The Nirmukta Freethought Community

Mod note: Split from the thread Science of Hindu Cosmology.

I thought people on this forum had a scientific approach to everything!

If you conclude that the age of the universe as expelled by the Vedic Sages is just a coincedence with the findings of science. Please provide proof on how this conclusion is based through scientific approach.

If you say the Sages cannot proove how they came to this number, please proove how you came to the conclusion that it is merely an accident. If you can proove it that its an accident, you have all the right to ridicule it.

I am not here to argue. I'm sure you're all willing for a good debate.

Another amazing thing is -

Nick87 left an article on the future of expanding universe
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Future_of_a...g_universe

where 155 trillion years as said by the Sages comes pretty close to the findings of the reasearch in that article.

Best Regards

Do 'we' have the burden of the proof ?

(09-12-2011 07:16 PM)madpurple Wrote:  I am not here to argue. I'm sure you're all willing for a good debate.

Given the nature of your argument, this is a better place for that. To have a debate here, I'd expect you to be very familiar with philosophy of science, especially on what is considered as a 'proof' in science.

(09-12-2011 07:33 PM)Lije Wrote:  

(09-12-2011 07:16 PM)madpurple Wrote:  I am not here to argue. I'm sure you're all willing for a good debate.

Given the nature of your argument, this is a better place for that. To have a debate here, I'd expect you to be very familiar with philosophy of science, especially on what is considered as a 'proof' in science.

Hey great video! Thanks for sharing!

So please share yours thoughts on my understanding. If I have understood the video right.

So if i was to say that we breathe in oxygen and breathe out carbon di-oxide and had proof for my theory but kept that proof from you. And you at that point in time with your given knowledge and instruments had no way of accepting the fact, then in your understanding this statement would be false. Correct? Is that what the video says?

The course of the discussion has little to do with cosmology of Hinduism, but a lot to do with misunderstanding of how science works. I'm splitting the thread under a more appropriate discussion topic.

Firstly if you are indeed looking for a debate this would be a better place for you

Quote:So if i was to say that we breathe in oxygen and breathe out carbon di-oxide and had proof for my theory but kept that proof from you. And you at that point in time with your given knowledge and instruments had no way of accepting the fact, then in your understanding this statement would be false. Correct? Is that what the video says?

That's the very antithesis of the video also the statement may suggest to someone(not saying that you sinistrally intended that ) that perhaps scripture writers had some divine knowledge proof of which they withheld (maybe cause it may have been exploited) or lost..
,

Quote: he says the strengths of my beliefs should be directly proportional to amount of evidence i have for them

it is not back or white true or false, that is the core point.
The video explains how we can form conclusions, and rate hypothesis even when we may never know for certain

Quote:Are there things about the universe that will be forever beyond our grasp??
Are there things about the universe that are, ungraspable?

~ Richard Dawkins


That is how science works


The exploration and discovery involves asking questions and making observations

You may ask do we inhale oxygen and exhale CO2 , even when we do not have sufficient instruments, a Spectrometer for instance, and we can do not know about exact chemistry of the gases we can still test it with and compare it with existing knowledge ,as the exhaled gas should be heavier than air, if found to be false, it makes it highly implausible , if found to be true it only increases the plausibility. the more we know obviously the more accurate and demonstrable would be our tests .This is how, in iteration , we form conclusions, with more and more certainty, though ofcourse in light of some strong counter-evidence many years of past conclusions may need to be rolled back.

Quote:[Michael Shermer]
Science is the best tool ever devised
For understanding how the world works

[Jacob Bronowski]
Science is a very human form of knowledge
We are always at the brink of the known

[Carl Sagan]
Science is a collaborative enterprise
Spanning the generations

(09-12-2011 07:16 PM)madpurple Wrote:  If you conclude that the age of the universe as expelled by the Vedic Sages is just a coincedence with the findings of science. Please provide proof on how this conclusion is based through scientific approach.

