Scientists keep their silence when asked the biggest questions of life, like: "Where does the laws of Physics come from?", or "What is biological life", or "Why we are here, and who created us so intelligently?" ...and so on questions. I welcome all the spiritualists to join this discussion. Psychic chakras, Kundalini Awakening, Supernatural science - these are the subjects that we always felt, and perhaps never spoken because of lack of evidence.
No - scientists do not keep quiet about such things.
Where does the laws of Physics come from?
The laws of Physics are integral to existence and have always existed.
What is biological life?
Why we are here?
Who created us so intelligently?
"Feelings" are wholly internal and subjective.
There is no such thing as "supernatural science." This is an oxymoron. Science deals with the measurable and testable. Your feelings are not measurable and testable.
But - yes - science will eventually explain everything. We are getting there.
Really, E.G.? Which renowned physicist said, "The laws of Physics are integral to existence and have always existed?"
And that would be a bold statement without proof. Sorry.
Is time infinite and unbounded?
Is time infinite, but bounded on one end?
Or is time finite?
(And I use the word "is" referring to the entire timeline, not as if it all belonged in the present instant, but simply referring from outside the space-time continuum.)
And where is your proof for "no one" created us intelligently?
Where does such certainty come from? Are you... naw!... You couldn't be,... but if you were that would mean...
Is E.G. the omnipotent, omniscient One?
Or is he merely being arrogant, as usual, spouting made-up truths?
And yes, E.G., I still believe in evolution. Always have, despite your "psychic" impression that I must be lying about it. Ooohh! E.G. is psychic?
Odd - surely the laws of physics are integral to existence? Are you claiming they are outside existence? That is not possible.
Existence has always existed.
This is the default position - surely?
Time began with the Big Bang, and - almost all physicists - renowned or otherwise agree that this is the case. Therefore the laws of physics have always existed.
Timeline? There is no such thing - time is observer dependent.
What proof do I need that no one created us intelligently? Where is this person? We have looked and looked and looked to no avail.
Spouting made up truths? No - not really - simply paraphrasing some renowned physicists.
You do not believe in evolution - evolution cannot have a predetermined developmental destination.
Very interesting answers Evolution Guy. You just said it all. You left no holes that can be pointed out.
I am not a scientist myself, and I can not ever pretend that I know all about it. I feel that those who speak to defend it are its practitioners. Or at least have spent considerable time understanding its nature and processes.
The scientists that I have ever known, whether reading their words or watching their interviews, were very humble. And you, Evolution Guy, being an admirer of science, exhibit that character brilliantly.
The answers you have provided are so full of irrefutable reasons, that I am almost afraid to touch them. But I must point a few things--
1) The laws of Physics are integral to existence and have always existed. Could you please explain what do you mean by always? I
fear I did not understand.
2) I never visited the link before, that you provided. Whatever, it told me that life is, I quote Wikipedia:
"Life is a characteristic that distinguishes objects that have signaling and self-sustaining processes from those that do not, either because such functions have ceased (death), or else because they lack such functions and are classified as inanimate."
-My humble request is that if you could explain a little this thing which Wikipedia says - inanimate. Because Wikipedia seems to get silent after that. It does not know what 'inanimate' is.
3) You said we are here to live. Very nice. But I am tempted to know a little more perhaps. To do what while we have life? Does science know that?
4) Who created us so intelligently? - You said no one. That's a great reply Evolution Guy. Only a little question: If no one created us, then how come we were created? I found no reason in your reply.
5) "Feelings" are wholly internal and subjective. -You said this. I believe when Isaac Newton discovered gravity, it was only a mere intuition that ran through his head. How come you accept that theory so easily Evolution Guy? Are not they wholly internal and subjective?
Supernatural science is a science that has become so refined and subtle, that for those who did not spend a little time to understand that, will feel it to be 'supernatural' in character. I fear I have failed to make you understand this thing. Very sorry then.
But - yes - science will eventually explain everything -- Did you say that? How are you so sure that science will explain everything?
If my senses are correct, then you have a belief in science. While some people have beliefs in totems, you have a belief in science instead. You are no better than a religious person. Your belief has degraded you into the level of subjectivity.
A blind faith into something is the hallmark of a fanatic. I surely know you are not such anyone.
Thank you very much
It is not good to ask question that he cannot answer; he only knows answer to questions pertaining to evolution, I think.
Hmm Condescending sarcasm - wonderful.
Did you actually want some answers or do you always attack any one who does not believe in majik as a matter of course? Did you just start this thread in order to demonstrate that you know something that other people cannot understand? Just a big ego trip? This is why religious people such as yourself cause so much ill will and hatred.
