Science And God! Will they ever reveal themselves

[aloKNsh 0]

Science boon or curse!As we are now in our daily lives use science in the onr form or the other. Unknownilngly we are all surrounded by the simple to large and complex machines. Its hard to tell that how our lives would be without science and the things which we can do now with the help of science. Now we are able to catch the person anywhere in the world just via a small transmitter. Thanks to gps global postining system. We can now talk to our loved ones within no time, in a fraction of seconds, THANKS TO mobile phones and voip (voice over internet protocol). We are able to wacth the recent happenings of anything anywhere just because of tv . Today we can say that nothing is impossible just because of sience, We can even clone a small sheep just because of the biotech. A part of science. We are now watching the things which i have written just of science. We can do whatever we can now just and only because of science. But as we all know with every good things comes the bad thing or after every day there is night. In this case the night is the negative impact of scienece. Like missiles and all the destructive part of human intension. Missiles are good but they are now used to destroy other human. In hindi there is a sayin "Vasodhewav Kutumbakam" which means the world is a big family and we are the members of a big family. Then why is there bombardment on a family member everywhere. I think there is no answer for a ny one. Religions were not created by god it was the creation of humans and neither god told us to go and make a country and fight with other country, it was the hard and fast decision of the god. But then the point comes as why there is linking of science and religion. As per me i think there is a large link between them. Science is from unknown time and also the religion like HINDUISM and many more. We dont know when this religion started and neither we know who started this things and nor the science. But there is a small fact about it that both are from the ancient age. As per me i think science is very much in the relogion also. There are several festivals and the occasions which are linked to faith but in some aspect they are essential in eyes of science also. So we cant say that the one who created the science or religion didnt know what the heck this science is. Science is a broad topic is itself and as we know there are 3 main branches in science like bio, physics, and chemistry(my worst subject). They all deal with the life and the creation life and the belief. In religion no one has ever seen a god, Jesus Christ also we worskip him as a god but are we sure that the potrait which we worship is the true potrait of the Jesus. He has came to earth in human form and his god avatar MAYBE different likewise chemistry we have never seen an atom and neutron and all still we read it and jump if we find an evidence of it. Are we sure or there is any of the pictorial proof of the proton and god. There is a big NO. god is never seen posing for a shoot in paris and neither the atoms are seen getting dressed up for a shoot in Milan but still we say that the atoms and neutrons and all exist. Why because we believe it and also we say god exist why because we believe him. There is no hard and fast rule that there is god or there is no god. If you have a proof that god is there, like a picture with him near the Golden Gate of San Frnasisco and a small family video with him then you are lucky you have seen god and you can believe, but for those who has missed such an opportunity and now they just don’t have god pic in their family picture album its there fault….no not at all because there is not a single evidence that god is there except that the miracles happen but that science can explain there are some things which science cant at least not now but in mear future maybe nut you cant say look look what god has done same goes with the chemistry there is no pictures of atoms and protons but just an assumption. If you have a small pic of a baby atom and you have seen his face you are free to change the face of chemistry(special thanks from my side) as we don’t know exactly what ere are studing and we are not able to get the things which some old farts like Neil Bhor (sorry but really I hate chemistry and the person who has contributed most to chemistry) they thought or they dreamt we don’t know but they had show some evidence via experimients so we are saying that its there but still there is no 100% proof that yes a small kido named electron is moving around his father nucleus. So why we believe it just because its our belief and our mind wants something to rely upon. Now comes the physics and biology. Physics is basicly the pure form of science and the best part of science (acc. To me). You know what you are upto and you have seen the things which you are studing not like chem. You don’t know but still you are doing why because some old drunken farts had said so (sorry again!). But in physics you know each and everything what you are doing why there it is. Why is it doin such a behavious. In physics we deal with the pratical things of the life. And not the imaginary like in chemistry. I really want to that the some of the best humans on the earth ever lived or are alive today like Newton and Stephen Hawkins. They are the legends of science and without the science would be nothing. Its rightly said that we use 10 to 15% of our brain and these genius used around 20 to 30% so they are igenius just imagine if we can use the full 100% then possible we can be a SuperMan or we can telepode and the sci fi movies can come true. But we don’t know how to use it, there are some people who are trying to solve this equation of telepoding and all but its still a mystery. There are many things in physics we can do whenevr we want like taking out the value of infinity or solving the equation’ E= MC2’ sure we will be the richest person on the earth if we are able to do any-one things mentiond above. US Military will give us the wanted cash just to tell them the last value or the final value of infinity. Its true don’t believe me try it on your own!. Biology just the main thing for the human body and its anatomy and the all the living organisms at least we can see it and touch it and we know the cause but there are still in every branch things remained unknown so its our basic idea which can help us now to solve this type of equation and tell us the true way of life and what and how it came (don’t take it otherwise you dirty mind ). Science is no doubt the best possible gift to a human from a human but also the worst. It has many benifits but also like the side of a coin many demerits also. Its up to us how we use it and how we catch it in our life.

