Printable Version of Topic

Posted by: NATURE Jan 30 2006, 12:47 PM

Got this Article recently, would like to share with you all. If u have anything in your
Mind about all these, please come forward. I could be a good listener !!!
-------------------------------------
�€ more fundamental than e

Gauss's proof of God's existence was e^(i*�€) + 1 = 0. Since the five most important numbers are bound by
such beautiful identity, argued Gauss, therefore God must exists. π is arguably the most important constant
of geometry and e of complex algebra. Therefore to Gauss, a true mathematician, such an equation provided
infallible proof of the Almighty's existence (Douglas Adams has since then offered alternate explanations
though). So far so good, but problems start to pour in if we start thinking from a physics point of view.

The number e has no significance if we look from a physics point of view. How on earth can I dare to speak
such absurdities? After all, does e not occur in every single rate law and in every single perturbation
(oscillation) equation? Well, it does, but only as long as you choose to be the ostrich with its head buried
neck deep in sand. Each of those phenomena which involve e as their essential constant are described by
linear equations and linearity is at best a myth. The only reason why we have such abundance of linear
equations and consequently of e in physics is that the researchers of the past century preferred to be
ostriches.

All natural phenomena are hopelessly nonlinear. Reasons for this omnipresent nonlinearity are many. The
world that we live in is three dimensional. This makes it possible for objects to trace such paths the
description of which will necessarily bring in nonlinearities (anything which does not move on a straight line
in some coordinate system moves on a curve whose locus is described by a nonlinear equation).
Kinematically speaking a one-dimensional world would then be linear. The second reason for nonlinear
nature of nature is the fact that most fundamental interactions follow the inverse square law. This means
that the fundamental forces of nature vary nonlinearly with space. Since all inter-particle interaction can
ultimately be shown to be a manifestation of one of these forces (gravitational/electromagnetic/nuclear)
therefore these interactions have to be nonlinear in nature.

As contrast to e, π is free from all such aberrations because its roots are in pure geometry, something much
more profound and robust than equations of physics. A physicist may propose a new law of gravity and we
might have to bow to his superior insight or such a thing might never happen. The point is that we can't
prove conclusively that what Newton said was (or is) the absolute truth. Compared to this, a proof of the
fact that the perimeter of all circles is bound to their radii by π can be found in any elementary textbook of
plain geometry. This proof was, is, and will remain. An aberration to it is not possible under any
circumstance. In a space of any dimension there will always be a generalization of a sphere and hence the
importance of π in describing isotropic phenomena will remain unquestioned. Ironically, a one dimensional
space has no circle and hence no π and it is only space in which e has any physical relevance !!!
-------------------- Editing on 2nd Feb, 2006 -----------------------
Cool down. Cool down Mandrake. Dekho Divyanju kya bol rahi hai ...
Paagal huye hum, aur khush huye Divya
Ye jo padh rahe ho naa ( Article ), ye kisi Bata Briksh kaa kaam nahi valke ek chhote Pawdhe kaa Chintan hai ...

Posted by: Mandrake Jan 30 2006, 09:19 PM

God!! Whatever is this article about?

Just a couple of thoughts: whatever happened to the (Never)humble 'i'? No discussion on its merits/demerits?
n and e are variables or constants depending on which discipline they are used in.
n can be used as generally as ' 'n' number of things' or as specifically as the impossible-to-miss Actual Neutral Axis in any structural component in flexure.
e can be used as eccentricity which is variable, or the Young's Modulus of Elasticity in it's capital state (where steel has a value of 2.1 x 10^6 kg/sq.cm.).

Also, the area of a circle based on its diameter and 'pi' is only valid as long as the circle is drawn on a flat surface. Draw that circle on a sphere and all such certainties go for a toss

What say you - Nature?

Posted by: divz Feb 1 2006, 04:50 PM

Hey Ishwar... ye kya hia............

dono pagal ho gayehain...

Posted by: shivani Feb 7 2006, 05:13 PM

Posted by: Mandrake Feb 7 2006, 05:42 PM

Shivani, ek main hoon jo aapse narm andaaz mein pesh aa raha hoon - coz I want to make friends with intelligent people... aur ek aap hain, jo meri har baat mein khot nikaal rahi ho...

