Excellent article Tarun... I'd like to add something to this so called 'scientific proof' issue. Whatever we call the science or scientific is also based on some hypothesis. And this hypothesis the somebody's imagination. Until all the theories based upon this hypothesis predicts accurately what is actually observed in physical world, we regard this as correct. And a branch of science grows with it. They arises the million dollar question: "what is science actually?"... the best answer is : it is some gifted person's imagination. Then why we don't we believe the things written by one such person called Valmiki when all most his written things are clearly observed even in todays world except the then living beings? Just because he was an Indian? What would have happened if those things were written by some western poet?... Now, come to the three letter word GOD. Can anybody in this earth scientifically prove that god exists? (its an open challenge... I'll give everything I have to anybody who can prove it... ) Then why do our government left so much property under utilized in the name of "place of worship"?.. when nobody can prove scientifically that someone called God exists? Just for example imagine value if some residential structures are developed at the prime locations of Delhi where the Lotus Temple or the Akshar Dham Temple exists? Moreover ask any builder about the value of the land where the Jama Masjid exists? Now I think the govt should demolish all these structures
RE:Scientific evidence
by Sumedh Wale on Sep 15, 2007 07:12 PM Permalink
"Can anybody in this earth scientifically prove that god exists? (its an open challenge... I'll give everything I have to anybody who can prove it... )"
Huh, do not post hollow challenges. Anyway, if you really want to get into this then define the following before being able to delve into this: * What is your understanding of acceptable evidences? * How do you determine the relative strength of various evidences? Actually the real issue is not myself or someone else proving this to you, rather what will satisfy you as a good enough proof. It is obvious that you ardently hold to your beliefs, and it is seen that people reject perfectly good evidences only on the basis of those.
If you are really interested then we can proceed on this by email.
RE:Scientific evidence
by Sumedh Wale on Sep 15, 2007 08:06 PM Permalink
This is really interesting -- someone posted my reply as an abuse! Anyway, reposting so that "on" can see that.
@on you said: "Can anybody in this earth scientifically prove that god exists? (its an open challenge... I'll give everything I have to anybody who can prove it... )"
Huh, do not post hollow challenges. Anyway, if you really want to get into this then define the following before being able to delve into this: * What is your understanding of acceptable evidences? * How do you determine the relative strength of various evidences? Actually the real issue is not myself or someone else proving this to you, rather what will satisfy you as a good enough proof. It is obvious that you ardently hold to your beliefs, and it is seen that people reject perfectly good evidences only on the basis of those.
If you are really interested then we can proceed on this by email.
RE:Scientific evidence
by Indian on Sep 15, 2007 10:12 PM Permalink
you seem to be cheap lawyer..... first tell me what do you mean by scientific????.... ever heard the word science???...tell me the meaning of 'scientifically ascertainable'....save your arguments for the judges in the court room....
