TOE
8 views
Skip to first unread message
SM
May 18, 2011, 8:46:42 AM5/18/11
to A Civil Religious Debate
My East Bay buddy, Les, lived, breathed, and occasionally smoked so-called “superstrings.” Les was a software engineer by day and a quantum junkie by night. He chewed-up and digested everything he could on String Theory, M-Theory, and the Theory of Everything. The “TOE” was Albert Einstein’s illusive one-inch formula that would provide the “simple” unification of all forces in the cosmos.
Initially, I hung out with Les because he played guitar and grew special plants in his little atrium off the back porch. Over time, it was more than the music and the horticulture that wooed me over the Bay Bridge a couple times a week. I really started to crave these quantum expressions of unseen realms. Les’ explanations of superstrings and the Theory of Everything (TOE) seemed to act as physical bridges in the midst my metaphysical battles. I won’t rehash the gory details here, but let’s just say that Les’ ability to share eccentric scientific theories acted as naturalistic peace in my “supernatural” storms.
One day, Les and I were enjoying the atrium and ragging on the majority of the population who still believes in God, angels, and heaven. We laughed at the actual notion of the “supernatural” – the unseen crutch – for so many religious fundamentalists. And then it hit us – both at once... This is our unseen world too. We tend to use terms like “extra-dimensional,” but it’s the same thing! Natural, Supernatural, Omni-Natural… Mathematically, it all coexists!
Remarkably, String Theory requires ten dimensions to work. M-Theory requires eleven. Last I remember, I can only experience (let alone fathom) four dimensions --- three of space and one of time. Even with technological enhancements such as telescopes and microscopes, my five physical senses can only muster the four physical dimensions in our space-time continuum.
Therefore, if scientists are now telling me that there are ten, eleven, or more dimensions, what does that make the extra, unseen ones? Yes, by definition, they are extra-dimensional. Said another way, they must be non-physical (aka “metaphysical”) and non-natural (aka “supernatural”).
That’s profoundly crazy -- I believe in the supernatural. The mainstream 21st century scientists and mathematicians require it. Whether we like it or not, quantum physical discussions make it mandatory for us to quietly return to metaphysical discussions...
Michio Kaku is brilliant and probably the top mind in quantum physics and superstrings. However, he uses story and illustration to bring the notion of extra-dimensional strings down to my spongy-headed level. As a young child, Michio spent hours watching carp at the Japanese Tea Garden in San Francisco. (I love this story because I discovered it online when I lived a couple miles from here.) He imagined the pond as an entire, two-dimensional universe, where the carp could only swim forwards and backwards, left and right. The concept of “up,” beyond the lily pads, was totally alien to them.
Michio wondered, “What if I could reach down and grab a carp and lift him up into my universe?” What a wondrous story the carp would tell the others! He would babble on about new laws of physics and unbelievable creatures that move without fins and breathe without gills. However, without such a visit to the third dimension, how could a “thinking” carp know anything about the unseen world above?
One day it rained, and Michio saw the drops form ripples on the surface of the pond. Then he understood. The carp could see the rippling shadows. The third dimension was invisible to them, but vibrations in this dimension were clearly visible. The ripples might even be felt by the carp, who would invent scientific concepts such as “light” and “gravity” to help describe the unseen “force.” Of course, the other carp in the pond would laugh at the notion, since carp know there’s no “force” at all, just the rippling of the water.
Today, Michio Kaku believes we are the carp swimming in our tiny pond, blissfully unaware of invisible universes hovering just above us in hyperspace. As described on his self-named website, 21st century physicists can now “see” and “feel” the “ripples,” and Michio Kaku is leading the charge towards a scientific formula that explains it all – yes, The Theory of Everything. Les and I love Dr. Kaku and follow his work “religiously.” Indeed, he is the leading scientist in 10-dimensional string theory modeling – He truly believes he’s tapped into unseen superstrings vibrating at the quantum level that provide the perfect harmony for all the fine-tuned forces in the cosmos.
Initially, I hung out with Les because he played guitar and grew special plants in his little atrium off the back porch. Over time, it was more than the music and the horticulture that wooed me over the Bay Bridge a couple times a week. I really started to crave these quantum expressions of unseen realms. Les’ explanations of superstrings and the Theory of Everything (TOE) seemed to act as physical bridges in the midst my metaphysical battles. I won’t rehash the gory details here, but let’s just say that Les’ ability to share eccentric scientific theories acted as naturalistic peace in my “supernatural” storms.
One day, Les and I were enjoying the atrium and ragging on the majority of the population who still believes in God, angels, and heaven. We laughed at the actual notion of the “supernatural” – the unseen crutch – for so many religious fundamentalists. And then it hit us – both at once... This is our unseen world too. We tend to use terms like “extra-dimensional,” but it’s the same thing! Natural, Supernatural, Omni-Natural… Mathematically, it all coexists!
Superstrings – Naturalists Forced to go Supernatural
As materialistic atheists, we like living in a “naturalistic vacuum.” All things observable in nature can be explained by matter acting on matter in the physical realm. There’s no need to invoke the non-physical… There’s no need to conjure the supernatural. And yet, “in the name of science,” that’s exactly what we’re doing. The observations and calculations underlying superstrings and the Theory of Everything require it of us!Remarkably, String Theory requires ten dimensions to work. M-Theory requires eleven. Last I remember, I can only experience (let alone fathom) four dimensions --- three of space and one of time. Even with technological enhancements such as telescopes and microscopes, my five physical senses can only muster the four physical dimensions in our space-time continuum.
Therefore, if scientists are now telling me that there are ten, eleven, or more dimensions, what does that make the extra, unseen ones? Yes, by definition, they are extra-dimensional. Said another way, they must be non-physical (aka “metaphysical”) and non-natural (aka “supernatural”).
That’s profoundly crazy -- I believe in the supernatural. The mainstream 21st century scientists and mathematicians require it. Whether we like it or not, quantum physical discussions make it mandatory for us to quietly return to metaphysical discussions...
