The God spoke in the darkness: “Let there be light
socratus
. . . . . . . .
And the God said in the darkness:
Let there be light: and there was light.
So, we must examine three conceptions: God, darkness and light.
1
In the darkness it means in the spacetime of dark mass/ energy.
The spacetime of dark mass/ energy it means in the Vacuum.
The Vacuum is the Infinite/ Eternal Homogeneous Space
of the lowest ( the background ) level of Energy: E= 0.
The Vacuum is the Infinite/ Eternal Homogeneous Space
of the lowest ( the background ) level of temperature: T= 0K.
2.
The God is hidden into the Infinite/ Eternal Homogeneous
Energy Space and we don�t know that to say about Him/ Her/ It.
But we know, that according to Quantum Physics a virtual
energetic particles can exist in this Infinite/ Eternal
Homogeneous Energy Space.
So, we can suppose that, maybe, from these virtual energetic
particles the God created light/ quantum of light.
3.
So, in the beginning God created the Light.
How did He do it?
The Bible explain us that the God created the light very easy.
God simply said: �Let there be light: and there was light.�
And for many years everybody adopted this convincing proof
without any doubt.
Only poor Einstein had doubts. He wrote sadly :
� All these fifty years of conscious brooding have brought me
no nearer to the answer to the question, 'What are light quanta?'
Nowadays every Tom, Dick and Harry thinks he knows it,
but he is mistaken. �
But Tom, Dick and Harry laughed.
�What cannot the old Jew understand?� they said bewilder.
� Isn�t clear that quantum of light is a simply wave-particle,
of course, simultaneously ?�
. . . . .
And now one part of mankind ( Religious part ) believes that
God created the light in very easy way.
And the other part of mankind ( Scientific part ) believes that
the light is the quantum of light which simply has his own
wave-particle abilities, of course, simultaneously.
These two great Mystical beliefs govern on the planet Earth
without understand each other. This is situation that we have now.
===============================.
Best wishes.
Israel Sadovnik Socratus
===============.
Kalkidas
5401ed...@p24g2000yqm.googlegroups.com:
> The God spoke in the darkness: �Let there be light !�
[snip]
> And now one part of mankind ( Religious part ) believes that
> God created the light in very easy way.
> And the other part of mankind ( Scientific part ) believes that
> the light is the quantum of light which simply has his own
> wave-particle abilities, of course, simultaneously.
>
> These two great Mystical beliefs govern on the planet Earth
> without understand each other. This is situation that we have now.
The part cannot fully comprehend the whole. The whole, the Lord, knows
what light really "is". We do not. It is a permanent barrier.
But we can attain partial understanding, not by our unaided intellects,
but by taking instruction from the whole, the Lord.
socratus
God created the light in very easy way.
And the other part of mankind ( Scientific part ) believes that
the light is the quantum of light which simply has his own
wave-particle abilities, of course, simultaneously.
These two great Mystical beliefs govern on the planet Earth
without understand each other. This is situation that we have now.
DougC
> The God spoke in the darkness: �Let there be light !�
The book of Genesis clearly says that God made the Earth first, "and
darkness was upon the face of the deep." So the planet was finished
before there was a sun. Was the deep frozen?
You are wasting time in trying to unravel all the written guesswork of
ignorant people. There is nothing sacred therel
Doug Chandler
bpuharic
wrote:
a recipe for intellectual suicide and permanent ignorance
which is the state of the religious fanatic
Nick Keighley
> And now one part of mankind ( Religious part ) believes that
> �God created the light in very easy way.
> And the other part of mankind ( Scientific part ) believes that
> �the light is the quantum of light which simply has his own
> wave-particle abilities, of course, simultaneously.
and light is the left hand of darkness
All-seeing-I
> The God spoke in the darkness: �Let there be light !�
> And the God said in the darkness:
> Let there be light: and there was light.
> So, we must examine three conceptions: God, darkness and light.
> 1
> In the darkness it means in the spacetime of dark mass/ energy.
> The spacetime of dark mass/ energy it means in the Vacuum.
> The Vacuum is the Infinite/ Eternal Homogeneous Space
> of the lowest ( the background ) level of Energy: E= 0.
> The Vacuum is the Infinite/ Eternal Homogeneous Space
> of the lowest ( the background ) level of temperature: T= 0K.
> 2.
> The God is hidden into the Infinite/ Eternal Homogeneous
> Energy Space and we don�t know that to say about Him/ Her/ It.
> But we know, that according to Quantum Physics a virtual
> energetic particles can exist in this Infinite/ Eternal
> So, we can suppose that, maybe, from these virtual energetic
> 3.
> So, in the beginning God created the Light.
> The Bible explain us that the God created the light very easy.
> And for many years everybody adopted this convincing proof
> without any doubt.
> Only poor Einstein had doubts. He wrote sadly :
> � All these fifty years of conscious brooding have brought me
> Nowadays every Tom, Dick and Harry thinks he knows it,
> But Tom, Dick and Harry laughed.
> �What cannot the old Jew understand?� they said bewilder.
> � Isn�t clear that quantum of light is a simply wave-particle,
> � � . . . . .
> And now one part of mankind ( Religious part ) believes that
> And the other part of mankind ( Scientific part ) believes that
> wave-particle abilities, of course, simultaneously.
>
> These two great Mystical beliefs govern on the planet Earth
> without understand each other. This is situation that we have now.
> ===============================.
> Best wishes.
> �===============.
Einstein is the epitome of what science has done with creation. He
overcomplicated light just as science over complicates it's
explanations for creation.
God created light for out benefit. Why? so we can understand what
darkness is. How can one possibly know they are standing in light
until they have stood in darkness?
Which reminds me.
So many here blame God for evil. But you cannot have good without
evil. The trick, (that man has never caught on to after all this time)
is we have to control the evil within ourselves and the evil that is
around us. That is one of the primary themes throughout the bible. In
the beginning of the bible we have the story of Cain and Able story
showing what unbridled passions can result in and toward the end we
have Jesus saying you have power over your enemy, the 'evil' one,
then, at the very end, it shows the climax of evil finally being
defeated.
There is no left without a right. You cannot have a top without a
bottom. They are meaningless without the other. But they are only
meaningless from this current perspective we find ourselves in and
they only meaningless using our limited ability of perception.
That perspective will change one day.
What a shock some of you have coming.
Otto
news:81968a8d-1bbc-45f4...@p24g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
> The God spoke in the darkness: �ｿｽLet there be light !�ｿｽ
> . . . . . . . .
> And the God said in the darkness:
> Let there be light: and there was light.
> So, we must examine three conceptions: God, darkness and light.
> 1
> In the darkness it means in the spacetime of dark mass/ energy.
> The spacetime of dark mass/ energy it means in the Vacuum.
> The Vacuum is the Infinite/ Eternal Homogeneous Space
> of the lowest ( the background ) level of Energy: E= 0.
> The Vacuum is the Infinite/ Eternal Homogeneous Space
> of the lowest ( the background ) level of temperature: T= 0K.
> 2.
> The God is hidden into the Infinite/ Eternal Homogeneous
> But we know, that according to Quantum Physics a virtual
> energetic particles can exist in this Infinite/ Eternal
> Homogeneous Energy Space.
> So, we can suppose that, maybe, from these virtual energetic
> particles the God created light/ quantum of light.
> 3.
> So, in the beginning God created the Light.
> How did He do it?
> The Bible explain us that the God created the light very easy.
> And for many years everybody adopted this convincing proof
> without any doubt.
Doesn't the Bible say somewhere, "in the beginning was the Word" ?
> Only poor Einstein had doubts. He wrote sadly :
> �ｿｽ All these fifty years of conscious brooding have brought me
> no nearer to the answer to the question, 'What are light quanta?'
But strangely, when his death was nearing, he seems to have reverted (or
converted) to believing in God...
> Nowadays every Tom, Dick and Harry thinks he knows it,
> but he is mistaken. �ｿｽ
> But Tom, Dick and Harry laughed.
> �ｿｽWhat cannot the old Jew understand?�ｿｽ they said bewilder.
> �ｿｽ Isn�ｿｽt clear that quantum of light is a simply wave-particle,
> of course, simultaneously ?�ｿｽ
> . . . . .
> And now one part of mankind ( Religious part ) believes that
> God created the light in very easy way.
> And the other part of mankind ( Scientific part ) believes that
> the light is the quantum of light which simply has his own
> wave-particle abilities, of course, simultaneously.
That's silly. Could it have created itself ?
In order to be able to do this, it should BE itself God, shouldn't it ?
Otto
Otto
news:f8aed8e9-0d5e-4831...@33g2000yqo.googlegroups.com...
> socratus wrote:
>
>> The God spoke in the darkness: �Let there be light !�
>
> darkness was upon the face of the deep." So the planet was finished
> before there was a sun. Was the deep frozen?
It can also, and rightly so IMO, be interpreted as the presence of chaos,
out of which God made everything else. It doesn't say anywhere that there
was *nothing*.
Also, what was the "Earth" God is supposed to have made early on ? Was it,
in actual fact, like our own today's earth ? It doesn't look like it - if
God said, "Let there be light", this might have been the actual separation
from the Sun (the sun's body as we know it) from the earth.
Otto
All-seeing-I
> On Mon, 25 Jan 2010 05:37:51 +0000 (UTC), Kalkidas <e...@joes.pub>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> >5401ed9e6...@p24g2000yqm.googlegroups.com:
>
> >> The God spoke in the darkness: �Let there be light !�
>
>
> >> And now one part of mankind ( Religious part ) believes that
> >> And the other part of mankind ( Scientific part ) believes that
> >> wave-particle abilities, of course, simultaneously.
>
> >> These two great Mystical beliefs govern on the planet Earth
> >> without understand each other. This is situation that we have now.
>
> >The part cannot fully comprehend the whole. The whole, the Lord, knows
> >what light really "is". We do not. It is a permanent barrier.
>
> >But we can attain partial understanding, not by our unaided intellects,
> >but by taking instruction from the whole, the Lord.
>
> a recipe for intellectual suicide and permanent ignorance
>
as opposed to the science fanatic that believes the cure for a
chemical spill is MORE chemicals
heh
Burkhard
So god was not good and did not understand goodness before the fall
(or the rebellion of the angles)?
Erwin Moller
> "socratus" <isr...@yahoo.com> wrote in news message
> news:81968a8d-1bbc-45f4...@p24g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
>> And the God said in the darkness:
>> Let there be light: and there was light.
>> So, we must examine three conceptions: God, darkness and light.
>> 1
>> In the darkness it means in the spacetime of dark mass/ energy.
>> The spacetime of dark mass/ energy it means in the Vacuum.
>> The Vacuum is the Infinite/ Eternal Homogeneous Space
>> of the lowest ( the background ) level of Energy: E= 0.
>> The Vacuum is the Infinite/ Eternal Homogeneous Space
>> of the lowest ( the background ) level of temperature: T= 0K.
>> 2.
>> The God is hidden into the Infinite/ Eternal Homogeneous
>> But we know, that according to Quantum Physics a virtual
>> energetic particles can exist in this Infinite/ Eternal
>> Homogeneous Energy Space.
>> So, we can suppose that, maybe, from these virtual energetic
>> particles the God created light/ quantum of light.
>> 3.
>> So, in the beginning God created the Light.
>> How did He do it?
>> The Bible explain us that the God created the light very easy.
>> And for many years everybody adopted this convincing proof
>> without any doubt.
>
> Doesn't the Bible say somewhere, "in the beginning was the Word" ?
>
Hehe. :-)
The issue you raise would cause all kinds of (self) referential
problems, going waaaaaay over the heads of your average goat shepherd.
Hence the issue remains unadressed.
Regards,
Erwin Moller
--
"There are two ways of constructing a software design: One way is to
make it so simple that there are obviously no deficiencies, and the
other way is to make it so complicated that there are no obvious
deficiencies. The first method is far more difficult."
-- C.A.R. Hoare
Will in New Haven
> "socratus" <isra...@yahoo.com> wrote in news messagenews:81968a8d-1bbc-45f4...@p24g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
>
>
> > The God spoke in the darkness: �Let there be light !�
> > And the God said in the darkness:
> > Let there be light: and there was light.