[mahesh2k 0]

From where you have taken this ? just for the record i think moderators need to check this. i mean looking at previous posting of yours in Xisto and here. this post needs to be checked for plagiarism cause i'm sure nobody seen you posting this long posts here or on Xisto. anyway if it's not plagiarism let's come back to topic.

[aloKNsh 0]

From where you have taken this ? just for the record i think moderators need to check this. i mean looking at previous posting of yours in Xisto and here. this post needs to be checked for plagiarism cause i'm sure nobody seen you posting this long posts here or on Xisto. anyway if it's not plagiarism let's come back to topic.

uh-huh , come on people change some time......
in Xisto aka Xisto i am having a -ve mycents so now i just dun want to post anymore in there. and as far you are talking about plagiarism, go ahead and check it, its my original post 100% original. and one more thing plz dont blame others this way you can do it in other way also, people do change some time. anyways good luck.

[mahesh2k 0]

and one more thing plz dont blame others this way you can do it in other way also, people do change some time. anyways good luck.

 

Can you explain this in brief if you intended this for me ? i would like to know where and how i did plagiarism anywhere on asta and Xisto. Precaution is always better and if we start to neglect such things then forum will be full of spammers. i'll see if i can find it somewhere else if it's not plagiarism, why bother about false alarm ? let's get back to topic.

[8ennett 0]

Doesn't seem plagiarised, even after taking extracts and correcting spelling and grammar. However, although there are a couple of interesting points in there, it is a bit daunting to read without more paragraph seperation.

[yordan 10]

It's a completely useles topic, with a lot of stupid statements.
For instance

Physics is basicly the pure form of science and the best part of science (acc. To me). You know what you are upto and you have seen the things which you are studing not like chem

Of course "acc. To me" is stated, but it's pure nonsense. Saying that physics is truth it chemistry is not, is really stupid. Especially if you know that the real basics of chemistry is, deeply inside, explained by atomic physics relationships.So, this text seems first of all to be quit a lot of blah-blah, with no real technical contents, and at least no useful info.

[mahesh2k 0]

Agree with yordan. There are many debates on physics vs chemistry but just for the records if chemistry is useless or even at lower staure than physics. How many attributes of liquid are best studied under chemistry and not physics ? alkali and other attributes are studied under physics ? *ahem* not worth spending time reading such school level thinking. Besides one more laughable statement is military will give cash for finding last digit of infinity ? and why is that ? they're doing just fine without it. I don't get it, is OP using article spinner or some software for such writeups. I don't find any meaning to it.

[8ennett 0]

If you have a small pic of a baby atom and you have seen his face you are free to change the face of chemistry(special thanks from my side) as we donât know exactly what ere are studing and we are not able to get the things which some old farts like Neil Bhor (sorry but really I hate chemistry and the person who has contributed most to chemistry) they thought or they dreamt we donât know but they had show some evidence via experimients

I've just finished reading through this, erm, right. I find it very difficult to actually understand what you are saying, especially in the quote above. I think the point you are trying to state is "We have not seen it with our own eyes and have to trust a professional instead, which to me is a mistake because I don't like chemistry". Is that what you were trying to say?

You may think that chemistry is nothing more than a pointless task with no substantiating evidence to support it, however without chemistry there is an extreme possibility you would be dead. Think about those vaccinations you had as a child, the antibiotics you are given when you have an infection, all these were developed through chemistry (with a mix of biology of course). Why do you think a pharmacist was originally referred to as a chemist? The massive breakthroughs in chemistry are self evident and all around you, however if you are denying the science behind chemistry then that is your choice.

