Science's solution to the most fundamental problem- a contradiction

[sravna]

Share:

Facebook X (Twitter) WhatsApp Email Share Link

The most fundamental problem one could think at least from the perspective of science is how the universe was created.

The most "logical" answers that science could give bereft of the idea of God are:

1. Universe existed forever
2. Universe started out of nothing

The first is a contradiction because as I explained in a different thread, space and time have to have a beginning otherwise we couldn't be experiencing the present.

The second explanation that something came out of nothing is again a contradiction as it involves self creation.

So whichever reason you consider, the rational framework of science rests upon a contradiction.

 

[prasad1]

You are correct.
I am talking with an expert of Advaita Philosophy, my sincere apology sir, I am no match to your knowledge of this subject. I just wanted to remind you of your own postings.

(a) Brahma Satyam, (b) Jagat Mithya, and (c) Jivo Brahmaiva naparah.


Brahma Satyam :


Brahman is the all pervasive life principle, consciousness. Not the conditioned consciousness which manifests at the level of brain, but 'that' which exists before & inspite of the manifestation too.
Not 'consciousness of something', but the very conscious principle as such.

The word Jagat embraces in itself this entire world, this cosmos. All that which is or can be an 'object' of our knowledge. It includes not only the gross but also the subtle 'objects'. The thoughts, emotions, the energy all come under this word 'Jagat'. That which is near or far, inside or outside, now or later, good or bad everything is part of this Jagat.

This sutra means that 'every jiva - the apparent limited & finite entity is basically the infinite & limitless Brahman, and nothing else. The truth & essence of an indiidual is the truth & essence of this whole world or rather God. Every Jiva is basically God himself wearing a cloak of limited equipments, and moreover, identified with ones equipment he lives a limited & transient life. It is basically a case of non-apprehension followed by mis-apprehension of the truth of oneself.


The world is not a lie, it is impermanent. So to that extent science can only explain the seen world, as science is based on observation.

 

[sravna]

Prasad I agree. But the real problem is that the scientists get so arrogant that they deny the existence of God and when such beliefs are held by esteemed and popular people, the masses and the intellectuals alike tend to believe in them. That is the danger I think in giving Science undue importance.

 

[sangom]

Prasad I agree. But the real problem is that the scientists get so arrogant that they deny the existence of God and when such beliefs are held by esteemed and popular people, the masses and the intellectuals alike tend to believe in them. That is the danger I think in giving Science undue importance.

Dear Shri Sravna,

The moment we say "GOD", in comes a lot of confusion, because, God is usually understood, even by those who pay lip service to their being brahmanas owing allegiance to advaita, as human-shaped forms who, therefore, have emotions and physical properties similar to ours.

I can't say about all scientists but one world-known astrophysicist who is my relative, keeps science and his personal religious belief, if any, in separate compartments it looks to me. He is not a "practising" brahmanan at all, but does not mind visiting temples, attending some pooja or bhajanai or recital of some slokams like Lalithasahasranamam etc.

I hold that the "brahman" is possibly a universal energy field of the "Life" principle, and when there is a chance to manifest as a "living form" this brahman reacts with that physical, inanimate body and makes it a living entity.

But all the above considerations have little reference to the question posed in the OP. Each one of us, each one of the living entities in this world has its own individual view, experience and results of/from/through its own jagat. There is a common understanding of the various details like mountain, river, sky, cloud, rain, sun & moon, stars, etc., which makes it appear as though there is one common, constant and therefore, real jagat. It is as though two persons are seated in two separate but identical computer screens. Both of them see identical things, can converse freely about any part of the screen, etc. That is the spirit lying behind the line "Jaganmithyaa". Hence, this Jagat is born for each one of us when we are born and it ends the moment each one of us is dead. Thinking about its origin and any logical answer to that does not seem to be necessary from the point of view of advaita.

Scientists are all not arrogant but many scientists (and even our tabra youngsters who are very bright engineering students) tend to discount the anthropomorphic God theory and the creator god theory. They feel that our ancient belief of a Rtam making this whole jagat work is more scientific. Probably because of this such people may be appearing to you as not contributing to your own line of beliefs and hence, arrogant.

 

[Nara]

Prasad I agree. But the real problem is that the scientists get so arrogant that they deny the existence of God and when such beliefs are held by esteemed and popular people, the masses and the intellectuals alike tend to believe in them. That is the danger I think in giving Science undue importance.

