Vedic knowledge at the foundation of modern science

Originally posted by Dasa
We can have a discussion when things become complicated, but when things are simple and persons are rejecting..... what would be the use of proceeding into more complicated discussions.

For example..... science says that the cosmos and everything in it is coming from an explosion, so where are we seeing anything useful coming from an explosion....No where, b ...[text shortened]... discussing the tooth fairy.....what would we say about it, there's nothing that could be said.

Particles are thrown out into space, where it begins as dust but through gravity assembles into clouds, then solid matter, then is compressed further to form stars which continue to compress until they explode into clouds of dust, swirling in space, but drawn back together by the force of gravity. Our's is a third generation star formed from the dust of two earlier generations. It all takes a long time - 17.5 billion years is the current estimate I think.

No don't thank me. It was no trouble.

Originally posted by finnegan
Particles are thrown out into space, where it begins as dust but through gravity assembles into clouds, then solid matter, then is compressed further to form stars which continue to compress until they explode into clouds of dust, swirling in space, but drawn back together by the force of gravity. Our's is a third generation star formed from the dust of t ...[text shortened]... - 17.5 billion years is the current estimate I think.

No don't thank me. It was no trouble.

Particles are thrown into space because of an explosion........so there was something to begin with and there was a first cause to make an explosion, then we had this thing called gravity, which without there is nothing, then when the particles conglomerated because of this mysterious force gravity, there happened to come at some point water and air from dust, and then there was a lightning bolt which without there is nothing, and then life popped out of a puddle because there happened to be all the necessary ingredients for life, and then the dust just happened to be able to create thousands of delicious foods through the process of photo synthesis and pollination, for the life that was going to create itself in the future...........I dont think so.

Questions to ponder......

1. what was that something that exploded and how did it get there.

2. what caused that something to explode.

3. where did this mysterious force gravity come from and why did it come.

4.when all the exploded dust settled, why did it settle in an intelligent functional way.

5.why did the bundles of dust just happen to have all the ingredients for life, without intelligence, cause, plan or purpose..

6. how does water and air come from dust, and why would it be set up that way for it to actually happen....we could just as well only get sulphur ........but we got air and water instead.

7. where does the laws of physics come from that gives us a lightning bolt in the first place.

8 and where does the laws of physics come from.....or how do these necessary forces that we need for life to exist in the first place come to be..........without intelligence or cause or planning.

9. why and how did the dust know that in the future, the life forms would want to eat nice foods and create thousands of food stuffs with so much variety.

10. how did the dust know, how to supply all the ingredients necessary for us to create cars, planes, computers, TV, shelter, and so on, and give us all those ingredients such as minerals and process's,s to transform those minerals.........after all dust just dust.

11. why does fire even exist......what is it and can we live without it.

12. why does electricity even exist....because it needs laws to exist and those laws are supplied to us.

13. without photo synthesis plants do not do what plants do, and then the cycle doesn't exist.....but it does exist, and how does it exist without intelligence or plan or purpose.

14. the reproduction system of the species is very amazing and how does this system exist at all without intelligence or purpose or plan......and how does dust give us this.

You see it easy to say life appeared by accident in a puddle, but it impossible to say.....and then life went on to create everything else for its continuance and survival and it's pleasure.....without intelligence or cause or purpose.

Originally posted by Dasa
Particles are thrown into space because of an explosion........so there was something to begin with and there was a first cause to make an explosion, then we had this thing called gravity, which without there is nothing,....blah ....blah ....blah

Gosh you are a curious little boy and what you need is a little boy's encyclopedia of science to answer all your questions.

3. where did this mysterious force gravity come from and why did it come.

Gravity is a mathematical formula which describes and successfully predicts how stuff happens - eg how an apple falls. Using this formula produces accurate descriptions of the passage of planets through our solar system for example, which was a great assistance for astrological charts when discovered. It has many applications and it works. It came from a lot of observation and thought on the part of early scientists, and two millenia of mathematical thought, drawn together by Isaac Newton who recognised the value of using mathematics to do science.

