Hello, everybody!

My name is Dr. N. C. Asthana and I am a physicist. I wish to introduce you all to an absolutely startling discovery—a real breakthrough. This is about my recently published book “Truth Beyond Science”. You could say that God has been ‘discovered scientifically’. Now hold it, please! I am dead serious. You have to see it to believe it. This is not a rehash of the age old debate on the existence of God. This is not a reiteration of the Anthropic Principle in a new way; this is not an appeal to faith either. This is not a reference to the exotica of mysticism from the Orient as sought by Fritjof Capra. It is absolutely unprecedented and different. I am an orthodox scientist myself and have no desire to question tenets of scientific that have stood the test of experiments. Yet, I have proved that the scope of reductionism is limited in the sense that it applies only to the physical world. There are issues like self-consciousness and the purpose or non-purpose of the most fundamental things in the universe which are beyond the scope of orthodox science. I have shown that the ‘presence’ of God can be ‘realized’ even as you remain a scientist. It is ‘THE ANSWER’ to the ultimate question: From the microcosm to the macrocosm, why things are the way they are and not otherwise?. Comments may be sent to me at

I have removed the email and web address as this is obviously spam, but there are too many posts at this point to delete the whole thread.

Does this really leave room for discussion if we have not read the book? I'm actually interested in purchasing it. But is there a specific direction you want this thread to go?

Probably wanting to make sales off of his book...a advertising scheme. Im not saying its exactly a bad thing, but theres probably more appropriate places to pull this one off. I myself dont need any further convincing of any kind to boost my beliefs...those that do- go for it.

Sounds like an interesting read, and Ramster is absolutely correct - it's a sales pitch, plain and simple

If I see it around, I might have a look at it. Maybe.....

Regards, PA

How can you possibly use science to prove something that doesn't exist in the "physical world"? Science is about data, evidence, not supposition. As soon as you step outside the realm of what can be researched, measured, and studied, you're no longer in the realm of science.

Just some whack job trying to sell a dressed up bible.

I do not believe the Bible was mentioned anywhere at all Sera. It could be a generic "god" as in creative force or energy, not necessarily the Christian God.

Regards, PA

I was using bible more as a generic term Would you prefer I was PC and said "bible, koron, Lod of the Rings, Lion the Witch and the Wardrobe, or whatever you consider to be your personal holy text"?

Perhaps. Maybe this writer has a new take on the definition of god - one that is linked with the world of the physical......

Well then, if he has anything that's honestly worth saying, I'm sure he can go into greater detail instead of a few cryptic plugs for his book Which, if he uses the same text size he used to post his plug, may well not appeal to the scientific community, but will increase the morale of the partially sighted reading community. Unless given something a little better to make me give it a second glance, I'll assume that forking out to buy this gentleman's book would likely bring a whole new definition to the term "writers block" when it's clogging up my toilet

Fair enough

You know what's really funny though. This argument we're having is probably exactly what the author (who I think is a she personally, not a he ) wanted. Any publicity is good publicity so they say

regards, PA

It's a guy, if you look at the link he posted...



Jesus christ, it's intelligent design! *throws it in the bin*

Science...bah! What a cop-out. There is nothing scientific in saying "this is too complex for me to understand...god must have done it!"

lol, I didn't check the link. i guess he is a guy

Oh well.....

Now, allow me to explain, on its very premise, why this book is bullsh*t Allow me to explain why this man (who from his webpage has an ego so large, he needs to book an entire hotel anywhere he goes just to find room for it) clearly knows nothing whatsoever about scientific methodology, and should really stick to his day job. Allow me to explain why his doctorate is perhaps more likely in physical education than physics and why, yes why, his book amounts to nothing better than pricey toilet paper.

Let me begin by stating that, at its most basic level, science is a search for answers. Like anyone else, scientists want to unravel the many questions of the universe, and our tools of choice just so happen to be the two most effective known to mankind: evidence and study (of said evidence).

To a scientist - a real scientist - nothing is fact until proven otherwise. To base a scientific theory on anything but the most careful consideration of every scrap of impirical data at your fingertips just isn't science. If you're doing that you're not posing a theory, you're posing a guess.

