GOD(S) CAN'T EXIST AND HERE IS WHY.
#25
Somebody... lock this thread down.
"It's alright, I rarely meet anyone who's able to read it properly. Although personally, I never thought that it to be an odd of a name. Once I give people the pronunciation, they tend to remember my name by easily associating me with it. A unique face, a unique moniker."
#26
Before the group mods lock this thread, would like to address Hariom's last post with this last post of mine on this thread.

(04-Jun-2012, 12:41 PM)Hariom Wrote: "You" here was meant not any person in particular, but between two persons. I am again emphasizing, matters of infinite could not be perceived by finite intelligence. Our brain has only the capacity to perceive finite algorithms. Matters of universal/supernatural/god are whatever terms you call are beyond our capacity to perceive. You have to become a part of the infinite to experience the infinite. This is where the spiritual or meta physical platforms come into place. The experiences of infinite cannot be expressed in scientific terms or proven in finite algorithms.

1. Why can't matters pertaining to infinity be tackled by intelligence. Does it mean Cantor wasn't one among us? Infinity isn't that mysterious. Its a mathematical/logical concept. But heavily used my mystics to obfuscate the gibber that they utter.

2. Matters that are beyond perception, but still people know/experience them. How is that ever possible?
This is a common fallacy committed by proponents of supernatural mysticism. Most people think that perception means "seeing/hearing/tasting/touch-sensing etc.". This is the reason why woo-sentences will have Energy used so often. Little do people realize that science deals with "cause-effect" based perception, so human experiences, all energies etc. are very much in the domain of Science.

3. And this whole logic depends on most fallacious assumption, that there IS something infinite out there to experience. There is no empirical evidence for this assumption.

(04-Jun-2012, 12:41 PM)Hariom Wrote: I again want to emphasize, I may also rationally conclude that certain matters are beyond my rational thinking.

This statement, although true in a different context, is so not true in the context that has been used. Rational thinking in this context, is instrumental rationality. And the concept of something being "beyond instrumental rationality" is absurd.

(04-Jun-2012, 12:41 PM)Hariom Wrote: Earlier you had asked me whether I am uncomfortable with "not knowing an answer right now". But if I ask you whether your science could make you know the answer right now, you will say NO.
Because as far as science the answer towards questions of infinite is a big NO. What is universe it will say something, what is beyond the universe ? Does the universe is beyond limits ? If not how could we perceive it ? No No No. But changing towards spiritual or infinite we can find answers which we cannot explain. Of course this is also one way science. The science of enlightenment which cannot be expressed. Actually I am [the spiritual seeker] the one who want to know the answers right now and don't want to wait for centuries till science matures to provide answer.

1. Part about infinity is plain stupid. A lot of Science concepts do make use of infinity.
2. The other part is about coming up with questions that seem to be profound but may be very very silly. Richard Dawkins has addressed this very well here.
The summary is, its easy to frame a question which seems to be very correct in languages used by humans but they may be totally silly/absurd in context of physics or "reality of universe". Best example is "What is the taste of red color?"

In anycase, its not about Science MATURING, its about our understanding getting refined to get the CORRECT answers, and not some vague answers just to satisfy our curiosity.
[+] 2 users Like Kanad Kanhere's post




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)