“Is it really true that what we see is all that’s there? Or is it the case that we’re just not physiologically designed to experience or see those dimensions, but we’ll eventually find evidence of them?” (Lisa Randall, Harvard Physicist)
By faith we understand that the universe was formed at God's command, so that what is seen was not made out of what was visible. (Hebrews 11:3)
For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse. (Romans 1:20)As hard as I try to dodge the truth, it seems the pursuit of the TOE – The Theory of Everything – is really the pursuit of GOD.
It reminds me of a similar realization:
"In 1978 Robert Jastrow, then head of NASA's Goddard Institute for
Space Studies, spoke metaphorically about scientists who, after
climbing the arduous mountain of cosmology, came to the summit only to
find theologians there already."
http://www.counterbalance.net/rjr/at-body.html
Regards,
Brock
great post ... i happen to agree with your last sentence ... which in
turn, begs the question ... why do so many religious people stop their
"pursuit of GOD", and accept what others have told them about the
subject? ... that is not pursuit, but an accepted belief in the words
presented to them, something that they garner some level of comfort,
joy and contentment from ... would you not agree that one cannot
pursue "GOD" through the experiences of others, but must embark on
this journey themselves?
e_space <espac...@gmail.com> wrote:that is your conclusion about my words ... i clarified what imeant ... if that doesnt satisfy, there is nothing much i can do aboutit
hmmmm ... still on a childish snit are you? i thought i asked
legitimate questions, but it seems that you and brock really have no
interest in supporting your beliefs ...
to clarify, when one pursues something, they look past what they are
told ... if not, they are pursuing what someone else has pursued, or
believe what someone else has made up, or is promoting ... in your
post, it indicates that science is pursuing "GOD", outside of
religion ... what you are doing is accepting "GOD" as taught to you by
religion ... big difference, and ne'er the twain shall meet ...
its a bit revealing when those who claim to be christian, exhibit
actions that reflect the opposite of what they preach ... but i guess
you dont have any qualms about it, right?
"...when one pursues something, they look past what they are told..."
As I've observed when you made such statements previously, your characterization is flawed. Therefore, your quote is again applicable:"...what you are doing is accepting "GOD" as taught to you by religion..."
"that is your conclusion about my words ... i clarified what i > meant ... if that doesnt satisfy, there is nothing much i can do about it"
Well, the key difference might be that it isn't when he says it, but
it is when you do ... :))
Regards,
Brock
<chuckle>
> cant get past the personal fluff and extended negativity eh? cold war
> much?
Good to know that you can recognize it and find it to be something that you'd like to dispense with. Welcome to the discussion.
> in my world, the pursuit to find "GOD", God, or god, is a journey
> embarked by self ... its not about reading what someone else has
> determined to be the truth ... would your "truth" about "GOD" be the
> same as it is now if you had not been introduced to "him" through your
> religion?
Asked and answered numerous times before.
> are scientists "really *in* the pursuit of GOD" by reading books?
....and articles, and papers, and trade journals, and...
> by
> listening to sermons? by praying? by going on gut feelings? ... do
> they refer to "GOD" as a male? do they think "he" resides in a place
> with gold paved streets? are there any similarities whatsoever to what
> their vision of "GOD" is, compared to yours? i would hamper a guess
> that they have NO vision of "GOD" at all, but will wait for the
> evidence to speak for itself, if indeed, any such evidence is
> available ...
As I've stated numerous times previously, I *do* consider that such evidence is available to those who are willing to look.
Are you suggesting that it's not possible for 'scientists' to maintain confidence in the existence of God and to consider that their understanding of science is consistent with their belief in God?
...
re: "Are you suggesting that it's not possible for 'scientists' to
maintain confidence in the existence of God and to consider that theirunderstanding of science is consistent with their belief in God?" ...
your original comment seemed to suggest that scientists were "pursing
GOD" ... no? ... this does not indicate that they have any
understanding ... when one is looking, it is because they do not
understand ... or that they are trying to find/understand ...
