Re: [ontolog-forum] Dennett on the Darwinism of Memes

[Pavithra <pavithra_kenjige@xxxxxxxxx>]

In my humble unscientific opinion ( for not all the people on this universe are scientists and they need to have sanity of mind), In Ancient world, the fear of the unknown is  handled by using concept of God, to make it a blessing to the universe that needs to be discovered.   The discovered aspect of the universe at any point in time, the truth, that is discovered in scientific way is science, the undiscovered / or unknown aspect of this universe is still God, the unknown hand from above that guides us.

For example, Hindus believed energy, the natural, universal force of any kind, sun light (solar),  wind, water, fire or even electricity in its basic form (discovered in ancient times)  or any other  kind was worshiped as God, until science proved it/ called it  as energy..

So it is a matter of discovering truth of the universe,  / inventing new things using the existing  things in the universe  that converts unknown to known, God to Science..  that is the only logical explanation a scientist can provide to the rest of the world about God..  In fact a sanskirt verbaige says the same..   Englightenment is removeing the darkness ( unknown or untruth)  of the world with knowledge and leading it to the light or truth.. which is what scientists do anyways..
And God is "Sarvajna"  ( a sanskrit word with equalant meaning as the Latin word "omniscience")   .. which means the person who knows all aspect of the universe, and truth.   (God knows everything, humans knows, only the known things, unknown is yet to be discovered like God)

Regards,
Pavithra 

---

From: Pat Hayes <phayes@xxxxxxx>
To: John F. Sowa <sowa@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: Michael Hopwood <michael@xxxxxxxxxxx>; [ontolog-forum] <ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Wednesday, April 24, 2013 11:39 PM
Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] Dennett on the Darwinism of Memes

On Apr 24, 2013, at 10:11 PM, John F Sowa wrote:

> I'm willing to grant that all arguments for the existence of God
> are unscientific.  But I also believe that all arguments *against*
> the existence of God are equally unscientific.  It's actually harder
> to develop a solid proof that something does *not* exist.


The basic scientific argument against the existence of God is that there is absolutely no observational evidence for the existence of a God, nor any reason to hypothesise such an entity in order to explain anything that is observable. A very straightforward application of Occam's principle then suffices. Of course this is not a *proof*, but it is a sound *scientific* argument. Proofs are irrelevant here. There is no proof that the flying spaghetti monster does not exist, but that does not shake the faith of the true Pastafarian.

Pat

------------------------------------------------------------
IHMC                                    (850)434 8903 or (650)494 3973 
40 South Alcaniz St.          (850)202 4416  office
Pensacola                            (850)202 4440  fax
FL 32502                              (850)291 0667  mobile
phayesAT-SIGNihmc.us      http://www.ihmc.us/users/phayes






_________________________________________________________________
Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/
Config Subscr: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-forum/
Unsubscribe: mailto:ontolog-forum-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/
Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/
To join: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?WikiHomePage#nid1J

_________________________________________________________________
Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/  
Config Subscr: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-forum/  
Unsubscribe: mailto:ontolog-forum-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/
Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/ 
To join: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?WikiHomePage#nid1J    (01)