Scientifically speaking, god doesn't exist. In that I mean that there is absolutely no evidence to speak of for his existance. Therefore he cannot be used as the lynchpin of a scientific theory as if he were fact...it's rather like using the easter bunny or santa, on a scale of absurdity. While science cannot, and does not, dispute the possibility of god...you cannot be expected to prove or disprove the unprovable.

Next, let me explain what a conclusion is - a conclusion is, basically, the answer you reach based on the evidence. God, in its various forms, does not fit that criteria...god is a pre-existing conception, an assumption, a supposition...and a supposition is something that should never be used to "fill in the blanks" in a scientific theory. The fact is, a question mark in a theory should never be filled with a guess i.e. god...the moment you guess, you're no longer dealing with science, you're dealing with an imaginatavly worded peice of science fiction.

Doing so isn't the persuit of knowledge....which is what science is all about...it's pretending to have an answer that you don't. If you had an exam coming up, what would you do? Study for it, try and get all the answers you could, and pass...or would you just say "this is too complicated for me to understand...oh, I know! I'll guess all the answers"...no surprised, but if you choose option two, you'd fail

Long story short (too late) this isn't science...it's a religious man (whether he admits to being religious or not) trying to use science to prove his own beliefs, and failing miserably the moment he starts out. Gaps in scientific knowledge can't be filled in with a guess....if we don't know something, then all that means is that we've yet to find out, and the only way we can find out is further investigation and gathering of fact.

If the facts eventually point to god, then so be it...but currently they don't. And until they do, rubbing out a question mark and penciling in "god" doesn't make you a scientist, it makes you an idiot in a lab coat.

Thanks Sera for the post

Totally off-topic, but why is it that, according to most Christian apologists, the seven most asked questions of Christianity include: Hasn't science disproved God?

Why is it such a common belief if it is totally wrong.

Regards, PA

Edit: Actually, don't answer it. It's far off-topic and adds nothing to the point of this thread (if it has a point that is)

I think the point is that science, while it hasn't proven or disproven god, certainly does prove a great deal that contradicts god....evolution, for example, tears creationism into tiny bits. Religion has therefore been forced to bend over backwards to accomidate evolution, touting the bible that they once considered gospel as "a metaphor".

As I say, science can't disprove god...since there's really no clear definition of who or what god is...but since there's no evidence for him/it either, god remains an assumption on the scale of the easter bunny or santa. Very real I don't doubt in the minds of those who believe in him, but as good as nonexistant for any scientific purpose.



Whoops

I'd want to read the book to form my own opinion, Namaste Sheri

a shameless plug for an ID book....
if you can't measure things out of the physical world how can you possibly prove god? isn't he out side the physical world???
that in it self tells me this is a bunch of B#ll s###

Are you sure evolution can be measured and studied properly if it takes as long as scientists said? Have we been studying it for THAT long? If not, how can you call it fact. O_o Not saying you beleive in evolution, but just curious.


Observe what happens; based on those observations, form a theory as to what may be true; test the theory by further observations and by experiments; and watch to see if the predictions based on the theory are fulfilled. Is this the method followed by those who beleive in and teach evolutions?

A few things about the credibility of this man.

First off, I think I have a bit of trouble believing that a man of such supposed intellegence is a police officer, and not working with Harvard or Oxford or something.

Second, if he has finally, solidly proved the existence of God, then why isn't he in every major science related magazine, TV show, or internet site?

Third...he hasn't even replied to his own thread.


Doesn't say much for the guy.

I don't think this one works. No matter how smart I was, I can't stand being around "brains" for long. Not my group of people. All people are different so you never know. =P

True, but still, you'd think that he would put up with them, knowing that he is one of the " few that you can call a polymath."

I await the day a scientist is looking through the most powerful microscope ever made and a tiny little guy with a long gray beard & flowing robes walks into view, looks up, and flips them the bird.

I would die that day. From lack of oxygene to the brain due to laughing and pointing at scientists XD.

