We have all heard it at school in the science class… In the beginning there was nothing… and from that nothing came a big bang, caused by no one coming from nowhere… It created all the mass of the universe completely by chance [according to Einstein's Theory]…The mass then contracted and automatically formed all the planets and set them into motion, all orbiting around the sun [all by an impossibly unlikely coincidence!] Then some chemicals appeared from nowhere and mixed themselves together [once again all by themselves, another impossible and unlikely coincidence...] And, lo and behold, [for the first and perhaps only time :-) ] Life was created by chance from matter!!!”
So there you have it… The universe according to science… We accept it of course because they have brainwashed us practically from birth… But it’s complete nonsense. A thoughtful man cannot accept such hopeful ramblings of men desperate to paint God out of the picture at any cost… Science can’t prove any of it. They can’t demonstrate it in their labs… The whole thing is totally unscientific even by their own standards. And there are very few scientists who are prepared to defend the big bang theory now… I have tested it with scientists on the internet. When I confront them they say, “Well the Big Bang theory has lots of problems, but of all the theories it’s the best one we have…”
Of course the Big Bang theory is not the best theory they have to explain the creation of the universe. But science does not want to even consider the only other very obvious theory of creation… The theory that states there is intelligence behind the creation of the universe. It’s a completely reasonable assumption to make. If we look at a very nice new building in the city and I tell you it was created by a “big bang” last night, would you believe me? No. [unless you are crazy of course]. Because the building is there we know there were engineers, buliders, plumbers, electricions, etc… We may not see them, but we know they were there. The “big bang” explanation of the creation of the building is completely unreasonable…
We sometimes experience a “big-bang” in one of our big cities (there was a big one a few years ago in Oklahoma City). But we have never seen these “big bangs” produce anything constructive or create order. They destroy, and create disorder. Quite the opposite to what the original “big bang” is claimed to have done. And when we have one of these “big bangs” in a city what is the immediate question? Everybody asks “Who planted the bomb?” and “Why did they do it?” This would seem to be the natural response. Of course the scientists could get on the television and tell people that “Nobody planted the bomb — the explosion happened all by itself.” but who would believe them?
Now science is supposed to be a process of observation and experiment. They have conjectured this “Big-Bang” theory — now let them do some experiments and prove it. They can make a “Small-Bang” with some dynamite, or even a little atomic bomb… Let them create something substantial with a “small-bang”. If the universe can be created with a “Big-Bang” then surely they can create a small town, or failing that, at least a building with a “Small-Bang”. Unless science can prove the Big Bang theory by experiments why preach it? And why not consier the most logical alternative explaination of the creation of the universe, that there is an intelligent force behind the creation?
The motivation of the scientists in preaching the Big Bang theory is NOT science, it is NOT a search for the truth. The purpose of the BBT is to construct a philosophy allowing people to live debauched hedonistic lives confident that, “There is no God, there is no life after death, the universe was created by chance. I am just a combination of chemicals and when the body is finished I’m finished — so let me party to the max now!” This is no better than the life of the animals. Science is attempting to eradicate the one thing which separates us from the animals — our ability to understand and question the spiritual, more subtle aspects of our existence.
Science attempts to explain everything in terms of chemicals but no one has ever been able to show (and no one will ever be able to show) consciousness can be created by mixing some chemicals… It’s blind faith. The brainwashed general public are prepared to believe such nonsense when presented by the scientists ONLY because it allows a godless world-view. A mindset that enables me to do anything that “feels good” without considering the consequences. If these theories had to be rigorously tested according to the scientific method no sane man could possibly accept them. There is no observation and there are no experiments. Just mental speculation and some vague notions which have been formulated into a quite detailed religious dogma by the “scientific” community.
And they can’t prove anything, they can’t logically explain it. It all comes down to blind faith…Krishna says:manusyanam sahasresu kascid yatati siddhayeyatatam api siddhanam kascin mam vetti tattvatah
“Out of many thousands among men, one may endeavor for perfection, and of those who have achieved perfection, hardly one knows Me in truth.”So searching for the real meaning of life is not such a common thing… Most people are happy with chasing women, some chase fame, profit, adoration and distinction, but only a few are interested in spiritual life. There must be some thoughtful scientists who are prepared to think independently from the “accepted dogma”.Science is [like it or not] a set of beliefs. I agree it is a constantly changing one, but at any point scientists are very energetically “preaching” their beliefs. Their beliefs are certainly scrutinized by other scientists but there comes a time when the “beliefs” start to become “good science” and are generally accepted among scientists. When someone challenges this “good science” there is a big negative reaction. Scientists, like everyone else, have their world-view, their belief system, and when someone “rocks the boat” they don’t like it. But the important point is science is only a “temporary accepted truth”. If you read a science text-book from fifty years ago it will seem ridiculous… Similarly todays text-books will be also useless a few years down the track…
“Your points about missing the goal of life are profoundly true in my view. But this is to mistake science with materialism. Many eastern religions celebrate the awe of the universe in an incredibly beautiful way. It seems to me that this view of the world is fully compatible with science which shows us more of the universe everyday. What could be more delightful than that?”
