CHALLENGE: Can YOU Break The Science Barrier?

[BhagatSingh]

It's hard to introduce such videos. They are just amazing! I hope these inspire viewers to understand science AS IT IS, not how its propagated by people. The purpose of the videos is to motivate the search for knowledge and the understanding of scientific principles that have been established after a rigorous testing process from scientists all over the world... The video shows the dangers which arise when there isa lack of understanding of science.

So guys, let's
Break the Science Barrier
Part 1 (1/2)
YouTube - Richard Dawkins - Break the Science Barrier, Part 1 (1 of 2)
Part 1 (2/2)
YouTube - Richard Dawkins - Break the Science Barrier, Part 1 (2/2)

Part 2 (1/2)
YouTube - Richard Dawkins - Break the Science Barrier, Part 2 (1/2)
Part 2 (2/2)
YouTube - Richard Dawkins - Break the Science Barrier, Part 2 (2/2)

Part 3 (1/2)
YouTube - Richard Dawkins - Break the Science Barrier, Part 3 (1/2)
Part 3 (2/2)
YouTube - Richard Dawkins - Break the Science Barrier, Part 3 (2/2)


ENJOY!

 

[Admin]

Wow! that was amazing, fascinating... and i watched each part of it with the amazement of a child...

From the perspective of a nursery grade Sikh myself, i find, myself, so much attuned to the what Dawkins is trying to say... and he makes so much sense to me... and then when i read the first Ang (page) of SGGS, the very first stanza summarizes what scientists took another 550 years to establish...

Guru Nanak is the greatest scientist of them all... some may say here we go again... but i, myself, find so much logic in understanding the Mool Mantar... and it still makes so much sence to me than anything ever made...

Thank you for bringing upon me this realization once again...

 

[Tejwant Singh]

Aman ji,

Guru Fateh.

You are right. Mool Mantar by Guru Nanak sums it all and Dawkins' thought process is based on Gurmat values quite unknowingly.

Tejwant Singh

 

[spnadmin]

Basically, what I hear Aman ji and Tejwant ji saying is this. Guru Nanak understood intuitively and through observation and logic that there was an order in the universe and a beauty to the human mind. However, Guru Nanak also understood that the mind however remarkable was limited in the extent to which it could make connections. Too often the mind was bewitched by its own constructions and lost sight of the fields beyond its immediate knowing. Guru Nanak was there early; science took several hundred more years to reach Guru Nanak. And science has yet more to grasp -- and some of it is ungraspable.

 

[BhagatSingh]

Aman Singh ji I admire your thoughts.
I know what you mean and very well know where you are coming from (I've been there) but saying that Guru Nanak dev ji was a scientist does neither of the two any justice. Modern science developed in the west around the time of galileo and continued to develop after his time...

VaheguruSeekr ji
I have watched many of his videos. I am planning on reading his "The God Delusion" next. Let's be clear here, he's an atheist. Sikhs say one God, he say he only accepts the pantheistic God, which is natural NOT supernatural. This is unlike the Sikh God. He makes compelling arguments to back up his views that about being atheist to a supernatural God. I mean I used to think that Sikhi(SGGS) has many interpretations like a monotheistic Sikhi like we know, a polytheistic Sikhi, a pantheistic Sikhi, and an atheistic Sikhi, etc. But the more I come to know the more I realize that the atheistic one is definitely the wrong one.
So ya.. please discuss some of his views in the light of Gurmat perhaps. Maybe in a different thread though, this was intended to be about science, and motivatin people to read up on the facts that have been established by science. One of the facts that Dawkins is especially concerned about is Darwinian Evolution.
I bet some of those who just read "Evolution" and "fact" in one sentence with no negatives, are thinking "No! evolution is JUST a theory!"

 

[Tejwant Singh]

Bhagat Singh ji,

Guru Fateh.

VaheguruSeekr ji
I have watched many of his videos. I am planning on reading his "The God Delusion" next. Let's be clear here, he's an atheist. Sikhs say one God, he say he only accepts the pantheistic God, which is natural NOT supernatural. This is unlike the Sikh God. He makes compelling arguments to back up his views that about being atheist to a supernatural God. I mean I used to think that Sikhi(Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji) has many interpretations like a monotheistic Sikhi like we know, a polytheistic Sikhi, a pantheistic Sikhi, and an atheistic Sikhi, etc. But the more I come to know the more I realize that the atheistic one is definitely the wrong one.