I think you have misunderstood what you characterize as the real problem. Scientists do not take any position on things that cannot be observed and studied. Even Stephen Hawking only said Big Bang didn't need a god, he did not say God does not exist. Another famed neo-atheist, Richard Dawkins says on a strictly technical level he is an agnostic as a thing cannot be proved to not exist, and gives the example of not being able to prove the non-existence of a celestial teapot not orbiting the sun. It is interesting that this carefully hedged position is seen as arrogant by those who simply assert God with absolute certainty based on no evidence whatever.

sravna, I don't want to start another flame war with the faithful here, have it whatever way you like, but IMO asserting something and calling those who are unwilling to go along as arrogant and dangerous, is what is really arrogant, and that is the real problem and the danger.

 

[sravna]

Dear Shri Sravna,


He is not a "practising" brahmanan at all, but does not mind visiting temples, attending some pooja or bhajanai or recital of some slokams like Lalithasahasranamam etc.

Personally I do not care too about being called a practising brahmanan or not. My thinking is in line with Shri.Nara's views that what is important is to uphold the righteous values. I think Shri Nara calls it as human values. Since I see a number of inconsistencies in practicing today's values and practicing righteous values , I refer to the prototypical righteous values mentioned in the scriptures being attributed to the brahmin varna. The values of other varnas have their place too. Though killing is not a righteous value from a brahmin perspective, kshatriyas are allowed to kill. But the beauty is that kshatriya also cannot kill indiscriminately. He has to follow the righteousness accorded to his varna.

I am tempted to digress to express my views on a oft discussed topic since I am talking on dharma for a varna. So let me digress a little more. A lot has been said about a shudra being not allowed to learn the vedas. My views on this.We say an adult is someone who is physically mature. We have specific ways of interacting with a child. We do not talk to a child in a way we do to an adult. A child has to go through the growth process and then he can be dealt like an adult.

The same holds good for spiritual maturity. The one who is least spiritually developed has to go though the learning process to attain spiritual maturity. What do we do say if a child says I want to experience what sex is like ? Wouldn't you be flabbergasted? That is because the body is not yet ready for that experience. You just silence the child by trying to terrify it. The same way some of the souls may not be ready for certain spiritual experience or knowledge as it has to go through the normal learning process to really consummate to perfection.

So my question is if you think that bodily maturity is required for certain things why does it sound cruel when spiritual maturity is required for higher spiritual knowledge?

Sorry for the digression Shri Sangom.

 

[zebra16]

. It is interesting that this carefully hedged position is seen as arrogant by those who simply assert God with absolute certainty based on no evidence whatever.

OMG. God Esists Part II ? Sequel ?? Re-run ?? lol

 

[Nara]

OMG. God Esists Part II ? Sequel ?? Re-run ?? lol

If so it has to go on without me, I am not interested in rehashing the same old tired arguments ....

 

[sravna]

I think you have misunderstood what you characterize as the real problem. Scientists do not take any position on things that cannot be observed and studied. Even Stephen Hawking only said Big Bang didn't need a god, he did not say God does not exist. Another famed neo-atheist, Richard Dawkins says on a strictly technical level he is an agnostic as a thing cannot be proved to not exist, and gives the example of not being able to prove the non-existence of a celestial teapot not orbiting the sun. It is interesting that this carefully hedged position is seen as arrogant by those who simply assert God with absolute certainty based on no evidence whatever.

sravna, I don't want to start another flame war with the faithful here, have it whatever way you like, but IMO asserting something and calling those who are unwilling to go along as arrogant and dangerous, is what is really arrogant, and that is the real problem and the danger.

Dear Shri Nara,

How can Hawking be sure that big bang did not need a God? If Science takes a position on only what is observed how informed can that position be?

 

[Nara]

Dear Shri Nara,

How can Hawking be sure that big bang did not need a God? If Science takes a position on only what is observed how informed can that position be?

sravna, you please take a look at what Hawking says, if you google Big Bang and Stephen Hawking you will find the stuff.

BTW, whether you get persuaded by Hawking or not is up to you and is not my concern. I was only making an observation that just because scientists and other atheists like me don't accept your fact-free assertions about god, you want to say we are arrogant and dangerous. This was dripping with such sad irony I couldn't resist a comment.

bye ...