Yes evolution can and has been studied...
It is quite observable in species with short life spans and I’ve read quite a few interviews of people who study fruit flies and other insects and witness very plainly evolution in action...
Infect here's on example of how well it can be observed
In Europe before the industrial revolution there were these certain kinds of moths I don't know the names sorry but they were mostly white....
Well during the IR there was much more soot in the air and it covered trees and other surfaces that these animal would land on.... well needless to say they were much much easier for birds and other animals to see so they could catch and eat them....
Well it just so happens that through natural selection.... the darker of the species were much luckier and surviving to breed so now... they are almost all dark....
They evolved...
Simple as that.... quite observable...
Another
Well it's very well known in the agricultural community that insects or pest quickly developed an immunity to pesticides so scientist are always having to come up with others...
What is happening is that all the insects that aren't immune are dieing and leaving the ones that are... well they are breeding and passing on those genes and what do you know a swarm that is immune....
This same this happens to bacteria.... this is why some doctors are now warning against antibacterial soap... it just speeds up the process and the bacterial evolve faster then we can come up with ways to kill 99.9% of them with every wash....
And with penicillin... there are strains of bacteria that cause diseases that were once thought eradicated.... but now they are immune to penicillin why? We killed off all the ones not immune so the ones who are immune survive to reproduce thus through natural selection they have evolved....
I hope this clear a little up about evolution... and remember because we have much longer life spans it may be harder to observe in humans but we are made of the same materials as any other living thing on earth, and are governed by the same laws so yes it happens in us as well...

^^^ *meh* micro-evolution........

So a moth changes colour! So what! So bacteria develop immunities! So what!

Did that moth become a lizard, or that bacteria become a jelly-fish? No? Then what does it prove?

Sorry that this is off-topic, I just had to reply to this nonsense.

Regards, PA

lol so this is nonsence now... and you know micro evolution then
why not give us a better example then or tell us how god changed the moth's genes sot he birds wouldn't eat them?
and then tell us how god made it so the pesticide wouldn't harm the insects....
they evolved plain and simple and by those same methods so do every other plant and animal, take one simple biology course and maybe you too will see that...

You do know that God could be behind mirco evolution, right? =P

manapa - you misunderstand why I called it nonsense. micro-evolution in no way, shape or form proves macro-evolution. I did not make my earlier post to prove that God did it. Indeed, as I have said on many occasions, I am not against the idea of evolution. I believe that, if evolution is true, then God is behind it, but that's another issue.

It is the purpotration of evolution as fact that I am against, not the idea of evolution itself.

Regards, PA

much easier to believe the 'fact' that god waved his hand and >poof< everything just 'became'.

Yes it is.

But like PA said I think God is apart of the whole thing.

wahoo, another thread turned evolution vs creation!

Well, when you have such a lame start to a thread, I guess it livens it up a little.

I apologize for making the general assumption that if you believe in microevolution you would therefore have to believe in macroevolution. It is my personal belief that micro evolution over a period of time leads eventually to macro evolution, so I treat the two as one in the same they follow the same rules and patterns one is just a smaller version of the other
I can't currently find the article, but I have read that scientist have witnessed speciation in a life time but since I can't find nor remember the source I will treat it currently as just a theory
Micro evolution leads to macro when you have enough small changes and the populations are separated in someway then they are no longer able to breed this is speciation eventually with enough mutations through natural selection you will have a new species that is macro evolution and yes macro evolution takes an extremely long time so no we are not able to witness it or experiment on it in most cases but through dna and fossils we can easily see that it has happened
Just look at birds they way their beaks are designed they all have a common ancestor and it can been seen through fissile records how they have changed over time
Another big controversy about evolution is the evolution of human eyes
This is an article that I think will help people understand better macro evolution the human eye evolving from a patch of light sensitive skin has to be the perfect example of macro evolution
And yes light sensitive patches exist today in worms among others, infect every stage scientist believe lead up to the eye can bee seen in living things even today....
the evolution of the human eye

I never said that was fact!



Thanks babe

and so could gargamel or mum-ra be behind it, by your reasoning.

Yup.

so are you saying that when something like say a pesticide is used to kill off insects not imune and then the ones who are imune are left to breed that god is behinde what exactly? the pesticides that the scientist came up with?
the people placing then on their crops?
or the insects dieing out?

because the ones that were imune are already there...
like lysol kills 99.9% well the .1% are imune....
if there was a pesticide that could kille everyone it would be even more toxic then the ones in use now and would harm humans.. not to say even more animals that feed on the insects or just happen to be around the pesticide....
i really don't see what god has to do with this scenario...