I ordered the book last week. I am waiting for it to arrive. In many of his interviews I have seen on TV, he talks about the God the deity of the semitic relgions and all other religions who believe in that, not about Ik Ong Kaar- The Creative Energy ( I know you and I disagree on that). However, he does talk about Energy.

Secondly as Ik Ong Kaar is Creative Energy, then there is nothing called Supernatural in Sikhi in my opinion, however Gurbani does mention that the Nature is SUPER.

Tejwant Singh

 

[Gyani Jarnail Singh]

supernatural would be one that breaks laws of nature...or have the ability to do it and show it...
imho..IK Oangkar never does that...and thats why the Sikh gurus also never showed any "miracles"..go against Nature..

 

[BhagatSingh]

Jarnail Singh ji
Not quite...
supernatural
1 Above nature; that which is beyond or added to nature, often so considered because it is given by God or some force beyond that which humans are born with. In Roman Catholic theology, sanctifying grace is considered to be a supernatural addition to human nature.

2 Something that is not of the usual. Something that is somehow not natural, or has been altered by forces that are not understood fully if at all.

3 Something that is neither visible nor measurable.


VaheguruSeekr ji,
What is creative energy? What does it mean??

 

[Tejwant Singh]

Bhagat Singh ji,

Guru Fateh.

Not quite...
supernatural
1 Above nature; that which is beyond or added to nature, often so considered because it is given by God or some force beyond that which humans are born with. In Roman Catholic theology, sanctifying grace is considered to be a supernatural addition to human nature.

2 Something that is not of the usual. Something that is somehow not natural, or has been altered by forces that are not understood fully if at all.

3 Something that is neither visible nor measurable.

The above gives the description but not the definition. If it is Supernatural, common sense dicates it can be either tanigible or intangible. With our modern telescopes and technology one can determine that. As this is an adjective, a trait which has to manifest itself someway how the other.

VaheguruSeekr ji,
What is creative energy? What does it mean??

For me, it is what Guru Nanak says Ajuni Sahibung in Mool Manter- Creative Energy that creates itself.


Tejwant Singh

 

[BhagatSingh]

Bhagat Singh ji,
Guru Fateh.
The above gives the description but not the definition.

WJKK WJKF
Tejwant Singh ji
No, it is the definition.
supernatural: Definition, Synonyms from Answers.com
Supernatural - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
supernatural - definition of supernatural by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.... and so on... you may google further websites that provide the definition. God is supernatural unless we are talking about a pantheistic God in which case, God means universe as we know it.

For me, it is what Guru Nanak says Ajuni Sahibung in Mool Manter- Creative Energy that creates itself.Tejwant Singh

What is creative energy? What does it do?
You have not explained anything by saying it creates itself.
Further questions include: How does it do what it does? What evidence supports such an energy?

 

[Tejwant Singh]

Bhagat Singh ji,

Guru Fateh.

You write:

No, it is the definition.
supernatural: Definition, Synonyms from Answers.com
Supernatural - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
supernatural - definition of supernatural by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.... and so on... you may google further websites that provide the definition. God is supernatural unless we are talking about a pantheistic God in which case, God means universe as we know it.

As mentioned in my post that the word Supernatural is an adjective which means it does have traits either tangibles or intangibles which have to manifest themselves in order to name it as an adjective. So, for me the above is more a statement than anything else which does not define much nor does it describe its traits.

What is creative energy? What does it do?
You have not explained anything by saying it creates itself.
Further questions include: How does it do what it does? What evidence supports such an energy?

Pardon my ignorance but I am a bit confused by your question.

Let me ask you a question in response to that.

What is NOT Energy and what can be done/achieved without it?

Tejwant Singh

 

[BhagatSingh]

And I have no idea what you are talking about.
I was merely pointing out that Dawkins goes with the pantheistic God, Universe. And that Sikh God is supernatural which is not pantheistic.

About Your questions. Here's some information on energy: Energy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
I think you're asking the wrong questions.
What is energy?

In physics, energy... is a scalarphysical quantity that describes the amount of work that can be performed by a force, an attribute of objects and systems that is subject to a conservation law.