1. The claim is false. The age of the universe is, depending on the interpretation, off by either billions, or tens of trillions, of years.
2. Even if some religious thinker had got the figure right, it is not scientific unless the technique s/he used to get that number is made available, and other scientists can evaluate the methodology and the experimental evidence for themselves. This is called testability and replicability, both key aspects of science. Determining that something is not scientific is really easy if you know what science means.

Quote:If you say the Sages cannot proove how they came to this number, please proove how you came to the conclusion that it is merely an accident.

1. Again, the number is wrong, and so the entire premise here is false. But again, let us play along in the hope that the scientific method might rub off on you.
2. In science when people talk about proof they are talking about evidence towards the likelihood of something being true. When talking about negative propositions, the evidence must come from the other side. That is, it is incumbent on the person making the claim to provide evidence for it. In this case, pretending that some stone-age people got the age of the universe right (which they certainly did not), it is they who must convince us that its not mere guesswork. The way to do that would be for them to show us their methods.

Let me ask you a question. Are you aware of what methods modern scientists use to gauge the age of the universe?

Quote:If you can proove it that its an accident, you have all the right to ridicule it.

1. I don't get why religious believers, who themselves defer to authority, keep telling us what criteria is required for us to acquire the right to ridicule something. The right to ridicule such silly ideas is a universal human right. The more you, like the Mohammedians and the Christians, tell us we have no right to ridicule silly ideas, the more those ideas are going to get ridiculed. No idea is sacrosanct. What we do not do is attack people, especially in personal conversations. But unfortunately many religious believers extend their religious beliefs to their personhood, and demand that their beliefs be protected from criticism and ridicule. The problem is with this behavior, not with well-established human rights.

2. I've already explained why this is an absurd unscientific way of seeking to qualify facts.

(09-12-2011 11:25 PM)Ajita Kamal Wrote:  

(09-12-2011 07:16 PM)madpurple Wrote:  If you conclude that the age of the universe as expelled by the Vedic Sages is just a coincedence with the findings of science. Please provide proof on how this conclusion is based through scientific approach.

1. The claim is false. The age of the universe is, depending on the interpretation, off by either billions, or tens of trillions, of years.
2. Even if some religious thinker had got the figure right, it is not scientific unless the technique s/he used to get that number is made available, and other scientists can evaluate the methodology and the experimental evidence for themselves. This is called testability and replicability, both key aspects of science. Determining that something is not scientific is really easy if you know what science means.

Actually 4.23 billion years is what the vedic's came up with and thats the number that came really close to from carbon dating too. The age of the planet that is. So that number is accurate.

The age of the universe could be debateable... You could be right on that.

Quote:If you say the Sages cannot proove how they came to this number, please proove how you came to the conclusion that it is merely an accident.

1. Again, the number is wrong, and so the entire premise here is false. But again, let us play along in the hope that the scientific method might rub off on you.
2. In science when people talk about proof they are talking about evidence towards the likelihood of something being true. When talking about negative propositions, the evidence must come from the other side. That is, it is incumbent on the person making the claim to provide evidence for it. In this case, pretending that some stone-age people got the age of the universe right (which they certainly did not), it is they who must convince us that its not mere guesswork. The way to do that would be for them to show us their methods.

Okay. Understood. But there is an elaborative explanation on the Age of Brahma and how each Day is divided into segments... so on and so forth. Im sure you've read up on this. So they do have a calculation to fall back their theory on. Its not just a number that is presented flat out. You have to arrive to that figure after a calculation.
Heres a question. I dont remember the mans name. But the person who realised that earth was not the center of the universe but the sun was the center and ran out stark naked from the shower screaming this truth and was ultimately killed for dispensing this truth. Do you know how he got to the answer? It was upon pondering/wondering over this idea in a calm and composed environment that the idea sprung into his mind. Now. Are you skeptic about truths being revealed to you under a deep meditative state without experimentation??? If you think that without physically working towards an answer, an answer cant spring into your mind. Yours and my mind can never meet. Cause with my own experience, when i have calmly thought over a problem. The answer has sprung out! without deriving it from any scientific method..