Posted by: shivani Feb 7 2006, 05:47 PM

Posted by: Mandrake Feb 7 2006, 06:06 PM

Thanx Shivani for seeing through the mist

God confuses me no end... a fellow that's never been seen... a fellow who threatens to get angry if we don't go by his ways - and yet is supposed to be ultra-kind (heck, my dad was kinder than god)... is one in number for all, except to the Indians who have 33 crores to choose from (was India always overpopulated in different ways?)

The rationals who believe him in measured quantities do well in life... the total believers whose faith borders on the blind get left behind.... He says he'll help those who help themselves (then why is he required?)... ALL mythologies tell stories of the utterly shameless behaviours of MOST gods including our king of gods Indra of the Greek king of gods Zeus, and still we worship them.....

Gaaawd!

Posted by: visuja Feb 7 2006, 06:15 PM

Sigh.. log linearity se itne jalte kyun hain !!!

Local scales mein linaerise karo and yenjaaay !! kuchh gadbad hua to locality badlo aur phir se linarise karo !!!

Jeevan bhar yahio to karte hain .... small steps at a time !

1. pehle 2 saal ghar mein udham machaaye, roye, tantrums et al.
2. phir 3 saal KG mein tp kiya...
3. phir 4-5 saal primary school mein bagal ki ladki se dosti ki..
4. phir 5-6 saal bagal ke girl's school par line maarey..
5. agar 10th pass hue to junior college mein ladki pataayi....
6. Nahin pati..to 12th ke baad undergraduate days mein sheher bhar ke colleges ke festivals mein hissa liye.... taaki sabke fashion shows dekh sakein .... both formal and informal !
7. Phir pardes gaye / naukri lagi..... to gharwaale ladki dhoondhna shuru karte hain....
8. Phir...... .... abhi is domain par pahuncha nahin hoon..to main kya kahoon..... meri singularity ki domain par atka hua hoon....

Ab itnii saari ladkiyon ko ek saath deal karte..to us non linearity ka koi andaaza hai kisiiko !!
Wunly one gal at a time... usko line pe laate laate khud ka location (thikaana) bhool jaate hain...aur phir linearise karna padta hai !

Aage ke linearised experiences humaare yahaan ke anubhavit log bataayenge !

Posted by: shivani Feb 7 2006, 06:16 PM

I can completely understand your feelings.
I am told often ( mom in law) that it is not God himself but his disciples who describe him in that fashion. The God himself is humble and kind and generous.
But.. what kind of generosity is this.. praise me and salvation is yours and the faith has to be complete and unquestioning.
Am also told ( or so I tell them when they are trying to "convert" me) I will understand and believe in that entity when he wishes it... or whenever time comes.
Maybe that is true.. maybe not..

PS: What is Visu talking about? completely lost there.

Posted by: visuja Feb 7 2006, 06:18 PM

oops ! yahaan kahaan beech mein apna munh khol diya maine !

God, if thou exist.....help me to save myself !!!!
If thou dont exist, I'll help myself by

Posted by: Mandrake Feb 7 2006, 06:20 PM

Can one HONESTLY say that god is actually watching us every second, keeping tabs, evaluating our actions? Doesn't he have better thinds to do?

Where are you Catch? Need your inputs

I think, he set up a system and has become busy elsewhere. We are merely products...

Posted by: Mandrake Feb 7 2006, 06:21 PM

Visu helped himself - meaning he had divine help

Posted by: shivani Feb 7 2006, 06:21 PM

nahi re visuja.. aap thehriye.. I think I spammed again.. and should keep away

Posted by: Mandrake Feb 7 2006, 06:23 PM

Visu, you've succeeded in sowing giant trees of self-doubt in Shivani's mind.

She reminds me of that little Russian girl...

Posted by: shivani Feb 7 2006, 06:30 PM

Posted by: rom Feb 7 2006, 06:31 PM

QUOTE(Mandrake @ Feb 7 2006, 06:23 PM)

Visu, you've succeeded in sowing giant trees of self-doubt in Shivani's mind.