Still - this point:
I find no reason in your reply.
Please explain how you know we were created rather than occurred naturally with no majik involved?
Please explain how you know we were created rather than occurred naturally with no majik involved?
I do not know the truth of our origin. No one knows. If even for the sake of reasoning I accept that we were not created, and as you say, were a natural product of a supernatural majik -- it doesn't solve the question, rather makes it more complex.
Who created that magic?
What is the age of this magic?
What existed before that magic?
Did you actually want some answers or do you always attack any one who does not believe in majik as a matter of course?
- I fear I see a little self-contradiction in you statements. I attacked you because you do not believe majik, very good, then how come you are, Evolution Guy, now asking an explanation for that we occurred naturally with no majik involved? Have you begun to suspect the possibility of a majik?
These are the objective questions that I found in your statement. As for the personal questions you have asked me, I would like to answer them with a 'No'.
This is why religious people such as yourself cause so much ill will and hatred. - With all due respect, Evolution Guy, I ask you to withdraw this remark.
We are just strangers. Do you know me properly? How dare you speak like that? If you do not publicly apologize, I fear I will have seek an official remedy myself.
Please read all my posts to know how religious I am.
You are contradicting yourself here.
Please explain how you come to the conclusion that we are anything other than a natural product - no supernatural majik involved.
I will withdraw no remarks. You attacked me with sarcasm and insults. This is what religious people do. Faith in the impossible (religion) is the reason you felt compelled to do this.
Prove, if you can, Evolution Guy, that I attacked you with sarcasm and insults. Because I have enough to prove that you did insult me in a nasty way, with all those who have religious faiths. I think the moderators will only understand reason.
why does there have to be an answer to who created anything. why do religious people have such a need to use a creator for the answers that they can't figure out on their own. science has answered questions that 200 years ago no one thought it could and so it will continue. in due time all questions pertaining to how the earth came to be, how humans came to be will be answered by science but even then religious people will deny that they are the right answers.
Some actually ARE answered; the laws of physics came out the specific circumstances of the big bang The exact mechanism is unknown, but could well be understood one day. Biological life is a defined answer, although there are borderline cases that I don't know anyone has ever bothered to answer. It can become a philosophical definition, not a scientific one.
Other questions, such as why we're here or who created us presumes that there IS a why or who, which is not the case. As such the question makes no sense and cannot be answered.
Science cannot answer religious or philosophical questions; it only deals in what it can detect. It cannot, for instance, answer anything about God because in thousands of years of looking no one has ever detected God or anything caused by God. He is undetectable both in Himself and in His actions and thus is not the concern of science. One day science could detect a "something" that everyone agrees is God, but until that day science isn't interested.
Wilderness, you make some good points, but...
It's entirely possible that the laws of physics came out of the specific circumstances of the Big Bang, but you state it as fact. Tsk, tsk! We don't yet have any way to prove such an assertion.
And you say, "...presumes that there IS a why or who, which is not the case." And your proof? If you're going to get down with the scientific approach to things, then you need to do a better job of it.
Your second paragraph is actually covered by your third. The "why" or "who" is something science can never talk about, because it's philosophy and religion.
And your presumption to know the discoveries of all human beings since the beginning of humanity is, well... presumptuous. You make a bold statement without proof. There have been many people who have detected God and things caused by God, but you refuse to accept the events that have been documented.
The scientific stance on such things would be to say, "I don't know. No proof, but it could have happened. It's outside of the currently known laws."
I also doubt if science will ever be "interested" in religious topics, because they deal with entirely different aspects of creation.
Science deals with the products of creation -- the continuity of physical reality.
Religion and spirituality deal with creation and its source -- God and His spiritual children.
I hang my head in shame. You're right - we don't know enough about the big bang to ascertain that there were no laws in place and we don't know there is no why or who.
Not sure where you got that I know everything known to mankind, though - it isn't so and if I indicated that it was unintentional.
However, while many claim to have detected God there is no evidence other than their word that it is true. The same holds for Gods actions. With no evidence then science should say "I don't know" which is exactly what it does. Science won't even guess without at least SOME circumstantial evidence, which opinions of believers don't provide even while they will claim that they KNOW the truth of the matter.
Science does indeed deal with the products of creation, but also with the cause (if any) of creation and everything else that exists. Without being able to detect God or Gods actions science is unable and unwilling to state yea or nay concerning His existence. If a parallel universe, other dimension or anything else that might be the location of Gods existence prior to creation of this one is found THEN science might start looking once more. Until then His existence must remain a mystery to all but the imagination of the believer. Or at least until a definition can be agreed to as to what God is (the set of natural laws that govern this universe perhaps?).