> > So, we must examine three conceptions: God, darkness and light.
> > 1
> > In the darkness it means in the spacetime of dark mass/ energy.
> > The spacetime of dark mass/ energy it means in the Vacuum.
> > The Vacuum is the Infinite/ Eternal Homogeneous Space
> > of the lowest ( the background ) level of Energy: E= 0.
> > The Vacuum is the Infinite/ Eternal Homogeneous Space
> > of the lowest ( the background ) level of temperature: T= 0K.
> > 2.
> > The God is hidden into the Infinite/ Eternal Homogeneous
> > But we know, that according to Quantum Physics a virtual
> > energetic particles can exist in this Infinite/ Eternal
> > So, we can suppose that, maybe, from these virtual energetic
> > particles the God created light/ quantum of light.
> > 3.
> > So, in the beginning God created the Light.
> > How did He do it?
> > The Bible explain us that the God created the light very easy.
> > And for many years everybody adopted this convincing proof
> > without any doubt.
>
> Doesn't the Bible say somewhere, "in the beginning was the Word" ?
>
> > Only poor Einstein had doubts. He wrote sadly :
> > no nearer to the answer to the question, 'What are light quanta?'
>
> But strangely, when his death was nearing, he seems to have reverted (or
> converted) to believing in God...
You are either misinformed or lying.
Einstein consistently denied any belief in a personal deity.
--
Will in New Haven
Kleuskes & Moos
I may be news to you, but everything you eat, drink and breathe are
chemicals. The entire planet is made of chemicals...
So what's the big fear of chemicals? After all, you use chemicals to
do your dishes and laundry (i hope).
bobsyo...@yahoo.com
"socratus" <isr...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:81968a8d-1bbc-45f4...@p24g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
> The God spoke in the darkness: �Let there be light !�
Were you there?
Was any other religious believer there?
Along with the fact that there is NO evidence for ANY gawd - it still means
it's all bull shit!
raven1
wrote:
>> Only poor Einstein had doubts. He wrote sadly :
>> � All these fifty years of conscious brooding have brought me
>> no nearer to the answer to the question, 'What are light quanta?'
>
>But strangely, when his death was nearing, he seems to have reverted (or
>converted) to believing in God...
No, he didn't. He was very clear throughout his life that he
considered the idea of a personal god to be absurd.
Desertphile
<isr...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> The god spoke in the darkness: "Let there be light"
And you "know" this how?
--
http://desertphile.org
Desertphile's Desert Soliloquy. WARNING: view with plenty of water
"Why aren't resurrections from the dead noteworthy?" -- Jim Rutz
All-seeing-I
>
> - Show quoted text -
Why play dumb?
You know what kind of chemical spills was refered to (i hope)
Desertphile
wrote:
> The part cannot fully comprehend the whole. The whole, the lord, knows
> what light really "is".
Which lord is that? Aberdare? Anderson of Swansea? Boyd of
Duncansby? Campbell of Alloway? Davies of Oldham? Evans of Temple
Guiting? Falconer of Thoroton? Goff of Chieveley? Hannay of
Chiswick? Irvine of Lairg? Jones of Birmingham? King of West
Bromwich? Lewis of Newnham? Marshall of Knightsbridge? Nicholls of
Birkenhead? Oakeshott of Seagrove Bay? Patten of Barnes? Renfrew
of Kaimsthorn? Sheppard of Didgemere? Thomas of Swynnerton?
Vallance of Tummel? Williams of Elvel? Young of Norwood Green?
None of these lords are quantum physicists.
> We do not. It is a permanent barrier.
"We" meaning "Me," i.e., you. Keep your private ignorance to
yourself.
Desertphile
wrote:
That is the goal of theists: to snuff out the light.
Desertphile
<Ot...@ottolovesrisotto.com> wrote:
> > Only poor Einstein had doubts. He wrote sadly :
> > � All these fifty years of conscious brooding have brought me
> > no nearer to the answer to the question, 'What are light quanta?'
> But strangely, when his death was nearing, he seems to have reverted (or
> converted) to believing in god...
No.
TomS
<1f052409-ff79-4d00...@f12g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>, Will in New
Haven stated..."
>
>On Jan 25, 6:49�am, "Otto" <O...@ottolovesrisotto.com> wrote:
>>"socratus" <isra...@yahoo.com> wrote in news
>>messagenews:81968a8d-1bbc-45f4...@p24g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > And the God said in the darkness:
>> > Let there be light: and there was light.
>> > So, we must examine three conceptions: God, darkness and light.
>> > 1
>> > In the darkness it means in the spacetime of dark mass/ energy.
>> > The spacetime of dark mass/ energy it means in the Vacuum.
>> > The Vacuum is the Infinite/ Eternal Homogeneous Space
>> > of the lowest ( the background ) level of Energy: E= 0.
>> > The Vacuum is the Infinite/ Eternal Homogeneous Space
>> > of the lowest ( the background ) level of temperature: T= 0K.
>> > 2.
>> > The God is hidden into the Infinite/ Eternal Homogeneous
>> > But we know, that according to Quantum Physics a virtual
>> > energetic particles can exist in this Infinite/ Eternal
>> > So, we can suppose that, maybe, from these virtual energetic
>> > particles the God created light/ quantum of light.
>> > 3.
>> > So, in the beginning God created the Light.
>> > How did He do it?
>> > The Bible explain us that the God created the light very easy.
>> > And for many years everybody adopted this convincing proof
>> > without any doubt.
>>
>> Doesn't the Bible say somewhere, "in the beginning was the Word" ?
>>
>> > Only poor Einstein had doubts. He wrote sadly :
>> > no nearer to the answer to the question, 'What are light quanta?'
>>
>> But strangely, when his death was nearing, he seems to have reverted (or
>> converted) to believing in God...
>
>You are either misinformed or lying.
>Einstein consistently denied any belief in a personal deity.
>
This is rather off-topic for t.o, but I won't object.
I've never heard this "death-bed conversion" story about Einstein.
Does anyone have any information about the Einstein version of the
story? Confirmation or denial - or even an *un*reliable source for
the story as an "urban legend" as a curiosity, for it doesn't make
any difference, one way or the other, just as with the similar
story about Darwin. After all, Galileo *did* recant, and yet the
earth does move.
--
---Tom S.
the failure to nail currant jelly to a wall is not due to the nail; it is due to
the currant jelly.
Theodore Roosevelt, Letter to William Thayer, 1915 July 2
Desertphile
Cultists feel free to slander and libel Albert Einstein because
Einstein isn't alive to defend himself.
jillery
> "On Mon, 25 Jan 2010 07:57:25 -0800 (PST), in article
> Haven stated..."
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >On Jan 25, 6:49�am, "Otto" <O...@ottolovesrisotto.com> wrote:
> >>"socratus" <isra...@yahoo.com> wrote in news
> >>messagenews:81968a8d-1bbc-45f4...@p24g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
>
> >> > And the God said in the darkness:
> >> > Let there be light: and there was light.
> >> > So, we must examine three conceptions: God, darkness and light.
> >> > 1
> >> > In the darkness it means in the spacetime of dark mass/ energy.
> >> > The spacetime of dark mass/ energy it means in the Vacuum.
> >> > The Vacuum is the Infinite/ Eternal Homogeneous Space
> >> > of the lowest ( the background ) level of Energy: E= 0.
> >> > The Vacuum is the Infinite/ Eternal Homogeneous Space
> >> > of the lowest ( the background ) level of temperature: T= 0K.
> >> > 2.
> >> > The God is hidden into the Infinite/ Eternal Homogeneous
> >> > But we know, that according to Quantum Physics a virtual
> >> > energetic particles can exist in this Infinite/ Eternal
> >> > So, we can suppose that, maybe, from these virtual energetic
> >> > particles the God created light/ quantum of light.
> >> > 3.
> >> > So, in the beginning God created the Light.
> >> > How did He do it?
> >> > The Bible explain us that the God created the light very easy.
> >> > And for many years everybody adopted this convincing proof
> >> > without any doubt.
>
> >> Doesn't the Bible say somewhere, "in the beginning was the Word" ?
>
> >> > Only poor Einstein had doubts. He wrote sadly :
> >> > no nearer to the answer to the question, 'What are light quanta?'
>
> >> But strangely, when his death was nearing, he seems to have reverted (or
> >> converted) to believing in God...
>
> >You are either misinformed or lying.
> >Einstein consistently denied any belief in a personal deity.
>
> This is rather off-topic for t.o, but I won't object.
>
> I've never heard this "death-bed conversion" story about Einstein.
>
> Does anyone have any information about the Einstein version of the
> story? Confirmation or denial - or even an *un*reliable source for
> the story as an "urban legend" as a curiosity, for it doesn't make
> any difference, one way or the other, just as with the similar
> story about Darwin. After all, Galileo *did* recant, and yet the
> earth does move.
>
> --
> ---Tom S.
> the failure to nail currant jelly to a wall is not due to the nail; it is due to
> the currant jelly.
>
> - Show quoted text -
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2009/03/31/darwins-deathbed-conversion-legend
The guys on the their own team say its not true.
TomS
<3c126b8f-0f24-48d3...@r24g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>, jillery
stated..."
>
>On Jan 25, 12:49�pm, TomS <TomS_mem...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>> "On Mon, 25 Jan 2010 07:57:25 -0800 (PST), in article
>><1f052409-ff79-4d00-a11b-98810c4df...@f12g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>, Will in New
>> Haven stated..."
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> >On Jan 25, 6:49�am, "Otto" <O...@ottolovesrisotto.com> wrote:
>> >>"socratus" <isra...@yahoo.com> wrote in news
>>>>messagenews:81968a8d-1bbc-45f4...@p24g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> >> > And the God said in the darkness:
>> >> > Let there be light: and there was light.
>> >> > So, we must examine three conceptions: God, darkness and light.
>> >> > 1
>> >> > In the darkness it means in the spacetime of dark mass/ energy.
>> >> > The spacetime of dark mass/ energy it means in the Vacuum.
>> >> > The Vacuum is the Infinite/ Eternal Homogeneous Space
>> >> > of the lowest ( the background ) level of Energy: E= 0.
>> >> > The Vacuum is the Infinite/ Eternal Homogeneous Space
>> >> > of the lowest ( the background ) level of temperature: T= 0K.
>> >> > 2.
>> >> > The God is hidden into the Infinite/ Eternal Homogeneous
>> >> > But we know, that according to Quantum Physics a virtual
>> >> > energetic particles can exist in this Infinite/ Eternal
>> >> > So, we can suppose that, maybe, from these virtual energetic
>> >> > particles the God created light/ quantum of light.
>> >> > 3.
>> >> > So, in the beginning God created the Light.
>> >> > How did He do it?
>> >> > The Bible explain us that the God created the light very easy.
>> >> > And for many years everybody adopted this convincing proof
>> >> > without any doubt.
>>
>> >> Doesn't the Bible say somewhere, "in the beginning was the Word" ?
>>
>> >> > Only poor Einstein had doubts. He wrote sadly :
>> >> > no nearer to the answer to the question, 'What are light quanta?'
>>
>> >> But strangely, when his death was nearing, he seems to have reverted (or
>> >> converted) to believing in God...
>>
>> >You are either misinformed or lying.
>> >Einstein consistently denied any belief in a personal deity.
>>
>> This is rather off-topic for t.o, but I won't object.
>>
>> I've never heard this "death-bed conversion" story about Einstein.
>>
>> Does anyone have any information about the Einstein version of the
>> story? Confirmation or denial - or even an *un*reliable source for
>> the story as an "urban legend" as a curiosity, for it doesn't make
>> any difference, one way or the other, just as with the similar
>> story about Darwin. After all, Galileo *did* recant, and yet the
>> earth does move.
>>
>> --
>> ---Tom S.
>>the failure to nail currant jelly to a wall is not due to the nail; it is due to
>> the currant jelly.