She reminds me of that little Russian girl...

Posted by: Mandrake Feb 7 2006, 06:38 PM

No rey rOm, the little girl who starts believing that she is the root cause of all the mishaps.
She goes to the toilet, and just as she pulls the flush, there's an earthquake and the building collapses around her.

She's crestfallen. "Oh my god what have I done? Maybe I shouldn't have pulled the flush chain..."

Posted by: shivani Feb 7 2006, 06:58 PM

I know there is a message somewhere in that for me.
Would you please state in clear words? rather than beat around the bush?
Do you wish to say Ive illusioned myself in thinking that I really count ??
Or I'm illusioned that I can think ??

Posted by: Mandrake Feb 7 2006, 07:07 PM

Shivani, if you haven't understood me yet, then you haven't understood me yet

I am trying to point out the exact opposite to what you are thinking. That you are a very intelligent person whose contributions to certain threads (at least ) are immensely appreciated.

It is time you stopped telling yourself that you are average and you are a spammer and keep walking away from each thread. Its good fun to have you around. Pls stay and contribute

Also, all the leg-pulling you are subject to is only because you are perceived as a good sport.

take heart. You are needed

Posted by: shivani Feb 7 2006, 07:14 PM

sigh!
you had to explain MJ ?
couldnt you just kiss and make up !!
(mere acche khase EB ka satyanas kar dala)
PS : you think I reached post count of about 3K by walking out?

Posted by: visuja Feb 7 2006, 07:44 PM

QUOTE(shivani @ Feb 7 2006, 09:44 PM)

Posted by: shivani Feb 7 2006, 07:49 PM

nah i dont walk out.. I stay put and hijack the threads
and since when did you join Priya and Gang?
Why is everyone so interested in turning into an insect suddenly

Posted by: NATURE Feb 9 2006, 03:30 PM

QUOTE(shivani @ Feb 7 2006, 07:16 PM)

Posted by: catch22 Feb 14 2006, 03:35 AM

You and I might not always be on the same page; but him (god) and me aren't even in the same library.
For the first time I am coming across someone who is ready to lay it across as proof of God's existence, Gauss' mathematical theory. Gauss, who was himself a devout christian should be turning in his grave at this turn of events. A mathematical probability is ok if it is the best you can get, but the evidence does not even begin to make God probable. If it is to be established that there is a God, then we have to have good grounds for believing that this is indeed so. Until and unless some such grounds are produced we have literally no reason at all for believing.

People accept many things as true" without evidence on good, reliable authority, assuming that a trustworthy source has good evidence - but ultimately they require evidence. Good evidence may be complicated - but scientists etc can understand it and are good authorities. Theologians from the various religions are not such good authorities - disagreeing with each other even within the same religion. This is nothing less than a religious assault on reason.

Personally, the concept of a God does not mean anything to me. It is only because of the impact on other people who believe in a God, that I think about it at all. I am a person who runs his life based on reason and logic. The concept of God is based on faith. I do not accept anything based on faith alone.

Is there a God? I really don't care. Even if there were one, it would not change my life one bit. Let us hypothetically accept for a moment that there is this creature called god. Could your mathematical theory tell us which god is this? Christian, Jew, Muslim, Hindu or what? Which is the true one? What shape or form it is?This all knowing omnipotent god creates, then brings about misery, disease, destruction, calamities, disasters on its own creation, not only on the good & the bad but even innocent children. Is it perverted to such an extent that it wrecks such havoc on its own creation.

The belief in God, heaven and hell is one of the ways our culture uses to coerce us into behaving properly. It is not logical that a perfect God would create flawed human beings and consign them to hell for behaving exactly as he designed them to, but we must eschew logic if we want to believe most religious tenets. If I believe in this god, I will dance with the angels in the so called after-life, if I don't then I will be an eternal barbecue. Do I care? not a rat's ass.

If you have an open mind, a truly open mind, spend your life examining and maintaining that openness. If you choose a religion, you will, ipso facto, close your open mind.If you really do have an open mind and are asking questions, then don't ask people who have never searched themselves, but have had their religion implanted in their minds as young children. It is truly a matter of choice, not discovery.

