Rediff.com |  Feedback  
You are here: » Rediff Home » Discussion Boards » Permalink
  
View : Single Message | Complete Thread | Read complete Discussion
Absence of Evidence does not mean evidence of absence
by Manish Gupta on Sep 18, 2007 11:07 PM   Permalink | Hide replies

Are we Sure that technology/Science have achieved everything that it wants to achieve? If Yes, why are we having a R&D centers and Technological department. Are we sure that Archaeological Departments have discovered everything? If not then we should give the benefit of doubt based on the book(Ramayan) which existed long before modern science and Archeological departments. One thing I find strange is people are talking about RAM without talking about Valmiki. Do we have any proof of Valmiki? Probably the answer is NO, but still Ramayan exist! what does this indicate? This means absence of evidence is not the evidence of existence. Govt should first tell us who was Valmiki before raising any questions on RAM.

Regarding the no scientific proofs, Can anybody give us the proof that there was a scientific study done to check the existence of RAM?

    Forward  |  Report abuse
  RE:Absence of Evidence does not mean evidence of absence
by Tathagata Mukherjee on Sep 18, 2007 11:18 PM   Permalink

Science cannot be used to taste 'science'
behind a faith.

This is a basic position of a secular state. And UPA, psuedos made that cardinal mistake.

   Forward   |   Report abuse
Message deleted by moderator
  RE:Absence of Evidence does not mean evidence of absence
by SUNIL SHARMA on Sep 18, 2007 11:20 PM   Permalink
there is beautiful book by PATRICIA CRONE and MICHAEL COOK , saying that muhammed never existed and islam is just a hoax.
can anyone prove jesus existed or did he walk on water or he turned water into wine by touching it.
can anyone prove that abraham existed or mosque of kaaba has been built by abraham

   Forward   |   Report abuse
  RE:Absence of Evidence does not mean evidence of absence
by Ayatul Islam on Sep 19, 2007 12:29 AM   Permalink
Who is this patricia crone and micheal cook ?

Common brother donot go by things which does not have a basis. The existence of prophet muhhamed is proved by everything. It does not need patricia or micheal to prove it. But the question of existence of rama is questioned by the very people who are Hindus?

regards


   Forward   |   Report abuse
  RE:Absence of Evidence does not mean evidence of absence
by Tough on Sep 19, 2007 12:33 AM   Permalink
dekha ayatul fati na????

   Forward   |   Report abuse
  RE:RE:Absence of Evidence does not mean evidence of absence
by Sam Nath on Sep 19, 2007 12:33 AM   Permalink
Please dont mentioned about MO and Jesus since the very Hiduism is in question. Who cares about Mo in this thread

   Forward   |   Report abuse
  RE:Absence of Evidence does not mean evidence of absence
by Vishnu Sharma on Sep 19, 2007 04:13 AM   Permalink
Please Shutup JNU Graduate.
The arguments you are putting forward are falling through THIN ICE.

   Forward   |   Report abuse
The above message is part of the Discussion Board:
It's a civil war over Ram in UPA: BJP