“Is it really true that what we see is all that’s there? Or is it the case that we’re just not physiologically designed to experience or see those dimensions, but we’ll eventually find evidence of them?” (Lisa Randall, Harvard Physicist)
By faith we understand that the universe was formed at God's command, so that what is seen was not made out of what was visible. (Hebrews 11:3)
Superstrings – The Extra-Dimensional Ripples of Michio Kaku
Think about it… 21st century technology allows scientists to see billions of light years into the massive cosmos, yet process in terms of “infinitely-small” hadrons, gluons, and quarks… My head always hurt, until I discovered a new hero, Dr. Michio Kaku.Michio Kaku is brilliant and probably the top mind in quantum physics and superstrings. However, he uses story and illustration to bring the notion of extra-dimensional strings down to my spongy-headed level. As a young child, Michio spent hours watching carp at the Japanese Tea Garden in San Francisco. (I love this story because I discovered it online when I lived a couple miles from here.) He imagined the pond as an entire, two-dimensional universe, where the carp could only swim forwards and backwards, left and right. The concept of “up,” beyond the lily pads, was totally alien to them.
Michio wondered, “What if I could reach down and grab a carp and lift him up into my universe?” What a wondrous story the carp would tell the others! He would babble on about new laws of physics and unbelievable creatures that move without fins and breathe without gills. However, without such a visit to the third dimension, how could a “thinking” carp know anything about the unseen world above?
One day it rained, and Michio saw the drops form ripples on the surface of the pond. Then he understood. The carp could see the rippling shadows. The third dimension was invisible to them, but vibrations in this dimension were clearly visible. The ripples might even be felt by the carp, who would invent scientific concepts such as “light” and “gravity” to help describe the unseen “force.” Of course, the other carp in the pond would laugh at the notion, since carp know there’s no “force” at all, just the rippling of the water.
Today, Michio Kaku believes we are the carp swimming in our tiny pond, blissfully unaware of invisible universes hovering just above us in hyperspace. As described on his self-named website, 21st century physicists can now “see” and “feel” the “ripples,” and Michio Kaku is leading the charge towards a scientific formula that explains it all – yes, The Theory of Everything. Les and I love Dr. Kaku and follow his work “religiously.” Indeed, he is the leading scientist in 10-dimensional string theory modeling – He truly believes he’s tapped into unseen superstrings vibrating at the quantum level that provide the perfect harmony for all the fine-tuned forces in the cosmos.
For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse. (Romans 1:20)As hard as I try to dodge the truth, it seems the pursuit of the TOE – The Theory of Everything – is really the pursuit of GOD.
Brock Organ
May 18, 2011, 9:09:12 AM5/18/11
to a-civil-reli...@googlegroups.com
It reminds me of a similar realization:
"In 1978 Robert Jastrow, then head of NASA's Goddard Institute for
Space Studies, spoke metaphorically about scientists who, after
climbing the arduous mountain of cosmology, came to the summit only to
find theologians there already."
http://www.counterbalance.net/rjr/at-body.html
Regards,
Brock
e_space
May 18, 2011, 11:21:12 AM5/18/11
to A Civil Religious Debate
great post ... i happen to agree with your last sentence ... which in
turn, begs the question ... why do so many religious people stop their
"pursuit of GOD", and accept what others have told them about the
subject? ... that is not pursuit, but an accepted belief in the words
presented to them, something that they garner some level of comfort,
joy and contentment from ... would you not agree that one cannot
pursue "GOD" through the experiences of others, but must embark on
this journey themselves?
On May 18, 8:46 am, SM <14sm.j...@gmail.com> wrote:
> My East Bay buddy, Les, lived, breathed, and occasionally smoked so-called
> “superstrings.” Les was a software engineer by day and a quantum junkie by
> night. He chewed-up and digested everything he could on String Theory,
> M-Theory, and the Theory of Everything. The “TOE” was Albert Einstein’s
> illusive one-inch formula that would provide the “simple” unification of all
> forces in the cosmos.
>
> Initially, I hung out with Les because he played guitar and grew special
> plants in his little atrium off the back porch. Over time, it was more than
> the music and the horticulture that wooed me over the Bay Bridge a couple
> times a week. I really started to crave these quantum expressions of unseen
> realms. Les’ explanations of superstrings and the Theory of Everything (TOE)
> seemed to act as physical bridges in the midst my metaphysical battles. I
> won’t rehash the gory details here, but let’s just say that Les’ ability to
> share eccentric scientific theories acted as naturalistic peace in my
> “supernatural” storms.
>
> One day, Les and I were enjoying the atrium and ragging on the majority of
> the population who still believes in God, angels, and heaven. We laughed at
> the actual notion of the “supernatural” – the unseen crutch – for so many
> religious fundamentalists. And then it hit us – both at once... This is our
> unseen world too. We tend to use terms like “extra-dimensional,” but it’s
> the same thing! Natural, Supernatural, Omni-Natural… Mathematically, it all
> coexists!
>
> Superstrings – Naturalists Forced to go SupernaturalAs materialistic
> that what is seen was not made out of what was visible.* (Hebrews
> 11:3<http://biblia.com/bible/esv/Hebrews%2011.3>
> )
>
> Superstrings – The Extra-Dimensional Ripples of Michio KakuThink about it…
> *For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities—his eternal
> 1:20<http://biblia.com/bible/esv/Romans%201.20>
> )
turn, begs the question ... why do so many religious people stop their
"pursuit of GOD", and accept what others have told them about the
subject? ... that is not pursuit, but an accepted belief in the words
presented to them, something that they garner some level of comfort,
joy and contentment from ... would you not agree that one cannot
pursue "GOD" through the experiences of others, but must embark on
this journey themselves?
On May 18, 8:46 am, SM <14sm.j...@gmail.com> wrote:
> My East Bay buddy, Les, lived, breathed, and occasionally smoked so-called
> “superstrings.” Les was a software engineer by day and a quantum junkie by
> night. He chewed-up and digested everything he could on String Theory,
> M-Theory, and the Theory of Everything. The “TOE” was Albert Einstein’s
> illusive one-inch formula that would provide the “simple” unification of all
> forces in the cosmos.