Religion, organized religion is a fabrication of mans fertile mind and the big lie. There is no rationality to religion any religion and all are based on myths and incredible falsehoods.

I think that the religionists have boxed themselves into a corner, depriving themselves of the joy of exploration of ideas. Those who feel compelled to make a god-or-not choice without exploring the myriad other possibilities are the real losers.

I do believe in argument as a method of inquiry, a way to arrive at the truth, and I believe that this is probably its most constructive role, but in an intellectual shell game argument is used to defend a fixed or preconceived idea against the truth.

Let me end this with a couple of quotes by George Carlin & Bertran Russell

"Religion easily has the greatest bullshit story ever told. Think about it, religion has actually convinced people that there's an INVISIBLE MAN...LIVING IN THE SKY...who watches every thing you do, every minute of every day. And the invisible man has a list of ten special things that he does not want you to do. And if you do any of these ten things, he has a special place full of fire and smoke and burning and torture and anguish where he will send you to live and suffer and burn and choke and scream and cry for ever and ever ´til the end of time...but He loves you…..and He needs money!"
George Carlin (1937- )

"Religion is based, I think, primarily and mainly upon fear. It is partly the terror of the unknown and partly, as I have said, the wish to feel that you have a kind of elder brother who will stand by you in all your troubles and disputes. ... A good world needs knowledge, kindliness, and courage; it does not need a regretful hankering after the past or a fettering of the free intelligence by the words uttered long ago by ignorant men."

— Bertrand Russell,

Posted by: Mandrake Feb 14 2006, 12:04 PM

Good post, Catch.
There are too many loose ends in the god-theory anyways. No known form, no known number, no known location, no definite way of connecting to him/her/it, no feedback, no response that is beyond reasonable doubt as coming from him...

Yes, far too many loose ends....

More points pls, Catch...

Posted by: rom Feb 14 2006, 12:17 PM

QUOTE(catch22 @ Feb 14 2006, 03:35 AM)

Posted by: shivani Feb 14 2006, 03:25 PM

Posted by: rom Feb 14 2006, 03:50 PM

Something, someone...

Posted by: Nimii Feb 14 2006, 04:18 PM

One shld be a believer in oneself!

N

Posted by: shivani Feb 14 2006, 04:58 PM

Posted by: rom Feb 14 2006, 05:10 PM

Please do point out...

Posted by: priya Feb 15 2006, 03:35 PM

Just saw this thread. Very interesting.

I myself am very hazy abt God. I am not someone who believes in religion. It seems to make men into monsters. Never yet met a humble, kind, generous and tolerant believer. The ones who fit the bill all have the seeds of doubt.

I believe in God, why I do not know. Because I feel his presence. Why, how, I cannot explain.

Yet if I analyse, I find it tough. Precisely bec of what religion says. The good are tested through suffering. Dukh mein sumiran sab karein..... U take that to mean if u remember God all the time, U will never have sorrow, then yes that makes God an egoist and in HF terms a classic EBer. How can God be so flawed? Well if U take it to mean U love God beyond all else, then true U will not feel sorrow as only what we love most matters. But is that possible?

Why would God create a flawed species, put it thro fire and wait for gold? It is all too hard to reason out.

Yet when one is often blessed without even asking, with wonderful joys, one believes. For me when things are good I believe. When things are unbearable and unreasonable my faith is questioned. God in my conception cannot be cruel. He can be just but not heartless. And I do not mean just my own personal selfish interests.

What am I saying. That I am confused...as always. Yet my heart says there is God. Am I just reluctant to let go of a comforting concept? I do not know.

Posted by: Mandrake Feb 15 2006, 04:34 PM

Priya, since this is a discussion thread, I am going to comment on your post without intending to hurt your sentiments. Pls read it in that spirit.

You say God cannot be cruel. Why? Because you've never debated the idea of a cruel god. You don't do his bidding and get punished. Isn't that cruelty? Isn't it, in some way very similar to the way dogs are trained - do good and get a bone, do wrong and get the stick?

