One of the stupidest fucking replies ever.

[Norfolk And Chance]

I think the original comment makes a valid point about the limit of human knowledge. Both sensual perception and theoretical reasoning, while valuable to a point, cannot ultimately help us achieve absolute knowledge. The human capacity for truth and knowledge is inherently limited.

I think better than being outraged by these points, you should be humble to them. Aren't good scientists supposed to be humble by things they don't know? You may have some ideas about dinosaurs, and they may be reasonable and based on evidence, but they're certainly not sure the way your day-to-day experience is. Why not admit that? Does it make you insecure that your point of view is not absolutely and ultimately provable?

Modern science accepts sensory perception and theoretical reasoning as the most reliable means of knowledge. But how do we know these means produce actual knowledge? To argue based on those means is circular reasoning. To accept these means of knowledge as "self-evident" puts you in the same class as the religionists you violently reject.

I accept Veda, transcendental knowledge, as the highest authority for absolute knowledge. If I want evidence about the nature of existence, I consider the "evidence" of modern science inferior to the evidence of veda.

Shut the fuck up.

[Aroura]

More adventures in the world of stupidity, he replied to me again.

Lol I am sure you do. Actually no you're a liar, you cannot provide any of the senses because it's simply not possible. I do know, it's called observational science. I can actually witness evolution in a petri dish with a microscope, and did so several times in high school. I can witness evolution in documentaries. And I can actually apply all five senses to seeing a dinosaur. Sight, sound, taste, touch, and smell.

Ever eaten a chicken?

http://www.abc.net.au/science/slab/dinobird/story.htm

There you go. Evidence, information, empirical proof, none of which you can bring to bear at all because what you believe is a hollow lie. You can go ahead and use the "everything had to come from something" argument if you'd like, but then it begs the question who created the creator? Occam's Razor. C'mon. You aren't even giving me a challenge. It's like arguing with a twelve year old about calculaic equations. And yes, you are the twelve year old here.

Lol, I'm glad you went with that answer. That's exactly where I would have taken the argument as well.

Seriously, there probably is no use in continuing that conversation though. That person is obviously completely closed minded to anything but what he wants to believe and has already decided, and presenting evidence won't change anything (I doubt he even looks at any you present him).

Note to naysayers that scientists keep an open mind, obviously, since the dino-to-bird theory was presented about 100 years ago, rejected for lack of evidence, re-presented in the 60's, gained some support, and only in light of much supporting evidence has it gained traction in the last few decades.

[quote='Creed of Heresy' pid='349951' dateline='1350428666']
Also to the Veda worshiper with the crazy-ass name: LOL!


No, that's all I've got for you.

That's pretty much what you should say to the creationist, too. Some people are too crazy to even try and talk to.

[Angrboda]

I thought this was a different thread, but this seems to fit fine here as well. In response to this thread combined with the 'Questions About God and Science' thread.




Akincana dear, the Vedas lift me up, but you don't bring me anything but down.

[Creed of Heresy]

Yeah. I won't be continuing the string of posts with the guy any longer. I've done all I can. He is set in his ways. Nothing I can do to change that. If someone utterly opts out of the very idea of rationality, I don't want to associate with them even in a setting of debate. People like that are extremely annoying for many reasons, not the least of which is that they aren't just ignorant, they are willfully ignorant. Anyone who believes something to be true beyond any doubt without even the smallest modicum of rational basis doesn't often turn out to be anything worth having a conversation wit.h

[KichigaiNeko]

Anyone who believes something to be true beyond any doubt without even the smallest modicum of rational basis doesn't often turn out to be anything worth having a conversation wit.h

Let's see now... that would be say 80% of the current total global population (7 billion)??

Yep... I can live with that.

[Akincana Krishna dasa]

The Vedas claim that the Moon is further away than the sun.

You really want to stick with that?

Not true.

In Chapter 22 of the Fifth Canto (Srimad Bhagavatam), the heights of the planets above the earth are given, and it is stated that the moon is 100,000 yojanas above the rays of the sun. In this chapter, the word "above" means "above the plane of Bhu-mandala." It does not refer to distance measured radially from the surface of the earth globe... If the plane of Bhu-mandala corresponds to the plane of the ecliptic, then it indeed makes sense to say that the moon is higher than the sun relative to Bhu-mandala. This does not mean that the moon is farther from the earth globe than the sun.

---

Ever heard "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence"? The sun has come up is not an extraordinary claim. In your example, the man refuses to verify whether the sun has come up or not. Most of us have read enough from holy books to know that their claims are false.

And no, we shouldn't just 'have faith'. This is self-delusion by which anyone could believe anything. Do not ask us to let go of our mental facilities in order to understand from your point of view, try to look at the evidence objectively yourself.

I'm glad we agree that ordinary evidence won't get us very far. If you want to know God, there is a standard method. Are you ready to step into the laboratory?