"i dont think scientists consider knowledge to be in thesame category as belief ... do you?"
great christian-like response brock!
re: "The pursuit of understanding of our physical world is one means
of pursuing understanding of its Creator" ... im not sure this applies
to someone who does not believe in a creator ... conversely, one who
claims understanding or knowledge of a "Creator", yet has no physical
or factual evidence to substantiate such claims, is speaking purely
from belief, which holds little interest to the scientific mind ...
imo, a scientist would be not be doing their job properly if their
goal was the "pursuit of GOD", if they already had a pre-conceived
concept of "him" ... almost like a conflict of interest ...
re: "When one studies the brush strokes, use of color, etcetera, that
are contained in works of art we get a sense of theone who created it." ... maybe a vague understanding, or belief about
the persons character ... nothing that can be substantiated ... maybe
the artist is moody, and was painting during a dark time in a normally
bright existence ... maybe the painting reflects a momentary fantasy
that is not descriptive of the daily life of the artist ... although i
agree that one may get a glimpse of a person through their art, it is
far from exact or meaningful ...
re: "The pursuit of understanding is indeed an ongoing process, but
it's to add to what is already thought to be true (i.e.,'understood')." ... although this may be the case, it is not
necessarily so ... what is "thought to be true", may in fact be
totally false
... knowledge speaks for itself, and does not require
pre-conceived ideas, thoughts, or beliefs to compliment it ... if one
is held by their beliefs, new knowledge may be rejected or compromised
by the strong desire of the observer to maintain such belief ... imo,
the pursuit of knowledge should contain no preconception, and should
not be impacted by religious fervor or belief [as it relates to this
topic] ...
re: "The acquisition of knowledge is not digital (i.e.,'on' or
'off')." ... not suggesting it is ... knowledge is whole and stands on
its own two feet ... it requires no further pursuit to be enjoyed in
its pure form ... tributaries and extensions of this knowledge may be
available, similar to adding cherries to a cake ... the cake doesnt
NEED the cherries to exist, or to be enjoyed ...
re: "Scientists describe the knowledge they're seeking in the terms of
'belief'; they rarely speak using terms of 'fact'. That's the wholeconcept of 'theory'." ... im not aware of what scientists rarely do,
or dont do ... maybe you can substantiate this claim with a
reference? ... a theory is not knowledge ... knowledge exists when the
facts are known ... a theory is more like a belief than factual
knowledge ...
lol ... i am not an unbeliever
It can be a humbling experience for some to go back after the heat of
the moment is past and re-read what they actually wrote. Silly
petulance, visceral hatred and rejection might seem like a good answer
initially, but months later the animus has receded but the petty,
immature post is still there. Understanding that to be the case, I
have tried to write my responses with out such an animus (not always
with success!), with the view that I want to be able to re-read my
posts six months later and not be ashamed that the tone of what I
wrote was childish, petulant and petty.
This is a public forum, and the words each of us say here represent us
indefinitely. So if, for example, e_space can go back, re-read his
dialogue from a year ago and be proud of it, so much the better (for
him). However, from my assessment, the childish, petty, petulant and
lack of considerate boundaries his posts represent are a legacy I
wouldn't be proud to have representing me.
> Notwithstanding their tendency to conveniently overlook the reality that
> Christ-likeness includes shining the light of truth into dark places -
> something which is always and unavoidably personally disturbing - they still
> inherently sense and desire its goodness.
Amen! In a world of many things, when it comes to humankind, God's
word is the best thing ... I gladly share it with folks on the forum
because I pray that it will be a blessing to them as it has been a
blessing to me!
Regards,
Brock
Sorry, e_space, but I've read your posts; if you didn't have
unbelief/disbelief, why the danger is that you'd have no position at
all! :)
> Noted. However, as a fellow believer in the divinity of Christ and the
> necessity of what he has done for all who believe, Brock understands my use
> of the term 'unbeliever'.
I do.
Regards,
Brock
> ....and articles, and papers, and trade journals, and...Their "bible" is a bit more "living" don't ya think.
You *might*..? .....what a jip!
I was thinking about how nothing new is being canonized in one, (the
CLOSED collection most commonly referred to as "The Bible") and the
other (the CONTINUALLY DEVELOPING collection produced by research that
utilizes the scientific method) is more readily adaptable and subject
to change based on new discoveries.
the "Author" of the bible was actually a collection of many men ...
when you have proof otherwise, i would like to see it
... btw, if "no evolutions and adaptions are needed", why were a high percentage of
the original writings left out, and the rest modified, edited,
translated, re-translated, etc ... ?
what position are you in to claim emphatically that the bible is
precise? ... what "precision" are you referring to?
if the bible wasnt written by a bunch of men, why did they put their
names on the cover?
re: "there was a process and period of compilation" ... this means
nothing to me ... if the complete bible was the inspired word of god,
why was 80% of it left out of the book ... almost sounds sacrilegious
to me, to take gods word and throw it on the editors floor ... i would
appreciate a simple response, not a vague non-answer like the one you
offered ...
what fulfillment of prophecy are you referring to? was nostradamus
gods brother? a lot of what he predicted is coming to fruition ...
many people make predictions that come true ... what does this mean?