We can do whatever we can now just and only because of science. But as we all know with every good things comes the bad thing or after every day there is night. In this case the night is the negative impact of scienece. Like missiles and all the destructive part of human intension. Missiles are good but they are now used to destroy other human. In hindi there is a sayin "Vasodhewav Kutumbakam" which means the world is a big family and we are the members of a big family. Then why is there bombardment on a family member everywhere. I think there is no answer for a ny one. Religions were not created by god it was the creation of humans and neither god told us to go and make a country and fight with other country, it was the hard and fast decision of the god.

You can't blame science for war. Men and women were killing each other with pointy sticks at some point. It says in the bible beware the tyrrany of evil men. It is the never ending quest for power that drives mankind to commit such atrocities, and true scientific breakthroughs have increased the effeciency of these atrocities, they would happen none the less. You also step on your own point at the end of this, "neither god told us to go and make a country and fight with other country, it was the hard and fast decision of the god". That makes absoutely no sense what so ever.

I'm going to have to stop now because it really is rather pointless continuing. You obviously need to really think about what the message is you are trying to project before jumping in and talking nonsense. I sense you have a few valid points to make on this topic, but please think about what you are saying before you say it.

[grim reaper1666 0]

you can see atoms and neutrons actually through a microscope you can say anything else about that. you can't say something does not exist because you can see it, you can't see the wind yet its there, you can also not see heat but we know its there. atoms are on a nano scale, perhaps even smaller than that there is nothing to say that an atom doesn't exist it has after all been proven. i do not say god doesn't exist but i personally do not believe in any god. although there may not be evidence of any god existing but there is no evidence to say any god doesn't exist so i m not trying to convince any one. just as long as no one tries to get me to believe in any god.

[mitchellmckain 0]

Agree with yordan. There are many debates on physics vs chemistry but just for the records if chemistry is useless or even at lower staure than physics. How many attributes of liquid are best studied under chemistry and not physics ? alkali and other attributes are studied under physics ? *ahem* not worth spending time reading such school level thinking. Besides one more laughable statement is military will give cash for finding last digit of infinity ? and why is that ? they're doing just fine without it. I don't get it, is OP using article spinner or some software for such writeups. I don't find any meaning to it.

There is a whole spectrum in science from the hard sciences to soft science, from the theoretical to the experimental to the purely observational, and from the foundational to the more complex.
The most foundational is the purely theoretical science of mathematics whose assertions can actually be proven and require no experiement to verify. Then there is science of physics which is all about determining the mathematical relationship between measurable quantities, and that makes it highly ammenible to both theoretical and experimental methods, but there are areas of physics like astronomy which can be mostly observational. In chemistry we start to see how complexity can be the source of emergent phenomenon and an unending number of species to observe and study making it much more of an experimental and observational science than a theoretical one. When we get to biology, theory is very hard to come by and that is one of the reasons that the theory of evolution is so highly prized (I believe that a worlking theory of abiogenesis may be the next great theoretical break through), and before evolution and genetics, biology was almost purely an observational science of categorizing the endless species and their characteristics. By the time we get to sociology and psychology we are in the softest of sciences, where experiments are statistical and theories are highly speculative with very little means to verify them and it is here where Kuhn's paradigms and scientific revolutions are quite descriptive.

[mitchellmckain 0]

you can see atoms and neutrons actually through a microscope you can say anything else about that. you can't say something does not exist because you can see it, you can't see the wind yet its there, you can also not see heat but we know its there. atoms are on a nano scale, perhaps even smaller than that there is nothing to say that an atom doesn't exist it has after all been proven.

And yet there is a sense in which science is the extension of sight. If we cannot see it with the naked eye we nevertheless have a means to tangibly verify the existence of some things.

i do not say god doesn't exist but i personally do not believe in any god. although there may not be evidence of any god existing but there is no evidence to say any god doesn't exist so i m not trying to convince any one. just as long as no one tries to get me to believe in any god.

If we have knowledge of God, it does not come from even this extension of sight by the objective means used by science. I think what we must acknowledge is that life cannot be confined to objective observation, and thus in the pursuit of subjective participation in life where our desires cannot be dismissed many find personal experiences of God and find that they cannot live without the meaning and value that these experiences give to their lives.

[mahesh2k 0]

And yet there is a sense in which science is the extension of sight. If we cannot see it with the naked eye we nevertheless have a means to tangibly verify the existence of some things.