Science can talk about a series of natural laws that operate in the universe, but it can't talk about the source of these laws. It can talk about how things in the universe work, but it can't talk about where anything has ultimately come from. Science starts from an intermediate point. Science is an attempt to understand the natural world using the limited faculties of knowledge that nature itself has bestowed upon humanity. You got your eyes and ears and brain because someone or something gave them to you - you didn't make them yourself (nor can science make such organs, nor does it entirely understand them). Science is a noble attempt, and it has produced all kinds of helpful, as well as destructive, technology. But someone or something else controls the rules about what's possible for you to know with your senses and mind - they were given to you by powers both higher than you and which you haven't understood. Why do you think you get to make the rules and set the standards about how to know the origin of everything, including your own faculties of knowledge? It's so obvious that you don't.

God is the origin of existence. You'll never find God by the scientific method - and it is your arrogance, not your reason, that you imagine that scientific methods are the only, or even the best, means of knowledge.

Science simply doesn't know about the origin of life and the universe. Science can only dream up wild, unprovable hypotheses on this topic, not present any type of testable theory. At least the Vedas present a testable theory on the subject!

If you are unhappy about calling the source of everything "God", ok fine. Then present the source of everything. Don't just tell me I don't know anything or understand anything about the original source of existence - how would you know anything about what I know?

Present the source of everything - then science could be taken seriously as a way to know about God, or the absence of God. Otherwise, why insist science has anything to say on the subject at all?

"Those who are bewildered are attracted by demonic and atheistic views. In that deluded condition, their hopes for liberation, their fruitive activities, and their culture of knowledge are all defeated." - Krishna, Bhagavad gita 9.12

[The Grand Nudger]

Science can talk about a series of natural laws that operate in the universe, but it can't talk about the source of these laws. It can talk about how things in the universe work, but it can't talk about where anything has ultimately come from.

Why?

Science starts from an intermediate point. Science is an attempt to understand the natural world using the limited faculties of knowledge that nature itself has bestowed upon humanity.

Surely you mean "that god has bestowed"

You got your eyes and ears and brain because someone or something gave them to you - you didn't make them yourself (nor can science make such organs, nor does it entirely understand them).

I most assuredly -did- make them myself. My dna coded that. You do know that our organs are pretty well understood, right? Understood well enough to correct their flaws with something as simple as a glass lens, or something as complicated as a pacemaker.

Science is a noble attempt, and it has produced all kinds of helpful, as well as destructive, technology. But someone or something else controls the rules about what's possible for you to know with your senses and mind - they were given to you by powers both higher than you and which you haven't understood.

Who or what controls these rules, what are these rules, and are you ready to demonstrate the reality of either claim?

Why do you think you get to make the rules and set the standards about how to know the origin of everything, including your own faculties of knowledge? It's so obvious that you don't.

Whether I get to "set the rules" or not is a silly question. I don't have magical abilities (nor do you, nor does anyone...mostly because magic doesn't exist). I get to set standards because you are asking me to personally accept the ridiculous-as-reality, and as far as my acceptance of any given thing goes only my rules apply. It's my head you're hoping to fill with trash...so I think I have some say-so in that. Do I think I have good standards, sure, do I think you should take a good look at my standards and perhaps leverage them yourself, absolutely. Will you, probably not.

God is the origin of existence.

Demonstrate that god exists, and then...after that, that god is the origin of existence. Nothing that follows from this statement has any value or meaning whatsoever until you have done so.

You'll never find God by the scientific method - and it is your arrogance, not your reason, that you imagine that scientific methods are the only, or even the best, means of knowledge.

That would be troubling, mostly for god.

Science simply doesn't know about the origin of life and the universe. Science can only dream up wild, unprovable hypotheses on this topic, not present any type of testable theory. At least the Vedas present a testable theory on the subject!

Of course it does, you just don't like the observations we've made because they don't seem (to you) to leave any room for fairies. Care to give us the Vedas testable theory? I think you're probably just using the words testable and theory because they "sound sciencey"....essentially betraying your own objections.

If you are unhappy about calling the source of everything "God", ok fine. Then present the source of everything.

Why? Do your own work. You're the one claiming that you have it at your fingertips.

Don't just tell me I don't know anything or understand anything about the original source of existence - how would you know anything about what I know?

By the posts you've decided to grace us with, silly......

Present the source of everything - then science could be taken seriously as a way to know about God, or the absence of God. Otherwise, why insist science has anything to say on the subject at all?

To be fair, we don't, that would be you lot. Who insists upon bringing their god into the realm testable by science? Who draws that magic down and makes it personal, interactive, present? Not I.

"Those who are bewildered are attracted by demonic and atheistic views. In that deluded condition, their hopes for liberation, their fruitive activities, and their culture of knowledge are all defeated." - Krishna, Bhagavad gita 9.12

Cool story, bro.