Then I guess you just aren't looking right

no i am looking so please tell me where god came in to this
did he make the insects evolve? i don't get where his point of control is in your eyes because to me it's pretty cut and dry no complications required....
so if you could help me see your point of view i'm more then happy to read it

[b]True, it is more useful to use reason that to use science when it comes to proving God's existence; still then it is up to the consumer to either receive God or reject Him, based upon his/her personal reasoning.
For instance, you can say that a tree fell down and killed your neighbor's wife while she was sleeping. Cause and effect: that is scientific proof.
Reasoning would be this, either she had it coming because she was sleeping with her husbands best friend while her husband was at work, or she was just at the wrong place at the wrong time. To the husband, she probably deserved it. To the rest of the world, she was sleeping in the wrong bed.

So in Lamen's terms, its up to the person's personal reasoning when it comes to God.

God bless

Isn't that philosophy, not science? Of value for sure, but there's a reason why the two degrees don't get you the same job

those are all values we put on the situation our selves and in my view it has nothing to do with the tree falling and the woman was just unfortunate to be under it when it did
so to me that really has no bearing on if there is a god or not, but then again i don't believe in fate or in a force that will right wrongs ect.

exactly, belief is a mind thing. If you can't see whats invisible, its up to you to decide if its real or not. Such as wind. we can't see it, but we can see the things it moves, such as dust or a piece of paper or air. Such is the same for God, unless he reveals himself in visibility, we will only see him by the things he moves, such as people, weather, ect. all based upon one's own reasoning. So, thus science is to regard the physical(even energy), religion is to regard spirituality( discernment ). The tree scenario is my best example. If we use science to prove God's existence, it must be on a psycological based level, not to determine HOW, but to determine WHY.

So thus science proves HOW, and spirituality proves WHY. Make sense???

God bless

wow you are you serious?
you do understand that wind is acctually physical particals not just something that may or may not be there right?
i mean you can see o2 and co2 particles they're really there, just really small

and in your scenario was god the one that pushed the tree down, or did he cause it to rot, or was it this mythical wind concept?

Science would not just assume that she was in someone elses bed but would determine ALL of the facts.

Mana, how are you certain that physical particles make up wind? Did a microscope prove that or is that an educated observation? Either way, I assure you that you cannot see wind. An observation would be to say that wind is the movement of particles, but the reality of what I'm saying that science stands alone on part of human action as well as is in submission to it. For it could be that wind moved because man wanted the fan to ventilate the air throughout the room, or that the earth's climate caused a movement in cool and warm air. Here lies the separation of science and purpose, for science itself is a tamable and untamable force. If it is tamable, then it is in submission to conscience....not a very positive force all the time. If the whole universe is science, then what can be said of the universe? That it can be tamed by the conscience of men?
Here is the contradiction though; that science also proves that man is limited by both his knowledge and capabilities. This generation is limited, we will die, so what is the point in investigating the definition of wind? And when we use science, it is often for the benefit of man, thus science is in submission to reason. If science is in submission to purpose and purpose is the will of the concience, then how powerful is science really? Useful, but not powerful.
And if science is tamed by purpose, and purpose by the consience, the conscience by the brain, and the brain by the body, then what can we say when we die? Can we say that science has died as well?
Apparently science is subject to death as well.....

All this is a bit of sarcasm to let you know that science is beyond human power as well as in submission to it, both empowering and limiting humans, being a vane cause to fight with. Proving the existence of God with science is lowering ones own conscience to submit himself to something he controls, which is vane and foolish. Proving the existence of God with reason is more sensible, don't you think?

so long and thanks for all the fish

God bless

Also, how is it that one can say everything about what they do know and ask nothing about something they don't know, dodging over pieces of a post to find something that which hits their fancy and not touching on the rest of the points?
My point is that religion is a matter of faith, which is a matter of discernment. Discerning between coincedences and purposes. If a man is sent to death by means of the electric chair, its probably because he did something to earn it, he didn't just sleep walk into the prison, past the security team, and into the electric chair, WHICH MEANS THAT DISCERNMENT WAS INVOLVED, even though science was used to execute him. One example of science controled by human reasoning.

So my point is, purpose is the truth behind all things, even science. It is the driving force behind action. Every animal reasons. A dog pees on trees to mark his territory, a cat meow's when it is hungry. These are not coincedenses as you would state a tree falling on an adultress would be. For judgement is not in submission to science, thus nor is truth. It is behind reasoning, whether it be us lowly humans or a supreme being.