Yes. The universe is also a form of God and real science is also a form of God realization. But many are not really interested in this. They have turned “science” into a dogma that supports the modern atheistic world-view. This is not science and it is not what real scientists are doing, but it is how the atheists are using science to destroy religious people in our society…
“I came across your post in which you said that the nature of what is behind the watch face, i.e. the supreme being responsible for setting this universe into motion, is completely unknowable to us. I realize I may be paraphrasing your actual statement, forgive me please. Could you tell me why you believe this to be true? Thanks, Todd.” |
| BIG BANG THEROY |
I was referring to the scientists rather than the transcendentalists. For the scientists depend on a different process. One who believes in God can perceive His presence. God reveals Himself to His devotees. So they can see and experience the “supreme person who set this universe in motion.” They can also have some knowledge from the scriptures as to what is beyond this universe…
The scientists, however, only accept what they can see, hear, feel, touch and smell for themselves. They observe things and try to explain the observations with “scientific” theories. While this is certainly a process of acquiring knowledge, it is a very slow and imperfect one. All such “scientific” knowledge is always flawed because it is gathered by the scientists using their imperfect senses. All our senses are imperfect: we can’t see things that are very close or far away, we can only see a limited range of frequencies… But that is not all. Everyone has a tendency to cheat. If I want to prove my theory I will accept the evidence that supports it, but I may not pay too much attention to observations that contradict it… We are also illusioned… We accept so many things as facts which are not facts at all. Science is full of “initial assumptions”, and many of these may be wrong, so any theory which relies on these assumptions will also be wrong. If you are doing a big calculation and you make a mistake in the beginning, no matter how nice your calculations are after that point, the answer will be wrong… And finally we all make mistakes. So many experiments are performed but often there are mistakes and the results are not correct…
This “scientific process” is the ascending process for acquiring knowledge. It means finding out things using our own power… But it is not a very perfect method as I have described above. The other way to get knowledge is via the descending process. That means to find a perfect authority, someone who knows, and just accept the knowledge from him. It is not an unfamiliar process. If you want to become a carpenter you go to a carpenter and ask him to take you on as his apprentice… This is the best way to learn.
So we just accept the knowledge Krishna has given in the Vedic scriptures in India. There are thousands of Vedic scriptures on every topic, material and spiritual. There is the Auya-veda for medicine, the Danna-veda for the science of fighting and war, there is the Joyti-veda for astronomy and astrology, there are Vedic scriptures for everything… There are also Vedic scriptures describing the universe and what is beyond the universe, the spiritual sky.
The bona fide spiritual master simply presents this Vedic knowledge. He doesn’t inject his own ideas or philosophy. So the knowledge a bona fide spiritual master presents is perfect. He can tell you all about the supreme person who is responsible for setting this universe in motion. But such bona fide spiritual masters are rare. There are many charlatans presenting themselves as “bona fide spiritual masters” for fame, money, to attract followers, etc… So this has put a lot of people off. But still if we want to find the truth we have to find a real guru…
tad viddhi pranipatenapariprasnena sevayaupadeksyanti te jnanamjnaninas tatt va-darsinah
“Just try to learn the truth by approaching a spiritual master. Inquire from him submissively and render service unto him. The self-realized soul can impart knowledge unto you because he has seen the truth.” (Bhagavad-gita 4.34)There are so many things, even in this universe, that the scientists can not see so how can they ever understand them? The only way is to find an authority and get the knowledge in that way. Scientists can’t even get complete knowledge of the universe, they certainly have absolutely no ability to find out what is beyond the universe…
“Who caused the causer? That would be the next logical question.”isvarah paramah krsnah sac-cid-ananda-vigrahahanadir adir govindah sarva-karana-karanam
“Krishna, who is known as Govinda, is the supreme controller. He as an eternal spiritual body. He is the origin of all. He has no other origin, for He is the prime cause of all causes.” (Sri Brahma Samhita 5.1)The difficulty is we are working on a different premise. Your premise is everything can be explained by chemical reactions only. My premise is matter doesn’t move without the touch of spirit. You say “life” is a combination of chemicals. I know “life” is a spiritual force completely different from matter. There is much evidence supporting my view and I have presented some of it but because you do not accept my premise that there is a spiritual component as well as a material one you don’t accept my evidence.
I see, from my perspective, that science has failed to justify it’s claims and can not back up the notion that like comes from chemicals. We see life coming from life around us all the time… that is sufficient evidence that life comes from life. But you say, without proof, without experiments, without even any real idea of how it happens, that life comes from chemicals. This is sentiment not science.