[KichigaiNeko]

Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.
Arthur C. Clarke
Read more at http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/author...a2ox6kF.99

[genkaus]

In Chapter 22 of the Fifth Canto (Srimad Bhagavatam), the heights of the planets above the earth are given, and it is stated that the moon is 100,000 yojanas above the rays of the sun. In this chapter, the word "above" means "above the plane of Bhu-mandala." It does not refer to distance measured radially from the surface of the earth globe... If the plane of Bhu-mandala corresponds to the plane of the ecliptic, then it indeed makes sense to say that the moon is higher than the sun relative to Bhu-mandala. This does not mean that the moon is farther from the earth globe than the sun.

Is that how you rationalize this mistake? Well, even your rationalization is wrong.

If we are talking about the ecliptic plane, then the distance of the moon, whose orbit would necessarily intersect that plane, would be zero.

Further, if you are going to post the first rationalization you are going to find after a google search, atleast make sure that it does not contradict the words of your own master. Prabhupada, as it happens, was a firm believer of a moon that is more distant than the sun.

I'm glad we agree that ordinary evidence won't get us very far. If you want to know God, there is a standard method.

And the first step is "shut down your brain".

Science can talk about a series of natural laws that operate in the universe, but it can't talk about the source of these laws.

Actually, it can. And it does.

It can talk about how things in the universe work, but it can't talk about where anything has ultimately come from.

Again, it can and does.

Science starts from an intermediate point. Science is an attempt to understand the natural world using the limited faculties of knowledge that nature itself has bestowed upon humanity. You got your eyes and ears and brain because someone or something gave them to you - you didn't make them yourself (nor can science make such organs, nor does it entirely understand them).

Actually, we can make such organs. We've made eyes and ears that are much better than any naturally occurring ones and are halfway towards making a brain.

But someone or something else controls the rules about what's possible for you to know with your senses and mind - they were given to you by powers both higher than you and which you haven't understood. Why do you think you get to make the rules and set the standards about how to know the origin of everything, including your own faculties of knowledge? It's so obvious that you don't.

What is obvious is your abysmal understanding of what science is and does. The rules and standards about how to know the origin of universe are set on basis of the nature of your senses and mind. Whatever that "something" is that sets the rules can be known only within the context of those rules and as it happens, we are not currently capable of contravening those rules.

You are the one attempting to go against those rules by trying to know find that something without using either your senses or your mind.

God is the origin of existence.

Prove it.

You'll never find God by the scientific method - and it is your arrogance, not your reason, that you imagine that scientific methods are the only, or even the best, means of knowledge.

That's not because of any limitation on part of science, but because your god doesn't exist. Science cannot find what's not there.

Science simply doesn't know about the origin of life and the universe. Science can only dream up wild, unprovable hypotheses on this topic, not present any type of testable theory.

Oh, the stupidity. The ignorance.

As it happens, science does have good, testable theories with a lot of evidence backing them up on both topics.

At least the Vedas present a testable theory on the subject!

You mean the ones that have already been shown to be false?

If you are unhappy about calling the source of everything "God", ok fine. Then present the source of everything.

Its called the singularity. Look it up.

Don't just tell me I don't know anything or understand anything about the original source of existence

The first honest words out of your mouth.

- how would you know anything about what I know?

Because your ignorance is self-evident. Thus we know a lot about what you know - nothing.

Present the source of everything - then science could be taken seriously as a way to know about God, or the absence of God. Otherwise, why insist science has anything to say on the subject at all?

Look it up:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XL9S3csJGwI

"Those who are bewildered are attracted by demonic and atheistic views. In that deluded condition, their hopes for liberation, their fruitive activities, and their culture of knowledge are all defeated." - Krishna, Bhagavad gita 9.12

ARE YOU FUCKING KIDDING ME?

HAVE YOU READ THE ACTUAL BHAGVAD GITA OR JUST PRABHUPADA'S SELF-SERVING TRANSLATION?

The verse that you are shamelessly and horribly mistranslating actually is:

"moghāśā moghakarmāṇo moghajñānā vicetasaḥ
rākṣasīm āsurīṃ caiva prakṛtiṃ mohinīṃ śritāḥ"

Literally translated as:

"Of vain hopes, of vain works, of vain knowledge, and senseless, they verily are possessed of the delusive nature of Râkshasas and Asuras."

The word here that you mistranslated as "atheist" is "asura", which refers to a group of power-seeking deities. What is actually being said here is that "people with vain or fruitless hopes, works, knowledge and those who are senseless, become possessed of (or come to possess) demonic or fiendish nature".

Next time, try to get your own fucking holy book right.

[CapnAwesome]

The ultimate irony is when creationist types use the "well have you seen it?" argument. Humor at it's finest.