You are right; science has no business here; it is deaf and dumb.
One cannot detect the Creator God; it is beyond human beings to detect Him; it is He who comes near and reveals Himself to the righteous persons called messengers prophets of the Creator God; He select them and sends them with a message to guide humanity and it is happened always and every region of the world.
I our present era; the Creator God has spoken to Mirza Ghulam Ahmad- the Promisesd Messiah, very truthfully.
Nevertheless science is a useful tool of human beings in service of humanity and is valuable.
Thank you very much, paarsurrey, for taking part in this discussion.
Your statement here is fascinating. Let me quote you --
In our present era; the Creator God has spoken to Mirza Ghulam Ahmad- the Promisesd Messiah, very truthfully. - I have a tiny question, which is: Were you present at the site while this divine exchange of dialogues between God, and Mirza Ghulam Ahmad, took place?
Or have you just heard that it took place?
He who comes near and reveals Himself to the righteous persons called messengers prophets of the Creator God; He select them and sends them with a message to guide humanity and it is happened always and every region of the world
-These are words that I have quoted from your valuable opinion. I must inform you that there is a religion called Buddhism. And the propounder of that religion, Gautama Buddha, always denied the existence of a 'God'. Buddhism does not have a God.
The little question that is now disturbing me, is: Should I believe you, or Gautama Buddha?
I would be delighted you can ever dispel this my religious confusion.
Please quote Buddha's words in original written by him with a translation that he denied the existence of the Creator God.
Going through a little trouble paarsurrey. I will provide Buddha's words soon. Have the words, but I research everything deeply before I say endorse them. One or two days more.
so because some guy says god talked to him people should believe it but they shouldn't believe what science says. surely you jest.
No science cannot expalin everything; it is just a tool designed to do certain things with certain limitation. Science is deaf and dumb on its own; it does not speak to you or anyone else. It is the scientists who speak; but they are faulty human beings they may make mistakes or misunderstand. Mostly it is the eulogizers of science- the atheists, who speak about science while they are not really spokespersons of science.
From scientific point of view , you go on asking questions , you may end up with philosophical answer.
The problem is, as I see it, philosophies are subjective unless they are provided with evidence. Without evidence, they are no better than religion.
I try to avoid pointless threads, but your other thread piqued my curiosity about this one. Science doesn't claim answers it doesn't have. That would be dishonest.
Assuming that any spiritual musings carry weight of truth since science doesn't weigh in; is dishonest.
No one has answers to the questions in your OP. Claims otherwise are simply ego taking itself too seriously.
LOL! Science explains how things work, they don't bother with childish questions.
[hint] ...lack of evidence = non-existent... [/hint]
I think that one day science will say they have explained everything or may even come close to it but it will not happen in our lifetime.
Some of those things have been answered though. How is science suppose to prove why or how we are here?? That is MY question. I don't see how science could proove why or how we are here OR for that matter I don't see how science could proove the existence or non-existence of God, Goddess, Gods, Goddesses, etc. There isn't a way to proove that.
@Tlherald85, I don't think science will ever adequately explain how time, space, gravity, mass and energy originated. If God did exist, then science would be intruding on God's talent for creation. And scientific method cannot grapple with the realm of discontinuity -- which is what creation basically is.
Science deals with continuity (predictable cause-and-effect).
Religion and spirituality deal with discontinuity.
I've been able to create such discontinuities for brief periods of time. The results were instantaneous and startling. And, because I was the source of the effect, I knew the intention in advance and saw that the effect matched the original intention.
I am amazed how skeptics attempt to squirm out of explaining the "miracle on Wilshire Boulevard." I discuss it thoroughly in one of my hubs and I've described it in some forums. Science cannot explain it because it was a creation -- a discontinuity. Human behavior and the laws of physics were circumvented and nearly 2000 cars on one of the busiest streets in the world, during rush-hour traffic, had one lane empty for more than 2 miles all within 5 seconds of my "prayer" or "request."
A ten-car stretch during rush-hour would be strange. A one hundred car stretch would be shocking. But 2000 cars -- a two-mile stretch? Human nature does not work that way. And for that stretch in front of my own car to remain open for the two minutes it took me to traverse that gauntlet is doubly peculiar and unexplainable by the simple laws of physics.
Things like that do not happen unless they are created.
Things like Jesus and Peter walking on water together do not just happen. The laws of physics are against such an occurrence.