There are ways to verify existence of things which we can't see with naked eye. Amoeba, quarks, air and many other things can be verified as they exist with instruments and experiments. If entity like god if exist then it has to be either possible for us to verify it's existence. Other than word salad and personal experience which are random and self contradictory there is no way to verify existence of god. So even if the smallest possible way to verify the existence of god exist then i'm all for it.

[mitchellmckain 0]

There are ways to verify existence of things which we can't see with naked eye. Amoeba, quarks, air and many other things can be verified as they exist with instruments and experiments. If entity like god if exist then it has to be either possible for us to verify it's existence.

This does not follow. Just because you cannot prove something does not mean that you cannot know it. The cowardly might retreat to such safe grounds, but I have no inclination to make a virtue out of any cowardice. I repudiate the way fundamentalists make a virtue out of the cowarice of capitulating to the intellectual blackmail of a God that says "believe or else you will suffer for eternity". But I also repudiate the way that excessive skeptics make a virtue out of cowardice when they imply that they will not believe what they personally experience simply because they might be scorned by those who don't believe him when he cannot prove it.

Other than word salad and personal experience which are random and self contradictory there is no way to verify existence of god. So even if the smallest possible way to verify the existence of god exist then i'm all for it.

And I say the opposite. If you can verify the existence of your god, then I will no more worship it that I will worship idols or money or quarks. For to within the ability to verify is the abiity to manipulate and thus such a god will be your tool. No thank you indeed.
In taking to heart the truth that knowledge and proof are disjoint, I refuse the arrogant affectation that diversity of belief is a product of mental deficiency and instead assert that diversity of belief gives strength to human thought in much the same way that the diversity of species gives strength to the ecosystem and diversity of the gene pool provides strength to a species, by providing them all with greater adaptability -- a kind of group manifestation of creativity. And so in support of this view I embrace the idea that there is an irreducibly subjective aspect to reality which lends a definite aspect of diversity to truth itself.

[mitchellmckain 0]

You cannot edit your own posts anymore?

There are ways to verify existence of things which we can't see with naked eye. Amoeba, quarks, air and many other things can be verified as they exist with instruments and experiments. If entity like god if exist then it has to be either possible for us to verify it's existence.

This does not follow. Just because you cannot prove/verify something does not mean that you cannot know it. The cowardly might retreat to such safe grounds, but I have no inclination to make a virtue out of any cowardice. I repudiate the way fundamentalists make a virtue out of the cowarice of capitulating to the intellectual blackmail of a God that says "believe or else you will suffer for eternity". But I also repudiate the way that excessive skeptics make a virtue out of cowardice when they imply that they will not believe what they personally experience simply because they might be scorned by those who don't believe them when they cannot prove it.

Other than word salad and personal experience which are random and self contradictory there is no way to verify existence of god. So even if the smallest possible way to verify the existence of god exist then i'm all for it.

And I say the opposite. If you can verify the existence of your god, then I will no more worship it than I will worship idols or money or quarks. For within the ability to verify is the abiity to manipulate and thus such a god will be your tool. No thank you indeed.
In taking to heart the truth that knowledge and proof are disjoint, I refuse the arrogant affectation that diversity of belief is a product of mental deficiency and instead assert that diversity of belief gives strength to human thought in much the same way that the diversity of species gives strength to the ecosystem and diversity of the gene pool provides strength to a species, by providing them all with greater adaptability -- a kind of group manifestation of creativity. And so in support of this view I embrace the idea that there is an irreducibly subjective aspect to reality which lends an aspect of diversity to truth itself. Yes, I am a pluralist.

[grim reaper1666 0]

we do not even know what the full universe looks like we have only thus far discovered a small portion of it. there is no evidence for the existence of god, but there is also no evidence that god doesn't exist so anyone arguing on wither side can disprove the other. in these cases people need to agree to disagree. while i don't believe in god i don't go up to people who do believe in god and try to get them to stop people have free will to believe in what they want. i hate when you get people on youtube trying to say your beliefs are wrong theres some people who see the bible as a literal device but thats like in any sense viewing the wizard of oz as a real event. i see the bible as something not created by any god but just different peoples ideas on how the universe was created. i have noticed that when you do look at the book of genesis in many ways its simialr to the scientific belief of how the universe was created. something that people do forget however is that when the book of genesis was writen the word day had a similar meaning to age (age in the sense of a long period of time). the only bible i ahve read partially is the lolcat bible.