Babylon would be attacked by the Medes
Bible passage: Isaiah 13:17
Prophet: Isaiah
Written: perhaps between 701-681 BC
Fulfilled: 539 BC
In Isaiah 13:17, the prophet said the Medes would attack Babylon. This happened about 150 years after Isaiah is believed to have delivered this prophecy. The Medes joined the Persians and conquered Babylon in about 539 BC.
Babylon's gates would open for Cyrus
Bible passage: Isaiah 45:1
Prophet: Isaiah
Written: perhaps between 701-681 BC
Fulfilled: 539 BC
In Isaiah 45:1, the prophet said God would open the gates of Babylon for Cyrus and his attacking army. Despite Babylon's remarkable defenses, which included moats, and walls that were more than 70-feet thick and 300-feet high, and 250 watchtowers, Cyrus was able to enter the city and conquer it. Cyrus and his troops diverted the flow of the Euphrates River into a large lake basin. Cyrus then was able to march his army across the riverbed and into the city.
Israel would be partitioned by other nations
Bible passage: Joel 3:2
Prophet: Joel
Written: about 400 BC
Fulfilled: 1900s
In Joel 3:2, the prophet said that the nations of the world will be judged for having scattered the people of Israel and for having "divided up" (or "parted" or "partitioned") the land of Israel. Christian scholars believe that this is a prophecy that will be fulfilled during the End Times. But portions of the prophecy already have been fulfilled. The Jews have been scattered to nations throughout the world, and the nations of the world have divided up the land of Israel. On November 29, 1947, the United Nations General Assembly approved a motion to partition the land into two separate states, one for Jewish people and another for Arab people.
Ninevites would be wiped out
Bible passage: Nahum 1:14
Prophet: Nahum
Written: perhaps 614 BC
Fulfilled: 612 BC
In Nahum 1:14, the prophet said Nineveh would have no descendants to carry on the prestige of Nineveh. Nineveh's destruction in 612 BC marked a permanent end to the Assyrian Empire. The city itself never again rose to any significant importance. Today, Nineveh is an archaeological site in Iraq.
Isaiah said Israel's fruit would fill the world
Bible passage: Isaiah 27:6
Prophet: Isaiah
Written: perhaps between 701-681 BC
Fulfilled: late 1900s
In Isaiah 27:6, the prophet said Israel would one day blossom and fill the world with fruit. This prophecy has been at least partially fulfilled so far, literally and spiritually. Today, the land of Israel, which had been barren for centuries, is a leading producer of agricultural products, exporting food to many countries. This prophecy also has been fulfilled spiritually with the worldwide spread of Christianity, which began with Jesus in Israel.
"imo, if something cannot be proven, it is a good idea not to state it as fact"
"it would make for better reading if you proffered some reference to support your claims"
"it is my observation that you have a habit of making claims, and accusations, but seldom seem toprovide the supporting evidence"
Why should I, or anyone here, continue posting in good faith with you when you deal in such double-standards?
echo chuckle ... quite funny that you are saying that the bible is
only one book, and not a collection of them ... hmmm, guess ya learn
something new every day ... and here i thought there were books of the
bible [the ones i can still recite from a sunday school test i was
forced to take] ... how naive of me!!! ... i must write a letter to my
naughty sunday school teacher for lying to me and calling them
books! ;-^)
i guess the book of john, should actually be called the chapter of
john, since chapters typically make up a book, right? ... ooops ...
that cant be, because there are chapters in the book of john, arent
there? ... could you please clear my mind, im sooooo confused? ;-^)
btw, do you have any other option than to keep it simple? just
wondering, because inferring that i am too simple to tell me anything
complicated, while going into your normal smoke and mirror routine, in
order to divert any relevant answer with sarcasm and meaningless fluff
seems to be your MO ... i guess i should know better by now than to
ask you questions that you are incapable of answering ... i really
must learn that lesson and move on to greener pastures ...
there ya go with the typical and highly anticipated "double standards"
thingy again, without the required examples ... are you sure youre not
trance gemini? let me guess ... youre not a lawyer, right? ;-^)
> awwww ... please dont stop assuming now, just as im getting used to
> it ;-^)
>
> in regards to your request ... if one speaks in rhetorical terms, they
> should expect questions that have something to do with rhetoric ...
> your claims of "truth" that are based on your belief, come across very
> much like religious rhetoric at times ... so when i ask you questions
> about them, rhetoric is obviously going to be an ingredient, as it is
> the source of the question ...
>
> i am fully aware that some of the questions i ask cannot be answered
> with anything substantial, and in reality, i grow weary of the uphill
> slogging that has no prize when the summit is reached ... in fact, i
> dont recall reaching the summit at all ... so, since our conversations
> are liking eating LOTS of food that has NO nutritional value, i bid
> them adieu ...
<chuckle>