>> Theodore Roosevelt, Letter to William Thayer, 1915 July 2- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
>http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2009/03/31/darwins-deathbed-conversion-legend
>
>The guys on the their own team say its not true.
>
The Wikipedia article on "Elizabeth Hope" (who seems to be the person
who started the story about Darwin) has this comment:
`False stories of deathbed recantations for other people are common.
Indeed, in his 1879 biography of his grandfather, Charles Darwin
himself recounted how the story had been started that his grandfather
Erasmus Darwin had called for Jesus on his deathbed in 1802, and
concluded by stating that "Such was the state of Christian feeling in
this country at the beginning of the present century... we may at
least hope that nothing of the kind now prevails".'
Kermit
"Stuff happens".
That's about as simple as it gets, but that doesn't explain anything,
does it? The universe is not constrained by your ignorance or
intellect. If your "explanations" do not make predictions, then they
aren't explanations.
>
> God created light for out benefit. Why? so we can understand what
> darkness is. How can one possibly know they are standing in light
> until they have stood in darkness?
How can you possibly see if you stand in the darkness and stare at
your own candle?
"Look how bright I shine!" you say. But you see nothing around you,
you do not see your place in the world, and you have no sense of
proportion.
>
> Which reminds me.
> So many here blame God for evil. But you cannot have good without
> evil. The trick, (that man has never caught on to after all this time)
> is we have to control the evil within ourselves and the evil that is
> around us.
How can you do that if you fight to stay ignorant? If you do not know
the consequences of your behavior, and are ignorant for self-serving
reasons, you are not taking a moral stance. You are simply *asserting
righteousness.
> That is one of the primary themes throughout the bible. In
> the beginning of the bible we have the story of Cain and Able story
> showing what unbridled passions can result in and toward the end we
> have Jesus saying you have power over your enemy, the 'evil' one,
> then, at the very end, it shows the climax of evil finally being
> defeated.
<shrug>
I though Cain and Able were a dim memory of going from hunter-gatherer
to agriculture.
Nobody's wrong when they interpret a Rorschach ink blot.
>
> There is no left without a right. You cannot have a top without a
> bottom. They are meaningless without the other. But they are only
> meaningless from this current perspective we find ourselves in and
> they only meaningless using our limited ability of perception.
And in a world without knowledge your ignorance would not be
noticeable, yes.
>
> That perspective will change one day.
>
> What a shock some of you have coming.
Arrogance is not achievement.
Fantasy is not knowledge.
Denial is not immortality.
Kermit
Conan the bacterium
> "socratus" <isra...@yahoo.com> wrote in news messagenews:81968a8d-1bbc-45f4...@p24g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
> > The God spoke in the darkness: �Let there be light !�
> > And the God said in the darkness:
> > Let there be light: and there was light.
> > So, we must examine three conceptions: God, darkness and light.
> > 1
> > In the darkness it means in the spacetime of dark mass/ energy.
> > The spacetime of dark mass/ energy it means in the Vacuum.
> > The Vacuum is the Infinite/ Eternal Homogeneous Space
> > of the lowest ( the background ) level of Energy: E= 0.
> > The Vacuum is the Infinite/ Eternal Homogeneous Space
> > of the lowest ( the background ) level of temperature: T= 0K.
> > 2.
> > The God is hidden into the Infinite/ Eternal Homogeneous
> > But we know, that according to Quantum Physics a virtual
> > energetic particles can exist in this Infinite/ Eternal
> > So, we can suppose that, maybe, from these virtual energetic
> > particles the God created light/ quantum of light.
> > 3.
> > So, in the beginning God created the Light.
> > How did He do it?
> > The Bible explain us that the God created the light very easy.
> > And for many years everybody adopted this convincing proof
> > without any doubt.
>
> Doesn't the Bible say somewhere, "in the beginning was the Word" ?
>
> > Only poor Einstein had doubts. He wrote sadly :
> > no nearer to the answer to the question, 'What are light quanta?'
>
> But strangely,when his death was nearing, he seems to have reverted (or
> converted) to believing in God...
Even stranger, not only is that story utterly untrue,
it's a conflation of a couple of other unture stories.
Conan
>
> > Nowadays every Tom, Dick and Harry thinks he knows it,
> > but he is mistaken. �
> > But Tom, Dick and Harry laughed.
> > �What cannot the old Jew understand?� they said bewilder.
> > � Isn�t clear that quantum of light is a simply wave-particle,
> > of course, simultaneously ?�
> > � �. . . . .
> > And now one part of mankind ( Religious part ) believes that
> > God created the light in very easy way.
> > And the other part of mankind ( Scientific part ) believes that
> > the light is the quantum of light which simply has his own
> > wave-particle abilities, of course, simultaneously.
>
> That's silly. Could it have created itself ?
> In order to be able to do this, it should BE itself God, shouldn't it ?
>
> Otto
>
>
>
> > These two great Mystical beliefs govern on the planet Earth
> > without understand each other. This is situation that we have now.
> > ===============================.
> > Best wishes.
> > Israel Sadovnik �Socratus
> > ===============.
Conan the bacterium
> "On Mon, 25 Jan 2010 07:57:25 -0800 (PST), in article
> Haven stated..."
>
>
>
>
>
> >On Jan 25, 6:49�am, "Otto" <O...@ottolovesrisotto.com> wrote:
> >>"socratus" <isra...@yahoo.com> wrote in news
> >>messagenews:81968a8d-1bbc-45f4...@p24g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
>
> >> > And the God said in the darkness:
> >> > Let there be light: and there was light.
> >> > So, we must examine three conceptions: God, darkness and light.
> >> > 1
> >> > In the darkness it means in the spacetime of dark mass/ energy.
> >> > The spacetime of dark mass/ energy it means in the Vacuum.
> >> > The Vacuum is the Infinite/ Eternal Homogeneous Space
> >> > of the lowest ( the background ) level of Energy: E= 0.
> >> > The Vacuum is the Infinite/ Eternal Homogeneous Space
> >> > of the lowest ( the background ) level of temperature: T= 0K.
> >> > 2.
> >> > The God is hidden into the Infinite/ Eternal Homogeneous
> >> > But we know, that according to Quantum Physics a virtual
> >> > energetic particles can exist in this Infinite/ Eternal
> >> > So, we can suppose that, maybe, from these virtual energetic
> >> > particles the God created light/ quantum of light.
> >> > 3.
> >> > So, in the beginning God created the Light.
> >> > How did He do it?
> >> > The Bible explain us that the God created the light very easy.
> >> > And for many years everybody adopted this convincing proof
> >> > without any doubt.
>
> >> Doesn't the Bible say somewhere, "in the beginning was the Word" ?
>
> >> > Only poor Einstein had doubts. He wrote sadly :
> >> > no nearer to the answer to the question, 'What are light quanta?'
>
> >> But strangely, when his death was nearing, he seems to have reverted (or
> >> converted) to believing in God...
>
> >You are either misinformed or lying.
> >Einstein consistently denied any belief in a personal deity.
>
> This is rather off-topic for t.o, but I won't object.
>
> I've never heard this "death-bed conversion" story about Einstein.
>
> Does anyone have any information about the Einstein version of the
> story? Confirmation or denial - or even an *un*reliable source for
> the story as an "urban legend" as a curiosity, for it doesn't make
> any difference, one way or the other, just as with the similar
> story about Darwin. After all, Galileo *did* recant, and yet the
> earth does move.
With the advent of Usenet, this story has moved
from the status of urban legend to the status
of tradition. Now, whenever any noted
atheist dies -- Isaac Asimov, Carl Sagan --
dies, someone(s) makes up a story of
a deathbed conversion, and it drearily
makes the rounds of Usenet posts and
emails.
Of course, another tradition is that when
a noted atheist dies, dozens of gleeful
posts appear announcing that he's now
burning in hell.
Deathbed conversion AND burning
in hell. Duelling lies.
Conan
Conan the bacterium
wrote:
> On Mon, 25 Jan 2010 12:19:19 -0500, raven1
>
> <quoththera...@nevermore.com> wrote:
> > On Mon, 25 Jan 2010 12:49:04 +0100, "Otto" <O...@ottolovesrisotto.com>
> > wrote:
>
> > >> Only poor Einstein had doubts. He wrote sadly :
> > >> no nearer to the answer to the question, 'What are light quanta?'
> > >But strangely, when his death was nearing, he seems to have reverted (or
> > >converted) to believing in God...
> > No, he didn't. He was very clear throughout his life that he
> > considered the idea of a personal god to be absurd.
>
> Cultists feel free to slander and libel Albert Einstein because
> Einstein isn't alive to defend himself.
It's amusing: they say, in so many words,
"The smartest scientist who ever lived believed
in God, so why don't you believe in God, science
boy? You think you're smarter than Einstein?
Huh? Do you?"
Of course when you then post quotes from
Big Al which demonstrate that he thought
that the kind of God they have in mind
was an absurdity, suddenly Einstein's
authority in this area seems to evaporate.
Conan
Spootnick
news:cjkrl59rd6jh4k0ms...@4ax.com...
As I replied to Will in New Haven - Einstein may have rejected belief in God
all his life; on his deathbed however, he seems to have accepted it.
Otto
Spootnick
news:1f052409-ff79-4d00...@f12g2000yqn.googlegroups.com...
> On Jan 25, 6:49 am, "Otto" <O...@ottolovesrisotto.com> wrote:
>> "socratus" <isra...@yahoo.com> wrote in news
>> messagenews:81968a8d-1bbc-45f4...@p24g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > And the God said in the darkness:
>> > Let there be light: and there was light.
>> > So, we must examine three conceptions: God, darkness and light.
>> > 1
>> > In the darkness it means in the spacetime of dark mass/ energy.
>> > The spacetime of dark mass/ energy it means in the Vacuum.
>> > The Vacuum is the Infinite/ Eternal Homogeneous Space
>> > of the lowest ( the background ) level of Energy: E= 0.
>> > The Vacuum is the Infinite/ Eternal Homogeneous Space
>> > of the lowest ( the background ) level of temperature: T= 0K.
>> > 2.
>> > The God is hidden into the Infinite/ Eternal Homogeneous
>> > But we know, that according to Quantum Physics a virtual
>> > energetic particles can exist in this Infinite/ Eternal
>> > So, we can suppose that, maybe, from these virtual energetic
>> > particles the God created light/ quantum of light.
>> > 3.
>> > So, in the beginning God created the Light.
>> > How did He do it?
>> > The Bible explain us that the God created the light very easy.
>> > And for many years everybody adopted this convincing proof
>> > without any doubt.
>>
>> Doesn't the Bible say somewhere, "in the beginning was the Word" ?
>>
>> > Only poor Einstein had doubts. He wrote sadly :
>> > no nearer to the answer to the question, 'What are light quanta?'
>>
>> But strangely, when his death was nearing, he seems to have reverted (or
>> converted) to believing in God...
>
> You are either misinformed or lying.
> Einstein consistently denied any belief in a personal deity.
Possibly misinformed, but not lying.
I read that Einstein said on his death bed, "God doesn't roll dice."
Otto
Spootnick
message
news:210c599f-0f1b-4700...@c29g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
> On Jan 25, 4:49 am, "Otto" <O...@ottolovesrisotto.com> wrote:
>> "socratus" <isra...@yahoo.com> wrote in news
>> messagenews:81968a8d-1bbc-45f4...@p24g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
>>
>>
>>
>> > And the God said in the darkness:
>> > Let there be light: and there was light.
>> > So, we must examine three conceptions: God, darkness and light.
>> > 1
>> > In the darkness it means in the spacetime of dark mass/ energy.
>> > The spacetime of dark mass/ energy it means in the Vacuum.
>> > The Vacuum is the Infinite/ Eternal Homogeneous Space
>> > of the lowest ( the background ) level of Energy: E= 0.
>> > The Vacuum is the Infinite/ Eternal Homogeneous Space
>> > of the lowest ( the background ) level of temperature: T= 0K.
>> > 2.
>> > The God is hidden into the Infinite/ Eternal Homogeneous
>> > But we know, that according to Quantum Physics a virtual
>> > energetic particles can exist in this Infinite/ Eternal
>> > So, we can suppose that, maybe, from these virtual energetic
>> > particles the God created light/ quantum of light.
