What is heaven?

[genkaus]

How do I know my book is better than the other guys? Well, one way to get an idea is to read them. In this case, I think that's really all it takes.

So, I assume you have read all of those other books. Since you happen to know that yours is better than all of them.

Faith is unavoidable. It's a precondition for knowledge. We can opt for the type of faith that strikes us as most rational.

Nonsense. Faith is the very antithesis of rationality. There can be no knowledge based on faith - only wishful thinking. The reality you live in is the basis and the precondition for knowledge - not faith.

What irks me is the common, casual dismissal of ideas which don't fit the completely materialistic paradigm, when science simply can't explain the origin of life.

That's because when science does not find the answer, it does not jump to the closest, half-assed explanation available. The so-called materialistic paradigm is the only one available to us which is rational.

[Akincana Krishna dasa]

Science can't explain the origin of life? I'd say "hasn't yet managed to" explain the origin of life.
You can't (shouldn't) keep your faith based solely on a god-of-the-gaps.

A few points:

I think the word "gap" in the expression "God of the gaps" is euphemistic.

The simple fact is, science can't claim to know where life comes from. It doesn't know.

If I'm walking down the road, and there's a little gap in the sidewalk, ok, no biggie, I can just hop over that and be on my way.

But if I'm walking down the road and all of a sudden there's a thousand mile canyon in my path, that's a big deal.

Why is the origin of life considered a "gap"? I say it's a huge canyon. It means science can't explain a huge, fundamental question. Calling it a "gap" is like pretending science can answer a question that it can't. The reality is that it's the type of knowledge gap/canyon that problematizes the entire conception that the universe and existence is a self-generating phenomenon and that life can be reduced to purely chemical phenomenon.

Next point: That doesn't "prove God exists." Gaps, and even canyons, in scientific knowledge don't prove anything except maybe something about the limits of scientific knowledge.

The point is more like this: There isn't a clear atheistic answer for the origin of life. There are guesses, hopes, dreams, speculations - not answers. There's a clear theistic answer for the origin of life. Why automatically push a theistic answer off the table when atheists don't have a better one?

---

How do I know my book is better than the other guys? Well, one way to get an idea is to read them. In this case, I think that's really all it takes.

So, I assume you have read all of those other books. Since you happen to know that yours is better than all of them.

You don't have to read every children's coloring book on the market to know that Shakespeare is more sophisticated than all of them put together.

---

Nonsense. Faith is the very antithesis of rationality. There can be no knowledge based on faith - only wishful thinking. The reality you live in is the basis and the precondition for knowledge - not faith.

It's your faith in the "reality you live in" that allows you to know this.

[festive1]

But you are the same person. You are the same conscious entity as you were 7 years ago, although your body has completely changed. If your mom has any pictures of you as a baby or a little kid, you can prove this point to yourself.

I take issue with this. I am not the same conscious entity that I was 7 years ago. My experience didn't change, but the way I view, interpret, and how I integrate that experience in my daily existence has changed greatly. I'm guessing you'd call this spiritual evolution or that I'm attaining some level of enlightenment. However, I don't view it as such. Rather I'd say that I have come to a greater understanding of psychology (my own and those of people who have impacted my experience). I did not achieve some form of transcendence (in the religious sense).
The idea that we are comprised of several senses of self that integrate and work together to form a sense of one's 'self' as a complete identity is supported by modern psychology. But that sense of 'self,' as a complete identity is changeable, otherwise psychology would prove useless.

[genkaus]

A few points:

I think the word "gap" in the expression "God of the gaps" is euphemistic.

The simple fact is, science can't claim to know where life comes from. It doesn't know.

If I'm walking down the road, and there's a little gap in the sidewalk, ok, no biggie, I can just hop over that and be on my way.

But if I'm walking down the road and all of a sudden there's a thousand mile canyon in my path, that's a big deal.

Why is the origin of life considered a "gap"? I say it's a huge canyon. It means science can't explain a huge, fundamental question. Calling it a "gap" is like pretending science can answer a question that it can't.

What makes you think that science can't answer the question. As a matter of fact, science does have an answer. We may not know enough to say for certain that it is the correct answer, but it is the most rational one out there.

The reality is that it's the type of knowledge gap/canyon that problematizes the entire conception that the universe and existence is a self-generating phenomenon and that life can be reduced to purely chemical phenomenon.

No, it doesn't. The conception of the universe and reduction of life to a chemical phenomenon would be independent problems.

Next point: That doesn't "prove God exists." Gaps, and even canyons, in scientific knowledge don't prove anything except maybe something about the limits of scientific knowledge.

No, they don't tell you the limits of scientofic knowledge, rather the direction in which it needs to grow.

The point is more like this: There isn't a clear atheistic answer for the origin of life. There are guesses, hopes, dreams, speculations - not answers.

Yes, there is. We simply don't like to push it because we are not certain of it yet.