>
> Initially, I hung out with Les because he played guitar and grew special
> plants in his little atrium off the back porch. Over time, it was more than
> the music and the horticulture that wooed me over the Bay Bridge a couple
> times a week. I really started to crave these quantum expressions of unseen
> realms. Les’ explanations of superstrings and the Theory of Everything (TOE)
> seemed to act as physical bridges in the midst my metaphysical battles. I
> won’t rehash the gory details here, but let’s just say that Les’ ability to
> share eccentric scientific theories acted as naturalistic peace in my
> “supernatural” storms.
>
> One day, Les and I were enjoying the atrium and ragging on the majority of
> the population who still believes in God, angels, and heaven. We laughed at
> the actual notion of the “supernatural” – the unseen crutch – for so many
> religious fundamentalists. And then it hit us – both at once... This is our
> unseen world too. We tend to use terms like “extra-dimensional,” but it’s
> the same thing! Natural, Supernatural, Omni-Natural… Mathematically, it all
> coexists!
>
> atheists, we like living in a “naturalistic vacuum.” All things observable
> in nature can be explained by matter acting on matter in the physical realm.
> There’s no need to invoke the non-physical… There’s no need to conjure the
> supernatural. And yet, “in the name of science,” that’s exactly what we’re
> doing. The observations and calculations underlying superstrings and the
> Theory of Everything require it of us!
>
> Remarkably, String Theory requires ten dimensions to work. M-Theory requires
> eleven. Last I remember, I can only experience (let alone fathom) four
> dimensions --- three of space and one of time. Even with technological
> enhancements such as telescopes and microscopes, my five physical senses can
> only muster the four physical dimensions in our space-time continuum.
>
> Therefore, if scientists are now telling me that there are ten, eleven, or
> more dimensions, what does that make the extra, unseen ones? Yes, by
> definition, they are extra-dimensional. Said another way, they must be
> non-physical (aka “metaphysical”) and non-natural (aka “supernatural”).
>
> That’s profoundly crazy -- I believe in the supernatural. The mainstream
> 21st century scientists and mathematicians require it. Whether we like it or
> not, quantum physical discussions make it mandatory for us to quietly return
> to metaphysical discussions...
>
> “Is it really true that what we see is all that’s there? Or is it the case
> that we’re just not physiologically designed to experience or see those
> dimensions, but we’ll eventually find evidence of them?” (Lisa Randall,
> Harvard Physicist)
>
> *By faith we understand that the universe was formed at God's command, so
> in nature can be explained by matter acting on matter in the physical realm.
> There’s no need to invoke the non-physical… There’s no need to conjure the
> supernatural. And yet, “in the name of science,” that’s exactly what we’re
> doing. The observations and calculations underlying superstrings and the
> Theory of Everything require it of us!
>
> Remarkably, String Theory requires ten dimensions to work. M-Theory requires
> eleven. Last I remember, I can only experience (let alone fathom) four
> dimensions --- three of space and one of time. Even with technological
> enhancements such as telescopes and microscopes, my five physical senses can
> only muster the four physical dimensions in our space-time continuum.
>
> Therefore, if scientists are now telling me that there are ten, eleven, or
> more dimensions, what does that make the extra, unseen ones? Yes, by
> definition, they are extra-dimensional. Said another way, they must be
> non-physical (aka “metaphysical”) and non-natural (aka “supernatural”).
>
> That’s profoundly crazy -- I believe in the supernatural. The mainstream
> 21st century scientists and mathematicians require it. Whether we like it or
> not, quantum physical discussions make it mandatory for us to quietly return
> to metaphysical discussions...
>
> “Is it really true that what we see is all that’s there? Or is it the case
> that we’re just not physiologically designed to experience or see those
> dimensions, but we’ll eventually find evidence of them?” (Lisa Randall,
> Harvard Physicist)
>
> that what is seen was not made out of what was visible.* (Hebrews
> 11:3<http://biblia.com/bible/esv/Hebrews%2011.3>
> )
>
> Superstrings – The Extra-Dimensional Ripples of Michio KakuThink about it…
> power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what
> has been made, so that men are without excuse.* (Romans
> 1:20<http://biblia.com/bible/esv/Romans%201.20>
> )
SM
May 18, 2011, 12:47:09 PM5/18/11
to a-civil-reli...@googlegroups.com
On Wed, May 18, 2011 at 11:21 AM, e_space <espac...@gmail.com> wrote:
great post ... i happen to agree with your last sentence ... which in
turn, begs the question ... why do so many religious people stop their
"pursuit of GOD", and accept what others have told them about the
subject? ... that is not pursuit, but an accepted belief in the words
presented to them, something that they garner some level of comfort,
joy and contentment from ... would you not agree that one cannot
pursue "GOD" through the experiences of others, but must embark on
this journey themselves?
Since I've answered various forms of this question on numerous occasions previously, I consider that the following response of yours (that I conveniently read for the first time earlier this morning) seems an adequately fitting reply:
e_space <espac...@gmail.com> wrote:that is your conclusion about my words ... i clarified what imeant ... if that doesnt satisfy, there is nothing much i can do aboutit
e_space
May 18, 2011, 4:31:51 PM5/18/11
to A Civil Religious Debate
hmmmm ... still on a childish snit are you? i thought i asked
legitimate questions, but it seems that you and brock really have no
interest in supporting your beliefs ...
to clarify, when one pursues something, they look past what they are
told ... if not, they are pursuing what someone else has pursued, or
believe what someone else has made up, or is promoting ... in your
post, it indicates that science is pursuing "GOD", outside of
religion ... what you are doing is accepting "GOD" as taught to you by
religion ... big difference, and ne'er the twain shall meet ...
its a bit revealing when those who claim to be christian, exhibit
actions that reflect the opposite of what they preach ... but i guess
you dont have any qualms about it, right?
On May 18, 12:47 pm, SM <14sm.j...@gmail.com> wrote:
legitimate questions, but it seems that you and brock really have no
interest in supporting your beliefs ...
to clarify, when one pursues something, they look past what they are
told ... if not, they are pursuing what someone else has pursued, or
believe what someone else has made up, or is promoting ... in your
post, it indicates that science is pursuing "GOD", outside of
religion ... what you are doing is accepting "GOD" as taught to you by
religion ... big difference, and ne'er the twain shall meet ...
its a bit revealing when those who claim to be christian, exhibit
actions that reflect the opposite of what they preach ... but i guess
you dont have any qualms about it, right?