>> > 3.
>> > So, in the beginning God created the Light.
>> > How did He do it?
>> > The Bible explain us that the God created the light very easy.
>> > And for many years everybody adopted this convincing proof
>> > without any doubt.
>>
>> Doesn't the Bible say somewhere, "in the beginning was the Word" ?
>>
>> > Only poor Einstein had doubts. He wrote sadly :
>> > no nearer to the answer to the question, 'What are light quanta?'
>>
>
>> But strangely,when his death was nearing, he seems to have reverted (or
>> converted) to believing in God...
>
>
> Even stranger, not only is that story utterly untrue,
> it's a conflation of a couple of other unture stories.
Well, let's hear it.
Otto
Jim
Jim
> socratus <isra...@yahoo.com> wrote in news:81968a8d-1bbc-45f4-8efc-
> 5401ed9e6...@p24g2000yqm.googlegroups.com:
>
> > The God spoke in the darkness: �Let there be light !�
>
> [snip]
>
> > And now one part of mankind ( Religious part ) believes that
> > �God created the light in very easy way.
> > And the other part of mankind ( Scientific part ) believes that
> > �the light is the quantum of light which simply has his own
> > wave-particle abilities, of course, simultaneously.
>
> > These two great Mystical beliefs govern on the planet Earth
> > without understand each other. This is situation that we have now.
>
> The part cannot fully comprehend the whole. The whole, the Lord, knows
> what light really "is". We do not. It is a permanent barrier.
>
> But we can attain partial understanding, not by our unaided intellects,
> but by taking instruction from the whole, the Lord.
Right. Where does the Lord expound on resolving the wave-particle
duality of light? In what holy book is the wave-particle nature of
light even mentioned, let alone addressed? I think the Lord wants us
to figure out things for ourselves...
raven1
False. The famous quote "God does not play dice with the universe" was
said well before his death, and was intended to express his
dissatisfaction with the idea of quantum randomness, not his belief in
a deity.
Dan Listermann
"Spootnick" <lwks...@cbgftsaoqi.com> wrote in message
news:hjktef$li2$1...@speranza.aioe.org...
.
haiku jones
> "Will in New Haven" <bill.re...@taylorandfrancis.com> wrote in news messagenews:1f052409-ff79-4d00...@f12g2000yqn.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
> > On Jan 25, 6:49 am, "Otto" <O...@ottolovesrisotto.com> wrote:
> >> "socratus" <isra...@yahoo.com> wrote in news
> >> messagenews:81968a8d-1bbc-45f4...@p24g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
>
> >> > And the God said in the darkness:
> >> > Let there be light: and there was light.
> >> > So, we must examine three conceptions: God, darkness and light.
> >> > 1
> >> > In the darkness it means in the spacetime of dark mass/ energy.
> >> > The spacetime of dark mass/ energy it means in the Vacuum.
> >> > The Vacuum is the Infinite/ Eternal Homogeneous Space
> >> > of the lowest ( the background ) level of Energy: E= 0.
> >> > The Vacuum is the Infinite/ Eternal Homogeneous Space
> >> > of the lowest ( the background ) level of temperature: T= 0K.
> >> > 2.
> >> > The God is hidden into the Infinite/ Eternal Homogeneous
> >> > But we know, that according to Quantum Physics a virtual
> >> > energetic particles can exist in this Infinite/ Eternal
> >> > Homogeneous Energy Space.
> >> > So, we can suppose that, maybe, from these virtual energetic
> >> > particles the God created light/ quantum of light.
> >> > 3.
> >> > So, in the beginning God created the Light.
> >> > How did He do it?
> >> > The Bible explain us that the God created the light very easy.
> >> > And for many years everybody adopted this convincing proof
> >> > without any doubt.
>
> >> Doesn't the Bible say somewhere, "in the beginning was the Word" ?
>
> >> > Only poor Einstein had doubts. He wrote sadly :
> >> > no nearer to the answer to the question, 'What are light quanta?'
>
> >> But strangely, when his death was nearing, he seems to have reverted (or
> >> converted) to believing in God...
>
> > You are either misinformed or lying.
> > Einstein consistently denied any belief in a personal deity.
>
> Possibly misinformed, but not lying.
> I read that Einstein said on his death bed, "God doesn't roll dice."
>
> Otto
Did Einstein say (approximately) that? Yes.
Famously so.
On his death bed? No. In his long-running
debates with his friend Neils Bohr over the
implications of quantum mechanics.
Haiku Jones
haiku jones
> "Conan the bacterium" <deinococcus0radiodur...@gmail.com> wrote in news
> messagenews:210c599f-0f1b-4700...@c29g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
> > On Jan 25, 4:49 am, "Otto" <O...@ottolovesrisotto.com> wrote:
> >> "socratus" <isra...@yahoo.com> wrote in news
> >> messagenews:81968a8d-1bbc-45f4...@p24g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
>
> >> > And the God said in the darkness:
> >> > Let there be light: and there was light.
> >> > So, we must examine three conceptions: God, darkness and light.
> >> > 1
> >> > In the darkness it means in the spacetime of dark mass/ energy.
> >> > The spacetime of dark mass/ energy it means in the Vacuum.
> >> > The Vacuum is the Infinite/ Eternal Homogeneous Space
> >> > of the lowest ( the background ) level of Energy: E= 0.
> >> > The Vacuum is the Infinite/ Eternal Homogeneous Space
> >> > of the lowest ( the background ) level of temperature: T= 0K.
> >> > 2.
> >> > The God is hidden into the Infinite/ Eternal Homogeneous
> >> > But we know, that according to Quantum Physics a virtual
> >> > energetic particles can exist in this Infinite/ Eternal
> >> > Homogeneous Energy Space.
> >> > So, we can suppose that, maybe, from these virtual energetic
> >> > particles the God created light/ quantum of light.
> >> > 3.
> >> > So, in the beginning God created the Light.
> >> > How did He do it?
> >> > The Bible explain us that the God created the light very easy.
> >> > And for many years everybody adopted this convincing proof
> >> > without any doubt.
>
> >> Doesn't the Bible say somewhere, "in the beginning was the Word" ?
>
> >> > Only poor Einstein had doubts. He wrote sadly :
> >> > no nearer to the answer to the question, 'What are light quanta?'
>
> >> But strangely,when his death was nearing, he seems to have reverted (or
> >> converted) to believing in God...
>
> > Even stranger, not only is that story utterly untrue,
> > it's a conflation of a couple of other unture stories.
>
> Well, let's hear it.
>
> Otto
It's mostly confabulated with the endlessly-repeated
story converted on his deathbed:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lady_Hope
That plus, as noted, the much more recent
phenomenon that whenever a prominent
atheist dies, stories of his "death bed
conversion" immediately start popping
up on Usenet.
Haiku Jones
Burkhard
> "Will in New Haven" <bill.re...@taylorandfrancis.com> wrote in news messagenews:1f052409-ff79-4d00...@f12g2000yqn.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
> > On Jan 25, 6:49 am, "Otto" <O...@ottolovesrisotto.com> wrote:
> >> "socratus" <isra...@yahoo.com> wrote in news
> >> messagenews:81968a8d-1bbc-45f4...@p24g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
>
> >> > And the God said in the darkness:
> >> > Let there be light: and there was light.
> >> > So, we must examine three conceptions: God, darkness and light.
> >> > 1
> >> > In the darkness it means in the spacetime of dark mass/ energy.
> >> > The spacetime of dark mass/ energy it means in the Vacuum.
> >> > The Vacuum is the Infinite/ Eternal Homogeneous Space
> >> > of the lowest ( the background ) level of Energy: E= 0.
> >> > The Vacuum is the Infinite/ Eternal Homogeneous Space
> >> > of the lowest ( the background ) level of temperature: T= 0K.
> >> > 2.
> >> > The God is hidden into the Infinite/ Eternal Homogeneous
> >> > But we know, that according to Quantum Physics a virtual
> >> > energetic particles can exist in this Infinite/ Eternal
> >> > Homogeneous Energy Space.
> >> > So, we can suppose that, maybe, from these virtual energetic
> >> > particles the God created light/ quantum of light.
> >> > 3.
> >> > So, in the beginning God created the Light.
> >> > How did He do it?
> >> > The Bible explain us that the God created the light very easy.
> >> > And for many years everybody adopted this convincing proof
> >> > without any doubt.
>
> >> Doesn't the Bible say somewhere, "in the beginning was the Word" ?
>
> >> > Only poor Einstein had doubts. He wrote sadly :
> >> > no nearer to the answer to the question, 'What are light quanta?'
>
> >> But strangely, when his death was nearing, he seems to have reverted (or
> >> converted) to believing in God...
>
> > You are either misinformed or lying.
> > Einstein consistently denied any belief in a personal deity.
>
> Possibly misinformed, but not lying.
> I read that Einstein said on his death bed, "God doesn't roll dice."
>
Nope, he said that long before his death. According to his son, who
was with him at that time, he was working until the very last, and
said::
"If only I had more math".
Kalkidas
7944d2...@n7g2000yqb.googlegroups.com:
> On Jan 25, 12:37�am, Kalkidas <e...@joes.pub> wrote:
>> socratus <isra...@yahoo.com> wrote in news:81968a8d-1bbc-45f4-8efc-
>> 5401ed9e6...@p24g2000yqm.googlegroups.com:
>>
>> > The God spoke in the darkness: �Let there be light !�
>>
>> [snip]
>>
>> > And now one part of mankind ( Religious part ) believes that
>> > �God created the light in very easy way.
>> > And the other part of mankind ( Scientific part ) believes that
>> > �the light is the quantum of light which simply has his own
>> > wave-particle abilities, of course, simultaneously.
>>
>> > These two great Mystical beliefs govern on the planet Earth
>> > without understand each other. This is situation that we have now.
>>
>> The part cannot fully comprehend the whole. The whole, the Lord, knows
>> what light really "is". We do not. It is a permanent barrier.
>>
>> But we can attain partial understanding, not by our unaided
intellects,
>> but by taking instruction from the whole, the Lord.
>
> Right. Where does the Lord expound on resolving the wave-particle
> duality of light? In what holy book is the wave-particle nature of
> light even mentioned, let alone addressed? I think the Lord wants us
> to figure out things for ourselves...
These things are expounded in the Vedic literature. But you have to have
the proper credentials to access them, just as in what you call
"science".
Don't blame the Lord for your own materialism.
Kalkidas
news:6olrl5h3me6goas89...@4ax.com:
> On Mon, 25 Jan 2010 05:37:51 +0000 (UTC), Kalkidas <e...@joes.pub>
> wrote:
>
>> The part cannot fully comprehend the whole. The whole, the lord, knows
>> what light really "is".
>
> Which lord is that? Aberdare? Anderson of Swansea? Boyd of
> Duncansby? Campbell of Alloway? Davies of Oldham? Evans of Temple
> Guiting? Falconer of Thoroton? Goff of Chieveley? Hannay of
> Chiswick? Irvine of Lairg? Jones of Birmingham? King of West
> Bromwich? Lewis of Newnham? Marshall of Knightsbridge? Nicholls of
> Birkenhead? Oakeshott of Seagrove Bay? Patten of Barnes? Renfrew
> of Kaimsthorn? Sheppard of Didgemere? Thomas of Swynnerton?
> Vallance of Tummel? Williams of Elvel? Young of Norwood Green?
You misquoted me. I wrote "Lord", not "lord"
RAM
> Jim <jimwille...@gmail.com> wrote in news:3850deed-4957-4284-b26d-
> 7944d2ac5...@n7g2000yqb.googlegroups.com:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jan 25, 12:37�am, Kalkidas <e...@joes.pub> wrote:
> >> socratus <isra...@yahoo.com> wrote in news:81968a8d-1bbc-45f4-8efc-
> >> 5401ed9e6...@p24g2000yqm.googlegroups.com:
>
>
>
> >> > And now one part of mankind ( Religious part ) believes that
> >> > And the other part of mankind ( Scientific part ) believes that
> >> > wave-particle abilities, of course, simultaneously.