There's a clear theistic answer for the origin of life. Why automatically push a theistic answer off the table when atheists don't have a better one?

Because it's bullshit. We don't need to have the correct answer to know that you have the wrong one.

You don't have to read every children's coloring book on the market to know that Shakespeare is more sophisticated than all of them put together.

Yes, you do. Otherwise you can't "know" it. You can only speculate that it is more sophisticated..

It's your faith in the "reality you live in" that allows you to know this.

I don't need faith in the "reality I live in". My reason doesn't allow any space for faith.

[pocaracas]

Why is the origin of life considered a "gap"? I say it's a huge canyon. It means science can't explain a huge, fundamental question. Calling it a "gap" is like pretending science can answer a question that it can't. The reality is that it's the type of knowledge gap/canyon that problematizes the entire conception that the universe and existence is a self-generating phenomenon and that life can be reduced to purely chemical phenomenon.

Science can't explain yet.... but really, I once read an article sponsored by the Vatican where the mechanism of creating life, by solely chemical processes is presented... found it!
My Scientific Discussions of Evolution for the Pope and His Scientists.

Next point: That doesn't "prove God exists." Gaps, and even canyons, in scientific knowledge don't prove anything except maybe something about the limits of scientific knowledge.

Correction: the present limits of scientific knowledge.
Presently, we can't explain something, but who knows about the future?
Hundreds of years ago, people believed that lightning was created by the gods; volcanoes were started by other gods; floods were sent by yet other gods, etc... science has shortened that gap in knowledge... it's not a closed gap, yet, but maybe it will be. Why keep putting gods in there when so much that was once believe to be their territory has been disproved?

The point is more like this: There isn't a clear atheistic answer for the origin of life. There are guesses, hopes, dreams, speculations - not answers. There's a clear theistic answer for the origin of life. Why automatically push a theistic answer off the table when atheists don't have a better one?

Because it's not a satisfactory answer. It's an answer that arises from ignorance. "I don't know, hence god-did-it". If everyone acted like this, the world would be a crappy one.. no tech, no science, no discovery, no adventure, no knowledge... just god-did-it.

[Akincana Krishna dasa]

How do you know the Vedas are authorized scriptures? How do you know Krishna exists and how do you recognize what is truly from him?

I'm not asking to argue, just want to know your perspective.

I thought about how to answer this question, and decided I couldn't do it justice with a two sentence answer.

Hate to do this to you, but the best answer I can give is to direct you to this essay/book, which deals with these fundamental questions extensively:

http://www.suhotraswami.net/library/Subs...Shadow.pdf

It may be worth looking at or reading for anyone interested in a serious answer to these types of questions. Generally, the idea of accepting scripture as authority is seen as foolish or anti-intellectual. The book linked above makes a serious, philosophical case for scriptural authority.

[The Grand Nudger]

Care to summarize the strongest points in that case (in your estimation)?

[Akincana Krishna dasa]

If you just want to read the introduction, even that much would get your foot in the door.

[Something completely different]

If you just want to read the introduction, even that much would get your foot in the door.

The narrow basis of science
First, the main purpose of Substance and Shadow is to distinguish the Vedic
method of knowledge from other methods. Humanity has different methods of
knowledge available to it. I hold that only through Vedic knowledge can we grade
the validity of these methods. Substance and Shadow examines four such
methods: empiricism, scepticism, rationalism and authoritative testimony. I hold
that Western science isn't capable of comparing and contrasting the validity of
one method of knowledge against others. Why? Because its own basis is too
narrow. That basis was summed up by Albert Einstein in Out of My Late Years
(1936):
Out of the multitude of our sense experiences we take, mentally and arbitrarily,
certain repeatedly occuring complexes of sense impression ... and we attribute to
them a meaning the meaning of bodily objects.
Einstein admitted that this method cannot even prove the existence of the
external world. So how can we be sure that the bodily objects scientists study are
real things? Aren't such objects just mental interpretations of a jumble of sense
data that, with a nonhuman mind, or even with a human mind culturally
different than ours, could be interpreted in a very different way? Wouldn't a
different interpretation of sense data reveal a very different world? Which
interpretation is the right one? And how, by this method Einstein described, can
we ever know whether there is a reality outside the range of our sense
experiences? These questions are not for science to answer. They are for

amazing how I made it through this. Do you think this read proves anything? It`s just nonsence.

by the way.

"Making up quotes, for dishonest use of validating your personal views or agendas is fun!"

Albert Einstein

[The Grand Nudger]

If you just want to read the introduction, even that much would get your foot in the door.

Nah, I'll pass, if you want to champion garbage that's fine, but if you expect me to investigate every piece of trash that comes my way...well, neither of us are going to get what we want today. If you think the case can be made, and you feel that it's strong enough to withstand even amatuer scrutiny..I'm sure you'll be able to handle being the bearer of knowledge. If not, it's a shit and run, and I really couldn't care less if this is the case.