On May 18, 12:47 pm, SM <14sm.j...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, May 18, 2011 at 11:21 AM, e_space <espace1...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > great post ... i happen to agree with your last sentence ... which in
> > turn, begs the question ... why do so many religious people stop their
> > "pursuit of GOD", and accept what others have told them about the
> > subject? ... that is not pursuit, but an accepted belief in the words
> > presented to them, something that they garner some level of comfort,
> > joy and contentment from ... would you not agree that one cannot
> > pursue "GOD" through the experiences of others, but must embark on
> > this journey themselves?
>
> Since I've answered various forms of this question on numerous occasions
> previously, I consider that the following response of yours (that I
> conveniently read for the first time earlier this morning) seems an
> adequately fitting reply:
>
> > great post ... i happen to agree with your last sentence ... which in
> > turn, begs the question ... why do so many religious people stop their
> > "pursuit of GOD", and accept what others have told them about the
> > subject? ... that is not pursuit, but an accepted belief in the words
> > presented to them, something that they garner some level of comfort,
> > joy and contentment from ... would you not agree that one cannot
> > pursue "GOD" through the experiences of others, but must embark on
> > this journey themselves?
>
> Since I've answered various forms of this question on numerous occasions
> previously, I consider that the following response of yours (that I
> conveniently read for the first time earlier this morning) seems an
> adequately fitting reply:
>
SM
May 18, 2011, 5:07:47 PM5/18/11
to a-civil-reli...@googlegroups.com
On Wed, May 18, 2011 at 4:31 PM, e_space <espac...@gmail.com> wrote:
hmmmm ... still on a childish snit are you? i thought i asked
legitimate questions, but it seems that you and brock really have no
interest in supporting your beliefs ...
to clarify, when one pursues something, they look past what they are
told ... if not, they are pursuing what someone else has pursued, or
believe what someone else has made up, or is promoting ... in your
post, it indicates that science is pursuing "GOD", outside of
religion ... what you are doing is accepting "GOD" as taught to you by
religion ... big difference, and ne'er the twain shall meet ...
its a bit revealing when those who claim to be christian, exhibit
actions that reflect the opposite of what they preach ... but i guess
you dont have any qualms about it, right?
What makes my response a "childish snit", and your use of the same response not? ;-)
"...when one pursues something, they look past what they are told..."
What is the purpose for 'pursuit', if not acquisition and attainment? If you can't recognize when you've attained what you're pursuing then your efforts are futile.
As I've observed when you made such statements previously, your characterization is flawed. Therefore, your quote is again applicable:"...what you are doing is accepting "GOD" as taught to you by religion..."
"that is your conclusion about my words ... i clarified what i > meant ... if that doesnt satisfy, there is nothing much i can do about it"
If you desire an answer to your last question, please restate with greater specificity.
e_space
May 18, 2011, 6:56:10 PM5/18/11
to A Civil Religious Debate
cant get past the personal fluff and extended negativity eh? cold war
much?
in my world, the pursuit to find "GOD", God, or god, is a journey
embarked by self ... its not about reading what someone else has
determined to be the truth ... would your "truth" about "GOD" be the
same as it is now if you had not been introduced to "him" through your
religion?
are scientists "really *in* the pursuit of GOD" by reading books? by
listening to sermons? by praying? by going on gut feelings? ... do
they refer to "GOD" as a male? do they think "he" resides in a place
with gold paved streets? are there any similarities whatsoever to what
their vision of "GOD" is, compared to yours? i would hamper a guess
that they have NO vision of "GOD" at all, but will wait for the
evidence to speak for itself, if indeed, any such evidence is
available ...
regarding brocks typical copy/paste job about cosmologists climbing mt
everest on steroids, only to find some theologian already enjoying the
view ... that is wishful thinking and spoken from pure ignorance ...
although metaphorical, in probability, cosmologists are nowhere near
the summit, and the guy making the quote has NO idea who's butt is
parked there ...
amazing that someone in charge of such a technical environment would
make such empty and unknowable remarks ... i guess to the fanatic,
religion trumps reason
On May 18, 5:07 pm, SM <14sm.j...@gmail.com> wrote:
much?
in my world, the pursuit to find "GOD", God, or god, is a journey
embarked by self ... its not about reading what someone else has
determined to be the truth ... would your "truth" about "GOD" be the
same as it is now if you had not been introduced to "him" through your
religion?
are scientists "really *in* the pursuit of GOD" by reading books? by
listening to sermons? by praying? by going on gut feelings? ... do
they refer to "GOD" as a male? do they think "he" resides in a place
with gold paved streets? are there any similarities whatsoever to what
their vision of "GOD" is, compared to yours? i would hamper a guess
that they have NO vision of "GOD" at all, but will wait for the
evidence to speak for itself, if indeed, any such evidence is
available ...
regarding brocks typical copy/paste job about cosmologists climbing mt
everest on steroids, only to find some theologian already enjoying the
view ... that is wishful thinking and spoken from pure ignorance ...
although metaphorical, in probability, cosmologists are nowhere near
the summit, and the guy making the quote has NO idea who's butt is
parked there ...
amazing that someone in charge of such a technical environment would
make such empty and unknowable remarks ... i guess to the fanatic,
religion trumps reason
On May 18, 5:07 pm, SM <14sm.j...@gmail.com> wrote:
Brock Organ
May 18, 2011, 7:01:59 PM5/18/11
to a-civil-reli...@googlegroups.com
On Wed, May 18, 2011 at 5:07 PM, SM <14sm...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, May 18, 2011 at 4:31 PM, e_space <espac...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> hmmmm ... still on a childish snit are you? i thought i asked
>> legitimate questions, but it seems that you and brock really have no
>> interest in supporting your beliefs ...
>>
>> to clarify, when one pursues something, they look past what they are
>> told ... if not, they are pursuing what someone else has pursued, or
>> believe what someone else has made up, or is promoting ... in your
>> post, it indicates that science is pursuing "GOD", outside of
>> religion ... what you are doing is accepting "GOD" as taught to you by
>> religion ... big difference, and ne'er the twain shall meet ...
>>
>> its a bit revealing when those who claim to be christian, exhibit
>> actions that reflect the opposite of what they preach ... but i guess
>> you dont have any qualms about it, right?