Now you can come up with any explanation or fable or theory you like for the way the planets move but the planets will continue to move as they always have without regard for your explanation. Mathematics did not make the planets move. But if you want to predict where the planets will be next thursday at seven, maths will give you the best answer.

4. when all the exploded dust settled, why did it settle in an intelligent functional way.

What do you mean when you say that a star is intelligent and functional? I can see no reason to suggest either proposition.

6. how does water and air come from dust, and why would it be set up that way for it to actually happen....we could just as well only get sulphur ........but we got air and water instead.

Well water consists in two Hydrogen atoms and one Oxygen atom. You could not get Sulpher from these two types of atom.

Air is a mixture of many different elements which, being gases rather than liquids, float in the air subject only to the forces of gravity - which prevents it escaping into space.

The story of how the many different elements in the Periodic Table were formed has been worked out in great detail and this is no place to provide a history of Chemistry. Some great books on the topic out there though.

7. where does the laws of physics come from that gives us a lightning bolt in the first place.

The laws of physics give us large text books. They do not give us bolts of lightning. However, each of the laws sets out a mathematical description of the properties of matter and one property of matter is its capacity to produce lightning in specific circumstances. Being a property of matter, your question must become NOT where do the laws come from, but where does the matter come from and how did it come to have this property rather than that property. Thus you work back to the Big Bang but with an awful lot of other stuff on the way. This is hard to do but one way that has proved very effective has been to use appropriate mathematics. Most work on cosmology is done using maths, often in a quiet room without a telescope. But the maths works and enables us to find stuff we would not otherwise have thought of.

9. why and how did the dust know that in the future, the life forms would want to eat nice foods and create thousands of food stuffs with so much variety.

In what sense could dust know anything? How does my computer know what I am about to type and if it does know, why does it never type anything until I insist on it. How do my chess pieces fail to remember the simplest opening theory and let me down time and time again, yet provide my opponents with the most attractive moves in refutation of my efforts? Would a better chess set have any value here?

Originally posted by finnegan
Gosh you are a curious little boy and what you need is a little boy's encyclopedia of science to answer all your questions.

[b] 3. where did this mysterious force gravity come from and why did it come.

Gravity is a mathematical formula which describes and successfully predicts how stuff happens - eg how an apple falls. Using this formula produces ...[text shortened]... ost attractive moves in refutation of my efforts? Would a better chess set have any value here?[/b]

You have told me what gravity does....but why do we have it, we could just have easily not have it.

The solar system is set up in an intelligent way, with planets suspended in space and with their orbits and they are stable because when you look at them today , they are still there tomorrow...why And when all the dust settled why do you get different types of planets with different qualities....like Saturn with rings and Jupiter, and Pluto etc......why aren,t they all the same, because if I exploded something all the pieces would be the same only some would be bigger and some smaller......and why do we have a planet called earth and then a moon that orbits it...and gives light at night and then we have a own sun to supports life which is exactly the right distance from earth......all this from an explosion.

Yes but why do we have oxygen and hydrogen.......instead of sulphur and helium, and we could have had anything, but we got exactly what we needed for life, and to think without cause or purpose or intelligence

You keep referring to maths, but maths do not tell us why, why, why, and how how how of anything.

Originally posted by Dasa
We can have a discussion when things become complicated, but when things are simple and persons are rejecting..... what would be the use of proceeding into more complicated discussions.

Well perhaps it is you that is doing the rejecting. At some point you need to realize that we are being honest when we say we do not believe what you believe.

For example..... science says that the cosmos and everything in it is coming from an explosion, so where are we seeing anything useful coming from an explosion....
Your car runs on explosions. Is that not useful?

No where, but persons argue that everything has come from an explosion, so how can it be possible to discuss with that?
Of course it is possible. If you believe you have a valid point, then you should be willing to discuss it. Your refusal to discuss it means that either you do not have a genuine point, or you think I am lying when I say I don't believe you. You claim the latter. But I assure you that I am not lying. I genuinely believe that explosions can - and do - lead to something useful.

