Have Faith In GOD

Just a little tid bit. But evolution has been observed to occur :P numerous times at that. I don't think any of us should actually believe this was an actual exchange between a student and professor (The version of this story I am most familiar with [from christian and muslim forums] often mistakenly attributes the student to be a young Albert Einstein). It is quite clearly a straw-man argument written by a witty theist.

Having said that, if this exchange really did happen—the student did a marvelous job with his rebuttle. Nothing against the rebuttle, but I will take issue with the professors position. I think arguing in favor of atheism be defaulting to arguments about god's morality is the easiest way of getting smacked by a theist. There are many better arguments for atheism then the one displayed by the prof.
Reference:: Sikh Philosophy Network http://www.sikhphilosophy.net/inspirational/35187-have-faith-in-god.html
Reference:: Sikh Philosophy Network http://www.sikhphilosophy.net/showthread.php?t=35187

But ah, this story is meant as a "pat on the back" type of story for fellow theists to rejoice over. It has little to no intellectual or philosophical content worth examining. The whole bit about how cold is the absence of heat, darkness the absence of light and death the absence of light is baseless and just clever rhetoric.

Both cold and heat are just molecular motion in a scientific sense. But our phenomenal experience of cold and heat are completely different. And it seems to be hes mixing the two up.

By suggesting that darkness is the absence of light. One could similarily suggest that light is the absence of darkness. Perhaps even light bulbs themselves dont emit light so much as they suck up darkness. What I'm trying to get at is, in physics, duality is whole heartedly embraced. You may remember from your grade school physics class that a force can be both a push and a pull. And everything is relative to your frame of reference. I could just as easily argue that I am the center of the universe so long as I specify that I'm using myself as the frame of reference. If your using light as ur frame of reference, sure darkness is the absence of light. If your using darkness as ur frame of reference, then vice versa. So if a theist wants to embrace duality, then they must not only acknowledge the possibility that "Badness" is the absense of a "Good god" (which is what his argument seems to imply) but also that "Goodness" may just be the absence of a "Bad god."

Moreover, why even argue about absence when it is implied that God cannot be absent like light, heat and life. The concept of god is non-comparable to light, heat and life.

Furthermore, I deny that for something to be alive it has to be "alive" (in a biological sense). To me, a robot that is functionally in every way indistinguishable from a human being. He should be considered "alive" too :P (in a figurative sense). In a more scientific sense tho, there is still debate as to whether virus's should be considered "living" entities—at the very least, dead entities can have all the properties of living entities, nothing is really stopping them.

 
Do share your immediate thoughts or reactions on this issue? We value your views! Login Now! or Sign Up Today! to share your views with us.. Gurfateh!

__________________
There is no Hindu, There is no Muslim—There is no Sikh

Caspian ji good to see you back hoping exams went well.

Just couple of comments on the following,

Sat Sri Akal.

In my younger days. I too thought there was no conflict between science and religion. But, if, like you have suggested in an earlier post on this thread, the Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji advocates that the following is negative or a fallacy:

Then there is a quite fundamental contrast between science and religion dont you think? Because that is one of the main goals of science if not "the main goal" of science. I think its actually quite dangerous to think that efforts in fully understanding creation are futile because it stagnates progress imo. It is precisely our efforts into understanding creation that have lead to all the technological marvels, medical advancements and furthering of knowledge post-enlightenment.

It might be dangerous to assume that one day well have all the answers (maybe we never will). But it doesnt hurt to try? I fail to see how trying might affect my state of mind but I do see how trying to answer the mysterious of creation may have an adverse effect on religion in general. The theory of evolution was a threat to certain mainstream religions and I see that as a prime example of trying to understand creation—so yes, there is a very apparant Religion vs Science thing going on, whether we'd like to admit it or not.

So now that im alil older. I dont see how one and the other can be totally compatible. And if science is just another belief system (which for the purpose of this talk, I will agree with u, it is a belief system). I would have to say its the best belief system out there B-)

"Science Rules" - Bill Nye

People always think their own belief system is the best
True humanity is being able to be gracious towards other belief systems and try and understand where they are coming from

[QUOTE=Caspian;145195]In my younger days. I too thought there was no conflict between science and religion. But, if, like you have suggested in an earlier post on this thread, the Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji advocates that the following is negative or a fallacy:

Caspian ji in the above quoted text the context is,

• I got to find all secrets right now
• Can some body give me a potion, yoga move, naam so that I can find the ultimate truth
• Unless I find everything I am incomplete
• I need to merge with this "jyot" or God or the super soul and that is my objective
• etc.

What will happen in this context is that your end point will ruin your ability to learn as such an end point is artificially and unrealistically postulated, less based on truth and more based on lack of knowledge. Hence one would spend untold time and effort in futility.
Reference:: Sikh Philosophy Network http://www.sikhphilosophy.net/showthread.php?t=35187
Reference:: Sikh Philosophy Network http://www.sikhphilosophy.net/showthread.php?t=35187

I hope that clarifies my context of usage.

Sri Guru Granth Sahib ji does not discourage from discovering or understanding creation/creator with every breath that you are alive but also practically advises to live in consonance with the creation and don't get stuck. This is my understanding and I am in the company of learned and stand corrected.

Sat Sri Akal.

Yup that helps and clarifies more. Agreed.

Ok there has been many debates on creationism and evolution and i am sure this question has been asked before so i wanna get the insiight of the intelactuals or the sit.
The big bang thoery (correct me if i am wrong) believes (in summed up way) there wuz an explotion and those expolitons were caused by a very small cell then there was a bang and explotions and the the universe came to be and than the world and then creatures on it.
Reference:: Sikh Philosophy Network http://www.sikhphilosophy.net/showthread.php?t=35187

OK if the cell part is true than who put that cell there what made it big bang? God? or another cell? Is that cell our father? or mother? If another cell put it there than who THAT CELL THERE? hmmm,.,,,,,

Harwinder ji wonderful question and perhaps there does not exist a thinking person who has not asked this question in this or other forms?

The question boils down to,

• Seeing creation
  • We see creation all around us and hardly understand details about much of it
  • We are a limited being/entity in the scheme of creation
  • We get excited when we find traces of water at another planet in our solar system
  • Knowing the vastness even with limited vision close to blindness outside of our solar system in terms of details, we are very dis-advantaged to make global statements
  • So for me best approach is to recognize as much of creation without trying to find or claim to know more than we can chew as scientists or from philosophical point of view
  • Nature's time-lines have very little relationships to human life spans
    • Nature is in millions and billions and light years and beyond
    • Can we forecast earth to be in 10, 100, 1000 years from now
      • I doubt we can with any accuracy
  • In a million years would there be our siblings on this earth as we are
    • Highly unlikely
• So what do we do!
  • Learn of yourself and what surrounds you
  • Live with the understanding of your knowledge as it develops
• Bottomline:
  • The above is for me one of the fundamental teachings in Sri Guru Granth Sahib ji and teachings of our Gurus.
  • Live in consonance with creation (some pictures from Hubble telescope)

Choice is there to live small or live big
Reference:: Sikh Philosophy Network http://www.sikhphilosophy.net/showthread.php?t=35187
Hope the above adds to dialog in this thread.

Sat Sri Akal.

PS: Asking of creator's ways in terms of the creation is too premature and inconsequential other than a good exercise in fantasy and temporary fulfillment that generations to follow will wonder about as to how primitive we were