>
> What makes my response a "childish snit", and your use of the same response
> not? ;-)
> On Wed, May 18, 2011 at 4:31 PM, e_space <espac...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> hmmmm ... still on a childish snit are you? i thought i asked
>> legitimate questions, but it seems that you and brock really have no
>> interest in supporting your beliefs ...
>>
>> to clarify, when one pursues something, they look past what they are
>> told ... if not, they are pursuing what someone else has pursued, or
>> believe what someone else has made up, or is promoting ... in your
>> post, it indicates that science is pursuing "GOD", outside of
>> religion ... what you are doing is accepting "GOD" as taught to you by
>> religion ... big difference, and ne'er the twain shall meet ...
>>
>> its a bit revealing when those who claim to be christian, exhibit
>> actions that reflect the opposite of what they preach ... but i guess
>> you dont have any qualms about it, right?
>
> What makes my response a "childish snit", and your use of the same response
> not? ;-)
Well, the key difference might be that it isn't when he says it, but
it is when you do ... :))
Regards,
Brock
14SM.jcil
May 18, 2011, 7:48:53 PM5/18/11
to a-civil-reli...@googlegroups.com
<chuckle>
14SM.jcil
May 18, 2011, 8:06:31 PM5/18/11
to a-civil-reli...@googlegroups.com
On May 18, 2011, at 18:56, e_space <espac...@gmail.com> wrote:
> cant get past the personal fluff and extended negativity eh? cold war
> much?
Good to know that you can recognize it and find it to be something that you'd like to dispense with. Welcome to the discussion.
> in my world, the pursuit to find "GOD", God, or god, is a journey
> embarked by self ... its not about reading what someone else has
> determined to be the truth ... would your "truth" about "GOD" be the
> same as it is now if you had not been introduced to "him" through your
> religion?
Asked and answered numerous times before.
> are scientists "really *in* the pursuit of GOD" by reading books?
....and articles, and papers, and trade journals, and...
> by
> listening to sermons? by praying? by going on gut feelings? ... do
> they refer to "GOD" as a male? do they think "he" resides in a place
> with gold paved streets? are there any similarities whatsoever to what
> their vision of "GOD" is, compared to yours? i would hamper a guess
> that they have NO vision of "GOD" at all, but will wait for the
> evidence to speak for itself, if indeed, any such evidence is
> available ...
As I've stated numerous times previously, I *do* consider that such evidence is available to those who are willing to look.
Are you suggesting that it's not possible for 'scientists' to maintain confidence in the existence of God and to consider that their understanding of science is consistent with their belief in God?
e_space
May 19, 2011, 6:53:35 AM5/19/11
to A Civil Religious Debate
great christian-like response brock! ... you are outdoing yourself
with this thought-filled commentary ... but hey, at least it doesnt
seem to be a copy/paste reply, so congrats on that! you da man!!! ;-
^) ... or maybe ;-^)) ... or even ;-^)))
On May 18, 7:01 pm, Brock Organ <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, May 18, 2011 at 5:07 PM, SM <14sm.j...@gmail.com> wrote:
with this thought-filled commentary ... but hey, at least it doesnt
seem to be a copy/paste reply, so congrats on that! you da man!!! ;-
^) ... or maybe ;-^)) ... or even ;-^)))
On May 18, 7:01 pm, Brock Organ <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, May 18, 2011 at 5:07 PM, SM <14sm.j...@gmail.com> wrote:
e_space
May 19, 2011, 7:12:55 AM5/19/11
to A Civil Religious Debate
i dont do cold wars ... if you could get past your avoidance of the
questions i ask, and/or stopped making comments that you have no way
of substantiating, maybe you wouldnt get my pointed commentary? you
and your sidekick confuse directness with a lack of civility ... and
now you and brock, in your inability to answer the questions i ask,
have reverted to silence and/or the childish commentary that i have
referred to ...
btw, your little chuckle puts you in the same category as brock in my
books ... un-christian like actions that offer nothing positive to the
thread, and offered to elicit a negative reaction ... you know, sorta
troll-like? just like in this thread where you fail to address the
questions i have asked, you also did not respond to any of the
questions [that i deem relevant], in joe's post about sin ... i
consider that topic right up you and your bosom buddies alley, yet
nothing from you, presumably because of my lack of civility ... is
that childish or adult behavior in your book?
re: "Are you suggesting that it's not possible for 'scientists' to
your original comment seemed to suggest that scientists were "pursing
GOD" ... no? ... this does not indicate that they have any
understanding ... when one is looking, it is because they do not
understand ... or that they are trying to find/understand ...
when a cave man was hungry, he went hunting ... he pursued his quarry
until he caught it ... at this time, he quit pursuing it, and ate of
it ... when one has knowledge, they enjoy it, they dont keep looking
for it ... i dont think scientists consider knowledge to be in the
same category as belief ... do you? in other words, the answer to your
rather vague question is "no" ...
On May 18, 8:06 pm, "14SM.jcil" <14sm.j...@gmail.com> wrote:
questions i ask, and/or stopped making comments that you have no way
of substantiating, maybe you wouldnt get my pointed commentary? you
and your sidekick confuse directness with a lack of civility ... and
now you and brock, in your inability to answer the questions i ask,
have reverted to silence and/or the childish commentary that i have
referred to ...
btw, your little chuckle puts you in the same category as brock in my
books ... un-christian like actions that offer nothing positive to the
thread, and offered to elicit a negative reaction ... you know, sorta
troll-like? just like in this thread where you fail to address the
questions i have asked, you also did not respond to any of the
questions [that i deem relevant], in joe's post about sin ... i
consider that topic right up you and your bosom buddies alley, yet
nothing from you, presumably because of my lack of civility ... is
that childish or adult behavior in your book?
re: "Are you suggesting that it's not possible for 'scientists' to
maintain confidence in the existence of God and to consider that their
understanding of science is consistent with their belief in God?" ...
your original comment seemed to suggest that scientists were "pursing
GOD" ... no? ... this does not indicate that they have any
understanding ... when one is looking, it is because they do not
understand ... or that they are trying to find/understand ...
when a cave man was hungry, he went hunting ... he pursued his quarry
until he caught it ... at this time, he quit pursuing it, and ate of
it ... when one has knowledge, they enjoy it, they dont keep looking
for it ... i dont think scientists consider knowledge to be in the
same category as belief ... do you? in other words, the answer to your
rather vague question is "no" ...