You want to discuss, and I also want to discuss....but if you hold to the falsity that an explosion is responsible for everything....then I cannot discuss, because I cannot discuss absurdity.
But apparently anything you don't believe is 'an absurdity' to you. It is not 'an absurdity' to me. Either you come to accept that, or you will get nowhere.

Its like discussing the tooth fairy.....what would we say about it, there's nothing that could be said.
Well that depends on whether one of us believed in the tooth fairy.
You believe in a lot of things that nearly everyone else in the world believes is absurd. Should everyone else refuse to talk to you? Maybe they should! Its certainly going that way in this forum - most people just don't think its worth discussing your absurdities. Is that what you want?

Originally posted by Dasa
Particles are thrown into space because of an explosion........so there was something to begin with and there was a first cause to make an explosion, then we had this thing called gravity, which without there is nothing, then when the particles conglomerated because of this mysterious force gravity, there happened to come at some point water and air from dust, ...[text shortened]... its continuance and survival and it's pleasure.....without intelligence or cause or purpose.

I'll have a shot at answering those assertions/questions.

1.The "thing" that lead to extremely hot plasma which "exploded" ,as in the Big Bang" ,has a cause that is totally beyond our ability to know unless we get the supreme enlightenment. Even then we could not explain it in our words and concepts, so I think that question is imposssible to answer with any certainty by anyone on this forum. (Perhaps Blabk Beetle or ua41 may have a take on it).

2."God"

3.Gravity is there as a part of our "tools" for learning in the third (physical) dimension that we find ourselves in. It's really a handy thing😉

4.There were forces at work in higher dimensions "assembling" the universe so that it would serve its purpose on the most economic way.

5.A lot of the planets were "seeded" (I wont go on about this , but I could pm you, if you wish)

6.That was planned by many different entities.(I mean the means were experimented with and mutually decide upon to be the best way to go..)

7.Laws of physics are just an incomplete science , a (complete,wholistic) science that is in harmony with spirituality. The laws of physics are correct from our point of view, but when you consider quantum, you have to conclude that there is more to discover to complete our understanding of physics.

8.Laws of physics come from scientists spending many long nights of earnest hard work and "Standing on each others shoulders" over the years to expouse the truths about the universe.

If there is any "Divine planning " involved, it has only been made possible by the tireless work of scientists and yogis alike.

9.You gotts assume a lot before you can answer that question.Even I cant assume (even hyptheticallly) such a far out silly question.Sorry

10.I see where you're last two questions are coming from. You're accusing the athiests of not acknowledging God in a certain way.
Forget it about it man, it just sounds silly and reveals your lack of scientific knowledge. Stick to the vedas😉




7.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Well perhaps it is you that is doing the rejecting. At some point you need to realize that we are being honest when we say we do not believe what you believe.

[b]For example..... science says that the cosmos and everything in it is coming from an explosion, so where are we seeing anything useful coming from an explosion....
Your car runs on explos ...[text shortened]... st people just don't think its worth discussing your absurdities. Is that what you want?[/b]

Go ahead and explain in detail how an explosion happened in the first place, and then gave us everything in existence.

Originally posted by karoly aczel
I'll have a shot at answering those assertions/questions.

1.The "thing" that lead to extremely hot plasma which "exploded" ,as in the Big Bang" ,has a cause that is totally beyond our ability to know unless we get the supreme enlightenment. Even then we could not explain it in our words and concepts, so I think that question is imposssible to answer reveals your lack of scientific knowledge. Stick to the vedas😉




7.

I dont need a whole lot of scientific knowledge to see that the science persons are cheating the public.

What is missing is..... truthfulness on the part of the scientific community.

The scientific community should be saying....we have no clue what life is.

But instead they put forward absurd theories and expect free thinkers to accept....no thanks.

The Vedas are the authority and atheistic science is but a candle to the sun of Vedanta.

Originally posted by Dasa
1. what was that something that exploded and how did it get there.

I'm not entirely convinced there is something. Maybe a transient thought or two.

Originally posted by Dasa
I am different than other Vaisnava,s, and I present in my own unique way......true, it is probably rough, but that's because I am responding to rough people who constantly agitate.

