round worm to a chordate, a reptile to a
mammal, a mammal to a primate, a primate to human. Such tweaks would be
indistinguishable from the background of random mutations, but would still be
the result of undetectable design.
If that were the case, then you'd be a primate.

the dukester, American-American


*****
The Purpose of the NT Word of God is not to inform as it did in
the OT,but instead to form us in the very image of Jesus Christ.
*****
Malcolm McMahon
2018-06-01 15:15:47 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Siri Cruise
Post by Jahnu
It doesn't.
Science does not explain God, because science has nothing sensible to
It doesn't because it assumes the universe is mechanical, there are no agents or
free will. It's a simplifying assumption that doesn't cause any problems except
for experimental psychologists because other researchers can allow themselves to
have or have not free will without consequences.
If someone could figure out a way to prove or disprove the existence of free will, then scientists might get interested.
Siri Cruise
2018-06-01 16:37:56 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Malcolm McMahon
Post by Siri Cruise
Post by Jahnu
It doesn't.
Science does not explain God, because science has nothing sensible to
It doesn't because it assumes the universe is mechanical, there are no agents or
free will. It's a simplifying assumption that doesn't cause any problems except
for experimental psychologists because other researchers can allow themselves to
have or have not free will without consequences.
If someone could figure out a way to prove or disprove the existence of free
will, then scientists might get interested.
Nobody but experimental psychologists has any professional interest in the
question. Psychologist deny free will in the humans they study but blame free
will when ungraduate human students don't study for exams.

A world without free will is boring as there is no adventure: you are just the
passive receiver of the actions of an indifferent world. Unexpected and long
expected parties are meaningless. I will choose free will.

You can choose a ready guide in some celestial voice
If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice
You can choose from phantom fears and kindness that can kill
I will choose a path that's clear
I will choose freewill
--
:-<> Siri Seal of Disavowal #000-001. Disavowed. Denied. Deleted. @
'I desire mercy, not sacrifice.' /|\
I'm saving up to buy the Donald a blue stone This post / \
from Metebelis 3. All praise the Great Don! insults Islam. Mohammed
Alex W.
2018-06-02 13:41:26 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Siri Cruise
Post by Malcolm McMahon
Post by Siri Cruise
Post by Jahnu
It doesn't.
Science does not explain God, because science has nothing
sensible to
It doesn't because it assumes the universe is mechanical, there
are no agents or free will. It's a simplifying assumption that
doesn't cause any problems except for experimental psychologists
because other researchers can allow themselves to have or have
not free will without consequences.
If someone could figure out a way to prove or disprove the
existence of free will, then scientists might get interested.
Nobody but experimental psychologists has any professional interest
in the question. Psychologist deny free will in the humans they study
but blame free will when ungraduate human students don't study for
exams.
A world without free will is boring as there is no adventure: you are
just the passive receiver of the actions of an indifferent world.
Unexpected and long expected parties are meaningless. I will choose
free will.
It would only be boring if you also had foreknowledge of the events. As
we do not, the future remains unknown and hence exciting.
Jahnu
2018-07-20 04:59:50 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Alex W.
It would only be boring if you also had foreknowledge of the events. As
we do not, the future remains unknown and hence exciting.
We do know the future.

You are going to get sick, old and die a miserable death, like some
dumb animal, and death is going to be a rude awakening for you.


Let me tell you about what happens at the point of death, according to
the Bhagavata Purana.

If you have been very good and pious, you will upon leaving the body
be led to the planets of the demigods - the heavenly planets. There
you will enjoy for millions of years before again you will be born on
earth as a human.

On the heavenly planets you enjoy basically as you do on earth - sex,
drugs and rock-n-roll - but it takes place on a subtle plane, the
astral plane as some call it. You are in a subtle body - a psychic,
finer physical body that doesn't exude excretions. IOW, you don't
perspire, fart or stink.

In heaven there are heavenly dancing girls and the soma-drink - an
intoxication that makes you feel good and prolongs life. The music is
delivered by the gandharvas - some sort of angles who are the
musicians of the heavenly planets. On the heavenly planets there is no
disease or old age, but eventually you die and fall back to a human
body on earth.

Now, at the point of death, if you have been very cruel and evil not
caring or empathizing with other living entities, you will be picked
up by the Yamadhutas, the messengers of Yamaraja - the god of Death -
and taken to the hellish planets, where you will be tortured and
undergo purgatory for what feels like eternity. Like on the heavenly
planets, it happens on a subtle, astral plane, so a moment can feel
like a long, long time - like in a dream. After having ended your
prescribed suffering, you will again be born on earth, but not
necessarily from a human womb. You can be born in any of the 8.400.000
species of life.

If you have just been an ordinary, somewhat decent human, neither too
good nor too evil, like people are most, at the point of death you
will fall into a deep sleep and stay like that for 7 months after
which you'll wake up and find yourself tied up in a womb. The
situation for the fetus is full of pain and distress. You are in full
consciousness but you are totally bound up and gagged, it's like being
bound up very tightly in a sack. If you are lucky, you will remember
everything you did to land you in this particular womb, why you will
be born to certain parents. Then after 2 months of such hell you are
squeezed out of a hole much too little for you, and born in shock into
total forgetfulness. The foster state is described in the Bhagavat
Purana in great detail.

If, however, you have practiced spiritual life and think of Krishna at
the time of death, you will return to the spiritual world in your
original constitution of eternity, knowledge and bliss. Or you will be
born in some universe on some planet where Krishna has descended to
reveal His pastimes. When that period has ended, you will return with
Krishna to Goloka either as one of His friends, His girl-friends or as
His elder in a parental mood.

The choice is yours. Where ever you go after death will be according
to how you formed your mental body. The mental or the psychic body is
formed after the activities of your gross, physical body and the
mentality you are cultivating.

Krishna says:

And whoever, at the end of his life, quits his body remembering Me
alone at once attains My nature. Of this there is no doubt. (Bg. 8.5)

Whatever state of being one remembers when he quits his body, O son of
Kunti, that state he will attain without fail. (Bg 8.6)



https://www.youtube.com/user/jahnudvip?feature=watch

https://picasaweb.google.com/113672947796865733014/Jahnu

http://www.touchtalent.com//artist/118705/jahnu-das

http://youtu.be/B46rjU_q_cM

duke
2018-06-01 17:52:35 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Fri, 1 Jun 2018 08:15:47 -0700 (PDT), Malcolm McMahon
Post by Malcolm McMahon
Post by Siri Cruise
Post by Jahnu
It doesn't.
Science does not explain God, because science has nothing sensible to
It doesn't because it assumes the universe is mechanical, there are no agents or
free will. It's a simplifying assumption that doesn't cause any problems except
for experimental psychologists because other researchers can allow themselves to
have or have not free will without consequences.
If someone could figure out a way to prove or disprove the existence of free will, then scientists might get interested.
I can. You just exercised your free will to post on this ng.

the dukester, American-American


*****
The Purpose of the NT Word of God is not to inform as it did in
the OT,but instead to form us in the very image of Jesus Christ.
*****
Yosemite Sam
2018-06-01 21:03:13 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Jahnu
It doesn't.
It tells us its opinion on Goid or it gets some hose again
Loading...