You say he cannot be heartless. You are only imagining, attributing good values to an unknown figure. Haven't you seen/heard/read of absolutely innocent people becoming victims of all kinds of cruel incidents? At that time we conveniently put it down to their 'bhog', karma, destiny, but Hey!! Don't Anybody Impeach God!!! Why?

And why can't god be flawed? Like I said in an earlier post, our mythology is overflowing with hundreds of stories where gods behaved wrongly, cruelly, shamelessly...

very very off the top of my mind:
1) The moon laughed at Ganesha who was a fatso riding a tiny mouse. Poof!! Ganesha cursed the moon!! Helloooo.... why?
2) Indra was a known womaniser who didn't spare even Ahilya, a rishi's wife. And who was turned to stone? Ahilya!!!! ....why?
3) Any number of asurs/rakshashas could do tapasya and get deadly boons from any gods. It was left to the remaining tribe of gods to kill these asurs by treachery/cheating. Didn't they have the simple common sense of not giving the boons in the first place?

I could go on with many more instances. But I hope you get the point.

I believe the gods were just an advanced tribe of humans. Period.

(And don't ask me who made them!! The jury is still out on that )

Posted by: priya Feb 15 2006, 07:20 PM

Mandrake, I definitely am not gonna be hurt by Ur post. This is a debate and I am not some fanatic.

U speak of our mythology, maybe we come from different backgrounds, while I have watched the Ramayana and Mahabharata and am familiar with a lot of our mythology, I am a Christian by birth. The Christian mythology in my opinion is very confusing. U have the pre-Christ God who comes down heavily on entire civilisations as punishment. Then U have Christ, who tells U to turn the other cheek, yet teaches parables like the fig tree and the talents (dunno if U are familiar with these). He is portrayed by the priests as a gentle and loving God--our father who art in heaven--yet there is also this idea (again a lot comes from priests and missionaries) that the good are tested and punished. The Christian God died for the sins of the worls, yet we are told that we may be punished for no sin--just that we may love God more. That is cruel and I think childish. We humans are capable of more selfless love aren't we?

The Christian God (like every other God) created the world and says do not force Ur beliefs on others, yet we are told that we have to acknowledge him and spread the word or we are doomed. True, the Bible was written years and years ago and like any record is biased and maybe not entirely relevant so may centuries later. But how much is man's word and how much is God's. We can say men painted the wrong picture but the world was painted by God--if there is God. We too say, let our kids learn from their mistakes, but as far as technology permits, we try not to produce flawed kids.

Yes Mandrake, I start from the concept that God is God because he is perfect. If he wasn't he would be less than what I call God. And I am confused about all this.

But religion I know is for the most part destructive. Each religion preaches a path to happiness and peace yet each one has a history of blood. A good human being is any day better than a religious human being. Especially in today's globalised era.

Posted by: Mandrake Feb 15 2006, 08:10 PM

Yes Priya, the bible IS confusing, if one looks for deliverance. It talks of many contradictory issues.
The fact also remains that the Bible was revised many times through the centuries, and hence the discrepancies. But there are enough instances to set one thinking.
For instance, were Lot and his wife the ONLY good people in the city? And why did god not forgive the bad and cleanse them? Why destroy? Why did he not take care of Lot's wife? It was natural to look back just that once. (I would have done that for sure). If she did turn into a pillar of salt, didn't he have the powers to return her to her previous state?

And about the genesis: god said:"and let US create him after OUR own image". Us? Our? Isn't god solitary?

Yes, too many questions, if one gets over the fear that god will strike us and reduce us to a pillar of dust...

Posted by: imjagdish Feb 15 2006, 10:37 PM

Interesting topic...
Personally, I feel HE does exist.. No rationale behind this. However, most people probably give a thought to it when things happen agianst all odds ..rather when miracles happen..

On a different note, GOD is all powerful..and Krishna is a GOD in the Hindu culture..However, if he were GOD, then why did HE use deceit against the Kauravas in the war of Mahabharatha... (Plz I do not want to make this a fight..no intentions of hurting the sentiments of the followers of Lord Krishna)..However, this the answer to this question has eluded me for quite a while.

