(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?
![[Image: generic_sig.jpg]](https://images.weserv.nl/?url=www.blogtite.com%2Fgeneric_sig.jpg)