 

[Tejwant Singh]

Bhagat Singh ji,

Guru Fateh.

And I have no idea what you are talking about.
I was merely pointing out that Dawkins goes with the pantheistic God, Universe. And that Sikh God is supernatural which is not pantheistic.

I thought you did. We all know what Dawkins goes with. You gave me the definition of Supernatural which I contested.

Your assertion and claim is that "Sikh God is supernatural ".

Please give references from SGGS for your claim.

About Your questions. Here's some information on energy: Energy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
I think you're asking the wrong questions.
What is energy?

In physics, energy... is a scalarphysical quantity that describes the amount of work that can be performed by a force, an attribute of objects and systems that is subject to a conservation law.

I beg to differ with you. No questions are wrong if they are related and relevant to the subject in discussion.

Thanks for giving the definition of Energy as far as physics is concerned.

Now can you respond to my initial question in lay man's terms in your own words rather than copying and pasting from Wikipedia and other places? I would appreciate that.

What is NOT Energy and what can be done/achieved without it?

Thanks

Tejwant Singh

 

[Sinister]

supernatural would be one that breaks laws of nature...or have the ability to do it and show it...
imho..IK Oangkar never does that...and thats why the Sikh gurus also never showed any "miracles"..go against Nature..

IMHO,

Today an uncompromising tawdriness develops within an organized religion when it embraces stories of the miraculous as truths. The collective social conscious that has named itself ‘Sikhism’ is certainly not exempt from this, even though in today’s modern world, it should be.

The problem stems when a philosophy tries to develop an atmos of divinity, and expounds metaphysical ideas and messages as a sacred code (conclusive, conducive, or expressive in nature). The result is; we have people questioning the ‘right of passage’ of this philosophy above others that predated it. And in this struggle emerges the miraculous stories and supernatural events that become associated with the authors of such philosophies, done largely to solidify the message as truly divine (it is a matter of survival of both the philosophy and of the ego of those who most ardently express it). Whether done consciously or subconsciously by the ‘group collective’ is largely irrelevant to the discussion at hand (all we know that it is done in every organized religion by some strata of the populace…and…historically it has been efficient in increasing the propagation of the philosophy itself…which in and of itself is understandable due to the lack of education of our ancestral generations).

List of Gurudawaras that have mythological stories attached to them, notice how they are also the most popular

Panja Sahib
Hemkunt Sahib
Harmandir Sahib
Manikaran Sahib
Panjokhara Sahib
And others that don’t come to mind.

One would suppose that such beliefs would lead to the backtracking of rationality today, like Dawkins espouses in his book and his documentaries (at a book event I have even heard him say “what a waste of an enlightenment”). I do not share his pessimistic sentiment that we are reversing somehow into an age of enchantment. I find his message to be a bit alarmist and overplayed, perhaps a tone needed to get record sales in a publication (the shock doctrine, works every time). I think people by and large are moving away from all this dark history. With science becoming increasingly more 'right than wrong', more reliable in its recordings and also increasingly profitable, ignoring or denouncing natural laws now comes at a social and economic price (whereas in the past they didn’t or it was the opposite). It has become increasingly difficult to denounce physical laws and chronological proofs and be taken seriously in the professional workplace, a fundamental shift in the evolution of our culture.


keep it awesome
sinister

 

[spnadmin]

Interesting how close Gyani ji and Sinister ji are in their perspectives -- but said so differently.

 

[Sinister]

What is NOT Energy and what can be done/achieved without it?

Thanks

Tejwant Singh

that is an cool question. anything that doesnt have mass will not have energy. but anything that does not have mass does not exist. and you can do anything with it.

Knowledge is not energy, it just exists (for the externalist). For example; the knowledge that we are yet to attain exists, its not energy, but it exists. For example, the soil composition of Titan is unknown to us, but knowledge of the soils existence exists, therefore the knowledge of it's composition exists, just not with us. In order to attain knowlege you need energy and in order to record knowledge, whether in your mind or on a book you also need energy, then it becomes a justified true belief.

 

[Tejwant Singh]

that is an cool question. anything that doesnt have mass will not have energy. but anything that does not have mass does not exist. and you can do anything with it.