 

[prasad1]

When we bring in People like Hawking, and Dawkins, who by the way are exposed to Biblical God, In Sangomji's word we bring in confusion. My belief in Advaitan God the Brahman does not have this problem. So I never have problem with accepting God and Science at the same time.

I do not believe that Scientist are arrogant, then again we have arrogant people in every field.
So the premise that scientist must be humbled is wrong. A physicist may be full of confidence in his narrow field of research, but I am sure he knows his limitations. I am an electrical engineer, that does mean that I do wiring of my house. We all know a little, and are proud of our knowledge, and willing to show off on occasion. If someone is convincing enough, then we are willing to listen and change our opinion. This is true of the majority in the world. I am not willing to accept any view till I challenge it, and get convinced of the validity.

 

[sravna]

I have no problem with Hawking being an authority in his field. He may be right in what all he says in his field. But to say that big bang doesn't require God is not warranted. I understand though what he wanted to convey. He meant contrary to what is believed universe did not need God for its creation and it can be explained scientifically. My point is it cannot be explained scientifically and for Hawking to believe that scientists indeed did and so dismissing God from the whole equation, is what I call arrogance

 

[jaisiyaraam]

Namaster Sravnaji,

...My point is it cannot be explained scientifically and for Hawking to believe that scientists indeed did and so dismissing God from the whole equation, is what I call arrogance...

I believe that your reasoning/belief in God is based on "God of the gaps".

Thanks,
Jai SiyaRaam

 

[Nara]

I have no problem with Hawking being an authority in his field. He may be right in what all he says in his field. But to say that big bang doesn't require God is not warranted. I understand though what he wanted to convey. He meant contrary to what is believed universe did not need God for its creation and it can be explained scientifically. My point is it cannot be explained scientifically and for Hawking to believe that scientists indeed did and so dismissing God from the whole equation, is what I call arrogance

sravna, Hawking is a world renowned theoretical physicist and cosmologist. Big Bang is his field of authority. Without even reading up what he says you want to dismiss him and say that his stated position is unwarranted is what arrogance is all about, and you say Hawkings is arrogant!!!!!

 

[prasad1]

God does not need Sravnaji for His existence, nor he needs Naraji to disprove His existence.
Why does He need a champion?

If God is so weak, that he needs human champions, then may be we are going after the wrong God.
I am at a loss, as to why I am explaining Brahman to an Advita exponent. The Advaita concept of God is very different than Abrahamic or Satyanayana Concept of God. I do not expect that Brahman needs advocates. Similarly It does not expect praise or grants boons.
I identify the Krishna of Gita, as Brahman, but I do not identify Krishna of Gokul as Brahman.

If you become a jivanmukta I will identify you with Brahman, but the Sravanaji who feels that everyone has to follow his opinions is human being.
If a human being wants to be leader, you got have the arrogance (Rajasic guna).
Even Sangomji is saying the same think by quoting KabirDas.

 

[prasad1]

What is a Black Hole? | Black Hole Facts, Theory & Definition | Space.com

Scientists aren't certain how such large black holes spawn. Once they've formed, they can easily gather mass from the dust and gas around them, material that is plentiful in the center of galaxies, allowing them to grow to enormous sizes.

Scientists once thought black holes came in only small and large sizes, but recent research has revealed the possibility for the existence of midsize, or intermediate, black holes. Such bodies could form when stars in a cluster collide in a chain reaction. Several of these forming in the same region could eventually fall together in the center of a galaxy and create a supermassive black hole.

Scientists are still working to understand the equations by which black holes function.

Where do you see arrogance in these statements, they are all attributed to Scientists?

http://www.pbs.org/wnet/hawking/strange/html/blackh.html

A massive star starts to collapse when it exhausts its nuclear fuel and can no longer counteract the inward pull of gravity.
The crushing weight of the star’s overlying layers implodes the core, and the star digs deeper into the fabric of space-time.
Although the star remains barely visible, its light now has a difficult time climbing out of the enormous gravity of the still-collapsing core.
The star passes through its event horizon and disappears from our universe, forming a singularity of infinite density.

Gravity is so strong at the center of a black hole, that even Einstein’s gravitational laws must break down. The theory that governs the incredibly dense matter and strong gravitational fields at the center of a black hole is not yet known.

You do not see any arrogance in this admission.

Why is no Creator needed? Because, says Hawking, the laws of science created the universe out of nothing, all on their own. Put another way, of course, this means that the laws of science are God. But this claim opens conceptual black holes from which there is no escape.

