Protocol Online logo
Top : New Forum Archives (2009-): : Philosophy and Science

Comparison of Philosophy & Science: - (Jul/22/2010 )

Comparison of Philosophy & Science:

Philosophy, which is the spiritual knowledge, travels in one direction in the circle of research. Science, which is the physical knowledge, travels in the opposite direction in the same circle of research. A Philosopher or a Scientist should travel extensively, so that they will meet at the same point in the circle. If they are in the middle of their journey only, they will be opposite to each other and therefore, will fight with each other. The Philosopher says that God is beyond this world and He is inexplicable. The Scientist says that this world itself is God and accepts the inexplicable points in the nature. The Philosopher says that God pervades all over the world. The Scientist accepts the inexplicable nature of the world, though some concepts of the world are explicable.

When God is inexplicable, the very characteristic nature of the God is only inexplicability. Philosopher calls the explicability as the creation and the inexplicability as God. The explicable part is agreed by both philosopher and scientist. The inexplicable part of the world is also accepted by both. This inexplicability is called as God by the Philosopher and the Scientist calls the same as inexplicability. The Scientist says that there is wire and heat in a hot wire. The Philosopher says that the fire and the wire are co-existing. The only difference is in words. The Scientist calls heat and the Philosopher calls the heat as fire. The wire is the explicable part of the world, which is agreed by all. A Scientist calls the other inexplicable part as a property by calling it as heat. The Philosopher calls the same as the possessor of the property i.e., fire. The intensive heat is fire.

Thus the possessor of a property and the property are one and the same. The Scientist says the independent existence of the inexplicable power as an independent existence of a field of energy. The Philosopher says that there is a substratum of that field of energy, which is called as God and which, is not perceived so far. The Scientist accepts that they have to go still deeper. The Philosopher infers the existence of the substratum in such a deeper state. The argument of the Philosopher is that power cannot independently exist and needs a possessor. Suppose the Sun is not seen due to overlapping cloud, it should not be concluded that the light transmitting through the cloud is independently existing power. The Scientist may see the Sun in future after piercing through the cloud. So, where is the difference or quarrel between a matured Philosopher and a matured Scientist?

The inference of the Philosopher is based on the perception of a similar concept existing in the explicable part of the world. The Scientist does not believe this because it is not a perception of the direct concept. Both have not seen the Sun. Both accept the perception of light. Both accept that their search and research has not reached the end. At this stage the Philosopher infers the Sun, whereas the Scientist does not infer the Sun but still accepts that the final truth is still to be achieved after piercing through the cloud of ignorance. At this point the support for the Philosopher is the Human Incarnation, which preaches the existence of such substratum. If the Scientist accepts the alternative genuine path of the miracles, the human incarnation definitely becomes the final authority about the existence of the possessor of such inexplicable power. If the Scientist has patience to reach the bottom most end, he will become a spiritual philosopher. An impatient Scientist existing in some middle place of the path becomes the atheist.

-dattaswami-

The Philosopher says that God pervades all over the world.


I think this statement short changes several branches of western philosophy, and many types of eastern philosophy.

The philosophical rationalist for instance would be up in arms, for they typically starts from premises that cannot coherently be denied. And the premise, the existence of God is not such a position.

Furthermore it is dangerous ground to invite philosophers over to ponder the nature of God. Just look at this argument that dates from at least the medieval 12th century... the omnipotence paradox.

Can god create a stone so heavy he cannot lift?

If true, then God could cease to be omnipotent; if not, God was not omnipotent to begin with.

The Scientist accepts the inexplicable nature of the world, though some concepts of the world are explicable.


I believe this statement is incorrect. A scientist believes that everything in the world can be understood and accounted for. Nothing in the world behaves in manner that is not governed by the laws of nature.

-perneseblue-

perneseblue on Fri Jul 23 03:04:56 2010 said:



Furthermore it is dangerous ground to invite philosophers over to ponder the nature of God. Just look at this argument that dates from at least the medieval 12th century... the omnipotence paradox.

Can god create a stone so heavy he cannot lift?

If true, then God could cease to be omnipotent; if not, God was not omnipotent to begin with.


LOL... I really salute the person who thought about this omnipotence paradox...

-adrian kohsf-