(October 15, 2012 at 12:18 pm)Akincana Krishna dasa Wrote: Life is a symptom of the presence of a soul. You can't get life without the soul.

starting a thread with the word "chemistry" in the title and then writing about "soul", and then going so far as saying life is somekind of "proof" for that soul.

Your mind, is like the mind of a caveman 3000 b.c who just saw a vulcano errupt.

Fire on mountain! fire god! must worship fire god!

(October 15, 2012 at 12:18 pm)Akincana Krishna dasa Wrote: If someone could conclusively prove that life is created by chemicals, that would destroy Krishna's claims in the Bhagavad Gita about the soul.

scientists are actualy not eaven out to destroy your religious myths, and i dought that they are out to spread atheism.
They want to understand what the fuck is going on.
the hostility towards science by religious people simply originates from those because the myths on wich they base their power clearly say things like: "a woman was made out of the ribbs of a man" "woman are cursed whilest they have their period" "the earth was created in 7 days" "the earth is 3000 years old"
and if these are refuted so is their power.

(October 15, 2012 at 10:58 am)Tino Wrote: Also, please answer my earlier question about the origin of god.

Haven't you ever read the Lawrence Krauss stuff on how something comes from nothing?

To be slightly more serious, matter and the universe require an origin. Without a great explanation for one, we may want to consider an origin that is outside of the laws and limitations that we're generally able to talk about. In that case, you may not be able to discuss God's origin.

One definition of God is as the "ultimate cause." Science is not able to find an ultimate cause, nor is such a cause rational. Still, how do you get the chain of caused things if such a cause doesn't exist?

God cannot be known by the inductive process. He is unknowable by direct perception. The scientists say there is no God because they are trying to understand Him by direct perception. Scientists are ignorant of God because they are missing the method of knowing Him. In order to understand transcendental science, one must approach a bona fide spiritual master, hear from him submissively and render service to him.

---

(October 15, 2012 at 12:29 pm)The_Germans_are_coming Wrote: the hostility towards science by religious people simply originates from those because the myths on wich they base their power clearly say things like: "a woman was made out of the ribbs of a man" "woman are cursed whilest they have their period" "the earth was created in 7 days" "the earth is 3000 years old"
and if these are refuted so is their power.

i have no hostility towards honest science. it's when science steps out of bounds and claims to know things it doesn't, that we should call foul.

(October 15, 2012 at 12:42 pm)Akincana Krishna dasa Wrote: To be slightly more serious, matter and the universe require an origin.

Do they? How do you know?

(October 15, 2012 at 12:42 pm)Akincana Krishna dasa Wrote: Without a great explanation for one, we may want to consider an origin that is outside of the laws and limitations that we're generally able to talk about. In that case, you may not be able to discuss God's origin.

Why? There are theories that do not require god.

(October 15, 2012 at 12:42 pm)Akincana Krishna dasa Wrote: One definition of God is as the "ultimate cause." Science is not able to find an ultimate cause, nor is such a cause rational. Still, how do you get the chain of caused things if such a cause doesn't exist?

Need there be a cause? Need the cause be a god? You just admitted that to even consider god a possibility would be irrational, and yet...

(October 15, 2012 at 12:42 pm)Akincana Krishna dasa Wrote: God cannot be known by the inductive process. He is unknowable by direct perception.

Define 'direct perception'. Does he talk to you [even in your mind]? Then you can hear him. Does he show himself to you? Then you can see him. Is he undetectable via the five senses and all technology humanity posseses? Then how can you say he exists?

(October 15, 2012 at 12:42 pm)Akincana Krishna dasa Wrote: The scientists say there is no God because they are trying to understand Him by direct perception. Scientists are ignorant of God because they are missing the method of knowing Him. In order to understand transcendental science, one must approach a bona fide spiritual master, hear from him submissively and render service to him.

Well, if that wasn't vaguely worded. And how about those who hear nothing? Are they not deluding themselves listening hard enough?

If I thought for a moment theists would shut up about the origin of life if scientists could make a blade of grass from scratch, I would post again in this thread.

(October 15, 2012 at 12:50 pm)Mister Agenda Wrote: If I thought for a moment theists would shut up about the origin of life if scientists could make a blade of grass from scratch, I would post again in this thread.

There will always be more gaps for god to hide in.

---

(October 15, 2012 at 12:42 pm)Chuck Wrote: So one theory suggest the biochemical different must occurred when ancesters of archea and other cells didn't actually have a cell membrane. In other words, not a discrete life form.

I see. I guess the 'contrversial' part is about if something that is 'not a discrete life form' can speciate, but now that I think about it, it might not be illogical to conclude that it can.

Bona fide spiritual master?

Like what, spoon bending and such? Thanks, I'll pass. I wonder how he's supposed to establish his credentials after you just ruled out any means of establishing his credentials..lol. Did this spiritual master have to consult a spiritual master before him, all the way back ad infinitum? What was that about regress again?

(October 15, 2012 at 12:42 pm)Akincana Krishna dasa Wrote: To be slightly more serious, matter and the universe require an origin. Without a great explanation for one, we may want to consider an origin that is outside of the laws and limitations that we're generally able to talk about. In that case, you may not be able to discuss God's origin.

One definition of God is as the "ultimate cause." Science is not able to find an ultimate cause, nor is such a cause rational. Still, how do you get the chain of caused things if such a cause doesn't exist?

God cannot be known by the inductive process. He is unknowable by direct perception. The scientists say there is no God because they are trying to understand Him by direct perception. Scientists are ignorant of God because they are missing the method of knowing Him. In order to understand transcendental science, one must approach a bona fide spiritual master, hear from him submissively and render service to him.

Yes, in other words, you got nothing.

(October 15, 2012 at 12:42 pm)Akincana Krishna dasa Wrote: i have no hostility towards honest science. it's when science steps out of bounds and claims to know things it doesn't, that we should call foul.

How do you apply the same treatment to religion? How can you tell when religious teachings step out of bounds and claims to know things that it doesn't? How can you tell?

(October 15, 2012 at 12:18 pm)Akincana Krishna dasa Wrote: Life is a symptom of the presence of a soul. You can't get life without the soul.

Oh great! Salmonella in heaven.

Quote:Akincana Krishna dasa Wrote:

Life is a symptom of the presence of a soul. You can't get life without the soul.

Apparently we are just supposed to take his word for that.