 

[sravna]

God does not need Sravnaji for His existence, nor he needs Naraji to disprove His existence.
Why does He need a champion?

If God is so weak, that he needs human champions, then may be we are going after the wrong God.
I am at a loss, as to why I am explaining Brahman to an Advita exponent. The Advaita concept of God is very different than Abrahamic or Satyanayana Concept of God. I do not expect that Brahman needs advocates. Similarly It does not expect praise or grants boons.
I identify the Krishna of Gita, as Brahman, but I do not identify Krishna of Gokul as Brahman.

If you become a jivanmukta I will identify you with Brahman, but the Sravanaji who feels that everyone has to follow his opinions is human being.
If a human being wants to be leader, you got have the arrogance (Rajasic guna).
Even Sangomji is saying the same think by quoting KabirDas.

Good points Prasad. But I think God doesn't exert his influence by his direct presence. That is done by happenings in the world and that includes you or me advocating the existence of
God and someone else rebutting it and so on. The net result of the actions and reactions in the world is what the God intends to happen. So I do not accept the statement that God needs human champions because he is weak.

 

[sravna]

sravna, Hawking is a world renowned theoretical physicist and cosmologist. Big Bang is his field of authority. Without even reading up what he says you want to dismiss him and say that his stated position is unwarranted is what arrogance is all about, and you say Hawkings is arrogant!!!!!

Dear Shri Nara,

I do not have to read his theory but only his conclusion. The merit of a person or the work he does , doesn't automatically allow everything he says to be accepted.

 

[sravna]

Why is no Creator needed? Because, says Hawking, the laws of science created the universe out of nothing, all on their own. Put another way, of course, this means that the laws of science are God. But this claim opens conceptual black holes from which there is no escape.

Why the necessity to equate laws of science to God? and that too by unsound and invalid reasoning?

 

[Nara]

Dear Shri Nara,

I do not have to read his theory but only his conclusion. The merit of a person or the work he does , doesn't automatically allow everything he says to be accepted.

sravna, whether you accept Hawkings or not is up to you, I don't want to get into that. What I am talking about is the irrationality of your assertion that Hawking, other scientists, and ordinary atheist like myself are arrogant because we espouse something you are not able to accept.

 

[tks]

In the OP , the 'word' contradiction arises ONLY due to not knowing what is taught in Science (such as current understanding of the Universe and what is known to be unproven) and not knowing the definition of Isvara in our scriptures.

Let me point just one 'fundamental' flaw in Point 1 of the OP - we deal with objects, shapes and topology that has no beginning or ending - A circle or a closed loop at any point cannot be traced to a beginning or ending.

Sravana - This is a sincere suggestion though you may or may not take it that way. Based on your repeated posts of same thoughts it seems to me you have deep interest in knowing how things work and have deep interest in teachings of our scriptures.

Why not take the time to learn them properly? I know you will enjoy the process immensely .. I wish you all the best if you take my suggestion

Regards

 

[sravna]

Dear Shri Nara,

I understand. You say you cannot prove the non-existence of a thing. That's fine as a rational argument. But knowingly or unknowingly, the scientists think they can play the role of a God just as Prasadji said that laws of science can be equated to God. If you do not believe in an omniscient omnipotent entity why do you think you can be omnipotent and omniscient? This sense of grandeur the scientists have is what I am referring to.

 

[sravna]

Dear Shri TKS,

Your answer doesn't address the fundamental problem . The fundamental problem is what is the cause of time and space? Do you think they are uncaused?

 

[tks]

Dear Shri TKS,

Your answer doesn't address the fundamental problem . The fundamental problem is what is the cause of time and space? Do you think they are uncaused?

The fundamental problem is that you have to first understand what is space and time (this is a non trivial ).. there are answers to the question of causation from both science and our scriptures that are actually not contradictory.

That is why I suggested you to learn properly what is known. The question can only come from layman's understanding of space and time.

A large part of field of physics is about understanding what is space and time by the way

 

[sravna]

The fundamental problem is that you have to first understand what is space and time (this is a non trivial ).. there are answers to the question of causation from both science and our scriptures that are actually not contradictory.


A large part of field of physics is about understanding what is space and time by the way

I doubt if any of the answers will stand real scrutiny only because you cannot explain your answer in layman's terms.