>
> >> > These two great Mystical beliefs govern on the planet Earth
> >> > without understand each other. This is situation that we have now.
>
> >> The part cannot fully comprehend the whole. The whole, the Lord, knows
> >> what light really "is". We do not. It is a permanent barrier.
>
> >> But we can attain partial understanding, not by our unaided
> intellects,
> >> but by taking instruction from the whole, the Lord.
>
> > duality of light? � In what holy book is the wave-particle nature of
> > light even mentioned, let alone addressed? �I think the Lord wants us
> > to figure out things for ourselves...
>
> These things are expounded in the Vedic literature. But you have to have
> the proper credentials to access them, just as in what you call
> "science".
>
> Don't blame the Lord for your own materialism.
Ah ha now we have a Ray Ray version of Vedic beliefs. Just reverse
every thing science understands and declare it the "truth." How silly
can you get. Hopefully you understand that for Ray it is his way of
hating science and evolution. Is this your intent as well because it
is transparently idiotic. Ray has nothing to offer and you seem to be
in the same boat.
RAM
> On Jan 24, 11:23�pm, socratus <isra...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > And the God said in the darkness:
> > Let there be light: and there was light.
> > So, we must examine three conceptions: God, darkness and light.
> > 1
> > In the darkness it means in the spacetime of dark mass/ energy.
> > The spacetime of dark mass/ energy it means in the Vacuum.
> > The Vacuum is the Infinite/ Eternal Homogeneous Space
> > of the lowest ( the background ) level of Energy: E= 0.
> > The Vacuum is the Infinite/ Eternal Homogeneous Space
> > of the lowest ( the background ) level of temperature: T= 0K.
> > 2.
> > The God is hidden into the Infinite/ Eternal Homogeneous
> > Energy Space and we don�t know that to say about Him/ Her/ It.
> > But we know, that according to Quantum Physics a virtual
> > energetic particles can exist in this Infinite/ Eternal
> > So, we can suppose that, maybe, from these virtual energetic
> > 3.
> > So, in the beginning God created the Light.
> > The Bible explain us that the God created the light very easy.
> > And for many years everybody adopted this convincing proof
> > without any doubt.
> > � All these fifty years of conscious brooding have brought me
> > Nowadays every Tom, Dick and Harry thinks he knows it,
> > But Tom, Dick and Harry laughed.
> > �What cannot the old Jew understand?� they said bewilder.
> > � Isn�t clear that quantum of light is a simply wave-particle,
> > � � . . . . .
> > And now one part of mankind ( Religious part ) believes that
> > �God created the light in very easy way.
> > And the other part of mankind ( Scientific part ) believes that
> > �the light is the quantum of light which simply has his own
> > wave-particle abilities, of course, simultaneously.
>
> > These two great Mystical beliefs govern on the planet Earth
> > without understand each other. This is situation that we have now.
> > Best wishes.
> > Israel Sadovnik �Socratus
>
> Einstein is the epitome of what science has done with creation. He
> overcomplicated light just as science over complicates it's
> explanations for creation.
>
> darkness is. How can one possibly know they are standing in light
> until they have stood in darkness?
>
> So many here blame God for evil. But you cannot have good without
> evil. The trick, (that man has never caught on to after all this time)
> is we have to control the evil within ourselves and the evil that is
> the beginning of the bible we have the story of Cain and Able story
> showing what unbridled passions can result in and toward the end we
> have Jesus saying you have power over your enemy, the 'evil' one,
> then, at the very end, it shows the climax of evil finally being
> defeated.
>
there always will be evil. The only way to get rid of evil is to have
no values. So your Biblical summary is a failed enterprise. That is
why you look like a fool. You fail to understand that which you
pontificate on.
> There is no left without a right. You cannot have a top without a
> bottom. They are meaningless without the other. But they are only
> meaningless from this current perspective we find ourselves in and
> they only meaningless using our limited ability of perception.
More stupid summarizations. Empty rhetoric. Your limited perception
is not up to the task of understanding science and the nature of human
life whether biological or social.
>
> That perspective will change one day.
Not as long as you insist on willful ignorance.
>
> What a shock some of you have coming.
I fear you will be more shocked.
haiku jones
So God, before he created other things, was not good?
Or was he both good and evil, all by hisownself?
Haiku Jones
> The trick, (that man has never caught on to after all this time)
> is we have to control the evil within ourselves and the evil that is
> around us. That is one of the primary themes throughout the bible. In
> the beginning of the bible we have the story of Cain and Able story
> showing what unbridled passions can result in and toward the end we
> have Jesus saying you have power over your enemy, the 'evil' one,
> then, at the very end, it shows the climax of evil finally being
> defeated.
>
> There is no left without a right. You cannot have a top without a
> bottom. They are meaningless without the other. But they are only
> meaningless from this current perspective we find ourselves in and
> they only meaningless using our limited ability of perception.
>
> That perspective will change one day.
>
Kleuskes & Moos
> Jim <jimwille...@gmail.com> wrote in news:3850deed-4957-4284-b26d-
> 7944d2ac5...@n7g2000yqb.googlegroups.com:
>
>
>
>
>
> >> socratus <isra...@yahoo.com> wrote in news:81968a8d-1bbc-45f4-8efc-
> >> 5401ed9e6...@p24g2000yqm.googlegroups.com:
>
>
>
> >> > And now one part of mankind ( Religious part ) believes that
> >> > And the other part of mankind ( Scientific part ) believes that
> >> > wave-particle abilities, of course, simultaneously.
>
> >> > These two great Mystical beliefs govern on the planet Earth
> >> > without understand each other. This is situation that we have now.
>
> >> The part cannot fully comprehend the whole. The whole, the Lord, knows
> >> what light really "is". We do not. It is a permanent barrier.
>
> >> But we can attain partial understanding, not by our unaided
> intellects,
> >> but by taking instruction from the whole, the Lord.
>
> > duality of light? � In what holy book is the wave-particle nature of
> > light even mentioned, let alone addressed? �I think the Lord wants us
> > to figure out things for ourselves...
>
> These things are expounded in the Vedic literature. But you have to have
> the proper credentials to access them, just as in what you call
> "science".
The fun thing about science is that anyone can access them,
credentials or no credentials. All you really need is a desire to
understand, the sticktoitiveness to wade through the jargon and the IQ
to make sense of it.
> Don't blame the Lord for your own materialism.
Why not? After all wasn't it him who created us, all materialistic and
all? If you're gonna blame anyone, it's Him.
Kleuskes & Moos
> On Jan 25, 10:06�am, "Kleuskes & Moos" <kleu...@xs4all.nl> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Jan 25, 1:40�pm, All-seeing-I <ap...@email.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Jan 25, 5:11�am, bpuharic <w...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> > > > wrote:
>
> > > > >socratus <isra...@yahoo.com> wrote in news:81968a8d-1bbc-45f4-8efc-
> > > > >5401ed9e6...@p24g2000yqm.googlegroups.com:
>
> > > > >> The God spoke in the darkness: �Let there be light !�
>
> > > > >[snip]
>
> > > > >> And now one part of mankind ( Religious part ) believes that
> > > > >> �God created the light in very easy way.
> > > > >> And the other part of mankind ( Scientific part ) believes that
> > > > >> �the light is the quantum of light which simply has his own
> > > > >> wave-particle abilities, of course, simultaneously.
>
> > > > >> These two great Mystical beliefs govern on the planet Earth
> > > > >> without understand each other. This is situation that we have now.
>
> > > > >The part cannot fully comprehend the whole. The whole, the Lord, knows
> > > > >what light really "is". We do not. It is a permanent barrier.
>
> > > > >But we can attain partial understanding, not by our unaided intellects,
> > > > >but by taking instruction from the whole, the Lord.
>
>
> > > > which is the state of the religious fanatic-
>
> > > as opposed to the science fanatic that believes the cure for a
> > > chemical spill is MORE chemicals
>
> > > heh
>
> > I may be news to you, but everything you eat, drink and breathe are
> > chemicals. The entire planet is made of chemicals...
>
> > So what's the big fear of chemicals? After all, you use chemicals to
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
>
> You know what kind of chemical spills was refered to (i hope)
Nope. Enlighten me. Was it you not taking aim in the toilet? Again?
bpuharic
<ap...@email.com> wrote:
>
>Einstein is the epitome of what science has done with creation. He
>overcomplicated light just as science over complicates it's
>explanations for creation.
ROFLMAO!!
a key point of this moron is that relativity is easy to understand.
now he's saying it confuses him...he doesn't even keep track of his
own lies
>
>God created light for out benefit. Why? so we can understand what
>darkness is. How can one possibly know they are standing in light
>until they have stood in darkness?
of course creationists are, when they're not babbling on about this
garbage, telling us how the haitians caused their own death because of
pacts they made with demons.
>
>Which reminds me.
>So many here blame God for evil. But you cannot have good without
>evil.
funny that, if you're a creationist, that was god's original intent.
he created humans perfect until we caused the fall
so either way god fucked up
The trick, (that man has never caught on to after all this time)
>is we have to control the evil within ourselves and the evil that is
>around us. That is one of the primary themes throughout the bible
gee. what a novel discovery. no other society in history ever knew
about evil
>
>What a shock some of you have coming.
says the guy who's running blind without a cane
bpuharic
<ap...@email.com> wrote:
>On Jan 25, 5:11�am, bpuharic <w...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> On Mon, 25 Jan 2010 05:37:51 +0000 (UTC), Kalkidas <e...@joes.pub>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> which is the state of the religious fanatic-
>
>as opposed to the science fanatic that believes the cure for a
>chemical spill is MORE chemicals
>
>
science gives us a choice
creationism gives us only ignorance
bpuharic
<ap...@email.com> wrote:
>
>You know what kind of chemical spills was refered to (i hope)
science also gave us cures for leukemia, vaccines for polio, etc
when you tell your grandchildren not to be vaccinated against polio
you let me know
bpuharic
<lwks...@cbgftsaoqi.com> wrote:
>
>
>Possibly misinformed, but not lying.
>I read that Einstein said on his death bed, "God doesn't roll dice."
had zip to do with death. had LOTS to do with quantum physics.
>
>Otto
>
bpuharic
wrote:
>
>Doesn't the Bible say somewhere, "in the beginning was the Word" ?
gospel of john. 1st chapter, 1st verse
>
>> Only poor Einstein had doubts. He wrote sadly :
>> � All these fifty years of conscious brooding have brought me
>> no nearer to the answer to the question, 'What are light quanta?'
>
>But strangely, when his death was nearing, he seems to have reverted (or
>converted) to believing in God...
well, no he didnt
bpuharic
wrote:
>These things are expounded in the Vedic literature. But you have to have
>the proper credentials to access them, just as in what you call
>"science".
>
>Don't blame the Lord for your own materialism.
creationists believe their scriptures are literally true.
and proof of this is that god hides shit so that only the true
believers know it.
haiku jones
How many people died of smallpox last year -- smallpox being
a disease which has been estimated to have killed more people
than any other single disease in history.
I wonder how many people Adman knows who have
tuberculosis? Cholera? Amoebic dysentery?
Malaria?
Haiku Jones
Desertphile
<lwks...@cbgftsaoqi.com> wrote:
> As I replied to Will in New Haven - Einstein may have rejected belief in god
> all his life; on his deathbed however, he seems to have accepted it.
No.
--
Desertphile
wrote:
> >http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2009/03/31/darwins-deathbed-conversion-legend
> >The guys on the their own team say its not true.
> The Wikipedia article on "Elizabeth Hope" (who seems to be the person
> who started the story about Darwin) has this comment:
>
> `False stories of deathbed recantations for other people are common.
> Indeed, in his 1879 biography of his grandfather, Charles Darwin
> himself recounted how the story had been started that his grandfather
> Erasmus Darwin had called for Jesus on his deathbed in 1802, and
> concluded by stating that "Such was the state of Christian feeling in
> this country at the beginning of the present century... we may at
> least hope that nothing of the kind now prevails".'