Knowledge is not energy, it just exists (for the externalist). For example; the knowledge that we are yet to attain exists, its not energy, but it exists. For example, the soil composition of Titan is unknown to us, but knowledge of the soils existence exists, therefore the knowledge of it's composition exists, just not with us. In order to attain knowlege you need energy and in order to record knowledge, whether in your mind or on a book you also need energy, then it becomes a justified true belief.

Sinister ji,

Guru Fateh.

Interesting analogy about knowledge. But to attain knowledge and use it one needs energy. It can not be done otherwise.

Tejwant Singh

 

[BhagatSingh]

Bhagat Singh ji,

Guru Fateh.

Fateh Tejwant Singh ji

I thought you did. We all know what Dawkins goes with. You gave me the definition of Supernatural which I contested.

I know you contested but whether you did or not, is meaningless here. Most people would go with the dictionary definition. So its more likely that Dawkins is also going with that version. If he didn't, he would have to clarify, like how he clarified his view on God by referring to it as a pantheistic God.

Your assertion and claim is that "Sikh God is supernatural ".

Please give references from SGGS for your claim.

Does SGGS not say that there is a supreme being , an almighty?
Such a deity by definition is supernatural.

Definitions of deity on the Web:

• any supernatural being worshipped as controlling some part of the world or some aspect of life or who is the personification of a force
  wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

"hukumai undr sabh ko bahar hukum ma koi"

I beg to differ with you. No questions are wrong if they are related and relevant to the subject in discusion.

A question would be wrong in the sense that when you ask about e.g. the universe, asking "Who created the universe?" is the wrong question. A better one is "What created the universe?"
Similarly, when one wants to know about something e.g. bhagat, one would ask "What is a Bhagat?" not "What is not Bhagat?"

Energy is not subjective. So its not the same as asking "what is not beautiful?" " What is not smart?"
When you ask taht question it sounds meaningless. It woule be equally meaningless to ask "What is a not a vetor?" "What is not planet?"

I give you two out of many types of wrong questions, above. Your question falls in both categories. Both types of questions would include infinite amount of answers, which is not the smart way to talk about things.

Thanks for giving the definition of Energy as far as physics is concerned.

Did you check out the link? That's what energy is defined as. In diferent fieldds of science the definition is slightly altered to suit the context but its still talking about the same thing.

Now can you respond to my initial question in lay man's terms in your own words rather than copying and pasting from Wikipedia and other places? I would appreciate that.

Energy = a quantity without direction that describes the amount of work done by a force
Its also considered an attribute. For example, a fruit maybe described in terms of energy.

My question to you still remains and you are still ignoring it (it sure seems taht way).
What is Creative Energy? Explain. ...

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jarnail Singh ji

imho..IK Oangkar never does that...and thats why the Sikh Gurus also never showed any "miracles"..go against Nature..

I must have overlookd the first bit of your sentence. Aad Ji'scomment made me go back and see how your words were similar to Sinister Ji.
I believe saying that "IK Oangkar never does that" is limiting it. The word Ek Oankar, a universal God, the almighty imply that he has the power to do anything.
Its like what Dawkins says that a Universe without God is very different form a Universe with God, unless of course, by God you mean universe.
What do you think?

 

[Sinister]

Interesting how close Gyani ji and Sinister ji are in their perspectives -- but said so differently.

great minds think alike! :{;o: tee hee


oooo and i want to replace the word knowledge with information. is information itself energy?.... not really or is it?

therefore the answer to your question "what is NOT energy"? .... information

information itself is not energy but it can only be understood and applied vis a vis the expenditure of energy.

Externalism:
Proof by deduction.
suppose that information is a form of energy?

what about the information that we do not know, is that energy? or does the information that we do not know, not exist?

but in that case where is all the new information coming from over the lapse of a second if unfound information does not exist? it has to be 'created' (interchangeable with the word realization).

if you believe information is energy please note that energy cannot be created nor destroyed. therefore information cannot be created nor destroyed.

but information can be created and destroyed, therefore conclusively information is not energy.


so, information is not energy, what we do not know does not exist at present but will come into existence eventually provided we invest and convert energy.

lets say i have information that you wanted because you didnt know that information, and you were prepared to trade me large sums of money (energy) for it. Do you believe in the existence of that information at the time of the transaction?

we believe in the existence of information even though we know nothing about it.

this stuff is whack!

 

[spnadmin]

What is information? Now thinking about it, that is a good question. What is it?