For Peter, it took a few moments of "unreasonable" faith and fearlessness to accomplish that miracle. Okay. I wasn't there. I didn't see it happen. It's mentioned in the Bible, but that is not proof. Granted. But no one can disprove it, either.
And if it really did happen? Wow. Think about it. Science can't touch that. God and creation are superior to science, because science only studies what came afterward. Science is the "janitor" that sweeps up the bits and pieces of creation for study. They do a beautiful job of it. Evolution, astrophysics, transistor effect in silicon doping, laser surgery,... breathtaking stuff.
But more is at stake than a philosophical debating point.
Some children have become ill and trapped. They're having a hard time waking up in order to help with their own escape. And their awakening is critical, otherwise they may be lost forever. I'm talking about God's immortal children -- the sleeping soul within each of us. And science can't do diddly about helping to awaken our true spiritual selves.
LOL - And there we go. You can do majik - although you refuse to show us - and you have something to save the children.
So much is at stake - you are a hero.
I agree with you Jesus and Peter did not show this miracle; it was invented by the erroneous gospel writers just to impress the public.
Notice how easily we can ignore the former claim as a result of the latter.
Anybody who comes to answer your questions from science; please ask him which branch of science he is referring to and ask him a quote from it; not from a scientist they could misinterpret science being faulty human beings.
No, science cannot explain everything and I hope it never will be able to. Who would want a life with no mysteries?
I don't think science can ever explain everything, perhaps it's inherently unknowable. For example, in maths Goedel incompleteness theorem and Goldbach's conjecture goes to prove that some things may or may not be true, but it's simply undecidable.
The point is science tries to understand using the most unbiased methods known to us right now using discovery, reason and experiment - the best way to solve any problem or unknown.
Conclusions made by scientists may not have always been correct but that's the evolution of science. It strives to improve continually. How could anyone deny how far we've come - just look at the world around us and how we're actually communicating right now.
How amazing is it that Einstein's special theory of relativity prediction of time passing slower for an object traveling at very fast speeds turned out to be correct. He figured it out by scribbling equations on a board! Through the ages, scientists had the courage to challenge statements dictated by authority because they dedicated their lives to finding out and rejected blind acceptance.
A little message to everyone who took time to contribute to this talk. There are two types of discussions: one, where you strive to establish your diseaed ego, and your prejudices that you have been swindled with; and there is another type of discussion, where you respectfully exchange thoughts to reach down the truth of the subject.
I have been surprised to see adults here so brilliantly following the latter trend of discussing a serious matter. I am impressed.
Can Science explain everything? No. And, it doesn't have to do so.
Wisdom explains everything. All questions humankind can come up with has answers. And, at specific times, certain questions have answers that display true wisdom.
Such as, some questions that are asked, have an answer that dictates the question never needs to be answer. Therefore, that becomes the answer to the question.
And that question is called an invalid question. Asking two many (invalid) questions might reflect a person to be having a phsycological problem that needs to be addressed rather than to be answered:
[5:102] O ye who believe! ask not about things which, if revealed to you, would cause you trouble; though if you ask about them while the Qur’an is being sent down, they will be revealed to you. Allah has left them out. And Allah is Most Forgiving, Forbearing.
http://www.alislam.org/quran/search2/sh … ;verse=101
I didn't ask a question. So, you have no ground as usual.
No. Science cannot explain where all my teaspoons have gone, or why I have a drawer full of odd socks when washing clothes is a closed system.
Science, of course explains everything that we need to know.
What is the alternative, mystifying one's consciousness with superstition in one of the (relatively new) religions like Christianity?
"Religion is the heart beating in a heartless world, it is the opium of the people."
There are still many addicts..
The right question is;
Can science explain ANYTHING?
by aka-dj6 years ago
I just posted the below in another thread, but, because it can get lost within all the other posts, I decided to repeat it in it's own new thread.Here it is:I am so amazed!!I look at the human body, and with what little...
by Jefsaid6 years ago
It is entirely possible that our conscience is eternal. We may have always existed and may never cease to exist. While physically we might witness the birth and death of our perishable physical avatar, none...
by Eric Dierker4 years ago
A fine fellow posed a very interesting discussion today. You should visit his pages at http://zelkiiro.hubpages.com/ But I speak to something that came up there. Should religion interfere with straightforward...
by Danny R Hand7 years ago
Does any body besides me see the connection to physical laws and God.
by Sean Thomas Gartland5 years ago
If you have any evidence please present it.
by Alexander A. Villarasa3 years ago
According to the Poisson process( a standard mathematical model for counts which presumes a certain fixed rate at which observations/processes appear on average and otherwise they are random) with a long-run fixed...
Copyright © 2017 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.