On May 18, 8:06 pm, "14SM.jcil" <14sm.j...@gmail.com> wrote:
SM
May 19, 2011, 8:45:14 AM5/19/11
to a-civil-reli...@googlegroups.com
On Thu, May 19, 2011 at 7:12 AM, e_space <espac...@gmail.com> wrote:
...
Given your history of posts in this forum, your first two paragraphs of commentary are really 'rich'...nevertheless, I welcome the progress you're making and your nascent dedication to substantive discussion. Kudos.
re: "Are you suggesting that it's not possible for 'scientists' to
maintain confidence in the existence of God and to consider that theirunderstanding of science is consistent with their belief in God?" ...
your original comment seemed to suggest that scientists were "pursing
GOD" ... no? ... this does not indicate that they have any
understanding ... when one is looking, it is because they do not
understand ... or that they are trying to find/understand ...
The pursuit of understanding of our physical world is one means of pursuing understanding of its Creator. When one studies the brush strokes, use of color, etcetera, that are contained in works of art we get a sense of the one who created it.
The pursuit of understanding is indeed an ongoing process, but it's to add to what is already thought to be true (i.e., 'understood'). Your comment seems to imply that one is only seeking when they have zero understanding (i.e., "this does not indicate that they have any understanding" and "when one has knowledge, they enjoy it, they dont keep looking for it"). Of course this is not so. The acquisition of knowledge is not digital (i.e., 'on' or 'off').
"i dont think scientists consider knowledge to be in thesame category as belief ... do you?"
Yes, absolutely. Scientists describe the knowledge they're seeking in the terms of 'belief'; they rarely speak using terms of 'fact'. That's the whole concept of 'theory'. A 'theory' is a belief which one considers is supported by the available evidence. When they consider that they have a plausible theory, they consider that they have arrived at some understanding and then seek to build upon it with further discovery.
e_space
May 19, 2011, 9:28:47 AM5/19/11
to A Civil Religious Debate
re: "The pursuit of understanding of our physical world is one means
of pursuing understanding of its Creator" ... im not sure this applies
to someone who does not believe in a creator ... conversely, one who
claims understanding or knowledge of a "Creator", yet has no physical
or factual evidence to substantiate such claims, is speaking purely
from belief, which holds little interest to the scientific mind ...
imo, a scientist would be not be doing their job properly if their
goal was the "pursuit of GOD", if they already had a pre-conceived
concept of "him" ... almost like a conflict of interest ...
re: "When one studies the brush strokes, use of color, etcetera, that
the persons character ... nothing that can be substantiated ... maybe
the artist is moody, and was painting during a dark time in a normally
bright existence ... maybe the painting reflects a momentary fantasy
that is not descriptive of the daily life of the artist ... although i
agree that one may get a glimpse of a person through their art, it is
far from exact or meaningful ...
re: "The pursuit of understanding is indeed an ongoing process, but
necessarily so ... what is "thought to be true", may in fact be
totally false ... knowledge speaks for itself, and does not require
pre-conceived ideas, thoughts, or beliefs to compliment it ... if one
is held by their beliefs, new knowledge may be rejected or compromised
by the strong desire of the observer to maintain such belief ... imo,
the pursuit of knowledge should contain no preconception, and should
not be impacted by religious fervor or belief [as it relates to this
topic] ...
re: "The acquisition of knowledge is not digital (i.e.,'on' or
'off')." ... not suggesting it is ... knowledge is whole and stands on
its own two feet ... it requires no further pursuit to be enjoyed in
its pure form ... tributaries and extensions of this knowledge may be
available, similar to adding cherries to a cake ... the cake doesnt
NEED the cherries to exist, or to be enjoyed ...
re: "Scientists describe the knowledge they're seeking in the terms of
or dont do ... maybe you can substantiate this claim with a
reference? ... a theory is not knowledge ... knowledge exists when the
facts are known ... a theory is more like a belief than factual
knowledge ...
On May 19, 8:45 am, SM <14sm.j...@gmail.com> wrote:
of pursuing understanding of its Creator" ... im not sure this applies
to someone who does not believe in a creator ... conversely, one who
claims understanding or knowledge of a "Creator", yet has no physical
or factual evidence to substantiate such claims, is speaking purely
from belief, which holds little interest to the scientific mind ...
imo, a scientist would be not be doing their job properly if their
goal was the "pursuit of GOD", if they already had a pre-conceived
concept of "him" ... almost like a conflict of interest ...
re: "When one studies the brush strokes, use of color, etcetera, that
are contained in works of art we get a sense of the
one who created it." ... maybe a vague understanding, or belief about
the persons character ... nothing that can be substantiated ... maybe
the artist is moody, and was painting during a dark time in a normally
bright existence ... maybe the painting reflects a momentary fantasy
that is not descriptive of the daily life of the artist ... although i
agree that one may get a glimpse of a person through their art, it is
far from exact or meaningful ...
re: "The pursuit of understanding is indeed an ongoing process, but
it's to add to what is already thought to be true (i.e.,
'understood')." ... although this may be the case, it is not
necessarily so ... what is "thought to be true", may in fact be
totally false ... knowledge speaks for itself, and does not require
pre-conceived ideas, thoughts, or beliefs to compliment it ... if one
is held by their beliefs, new knowledge may be rejected or compromised
by the strong desire of the observer to maintain such belief ... imo,
the pursuit of knowledge should contain no preconception, and should
not be impacted by religious fervor or belief [as it relates to this
topic] ...
re: "The acquisition of knowledge is not digital (i.e.,'on' or
'off')." ... not suggesting it is ... knowledge is whole and stands on
its own two feet ... it requires no further pursuit to be enjoyed in
its pure form ... tributaries and extensions of this knowledge may be
available, similar to adding cherries to a cake ... the cake doesnt
NEED the cherries to exist, or to be enjoyed ...
re: "Scientists describe the knowledge they're seeking in the terms of
'belief'; they rarely speak using terms of 'fact'. That's the whole
concept of 'theory'." ... im not aware of what scientists rarely do,
or dont do ... maybe you can substantiate this claim with a
reference? ... a theory is not knowledge ... knowledge exists when the
facts are known ... a theory is more like a belief than factual
knowledge ...