Posted by: Walker Feb 16 2006, 02:34 PM

When one says he doesn’t believe in God, in all actuality means (I feel) he doesn’t believe in what is generally held as believing in God. I don’t think anyone living could be a nonbeliever. It is quite understandable and especially so in the context of the present ritualistic, ostentatious and lurid religiosity spawned by well-meaning but ignorant individuals and groups for disbelief to arise in the discerning human mind. Disbelief on this count cannot and should not be construed as non-belief in the Supreme one. Natural laws of cause and effect apart, God in essence would be the highest abstraction possible to man - a metaphysical concept created by the human consciousness to attempt to explain the unknown.
Maybe the enlightened people, great Rishis and Saints perceived this and also understood that this was not a mass marketable theme. In order to explain this to the layman they might have found it necessary to give this concept a human embodiment with all its potential misgivings.
Natural laws of cause and effect apart, I don’t think God has a meaning or needs one outside the limits of individual human consciousness. Whatever limits us we call it fate and death is the ultimate limiter. I don’t know what causes us to live and die - I would say God (not from mythological stuff) which makes me wonder (hypothetically) what God would be if Man were to be immortal. May be at the end of evolution there wouldn’t be any God - only pure energy and pure mind?

This marathi song of Rafi saab strives to explain it all-
Shodhishi manava raooli mandiri (man strives to find God in temples)
naandto dev ha aapulya antari (God lives within us)

and in one of the antaras
Shodh re divyata aapulya jeevani (find enlightenment within your life)
aandhala khel ha khelshi kuthvari (to what effect play this blind game)

Reckon this song was written by an atheist? - one couldn’t be more wrong.

(plz pardon my trnsl effort)

Posted by: shivani Feb 16 2006, 05:48 PM

Walker ,
My inference from your post is.. "God is embodiment of all good in the living beings. Religious scriptures are just woven for the people liek me of average intelligence to help them understand it all better. "

I do agree to it. Religion is meant to be just a set of guidelines for harmonious coexistance in a given era. IMHO, the religion as we practice today is worthless for most parts. Reason being, we have not validated it for ages, and have just been aceepting things unquestioningly.

And for the superme being.. I believe in existence of an entity more intelligent that human species, but not quite sure of its intentions or purpose. Why do I believe it.. the thought that there is no purpose to all this.. is uncomfortable to live with.
Maybe it is a wild goose chase.. looking for answers .. maybe there isnt any other meaning to life than we can see right now and here.. still I am a romantic .
sigh!

Posted by: rom Feb 16 2006, 06:04 PM

My take...
Well, I'm not sure what to believe.
I don't think I would ever have thought about God if I had not been bombarded by images, ideas of God right from my infancy.
Now can I completely reject God? I don't know. If I don't have evidence to believe in God, I don't have the evidence to reject God too...
Like my father says, the means of reaching/finding God are all prescribed... how can I reject God without ever trying those means?

Posted by: priya Feb 16 2006, 06:08 PM

Very true. Had we not been told about God, would we have believed? U discover a lot of things as U go thro life, U feel and sense things, but without the concept drilled into us from the youngest age would we have envisaged God?

Shivani--U speak of purpose. How does the existence of God add to the purpose of life--unless U mean afterlife and the result of good and evil. Otherwise one would think life is rather an adventure if we are battling on--the species that survived--however cruelly. If all is controleld and meant to be, is there much we can do?

Posted by: shivani Feb 16 2006, 06:16 PM

Posted by: anurag Feb 19 2006, 05:46 AM

Does God exist? Here is my rational take:

Define God, first.

Going by the commonly held notion of God, God is defined by the properties that he/she possesses -- omnipresent, omniscient, and omnipotent.

What are the evidences that such a thing or concept exists?

Do we believe in ghosts? Sure, many of us do -- by the same token, which posits existence of God.

Do fairies, angels, demons exists. Sure they do, if God exists.

And what are the evidences that even those creatures exist?

