TED Conversations

aditya dendukuri

This conversation is closed.

can science be linked with god?

I believe that god made our world.Then there got to be an way that science can be linked with god.With help of science we found out the origin of the universe,so there has to be an way science should find an proof for god..............Stephen Hawkins told that science makes god unnessary then why this life came to existence.......Is our existence reason is god or the mere luck of the explosion in big bang.........even im in vergr of science I believe in god........but I am confused about this matter........please help me out this confusion


Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.

  • Comment deleted

    • thumb
      Feb 12 2012: Bridget,

      You seem to have a slight persecution complex. You claim to do one thing and then "screech" somewhat hysterically when someone does the same thing ... ("follow the dictates of [their] heart, which tells [them] to do the right thing.")

      This light that you speak of would be less diminished, and burn brighter, if you refrained from your adolescent name-calling and defensiveness. (" ... I don't get thumbed up (ooh, ouch!)")

      Your stance - demonstrated by your behaviour - seems to be that anyone who holds a position contrary, or even orthogonally opposed to yours is somehow cognitively, morally, or "spiritually" deficient.

      In your guise as Kathy, you referred to Stephen Hawking as an imbecile (or some such thing) because his position on God differs from yours - you are an expert on God, doctrine and all things spiritual, while Hawking only knows about physics. "Richard Dawkins is a frustrated old man who could not advance his own field...," with the stature of Miss Piggy (and everything.)

      You seem to believe your position as a "spiritual initiate" elevates you above us mere mortals and affords your insights a fidelity unavailable to those of us fumbling around in the mundane reality of our barren little worlds of science, facts, and personal life experience: Santa becomes real; the Bible becomes a Kabbalistic training manual; energy passes through astrological houses (in spirals! ... or should that be helixes? ... we do live in four-dimentional spacetime after all.) And all of it is real. More real than poor Dr Hawking's scribblings on physics. More real that Dawkin's opinions on those things over which your spiritual acuity gives you special insight. More real, even, than anyone who does not share your elevated gift for metaphor and capacity for noticing "correspondences."

      Who can argue with correspondences once Bridget/Kathy has confirmed they corroborate a deeper spiritual truth she knows supersedes more "common" and "mundane" knowledge?

      I can.
    • Feb 13 2012: @Bridget Treton:
      Sorry about replying to you here instead of where you addressed me -- no free slots there.

      "... lots of published papers" Take it from an insider: THIS is how science moves forward. As for all the books he has written, they have definitely inspired many to get into science, but such works are not usually counted as direct contribution to science. Research papers are generally the only way science is advanced. THIS is where a person tells the scientific world something it has not known before. Papers that are good are "cited" often. Papers that are bad are cited a few times in criticism, and forgotten soon after. Dawkins' papers are good. (We can go into details of citations if you like.) The Nobel prize for the sciences is sometimes a good indicator but not always. For what it's worth, I assure you, he is not reckless as a scientist. He is very well regarded in his field. (As is Stephen Hawking, in /his/ field.) But remember, there are no gods in science. They both have been wrong their fair share of times. Hawking lost a bet to Susskind -- it was about an aspect of physical laws. Dawkins 'lost' to Zahavi -- it was about an aspect of evolutionary mechanisms. No one is omniscient.

      "What are his degrees in Theology or Comparative Religion?" Have you read The God Delusion? He goes over the arguments rationally. Did you come across sections of poor reasoning? What qualifications would you accept for talking about religion? By the same token, does Christ qualify? How about all the popes we have had? Only once have I seen Dawkins make the comment "god does not exist"... but otherwise he is always careful to add the word "probably".

      I am not a fan of Dawkins' hard stand against religion. I prefer to stick to things that matter.
      But Dawkins sometimes gets that right, and is still criticized for it by some other atheists: http://richarddawkins.net/discussions/644905-freedom-of-speech-for-street-preachers
      Does that answer "Has he redacted it since?"
      • Comment deleted

        • thumb
          Feb 13 2012: Yes Bridget, it is easy to check facts.

          QUOTE: "..the facts are easy enough to verify, (such as with the origin of the Kabbala v. Bible) but not as easy as simply saying 'you're wrong.'"

          And while you seem to be having another meltdown, you have yet to provide one credible fact that support your claims, for example, that the Bible is a Kabbalistic training manual.

          As interesting as they are, your "correspondences" do not qualify as objective proof.

          Yes, you see correspondences, fine. But that does not alter the fact that the Bible was written hundreds of years before the Kabbalah; that no Biblical or Kabbalistic authority substantiates your claims; that, in fact, these authorities deny them.

          These are facts. Facts you simply ignore or counter with even more "correspondences."

          Bridget, I am sorry for your suffering - but it has nothing to do with me - and I am not going to ignore your posts just because you are emotionally fragile.

          If you post unsubstantiated claims with the authority of a "spiritual initiate" - such as your claim the Bible is a Kabbalistic training manual for the spiritual initiate - or that Santa and Saturn are one and the same - I am going to respond.

          If you don't want me to comment on what you write, stop making such wild and extraordinary claims ... unless you are willing to back them up with proof.

          And, if you would like to make this "easier" if you do make such claims, and if I do comment on them, stop making it so personal. Simply provide an answer. For example:

          - You could provide objective evidence the Bible is a Kabbalistic training manual (and by that I do not mean, your emphatic claim it is so, followed by more examples of "correspondences.")

          - You could provide a link to any credible Christian authority that supports your claim.

          - You could provide a link to any credible Jewish authority that supports your claim?

          - You could provide a link to any credible Kabbalistic authority that supports your claim?

          And so on.

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.