On May 19, 8:45 am, SM <14sm.j...@gmail.com> wrote:
SM
May 19, 2011, 9:49:22 AM5/19/11
to a-civil-reli...@googlegroups.com
On Thu, May 19, 2011 at 6:53 AM, e_space <espac...@gmail.com> wrote:
great christian-like response brock!
Brock, I'm always intrigued by comments like these from non-believers. The subtle, even subconscious desire for the very thing that that they vehemently and often vociferously reject as 'silly', 'illogical', etc., is very telling.
Notwithstanding their tendency to conveniently overlook the reality that Christ-likeness includes shining the light of truth into dark places - something which is always and unavoidably personally disturbing - they still inherently sense and desire its goodness.
e_space
May 19, 2011, 10:05:13 AM5/19/11
to A Civil Religious Debate
lol ... i am not an unbeliever, i just havent bought man's version of
GOD, you know, the one that you are subject to, that demands your
worship, subservience and obedience ... in fact, i have rejected it on
grounds of intellect, reason, and science ...
oddly enough, i like to KNOW, and do not accept TRUTH from the
admonitions and preachings of men ... the fact that you feel
comfortable doing so, is your cup of tea, not mine ... in fact, i find
your stance unpalatable ... but hey, thats just how my stomach works ;-
^)
i live in a VERY bright place, thank you all the same, not in the
reflected light of your belief ... its interesting how you and yours
are all lightness and joy until your beliefs are questioned, and then
your real characters come out ... not always pretty is it?
when you can substantiate your "light of truth", please share it ...
until then, its just myth to me ... if you do not enjoy the types of
comments i make about your factual sounding statements, you may want
to clarify your intent by stating ... "according to my belief -----
>" ... just a suggestion
On May 19, 9:49 am, SM <14sm.j...@gmail.com> wrote:
GOD, you know, the one that you are subject to, that demands your
worship, subservience and obedience ... in fact, i have rejected it on
grounds of intellect, reason, and science ...
oddly enough, i like to KNOW, and do not accept TRUTH from the
admonitions and preachings of men ... the fact that you feel
comfortable doing so, is your cup of tea, not mine ... in fact, i find
your stance unpalatable ... but hey, thats just how my stomach works ;-
^)
i live in a VERY bright place, thank you all the same, not in the
reflected light of your belief ... its interesting how you and yours
are all lightness and joy until your beliefs are questioned, and then
your real characters come out ... not always pretty is it?
when you can substantiate your "light of truth", please share it ...
until then, its just myth to me ... if you do not enjoy the types of
comments i make about your factual sounding statements, you may want
to clarify your intent by stating ... "according to my belief -----
>" ... just a suggestion
On May 19, 9:49 am, SM <14sm.j...@gmail.com> wrote:
SM
May 19, 2011, 10:19:06 AM5/19/11
to a-civil-reli...@googlegroups.com
On Thu, May 19, 2011 at 9:28 AM, e_space <espac...@gmail.com> wrote:
re: "The pursuit of understanding of our physical world is one means
of pursuing understanding of its Creator" ... im not sure this applies
to someone who does not believe in a creator ... conversely, one who
claims understanding or knowledge of a "Creator", yet has no physical
or factual evidence to substantiate such claims, is speaking purely
from belief, which holds little interest to the scientific mind ...
imo, a scientist would be not be doing their job properly if their
goal was the "pursuit of GOD", if they already had a pre-conceived
concept of "him" ... almost like a conflict of interest ...
In fact (note the use of this term, and how it differs from other statements I make which you interpret by your own choosing to be 'statements of fact', I intend that this statement be thusly expressed), more frequently than not, the most highly regarded scientists of all time in their respective disciplines have been believers in God.
re: "When one studies the brush strokes, use of color, etcetera, that
are contained in works of art we get a sense of theone who created it." ... maybe a vague understanding, or belief about
the persons character ... nothing that can be substantiated ... maybe
the artist is moody, and was painting during a dark time in a normally
bright existence ... maybe the painting reflects a momentary fantasy
that is not descriptive of the daily life of the artist ... although i
agree that one may get a glimpse of a person through their art, it is
far from exact or meaningful ...
While many might find agreement with the limitedness of the 'exactitude' of the understanding that we can arrive at, I think you'll find very few who would agree that such understandings are not meaningful.
re: "The pursuit of understanding is indeed an ongoing process, but
it's to add to what is already thought to be true (i.e.,'understood')." ... although this may be the case, it is not
necessarily so ... what is "thought to be true", may in fact be
totally false
I very much agree with your observation. In our discussion right now we're making reference to the pursuit of knowledge in the context of scientific discovery, and science is replete with examples of scientific 'understanding' that was later shown to be "totally false". (as an aside, I note with interest how difficult it is for some scientists to abandon their existing 'understanding' when the new evidence clearly contradicts it) Those that can abandon their predisposition to believe in their preferred 'understanding' and instead courageously follow the evidence are the ones who are most productive in their search.
... knowledge speaks for itself, and does not require
pre-conceived ideas, thoughts, or beliefs to compliment it ... if one
is held by their beliefs, new knowledge may be rejected or compromised
by the strong desire of the observer to maintain such belief ... imo,
the pursuit of knowledge should contain no preconception, and should
not be impacted by religious fervor or belief [as it relates to this
topic] ...
Exactly; again I agree. See my statement above.
re: "The acquisition of knowledge is not digital (i.e.,'on' or
'off')." ... not suggesting it is ... knowledge is whole and stands on
its own two feet ... it requires no further pursuit to be enjoyed in
its pure form ... tributaries and extensions of this knowledge may be
available, similar to adding cherries to a cake ... the cake doesnt
NEED the cherries to exist, or to be enjoyed ...