Any living being's survival on this planet is dependent on the sensory inputs, perception, and the ability to conceptualize the perceptions. Conceptualization is abstraction of perceptions. For example, it is these faculties that enable me to notice a fast moving truck coming my way, process the information that the truck has a large momentum, which on collision with me would transfer a large amount of force to my body, and thus possibly killing me. We don't deny our perceptions and the concept of momentum transfer in such a situation. We don't stand in the middle of the road and close our eyes thinking and saying to ourselves "I believe, this truck is not going to kill me."

Yet, when it comes to the concept of God, devil, angels, and demons, we conveniently shut down our faculty, which is better known as "reason" and resort to another precept "faith".

It is often asked that if God does not exist, how do you explain the "unknown"? Until Newton posited gravitational forces, falling of the object on earth was an unexplained phenomenon too. Why do we have to conceptualize something from outside this world to be able to explain this world? Newton did n't have to summon a ghost.

Also, it is asked, why are things the way they are? Here is why:

One of Aristotle's undeniable aximoms is "A is A", i.e., to be something is to be something specific. This is also known as the Law of identity. Try denying it. Then, I'd ask you who are you to ask such a question?

So, the objects, animate and inanimate alike, have properties; they are well-defined. They have an identity, which means they follow their attributes and behaviors to effect causal actions. Now, throw in the idea of survival of the fittest and the process of natural selection to the law of identity, and you have order explained.

In my book, religion fares better as a concept since I can always regard it as a "Philosophy Version 1.0", something that describes the way of life, real code and standards to live by. After all, that is what the purpose of the religion was in the earlier days before fanatic mullhas and fundamentalist pundits took over.

If I have time, I'd present a very interesting theory of the God's existence a little later as I read in a book by Scott Adams of the Dilbert fame!

Posted by: Talaikya Feb 19 2006, 06:23 AM

Please do make the time Anurag

Posted by: Nimii Feb 19 2006, 10:29 AM

Dr Anurag ji kitne acche likte hai Awesome.. We await for more Dr. Ji

N

Posted by: shaibaal Feb 20 2006, 07:16 AM

QUOTE(Nimii @ Feb 18 2006, 11:59 PM)

Dr Anurag ji kitne acche likte hai Awesome.. We await for more Dr. Ji

N

Posted by: NATURE Feb 20 2006, 06:52 PM

Catch !!!
Very true, especially I like the sentence that begins with "until and unless".

Posted by: anurag Feb 23 2006, 02:17 AM

QUOTE(shaibaal @ Feb 19 2006, 08:46 PM)

QUOTE(Nimii @ Feb 18 2006, 11:59 PM)

Dr Anurag ji kitne acche likte hai Awesome.. We await for more Dr. Ji

N

I agree completely - Anurag is so articulate that it almost makes me wince! This is a guy who comes across (to me, at least) as having all the qualities I can never have in this lifetime - intelligent, cultured, extremely knowledgeable on such a wide variety of subjects, and so much more...
And now against my better judgement, I am tempted to phodofy a bhanda of his....
(Actually this deserves a seperate thread, and I did consider it....)

Although this has nothing to do with the subject on this thread, it is my great pleasure to congratulate Anurag on his recent engagement!

Anurag, wish you both the very best in life. Have a blast!

If this has embarrassed you, then I have succeeded in making most of this rare opportunity!

Hearty Congratulations!!

Shaibaal.

QUOTE(NATURE @ Feb 20 2006, 08:22 AM)

---------------------
Oh, forgot to say 1 thing. Many many Congratulations to you for that matter !!!

Posted by: bibhas Feb 24 2006, 02:38 AM

QUOTE(anurag @ Feb 22 2006, 03:47 PM)

Posted by: shaibaal Feb 24 2006, 04:24 AM

articulate or not!

Posted by: Talaikya Feb 24 2006, 06:02 AM

Bibhas,




J

Posted by: bibhas Feb 24 2006, 09:16 AM

Shaibaal, & J - sharminda mat karo yaar.

Posted by: NATURE Feb 24 2006, 11:57 AM

Wait a minute, you may find the following paras in a strict forward language, so please don't take anything
Seriously. This is just the way I talk sometimes to my friends, elder brother when and when we discuss such
Kind of topics ....

