I have been thinking about starting this thread since long but would not able to do that because of time constraints. But, now I decided not to go for it in one stroke but slowly and step by step.
A have to think for a while about in which section I should put this thread, and concluded that this is the right place for it. Nevertheless, mods are free to transfer it into R&S, if they think otherwise. I am okay either way.
We all feel some unexplainable phenomena once in awhile, sometimes only once or twice in the whole life, sometimes regularly. These need not to be very complex or bizzare always but may be quite simple at times, yet unexplainable. The same can be said about many basic philosophical questions also.
All philosophers, scientists and religious scholars have been trying to answer these questions through their own designed ontologies. Let me share what I found right, and also to the extent which I found right in person. It may not be complete but certainly capable to provide some answers at least. Other posters are welcome to criticize or question, if they want.
Let me start from the humans because that is first place to look. Many intellectuals have been all along committing the mistake of ignoring the deduction of humans and taking on other issues directly. That approach is neither logical nor would get any fruitful results.
One has to calibrate the tools before calibrate anything else. If one is not aware of the calibrating limits and precision of his tools, his observations would mislead him. I think any scientist would agree with that. So, the first and foremost thing or tool we have to calibrate and deduce is human and it’s mind, as that is the only tool we have to calibrate anything else. Everything else would come later. And, the beauty of this very calibration is that, once being done completely, everything else would be known by default. There is no need for looking at anything else.
There were some efforts in that direction but neither many nor enough. There must be some single unified theory/principle which can answer all questions, scientific or philosophical.
It is what it is.
Findings of all mainstream religions may me wrong or incomplete, but their approach towards this query seems to be rational. They always tried to build ontologies from the very root, which they call the God. I think that science also wants the same when it tries to develop a single theory to explain all force, weak and strong. Philosophers are divided on this issue.
True. I think we have been let down many times in the past, when concerning contemporary truths. Christianity replaced paganism but much of christianity was then refuted by science. It seems that everywhere we look to find truth it falls through our hands like sand in time.