Let me ask you a question. Are you aware of what methods modern scientists use to gauge the age of the universe?
[/b]I have seen a few videos on discovery that show you the expanding universe and trying to catch the light from the furthust point. Recently i saw a video on the superblackholes in the distant universe that have multigalaxies clashing and multi supernova's happening at once and from one of hte furthust ones, light reached us recently giving us new infromation on the age of the universe. Am I on the right track here?.

Quote:If you can proove it that its an accident, you have all the right to ridicule it.

1. I don't get why religious believers, who themselves defer to authority, keep telling us what criteria is required for us to acquire the right to ridicule something. The right to ridicule such silly ideas is a universal human right. The more you, like the Mohammedians and the Christians, tell us we have no right to ridicule silly ideas, the more those ideas are going to get ridiculed. No idea is sacrosanct. What we do not do is attack people, especially in personal conversations. But unfortunately many religious believers extend their religious beliefs to their personhood, and demand that their beliefs be protected from criticism and ridicule. The problem is with this behavior, not with well-established human rights.

[/b]okay. Attack all you want. you have all the right to do so. Free thinking right?

2. I've already explained why this is an absurd unscientific way of seeking to qualify facts.

Best regards.

@OP

The game Assassin's Creed is based on the idea that there existed an advanced civilization before the advent of humans and led to the creation humankind through genetic engineering of the apes. It even has an extremely detailed story that happens to coincide with the story of Adam and Eve or any other such first human pair legends of religious text origin and populate the earth.

Some points of this story seem to agree with real life, it would seem. Just like the holy texts have supposedly predicted the age of the universe. Does that make the Assassin's Creed story factually correct? No, it just makes it an inconsequential conspiracy theory, because it provides no evidence to substantiate the claim. The same goes for Harry Potter and the same goes for the Vedas as well.

err the very first post of the original thread read

Quote:But if you compare the numbers from Hindu cosmology with current estimates from science, it becomes clear how wrong they are. The estimated of the age of the Universe is 13.7 billion years, whereas according to Hindu cosmology it is 155 trillion years. Even if we ignore that number and take the start of a mahayuga to mean the start of the Universe or the birth of Earth, the age of current mahayuga - 120 million years is nowhere close to either the age of the Earth or the Universe. Of all the numbers listed in Vishnu Purana, just one number - 4.32 billion years - comes close to a number given by science.

Hindu apologists latch onto that one number and heartily declare that the ancient texts are in acceptance with science. It doesn't matter to them that the ages of the Universe and the Earth given by Hindu cosmology totally contradict the values given by science.

Quote:"Actually 4.23 billion years is what the vedic's came up with and thats the number that came really close to from carbon dating too. The age of the planet that is. So that number is accurate. "

This is a lie. Please give me the verified source for the mystics coming up with the 4.23 billion years figure for the age of the earth. No speaking in riddles. I will excuse your moving the goal posts from the 155 trillion years figure for the age of the universe that you were defending just now. But this is taking it too far.

Quote: But the person who realised that earth was not the center of the universe but the sun was the center and ran out stark naked from the shower screaming this truth and was ultimately killed for dispensing this truth. Do you know how he got to the answer? It was upon pondering/wondering over this idea in a calm and composed environment that the idea sprung into his mind. Now. Are you skeptic about truths being revealed to you under a deep meditative state without experimentation?

This is another lie, but let me just suppose you are genuinely confusing your anecdotes from the annals of science (and anecdotes are not data). Archimedes supposedly (this is actually a legend) ran out naked after figuring out how to measure the purity of a metal. He didn't get this"under a deep meditative state", but by observing how bodies immersed in water displace a volume corresponding to their mass. It was an observation. He didn't pull it out of his ass.

In any case, there have been major discoveries made by people who had an intuition about something, their subconscious minds picking up some pattern. But that is not science by itself. What they then needed to do to make those discoveries scientific was to subject them to the scientific method, rigorously testing their ideas until the larger scientific community could replicate their experiments and be convinced of the facts.

LMC thanks for the earlier post on logic of arguement. I knew that, but refreshing nevertheless

Your second post maybe you missed some part of the conversation - where one of the members put up a wiki article of the end of the universe between 10 to the power of 42 to 10 to the power of 100. Making it 1000 trillion years.