Science - Is only beleived after evidence.

Most of the people in the world follow because they are in that, no one know heaven or have seen hell, but simply follow becoz we follow.

Science is only thing which can be followed because it find answers
&
Religion depends upon “may be might be & so on”

Nor the creator or so is seen in present & whaterver was it was in past. - stories get changed by passage of time & man becomes God or prophet.

It is 100 years(from the time common man can understand science) now, no God has come forward & if we ask ourself their after too no one is going to come because we know their is nothing as such magic or automatic creation or creator.

People are folled by the name of saviour - “he will come”
O man please tell who will come, how can he save you & from whom
(above all things are to prove some one is following false & some one is true)

No one is going to come if at all some one come it might be from some Aliean planet (but we human beings will still follow same old religion which was written 1000s & more yrs back-with no authenticity abt that time)

Science - Is only beleived after evidence.

Most of the people in the world follow because they are in that, no one know heaven or have seen hell, but simply follow becoz we follow.

Science is only thing which can be followed because it find answers
&
Religion depends upon “may be might be & so on”

Nor the creator or so is seen in present & whaterver was it was in past. - stories get changed by passage of time & man becomes God or prophet.

It is 100 years(from the time common man can understand science) now, no God has come forward & if we ask ourself their after too no one is going to come because we know their is nothing as such magic or automatic creation or creator.

People are folled by the name of saviour - “he will come”
O man please tell who will come, how can he save you & from whom
(above all things are to prove some one is following false & some one is true)

No one is going to come if at all some one come it might be from some Aliean planet (but we human beings will still follow same old religion which was written 1000s & more yrs back-with no authenticity abt that time)

I do not know which specific creed or religion that you follow. Please leave your details so that you may be given a reply accordingly.

From the comments that you have jotted down at # 53 above ; it shows that you bear a little knowledge and the system involved in the divine revelations meant for the believers by God Almighty.

Regards

Even A.Kokhar is only a Mawaali according to some in Islam.

I would say that it is not just OK to learn all that we can about the Creator, but it is *imperative*. That said, I also recognize that it is a very difficult problem, and a problem that the above comments make clear is difficult even to discuss without emotional conflict that tends to block clear thinking, so that there will likely never be global agreement on the nature of the Creator, not even whether the Creator is plural or singular (nor agreement on the question, if the Creator is singular, is the Creator separate from the universe, or are they are one and the same), and I further believe that even the wisest human is unlikely to achieve, with a very limited human mind, anything more than a very rough, very approximate understanding of the Creator.

Dr. Siddiqui:

I wasn’t trying to prove anything about our reality, for example, anything about the nature of the Creator, a question I leave to my readers and their religions. (If I was trying to say anything of that sort, I *would* require empirical evidence, I agree!) Instead, I proposed a bit if pure *logic*:

If you believe that the Creator made the universe, directly, and
if you believe that anything made directly by Creator is surely worthy of careful study as a source of important truths, then it *logically follows that*:
The universe is worthy of careful study as a source of important truths!

(A reader might disagree with either statement following the “ifs” that begin this logical proposition, but I don’t see how they could disagree with the conclusion, *unless* they disagree with at least one of these propositions!)

I further offered, *without proof*, my *opinion* that science is a useful means to study the universe and the truths that it offers. About this, readers may certainly disagree, if they wish, and if they do, I would be interested to hear of alternative ideas for direct study of the truths written in the universe. I also offered my opinion that the endeavor of direct study of the universe through science could be a useful and unifying road to truth that persons of all faiths and persons of no faith might follow together.

Daniel:

Yes, I agree. That is why I was so careful to deny no set of religious beliefs, nor to argue for any one reilgion, only *for* a notion that I thought was compatible with all religions. Of course, by even *bringing up* the subject of religion, I was bound to get comments that *did* offend readers, and was even bound (as it happened) to *accidentally* offend at least some readers, myself, and I regret both.

Hamid Azam,

No, I am not anti-religion at all. I believe that it is entirely consistent with all religions to seek the truth “written” in all that was directly created by the Creator, so, it seems to me, deliberately *avoiding* direct study of the universe would be less acceptable within any religion than the alternative I propose.