Hopefully, you will post on all my points instead of one line that catches your passion, for the sake of others if you will.

God bless

okay well it's quite obveous that you believe in fate, and the notion that what goes around comes around
well i don't
i grew up in church i've been there dont that
as for wind its gasses, and it's caused by convection, it moves from high pressure to low pressure which is measured by a baromater so when you geographical region is in a low pressure region it's very likely there will be more wind
and yes you can see oygen and carbon dioxide if you have a very strong microscope like an electron micro scope would you like me to find you a picture?
the purpose of science is to answer questions about the world around us, by using methods that produce measureable results and evidence that can be repeated over and over
i really can't believe you said you can chose to believe in wind or not... wow

quote me on saying that 'i can choose to believe in wind or not.'

mana, i said you cannot see wind. I guess i must modify my response, YOU CANNOT SEE WIND WITHOUT MICROSCOPIC HELP. would that assist you. Again you totally avoided the rest of my response on something that steamed you to a passion so much that you had to respond so quickly. Sir, hopefully we can stop the sarcasm and start trying to understand each other's post more clearly.
If you read my posts entirelu, you may see that the point i was trying to get across is that science IS NOT a sufficient tool to prove God. Also, God is like the wind, we see him by the things he moves. Thus, if you don't a discernment (spiritual microscope if you will,) then you probably won't see WHY God is doing what he is doing. Just like a kid learns he does something wrong when his father knowingly lets. There's no science involved in that parable. I'm sorry if this is too third grade for you, but I'd appreciate some respect sir.

God bless

I apologize for disrespecting you
But I would like to make a couple points
First off wind can and has been proven to exist you could chose not believe in it yes but the fact that science has seen the physical atomic particles that make it up means that it is physically there wither you believe in it or not

Second no science can't prove or disprove god there is no way of testing, because there hasn't been anything found to test

Third god is not like the wind the wind is caused by natural processes and made up of physical particles this analogy will not work for me sorry

Fourth I have respect for philosophy and reasoning but I believe that if someone is going to be a good at reasoning they must have a good understanding of the world around them such as basic natural processes

Fifth in your post you said, "belief is a mind thing. If you can't see whats invisible, its up to you to decide if its real or not. Such as wind." and "we can't see it, but we can see the things it moves, such as dust or a piece of paper or air. Such is the same for God, unless he reveals himself in visibility, we will only see him by the things he moves, such as people, weather, ect. all based upon one's own reasoning." fist off you say that you can decide if it's real or not, its defiantly real there are physical particle as we have discussed
Second you compare the wind moving things such as dust and AIR to god moving things. We understand that the wind is a natural process there are factors that can be studied and tested, god can't be studied and people can also say pink elephants made them do it, it's just as valid.... so I’m sorry I can't take this post seriously

And lastly if you believe that everything that's bad is because people deserve punishment then how do you explain children going hungry? Or getting cancer, or aids
How do you explain people living the life that others dream of, but yet they've had to lie cheat and steal to get there

From my perspective there is no one looking over our shoulders making sure we get punished if we do something wrong

So for my previous post I honestly and truly an sorry I offended you but I really thought that either you had to be joking or that you were very young

I see where you are coming from. Like I said in my previous post, if you didn't have a microscope, you could not see wind. I agree that we do have microscopes, but when it comes to faith, its about discernment of the spiritual. You can either choose to be spiritual or not, thats your choice. You can choose to want physical evidence or believe in someone's testimony. There are many times in our lives where we take someone's word for it, even though we didn't see it with our own eyes. So I guess we agree that science isn't useful to prove or disprove God. A spiritual world will usually see things differently from the unspiritual world. Do we agree?
Also, I didn't say that bad things happen to us because we are bad, i was just using an example of discernment. Bad things happen for a number of reasons, often resulting in people drawing closer together. I watched a movie called " I HEART HUCKABEES" and the movie describe to different philosophies on reality. One philosophy was that everything was part of the same big 'blanket.' The other reality was that the only reality is that human drama was a part of all our lives. In the end, the main character put the two philosophies together to realize that we are all drawn together by human drama. Thats why when people suffer, others come to comfort them. When people fight, they realize how much alike they are. Not everything bad that happens is deserved.

God bless