The same slander was applied to Robert Green Ingersoll, 95 years
later (in +1,899 Gregorian Calendar). Theofascists never change
their vile spots.
Desertphile
wrote:
> Desertphile <deser...@invalid-address.net> wrote in
> news:6olrl5h3me6goas89...@4ax.com:
>
> > On Mon, 25 Jan 2010 05:37:51 +0000 (UTC), Kalkidas <e...@joes.pub>
> > wrote:
> >
> >> The part cannot fully comprehend the whole. The whole, the lord, knows
> >> what light really "is".
> >
> > Which lord is that? Aberdare? Anderson of Swansea? Boyd of
> > Duncansby? Campbell of Alloway? Davies of Oldham? Evans of Temple
> > Guiting? Falconer of Thoroton? Goff of Chieveley? Hannay of
> > Chiswick? Irvine of Lairg? Jones of Birmingham? King of West
> > Bromwich? Lewis of Newnham? Marshall of Knightsbridge? Nicholls of
> > Birkenhead? Oakeshott of Seagrove Bay? Patten of Barnes? Renfrew
> > of Kaimsthorn? Sheppard of Didgemere? Thomas of Swynnerton?
> > Vallance of Tummel? Williams of Elvel? Young of Norwood Green?
> You misquoted me. I wrote "lord", not "lord"
Yeah, and where I live (the USA) we don't have lords. No lords
that I can see based upon their biographies are quantum
physicists: therefore your statement that only lords know what
light is is patently false.
Elmer
(snip)
> as opposed to the science fanatic that believes the cure for a
> chemical spill is MORE chemicals
There's a line from a Bugs Bunny Cartoon which is applicable to your
comment:
Earle Jones
<81968a8d-1bbc-45f4...@p24g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>,
socratus <isr...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> The God spoke in the darkness: �Let there be light !�
*
"In the beginning, there was nothing. And God said, 'Let there be
light.' And there was light. There was still nothing, but you could
see it a lot better."
--Woody Allen
earle
*
JTEM
"Kleuskes & Moos" <kleu...@xs4all.nl> wrote:
> Kalkidas <e...@joes.pub> wrote:
>
> > Don't blame the Lord for your own materialism.
>
> Why not?
'Cus it's a really, really, Really, *Really* bad
argument. In fact, it's so bad that it shouldn't
even qualify as an argument, given the fact that
religionists have been comfortable dealing with the
concept of "Free Will" for millennia.
jillery
> In article
> <81968a8d-1bbc-45f4-8efc-5401ed9e6...@p24g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>,
>
> �socratus <isra...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > The God spoke in the darkness: �Let there be light !�
>
> *
> � �"In the beginning, there was nothing. And God said, 'Let there be
> � �light.' And there was light. There was still nothing, but you could
> � �see it a lot better."
>
> � � � � � � � � � �--Woody Allen
>
> earle
> *
Isaac Asimov wrote a great short story using this line, called "The
Final Question" He wasn't as funny as Woody, but I suspect they
appreciated each others' works.
Mike Lyle
> On Jan 25, 6:42 pm, All-seeing-I <ap...@email.com> wrote:
>> On Jan 25, 10:06 am, "Kleuskes & Moos" <kleu...@xs4all.nl> wrote:
>>> On Jan 25, 1:40 pm, All-seeing-I <ap...@email.com> wrote:
[...]
>>
>>>> as opposed to the science fanatic that believes the cure for a
>>>> chemical spill is MORE chemicals
>>
>>>> heh
>>
>>> I may be news to you, but everything you eat, drink and breathe are
>>> chemicals. The entire planet is made of chemicals...
>>
>>> So what's the big fear of chemicals? After all, you use chemicals to
>>> do your dishes and laundry (i hope).-
>>
>>
>> You know what kind of chemical spills was refered to (i hope)
>
> Nope. Enlighten me. Was it you not taking aim in the toilet? Again?
Set aside for a moment the fact that poor Adman, for personal reasons,
constantly sets himself up as a target. The fact is, you _do_ know what
he meant. You further know that our language has no conveniently
succinct way of distinguishing between the categories of chemical
substances he had in mind, and he can hardly be blamed for that.
Somebody may even be along in a moment to reveal the startling news that
the chemical compound popularly known as water is a major cause of human
mortality. Well, sorry, but we've heard it. And often from the lips of
those with a toxic axe to grind.
--
Mike.
RAM
And for most social scientists it is a load of cultural crap that has
no meaning except as a way of rationalizing a particular religious
vision.
Kalkidas
news:bc5c36ac-370f-4658...@c34g2000yqn.googlegroups.com:
> On Jan 25, 11:47�pm, Kalkidas <e...@joes.pub> wrote:
>> Jim <jimwille...@gmail.com> wrote in news:3850deed-4957-4284-b26d-
>> 7944d2ac5...@n7g2000yqb.googlegroups.com:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Jan 25, 12:37�am, Kalkidas <e...@joes.pub> wrote:
>> >> socratus <isra...@yahoo.com> wrote in
>> >> news:81968a8d-1bbc-45f4-8efc-
>> >> 5401ed9e6...@p24g2000yqm.googlegroups.com:
>>
>> >> > The God spoke in the darkness: �Let there be light !�
>>
>> >> [snip]
>>
>> >> > And now one part of mankind ( Religious part ) believes that
>> >> > �God created the light in very easy way.
>> >> > And the other part of mankind ( Scientific part ) believes that
>> >> > �the light is the quantum of light which simply has his own
>> >> > wave-particle abilities, of course, simultaneously.
>>
>> >> > These two great Mystical beliefs govern on the planet Earth
>> >> > without understand each other. This is situation that we have
>> >> > now.
>>
>> >> The part cannot fully comprehend the whole. The whole, the Lord,
>> >> knows what light really "is". We do not. It is a permanent
>> >> barrier.
>>
>> >> But we can attain partial understanding, not by our unaided
>> intellects,
>> >> but by taking instruction from the whole, the Lord.
>>
>> > Right. �Where does the Lord expound on resolving the wave-particle
>> > duality of light? � In what holy book is the wave-particle nature
>> > of light even mentioned, let alone addressed? �I think the Lord
>> > wants us to figure out things for ourselves...
>>
>> These things are expounded in the Vedic literature. But you have to
>> have the proper credentials to access them, just as in what you call
>> "science".
>
> The fun thing about science is that anyone can access them,
> credentials or no credentials. All you really need is a desire to
> understand, the sticktoitiveness to wade through the jargon and the IQ
> to make sense of it.
Really? Then go walk in the front door of the Large Hadron Collider and
demand to do an experiment. See whether they let you put your hands on
the machinery. If they ask for your credentials, tell them you "don't
need no stinking credentials" just a "desire to understand".
>> Don't blame the Lord for your own materialism.
>
> Why not? After all wasn't it him who created us, all materialistic and
> all? If you're gonna blame anyone, it's Him.
No, God didn't "create" us. We are without beginning or end, and all our
nonsense is the product of our own free will.
RAM
> "Kleuskes & Moos" <kleu...@xs4all.nl> wrote innews:bc5c36ac-370f-4658...@c34g2000yqn.googlegroups.com:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jan 25, 11:47�pm, Kalkidas <e...@joes.pub> wrote:
> >> Jim <jimwille...@gmail.com> wrote in news:3850deed-4957-4284-b26d-
> >> 7944d2ac5...@n7g2000yqb.googlegroups.com:
>
> >> >> socratus <isra...@yahoo.com> wrote in
> >> >> news:81968a8d-1bbc-45f4-8efc-
> >> >> 5401ed9e6...@p24g2000yqm.googlegroups.com:
>
>
>
> >> >> > And now one part of mankind ( Religious part ) believes that
> >> >> > And the other part of mankind ( Scientific part ) believes that
> >> >> > wave-particle abilities, of course, simultaneously.
>
> >> >> > These two great Mystical beliefs govern on the planet Earth
> >> >> > without understand each other. This is situation that we have
> >> >> > now.
>
> >> >> The part cannot fully comprehend the whole. The whole, the Lord,
> >> >> knows what light really "is". We do not. It is a permanent
> >> >> barrier.
>
> >> >> But we can attain partial understanding, not by our unaided
> >> intellects,
> >> >> but by taking instruction from the whole, the Lord.
>
> >> > duality of light? � In what holy book is the wave-particle nature
> >> > of light even mentioned, let alone addressed? �I think the Lord
> >> > wants us to figure out things for ourselves...
>
> >> These things are expounded in the Vedic literature. But you have to
> >> have the proper credentials to access them, just as in what you call
> >> "science".
>
> > The fun thing about science is that anyone can access them,
> > credentials or no credentials. All you really need is a desire to
> > understand, the sticktoitiveness to wade through the jargon and the IQ
> > to make sense of it.
>
> Really? Then go walk in the front door of the Large Hadron Collider and
> demand to do an experiment. See whether they let you put your hands on
> the machinery. If they ask for your credentials, tell them you "don't
> need no stinking credentials" just a "desire to understand".
>
> >> Don't blame the Lord for your own materialism.
>
> > Why not? After all wasn't it him who created us, all materialistic and
> > all? If you're gonna blame anyone, it's Him.
>
> No, God didn't "create" us. We are without beginning or end, and all our
> nonsense is the product of our own free will.
Silly
bpuharic
wrote:
>"Kleuskes & Moos" <kle...@xs4all.nl> wrote in
>news:bc5c36ac-370f-4658...@c34g2000yqn.googlegroups.com:
>
>>
>> The fun thing about science is that anyone can access them,
>> credentials or no credentials. All you really need is a desire to
>> understand, the sticktoitiveness to wade through the jargon and the IQ
>> to make sense of it.
>
>Really? Then go walk in the front door of the Large Hadron Collider and
>demand to do an experiment. See whether they let you put your hands on
>the machinery. If they ask for your credentials, tell them you "don't
>need no stinking credentials" just a "desire to understand".
of course, the idiot kinda forgets his religion doesnt even know what
the LHC is, how it works or what it's used for
he believes in astrology. who needs physics when you can cast
horoscopes to cast bets on which untouchable is going to be the next
to die?
>
>
>>> Don't blame the Lord for your own materialism.
>>
>> Why not? After all wasn't it him who created us, all materialistic and
>> all? If you're gonna blame anyone, it's Him.
>
>No, God didn't "create" us. We are without beginning or end, and all our
>nonsense is the product of our own free will.
really? the creationists don't like this stuff
JTEM
RAM <ramather...@gmail.com> wrote:
A rather moot point, as it is not these "social scientist"
you're trying to convince.
So, again, it's a really, really, Really, *Really* piss
poor argument, one that has no hope of convincing anyone.
...not even those social scientist you speak of. After
all, they already agree with you.
JTEM
bpuharic <w...@comcast.net> wrote:
> of course, the idiot kinda forgets his religion
> doesnt even know what the LHC is, how it works
> or what it's used for
>
> he believes in astrology. who needs physics when
> you can cast horoscopes to cast bets on which
> untouchable is going to be the next to die?
You need to Google "Fallacious Arguments," and you
need to do it __Now__.
bpuharic
wrote:
why? did you have him do your horoscope?
JTEM
This "bpuharic" shit stain demonstrates for us
how one answers their own question...
bpuharic <w...@comcast.net> wrote:
RAM
> �RAM <ramather...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > JTEM <jte...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > "Kleuskes & Moos" <kleu...@xs4all.nl> wrote:
> > > > Kalkidas <e...@joes.pub> wrote:
> > > > > Don't blame the Lord for your own materialism.
>
> > > > Why not?
>
> > > 'Cus it's a really, really, Really, *Really* bad
> > > argument. In fact, it's so bad that it shouldn't
> > > even qualify as an argument, given the fact that
> > > religionists have been comfortable dealing with the
> > > concept of "Free Will" for millennia.
> > And for most social scientists it is a load of cultural
> > crap that has no meaning except as a way of
> > rationalizing a particular religious vision.
>
> A rather moot point, as it is not these "social scientist"
> you're trying to convince.