Bibhas, whatever you wrote in the 2nd paragraph is frankly speaking true and very true.
At least from Logical and scientific points of view, you have said the right thing. But you have
Changed the definition, you have changed the frame of reference. I wanted a scientific thought and
A Logical Description of God within the same frame of reference.

And God can't be a personal matter. You must provide a Global Definition, whatever you are going to
Say is not true only for you. It must be valid for all, everywhere and forever. So, if I say Electron is
Everywhere. Electron is in me, electron is in you. It was there from the very beginning. Nothing could
Exist if Electron ever die. Therefore, Electron is God. I don't want such unreasonable description using
Scientific terms. I want Scientific thought using tradition definition of God.

Now back to the point, you have a feeling of God. You have your own definition, right ? I agree, no
Objection. But what made you to think of a new definition ? I believe if you ever believe in traditional
God you need not create a new definition.

Great Albert Einstein said: " Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind "
I was wondering what did he mean by the term "Religion" here ??? Later in some other Article, I read
His definition of Religion is different. He didn't believe in Traditional Religion, he believed in religiousness
Of Science. " The Curiosity of a Person to know the truth, the secrets of the Nature
Makes him able to uncover all the facts and all the Beauty of the Nature, The Beauty of the Universe makes
Him amazed or surprised. This Amazement is the Religion in Science " ....
Now try to correlate Religion and Science in his previous quote.

Do NOT concetrate on Einstein's Quotes. It's not related to the Thread, it's just an addition.
And please do NOT think, I am agressive or offensive here. Now, keep pouring your Ideas !!!
****************************** Editing ************************************
Another Observation, I may be wrong but still wanna say. Your definition is not Traditional, but is your
Thinking about God is traditional ? cause your conclusion is "God exists if not then what else does ?"
All those who believe in Traditional God perhaps won't have any objection to accept you.
Am I wrong ? not sure ...

Posted by: pranavjh Feb 24 2006, 01:05 PM

I'm neither articulate nor anyone has "naam leke bulaya hai". Phir bhi...I thought i'd jot down a few random thoughts here.

Relating God and Science is a very interesting predicament to say the least. I remember reading somewhere that "if God is omnipotent then let Him create a stone that He cannot lift".

I am a firm believer that "Religion" and "God" are two different things. Religion is a prescription, a process, a path that like-minded people have invented (not discovered) that will make one feel elevated, free, happy and give them any of the positive emotions that us humans seek. God, in the way it relates to the religion is probably only that - a feeling of being free and happy. I think of God independent of the religion. I have felt very strong emotions when I went to Somnath temple, and when I went to Ajmer-sharif, and saw the beautiful picturization of the Golden Temple in Rang De Basanti recently. Not only that, I felt the exact same emotions when I ran on streets of Fremont, CA to meet/see Amitabh Bachchan. The only thing common in all these experiences of my life that I found was that it was the fact that there was a mass of people, large numbers, who were all there thinking about the same thing, in the same way, with almost the same intensity. That was the force, the power of that occassion that made me feel like I was with God.

With that in mind, and I think this is pretty scientific, my definition of God is that - God is "energy". I feel His/its presence when there's synergy such as the above experiences. Energy is everywhere, always constant, it can be transferred but not destroyed, it cannot be created - hence Omnipotent, Omniscient and Omnipresent.

I can probably go on but then this ramble will turn into a rant so I'll stop.

Thanks

Pranav

Posted by: bibhas Feb 25 2006, 12:46 AM

QUOTE(NATURE @ Feb 24 2006, 01:27 AM)

Posted by: NATURE Feb 27 2006, 12:06 PM

QUOTE(bibhas @ Feb 25 2006, 01:46 AM)

Posted by: Mandrake Feb 27 2006, 12:42 PM

QUOTE(NATURE @ Feb 27 2006, 12:06 PM)

QUOTE(bibhas @ Feb 25 2006, 01:46 AM)

I did not find your language agressive or "strict forward" (???) as you mentioned

I am still very much confused about my thinking ... so kindly let the conversation
Go on, I want to explore everybody's thoughts. My curiosity is so high that it could disprove/prove the
Existence of God ...