I wonder if you can see your own agitation. You seem to believe to posses the absolute truth in a sealed box, that you have to defend and push whatever others comment or question.

Originally posted by Dasa
Go ahead and explain in detail how an explosion happened in the first place, and then gave us everything in existence.

Are you really ready to discuss it now, or are you still convinced that I am dishonest?

I do not know in detail how an explosion happened in the first place and then gave us everything in existence. I do however believe that it did. I believe it did because the evidence available implies that it did. I also do not know of any argument as to why it couldn't have.

So now its your turn. You initially believed that it was so obvious to everyone that it couldn't be possible that you assumed that we must be lying when we claimed it happened. So it should be trivial to explain in detail how it should be obvious to everyone that it could not have happened. (note that your explanation cannot include vedanta as you already know I and most other people have not read that book)

Originally posted by twhitehead
Are you really ready to discuss it now, or are you still convinced that I am dishonest?

I do not know in detail how an explosion happened in the first place and then gave us everything in existence. I do however believe that it did. I believe it did because the evidence available implies that it did. I also do not know of any argument as to why it coul ...[text shortened]... on cannot include vedanta as you already know I and most other people have not read that book)

You cant say ....I dont know how it happened or why it happened and leave it at that.

Vedanta explains the why and how, but you dont accept the authority of Vedanta, but only the authority of the cheating science persons....so I cant discuss with you on those terms.

Originally posted by souverein
I wonder if you can see your own agitation. You seem to believe to posses the absolute truth in a sealed box, that you have to defend and push whatever others comment or question.

I certainly do reject falsity....dont you.

Vedanta is the authority and to understand that, you have to involve yourself with its teachings and practice the principles of purification to bring your mind intelligence and heart to a transcendental platform....when you have done this all shall be understood.

If you try and understand Vedanta with the conditioned mind and the wrong attitude you will only create agitation for yourself..

Originally posted by Dasa
You cant say ....I dont know how it happened or why it happened and leave it at that.

Why not? In fact, I just did.

Vedanta explains the why and how, but you dont accept the authority of Vedanta, but only the authority of the cheating science persons....so I cant discuss with you on those terms.
But nobody except you seems to accept the authority of Vedanta. So who do you ever talk to in your life? What are you even doing here if you cannot discuss anything with people who don't accept the authority of Vedanta?

You are also mistaken in thinking that I accept authority of 'cheating science persons'. I accept the authority of no-one.
I do give more credit to people who clearly know what they are talking about, or have the education and knowledge to back up what they are saying, but I still do not accept their authority. If I am unsure about something, I expect a rational explanation before I believe it.

You said that I, who does not accept the authority of Vedanta, am being dishonest when I say that the universe could have come from an explosion. How did you come to that conclusion? Were you not aware that I do not accept the authority of Vedanta? Or do you believe that I should come to a different conclusion for other reasons? If so, what are those reasons?

Originally posted by twhitehead
Why not? In fact, I just did.

[b]Vedanta explains the why and how, but you dont accept the authority of Vedanta, but only the authority of the cheating science persons....so I cant discuss with you on those terms.
But nobody except you seems to accept the authority of Vedanta. So who do you ever talk to in your life? What are you even doing here i ...[text shortened]... hat I should come to a different conclusion for other reasons? If so, what are those reasons?[/b]

There is a curious analogy here with the contributions of Augustine and Thomas Aquinas respectively to Christian theology. Prior to Augustine, it seemed necessary to reconcile Christian thinking with Reason as presented through Greek philosophy, because it was thought that nothing God said could be false, and so the Truth must be so both in theology and in philosophy. Augustine decided this was an unsolvable conundrum and pronounced that reconciliation was impossible, we must rely only on scripture. After a long delay, Thomas came back to argue that as long as Christians relied on scripture without allowing the value of Reason, they would be trapped in a private, enclosed space and unable to communicate with Muslims or with pagans, hence unable to win further converts. The scriptures would only convince and satisfy those who already believe.

The analogy is that while it may be thought that the only Truth is to be found in the Vedanta, this is only a useful claim to believers. It cannot possibly have any appeal to others.