I'm not trying to convince religionists (particularly Christianist) of
anything. That is not generally possible. I was pointing out "free
will" has loaded cultural meanings and is basically irrational and if
rational explains nothing. That it falls on deaf Christian ears is a
given. I prefer to attack the illogic and to it is an ancient
irrational set of justifications that explains nothing. That you
declare it a "really" poor argument that convinces no one is moot to
me.
>
> So, again, it's a really, really, Really, *Really* piss
> poor argument, one that has no hope of convincing anyone.
>
So you say. I didn't intent it to convince you. Assuming you are
someone. But it is not a moot point for those who view it as a silly
argument.
> � � ...not even those social scientist you speak of. After
> all, they already agree with you.
It is not a matter of agreement but of empirical adequacy.
bpuharic
wrote:
>
>
>This "bpuharic" shit stain demonstrates for us
>how one answers their own question...
when in trouble
when in doubt
run in circles
scream and shout
you keep telling us the sky is falling and so far you havent even
proven the sky exists.
tell us more, oh great fairy tale teller!
Nick Keighley
> I wonder how many people Adman knows who have
> tuberculosis? �Cholera? �Amoebic dysentery?
I know someone who's had it (no fun at all I'm told)
> Malaria?
I've met a couple of people who were/are carriers
JTEM
bpuharic <w...@comcast.net> wrote:
> when in trouble
> when in doubt
When are you going to take your meds?
JTEM
RAM <ramather...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I didn't intent it to convince you. �Assuming you are
> someone. �But it is not a moot point for those who
> view it as a silly argument.
No. that would be "Preaching to the converted."
All I;m suggesting is that time is better spent arguing
with those who disagree with you.
RAM
> �RAM <ramather...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > I didn't intent it to convince you. �Assuming you are
> > someone. �But it is not a moot point for those who
> > view it as a silly argument.
>
> No. that would be "Preaching to the converted."
No you don't seem to want to get the point. I'm not preaching to the
converted.
You keep missing the point.
>
> All I;m suggesting is that time is better spent arguing
> with those who disagree with you.
All I'm suggesting is that I do point out to those who disagree with
me the stupidity of their argument; independent of your claims, which
I dismiss.
bpuharic
wrote:
>
you sure you're not 'all seeing I'
you religious fanatics seem to argue the same cliches
JohnN
> The God (may have) spoke in the darkness: �Let there be light !�
but Tom Edison and Nikola Tesla made it happen
JohnN
Desertphile
<jnor...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Jan 25, 12:23�am, socratus <isra...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > The god (may have) spoke in the darkness: �Let there be light !�
> but Tom Edison and Nikola Tesla made it happen
And then General Electric came along, started making land mines,
and many thousands of children have had their legs and arms blown
off with GE products. This light thing was a bad idea.
bpuharic
<jnor...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>On Jan 25, 12:23�am, socratus <isra...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> The God (may have) spoke in the darkness: �Let there be light !�
>
>but Tom Edison and Nikola Tesla made it happen
>
nah, they invented the electirc bill
chris thompson
wrote:
> On Thu, 28 Jan 2010 10:06:45 -0800 (PST), JohnN
>
> > On Jan 25, 12:23�am, socratus <isra...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > The god (may have) spoke in the darkness: �Let there be light !�
> > but Tom Edison and Nikola Tesla made it happen
>
> And then General Electric came along, started making land mines,
> and many thousands of children have had their legs and arms blown
> off with GE products. This light thing was a bad idea.
Hmm. Tesla was hooked up with Westinghouse and Edison started
Consolidated Edison. Really can't blame them for GE.
"We bring good things to life!"
Chris
PS: Wiki says the US stopped making land mines in 1997 (but we have
gazillions in storage).
Devils Advocaat
> On Thu, 28 Jan 2010 10:06:45 -0800 (PST), JohnN
>
> >On Jan 25, 12:23 am, socratus <isra...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> The God (may have) spoke in the darkness: Let there be light !
>
> >but Tom Edison and Nikola Tesla made it happen
>
> nah, they invented the electirc bill
Not the dreaded elect-irc bill
Kleuskes & Moos
When is irc going to be elected? Is Bill his campaign manager?
bpuharic
yeah that too!
jillery
wrote:
> On Jan 28, 1:29�pm, Desertphile <desertph...@invalid-address.net>
> wrote:
>
> > On Thu, 28 Jan 2010 10:06:45 -0800 (PST), JohnN
>
> > <jnorri...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Jan 25, 12:23�am, socratus <isra...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > > The god (may have) spoke in the darkness: �Let there be light !�
> > > but Tom Edison and Nikola Tesla made it happen
>
> > And then General Electric came along, started making land mines,
> > and many thousands of children have had their legs and arms blown
> > off with GE products. This light thing was a bad idea.
>
> Hmm. Tesla was hooked up with Westinghouse and Edison started
> Consolidated Edison. Really can't blame them for GE.
Roughly speaking, JP Morgan was to Edison as Westinghouse was to
Tesla. Morgan's house was the first one Edison electrified with his
DC system. Almost burned it down, too. Nevertheless, JP Morgan
helped to finance Edison's electric companies, and probably other
projects as well. JP Morgan merged Edison General Electic with
Thomson-Houston Electric to start General Electric.
FWIW
> "We bring good things to life!"
>
> Chris
> PS: Wiki says the US stopped making land mines in 1997 (but we have
> gazillions in storage).
>
>
>
>
>
> > --http://desertphile.org
> > Desertphile's Desert Soliloquy. WARNING: view with plenty of water
> > "Why aren't resurrections from the dead noteworthy?" -- Jim Rutz- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Otto
<Since_humans_read_this...@spamyourself.com> wrote in
news message 4b5d9c99$0$22903$e4fe...@news.xs4all.nl...
> Otto schreef:
>> "socratus" <isr...@yahoo.com> wrote in news message
>> news:81968a8d-1bbc-45f4...@p24g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
>>> The God spoke in the darkness: �Let there be light !�
>>> . . . . . . . .
>>> And the God said in the darkness:
>>> Let there be light: and there was light.
>>> So, we must examine three conceptions: God, darkness and light.
>>> 1
>>> In the darkness it means in the spacetime of dark mass/ energy.
>>> The spacetime of dark mass/ energy it means in the Vacuum.
>>> The Vacuum is the Infinite/ Eternal Homogeneous Space
>>> of the lowest ( the background ) level of Energy: E= 0.
>>> The Vacuum is the Infinite/ Eternal Homogeneous Space
>>> of the lowest ( the background ) level of temperature: T= 0K.
>>> 2.
>>> The God is hidden into the Infinite/ Eternal Homogeneous
>>> Energy Space and we don�t know that to say about Him/ Her/ It.
>>> But we know, that according to Quantum Physics a virtual
>>> energetic particles can exist in this Infinite/ Eternal
>>> Homogeneous Energy Space.
>>> So, we can suppose that, maybe, from these virtual energetic
>>> particles the God created light/ quantum of light.
>>> 3.
>>> So, in the beginning God created the Light.
>>> How did He do it?
>>> The Bible explain us that the God created the light very easy.
>>> God simply said: �Let there be light: and there was light.�
>>> And for many years everybody adopted this convincing proof
>>> without any doubt.
>>
>> Doesn't the Bible say somewhere, "in the beginning was the Word" ?
>>
>
> Hehe. :-)
>
> The issue you raise would cause all kinds of (self) referential problems,
> going waaaaaay over the heads of your average goat shepherd.
> Hence the issue remains unadressed.
Maybe. We'll see.
You are not addressing it, are you ?
Otto
Otto
7e25e917-f0b8-4958...@n7g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...
> On Jan 25, 1:01 pm, "Spootnick" <lwkss...@cbgftsaoqi.com> wrote:
>> "Will in New Haven" <bill.re...@taylorandfrancis.com> wrote in news
>> messagenews:1f052409-ff79-4d00...@f12g2000yqn.googlegroups.com...
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Jan 25, 6:49 am, "Otto" <O...@ottolovesrisotto.com> wrote:
>> >> "socratus" <isra...@yahoo.com> wrote in news
>> >> > � All these fifty years of conscious brooding have brought me
>> >> > no nearer to the answer to the question, 'What are light quanta?'
>>
>> >> But strangely, when his death was nearing, he seems to have reverted
>> >> (or
>> >> converted) to believing in God...
>>
>> > You are either misinformed or lying.
>> > Einstein consistently denied any belief in a personal deity.
>>
>> Possibly misinformed, but not lying.
>> I read that Einstein said on his death bed, "God doesn't roll dice."
>>
>> Otto
>
> Did Einstein say (approximately) that? Yes.
> Famously so.
>
> On his death bed? No. In his long-running
> debates with his friend Neils Bohr over the
> implications of quantum mechanics.
Did you never read that story, Herman - I mean, Jones ? It must have been
spread far and wide. I suppose it doesn't quite reflect the truth of how it
really happened anymore.
Otto
Otto
274441746.000...@drn.newsguy.com...
> "On Mon, 25 Jan 2010 07:57:25 -0800 (PST), in article
> <1f052409-ff79-4d00...@f12g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>, Will
> in New
> Haven stated..."
>
> I've never heard this "death-bed conversion" story about Einstein.
>
> Does anyone have any information about the Einstein version of the
> story? Confirmation or denial - or even an *un*reliable source for
> the story as an "urban legend" as a curiosity, for it doesn't make
> any difference, one way or the other, just as with the similar
> story about Darwin. After all, Galileo *did* recant, and yet the
> earth does move.
Galileo recanted, but he had to. That's to say, he was put before a choice
and he chose the best option (or the next best, some would probably say).
About the Einstein conversion - I read that a long time ago. It's something
which sounded like an established fact. But then urban legends so often
do....
> the failure to nail currant jelly to a wall is not due to the nail; it is
> due to
> the currant jelly.
> Theodore Roosevelt, Letter to William Thayer, 1915 July 2
So Roosevelt assigned responsibility to currant jelly ? I'd think if you try
to nail currant jelly to a wall and it doesn't work, it's your own fault,
not the currant jelly's. Roosevelt seems to have gotten it wrong there.
Otto
Otto
0n1sl5tkp8k26ku0d...@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 25 Jan 2010 21:03:28 +0100, "Spootnick"
> <lwks...@cbgftsaoqi.com> wrote:
>
>>"raven1" <quotht...@nevermore.com> wrote in news message
>>news:cjkrl59rd6jh4k0ms...@4ax.com...
>>> On Mon, 25 Jan 2010 12:49:04 +0100, "Otto" <Ot...@ottolovesrisotto.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>> Only poor Einstein had doubts. He wrote sadly :
>>>>> ' All these fifty years of conscious brooding have brought me
>>>>> no nearer to the answer to the question, 'What are light quanta?'
>>>>
>>>>But strangely, when his death was nearing, he seems to have reverted (or
>>>>converted) to believing in God...
>>>
>>> considered the idea of a personal god to be absurd.
>>>
>>
>>As I replied to Will in New Haven - Einstein may have rejected belief in
>>God
>>all his life; on his deathbed however, he seems to have accepted it.
>
> False. The famous quote "God does not play dice with the universe" was
> said well before his death, and was intended to express his
> dissatisfaction with the idea of quantum randomness, not his belief in
> a deity.
>
To me, it doesn't sound like some expressing something about quantum
physics, but about God.
Otto
Otto
hjk0nv$2vs$1...@speranza.aioe.org...
> "DougC" <prig...@aol.com> wrote in news message
> news:f8aed8e9-0d5e-4831...@33g2000yqo.googlegroups.com...
>> socratus wrote:
>>
>>> The God spoke in the darkness: "Let there be light !"
>>
>> darkness was upon the face of the deep." So the planet was finished
>> before there was a sun. Was the deep frozen?
>
> It can also, and rightly so IMO, be interpreted as the presence of chaos,
> out of which God made everything else. It doesn't say anywhere that there
> was *nothing*.
>
> Also, what was the "Earth" God is supposed to have made early on ? Was it,
> in actual fact, like our own today's earth ? It doesn't look like it - if
> God said, "Let there be light", this might have been the actual separation
> from the Sun (the sun's body as we know it) from the earth.
>
> Otto
Should I add that this leaves open the possibility of a combination of an
intelligent design and evolution ?
Otto
Otto
> On Jan 25, 1:03 pm, "Spootnick" <lwkss...@cbgftsaoqi.com> wrote:
>> "Conan the bacterium" <deinococcus0radiodur...@gmail.com> wrote in news
>> messagenews:210c599f-0f1b-4700...@c29g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Jan 25, 4:49 am, "Otto" <O...@ottolovesrisotto.com> wrote:
>> >> "socratus" <isra...@yahoo.com> wrote in news
>> >> messagenews:81968a8d-1bbc-45f4...@p24g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> >> > � All these fifty years of conscious brooding have brought me
>> >> > no nearer to the answer to the question, 'What are light quanta?'
>>
>> >> converted) to believing in God...
>>
>> > it's a conflation of a couple of other unture stories.
>>
>> Well, let's hear it.
>>
>> Otto
>
> It's mostly confabulated with the endlessly-repeated
> story converted on his deathbed:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lady_Hope
>
> That plus, as noted, the much more recent
> phenomenon that whenever a prominent
> atheist dies, stories of his "death bed
> conversion" immediately start popping
> up on Usenet.
>
>
> Haiku Jones
>
The Lady Hope article is very interesting. I am not surprised Darwin's
descendants denied Darwin's supposed acceptance of Christianity tooth and
nail as it would seemingly make it look like he had effectively recanted on
his theory of evolution, but this is not necessarily so. The article makes
it clear Darwin wasn't very constant in his world view; he could have gone
through periods in his life when his would ask himself more questions than
he would do at other times. What's more, the fact of asking Lady Hope to
speak on Christ doesn't seem irreconcilable to me with his theory of
evolution (or at least not with the basic idea). Did Christ Himself say
anything which would imply that living species don't change over time ?
Otto
raven1
wrote:
"I cannot conceive of a personal God who would directly influence the
actions of individuals, or would directly sit in judgment on creatures
of his own creation. I cannot do this in spite of the fact that
mechanistic causality has, to a certain extent, been placed in doubt
by modern science. My religiosity consists in a humble admiration of
the infinitely superior spirit that reveals itself in the little that
we, with our weak and transitory understanding, can comprehend of
reality. Morality is of the highest importance-but for us, not for
God."
-- Albert Einstein. August 1927. Berlin, Germany.
"I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but
have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called
religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the
world so far as our science can reveal it."
-- Albert Einstein. December 1939. Princeton, New Jersey.
"I have tried to respond to your question as simply as I could. Here
is my answer. Scientific research is based on the idea that everything
that takes place is determined by laws of nature, and therefore this
holds for the actions of people. For this reason, a research scientist
will hardly be inclined to believe that events could be influenced by
a prayer, i.e. by a wish addressed to a supernatural Being."
-- Albert Einstein. January 1936. Princeton, New Jersey.
"I have never imputed to Nature a purpose or a goal, or anything that
could be understood as anthropomorphic. What I see in Nature is a
magnificent structure that we can comprehend only very imperfectly,
and that must fill a thinking person with a feeling of "humility."
This is a genuinely religious feeling that has nothing to do with
mysticism."
-- Albert Einstein. 1954
"I do not believe in immortality of the individual, and I consider
ethics to be an exclusively human concern with no superhuman authority
behind it."
-- Albert Einstein. July 1953.
"The mystical trend of our time, which shows itself particularly in
the rampant growth of the so-called Theosophy and Spiritualism, is for
me no more than a symptom of weakness and confusion. Since our inner
experiences consist of reproductions and combinations of sensory
impressions, the concept of a soul without a body seems to me to be
empty and devoid of meaning."
-- Albert Einstein. February 1921.
"The most beautiful and deepest experience a man can have is the sense
of the mysterious. It is the underlying principle of religion as well
as all serious endeavor in art and science. He who never had this
experience seems to me, if not dead, then at least blind. To sense
that behind anything that can be experienced there is a something that
our mind cannot grasp and whose beauty and sublimity reaches us only
indirectly and as a feeble reflection, this is religiousness. In this
sense I am religious."
-- Albert Einstein. 1932.
Mike Lyle
[...]
>>
>> False. The famous quote "God does not play dice with the universe"
>> was said well before his death, and was intended to express his
>> dissatisfaction with the idea of quantum randomness, not his belief
>> in a deity.
>>
>
> To me, it doesn't sound like some expressing something about quantum
> physics, but about God.
>
I wouldn't be able to guess how many people I know have said "If God had
meant us to xxx, he wouldn't have yyy." More famously, Stephen Hawking
referred to "the mind of God", in the only phrase from the book most
people can remember (even me, and I actually _read_ it). The Spinoza God
isn't really a god at all; and many religious practitioners seem to go
through great mental contortions to avoid admitting to themselves that
they are actually agnostics or even atheists.
--
Mike.
John Wilkins
<Ot...@ottolovesrisotto.com> wrote:
...
> ...Did Christ Himself say
> anything which would imply that living species don't change over time ?
How could he? "Species" as a term of biology wasn't used until the 16th
century, and wasn't defined until 1686. He probably thought the world
was a few thousand years old, but he also thought that the smallest
seed was the mustard seed, apparently, and that lightning falls from
the sky. Basically, Jesus knew very little about the natural world.
Now is this a failing of Jesus as a scientist? Surely, but if I recall
my Christology properly, Jesus was supposed to be "fully man", and
hence would have had only the background knowledge available to those
with whom he grew up, apart, one supposes, from whatever revelation was
provided to him by God the Father. Hence, we should not infer, if we
are Christians, from what Jesus knew about matters not pertaining to
his mission, to what is true in the general world.
Or, as Galileo is supposed to have said, the Bible teaches how to go to
heaven, not how the heavens go (or the world beneath them, either).
socratus
> On Sat, 30 Jan 2010 19:28:28 +0100, "Otto" <O...@ottolovesrisotto.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> >"raven1" <quoththera...@nevermore.com> wrote in news message
> >0n1sl5tkp8k26ku0d1lkhtuksmsb72j...@4ax.com...
> >> On Mon, 25 Jan 2010 21:03:28 +0100, "Spootnick"
>
> >>>"raven1" <quoththera...@nevermore.com> wrote in news message
> >>>news:cjkrl59rd6jh4k0ms...@4ax.com...
> >>>> On Mon, 25 Jan 2010 12:49:04 +0100, "Otto" <O...@ottolovesrisotto.com>
>
> "I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but
> have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called
> religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the
> world so far as our science can reveal it."
>
>
> "I have tried to respond to your question as simply as I could. Here
> is my answer. Scientific research is based on the idea that everything
> that takes place is determined by laws of nature, and therefore this
> holds for the actions of people. For this reason, a research scientist
> will hardly be inclined to believe that events could be influenced by
> a prayer, i.e. by a wish addressed to a supernatural Being."
>
>
> "I have never imputed to Nature a purpose or a goal, or anything that
> could be understood as anthropomorphic. What I see in Nature is a
> magnificent structure that we can comprehend only very imperfectly,
> and that must fill a thinking person with a feeling of "humility."
> This is a genuinely religious feeling that has nothing to do with
> mysticism."
>
>
> "I do not believe in immortality of the individual, and I consider
> ethics to be an exclusively human concern with no superhuman authority
> behind it."
>
>
> "The mystical trend of our time, which shows itself particularly in
> the rampant growth of the so-called Theosophy and Spiritualism, is for
> me no more than a symptom of weakness and confusion. Since our inner
> experiences consist of reproductions and combinations of sensory
> impressions, the concept of a soul without a body seems to me to be
> empty and devoid of meaning."
>
>
> "The most beautiful and deepest experience a man can have is the sense
> of the mysterious. It is the underlying principle of religion as well
> as all serious endeavor in art and science. He who never had this
> experience seems to me, if not dead, then at least blind. To sense
> that behind anything that can be experienced there is a something that
> our mind cannot grasp and whose beauty and sublimity reaches us only
> indirectly and as a feeble reflection, this is religiousness. In this
> sense I am religious."
>
>
> - Show quoted text -
Einstein : Science and Religion.
/ Book: � Ideas and opinions by Albert Einstein�
Edited by Carl Seeling. 1996.
Part: About religion. /
Page 46.
�The situation may be expressed by an image:
Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.
Though I have asserted above that in truth a legitimate conflict
between religion and science cannot exist �
Page 47.
�The main source of the present-day conflicts between the spheres
of religion and of science lies in this concept of a personal God.�
Page 48
� To be sure, the doctrine of a personal God interfering with
natural events could never be refuted, in the real sense, by science,
for this doctrine can always take refuge in those domains in which
scientific knowledge has not yet been able to set foot.�
Page 48.
��. , teachers of religion must have the stature to give up
the doctrine of a personal God,� �
� After religious teachers accomplish the refining process indicated
they will surely recognize with joy that true religion has been
ennobled and made more profound by scientific knowledge.�
Page 49.
� And so it seems to me that science not only purifies the religious
impulse of the dross of its anthropomorphism but also contributes
to a religious spiritualization of our understanding of life.�
/Source: Science, Philosophy and Religion.
A Symposium, published by the Conference on
Science, Philosophy and Religion in Their
Relation to the Democratic Way of Life,
Inc., New York, 1941./
====================�.
Cloughie
> PS: Wiki says the US stopped making land mines in 1997 (but we have
> gazillions in storage).
>
And you still refuse -- like those other shitbag countries -- to sign a
treaty banning their use, stockpiling and trade...
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/11/24/land-mine-treaty-wont-be_n_369658.html
Cloughie
Desertphile
wrote:
The Bush2 Regime wouldn't sign a ban against torture until it
redefined what "torture" means.
> Cloughie
--
Ernest Major
<deser...@invalid-address.net> writes
>On Mon, 25 Jan 2010 22:44:51 +0000 (UTC), Kalkidas <e...@joes.pub>
>wrote:
>
>> Desertphile <deser...@invalid-address.net> wrote in
>> news:6olrl5h3me6goas89...@4ax.com:
>>
>> > On Mon, 25 Jan 2010 05:37:51 +0000 (UTC), Kalkidas <e...@joes.pub>
>> > wrote:
>> >
>> >> The part cannot fully comprehend the whole. The whole, the lord, knows
>> >> what light really "is".
>> >
>> > Which lord is that? Aberdare? Anderson of Swansea? Boyd of
>> > Duncansby? Campbell of Alloway? Davies of Oldham? Evans of Temple
>> > Guiting? Falconer of Thoroton? Goff of Chieveley? Hannay of
>> > Chiswick? Irvine of Lairg? Jones of Birmingham? King of West
>> > Bromwich? Lewis of Newnham? Marshall of Knightsbridge? Nicholls of
>> > Birkenhead? Oakeshott of Seagrove Bay? Patten of Barnes? Renfrew
>> > of Kaimsthorn? Sheppard of Didgemere? Thomas of Swynnerton?
>> > Vallance of Tummel? Williams of Elvel? Young of Norwood Green?
>
>> You misquoted me. I wrote "lord", not "lord"
>
>Yeah, and where I live (the USA) we don't have lords. No lords
>that I can see based upon their biographies are quantum
>physicists: therefore your statement that only lords know what
>light is is patently false.
>
>
You really shouldn't be editing his text to change his meaning.
--
alias Ernest Major
Desertphile
Yeah, uh, if I do ever that please chastise me.
Ernest Major
of god. Do you have a newsreader that spell checks quoted text?
--
alias Ernest Major
Ernest Major
<Ot...@ottolovesrisotto.com> writes
certainly imposing. But an inner voice tells me that it is not yet the
real thing. The theory says a lot, but does not really bring us any
closer to the secret of the 'old one'. I, at any rate, am convinced that
He does not throw dice."
On the surface there is nothing about these words of Einstein's that is
inconsistent with the position that Einstein's reference to God was
metaphorical (see also Hawking and "knowing the mind of God"), and this
position is confirmed by his other statements on religion.
(Einstein is commonly reckoned a pantheist or a panentheist, but I don't
understand how his position differed from atheism.)
--
alias Ernest Major