I think I can see your reference to "knowledge is whole", but I also acknowledge that as finite beings our capacity for the acquisition of knowledge is limited and therefore our understanding can only be in part. The nature of our search is to build upon that which we already consider to be reliable ('understood').
re: "Scientists describe the knowledge they're seeking in the terms of
'belief'; they rarely speak using terms of 'fact'. That's the wholeconcept of 'theory'." ... im not aware of what scientists rarely do,
or dont do ... maybe you can substantiate this claim with a
reference? ... a theory is not knowledge ... knowledge exists when the
facts are known ... a theory is more like a belief than factual
knowledge ...
Agreed.
SM
May 19, 2011, 10:23:51 AM5/19/11
to a-civil-reli...@googlegroups.com
On Thu, May 19, 2011 at 10:05 AM, e_space <espac...@gmail.com> wrote:
lol ... i am not an unbeliever
Noted. However, as a fellow believer in the divinity of Christ and the necessity of what he has done for all who believe, Brock understands my use of the term 'unbeliever'. If you're suggesting that you desire to be likewise identified, we can explore that some more.
Brock Organ
May 19, 2011, 10:35:02 AM5/19/11
to a-civil-reli...@googlegroups.com
On Thu, May 19, 2011 at 9:49 AM, SM <14sm...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, May 19, 2011 at 6:53 AM, e_space <espac...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> great christian-like response brock!
>
> Brock, I'm always intrigued by comments like these from non-believers. The
> subtle, even subconscious desire for the very thing that that they
> vehemently and often vociferously reject as 'silly', 'illogical', etc., is
> very telling.
> On Thu, May 19, 2011 at 6:53 AM, e_space <espac...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> great christian-like response brock!
>
> Brock, I'm always intrigued by comments like these from non-believers. The
> subtle, even subconscious desire for the very thing that that they
> vehemently and often vociferously reject as 'silly', 'illogical', etc., is
> very telling.
It can be a humbling experience for some to go back after the heat of
the moment is past and re-read what they actually wrote. Silly
petulance, visceral hatred and rejection might seem like a good answer
initially, but months later the animus has receded but the petty,
immature post is still there. Understanding that to be the case, I
have tried to write my responses with out such an animus (not always
with success!), with the view that I want to be able to re-read my
posts six months later and not be ashamed that the tone of what I
wrote was childish, petulant and petty.
This is a public forum, and the words each of us say here represent us
indefinitely. So if, for example, e_space can go back, re-read his
dialogue from a year ago and be proud of it, so much the better (for
him). However, from my assessment, the childish, petty, petulant and
lack of considerate boundaries his posts represent are a legacy I
wouldn't be proud to have representing me.
> Notwithstanding their tendency to conveniently overlook the reality that
> Christ-likeness includes shining the light of truth into dark places -
> something which is always and unavoidably personally disturbing - they still
> inherently sense and desire its goodness.
Amen! In a world of many things, when it comes to humankind, God's
word is the best thing ... I gladly share it with folks on the forum
because I pray that it will be a blessing to them as it has been a
blessing to me!
Regards,
Brock
Brock Organ
May 19, 2011, 10:37:57 AM5/19/11
to a-civil-reli...@googlegroups.com
On Thu, May 19, 2011 at 10:23 AM, SM <14sm...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, May 19, 2011 at 10:05 AM, e_space <espac...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> lol ... i am not an unbeliever
> On Thu, May 19, 2011 at 10:05 AM, e_space <espac...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> lol ... i am not an unbeliever
Sorry, e_space, but I've read your posts; if you didn't have
unbelief/disbelief, why the danger is that you'd have no position at
all! :)
> Noted. However, as a fellow believer in the divinity of Christ and the
> necessity of what he has done for all who believe, Brock understands my use
> of the term 'unbeliever'.
I do.
Regards,
Brock
e_space
May 19, 2011, 11:15:20 AM5/19/11
to A Civil Religious Debate
im not sure how you got the impression that i have aspirations to be
"likewise identified" ... i have no such desire ... i simply noted
that my concept of god is not based on the words of men and is
therefore substantially dissimilar to yours ... my "belief" is not
stated as fact, or in descriptive terms, as such is impossible ... it
is not really a belief per se, but a feeling of joy derived from
specific experiences that are beyond relating in worthwhile terms ...
On May 19, 10:23 am, SM <14sm.j...@gmail.com> wrote:
"likewise identified" ... i have no such desire ... i simply noted
that my concept of god is not based on the words of men and is
therefore substantially dissimilar to yours ... my "belief" is not
stated as fact, or in descriptive terms, as such is impossible ... it
is not really a belief per se, but a feeling of joy derived from
specific experiences that are beyond relating in worthwhile terms ...
On May 19, 10:23 am, SM <14sm.j...@gmail.com> wrote:
e_space
May 19, 2011, 11:27:21 AM5/19/11
to A Civil Religious Debate
re: "Silly petulance, visceral hatred and rejection might seem like a
slightly harsh adjectives to describe your posting style, but with a
tad of moderation they seem to fit quite appropriately ...
re: "So if, for example, e_space can go back, re-read his dialogue
from a year ago and be proud of it," ... i know you strut around like
a peacock in heat with pride over your masterful use of the english
language, but i have no such egotistical need ... the only good use of
the word "pride" to me, is to describe a bunch of lions ... now brock,
please go read your bible and you will see that "pride cometh before a
fall" ...
maybe you can pull a few of those colorful feathers out of your butt
and actually post something that doesnt sound like pompous fluff ...
the glee you get from feeling literally superior seems evident all
through your posting style ... personally, i would prefer to read
simple words [you know, like jesus spoke], rather than your arrogant
use of linguistics that some need to continuously use a dictionary to
understand [not that the bottom line makes any sense] ...
re: "I gladly share it with folks on the forum because I pray that it
will be a blessing to them as it has been a blessing to me" ... funny,
it seems to me that you are turning off more people than you are
turning on ... maybe you had better reconsider your approach if you
hope to reach your implied goal ... just an observation ;-^)
On May 19, 10:35 am, Brock Organ <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, May 19, 2011 at 9:49 AM, SM <14sm.j...@gmail.com> wrote:
good answer initially, but months later the animus has receded but the
petty, immature post is still there" ... well brock, those are
slightly harsh adjectives to describe your posting style, but with a
tad of moderation they seem to fit quite appropriately ...
re: "So if, for example, e_space can go back, re-read his dialogue
from a year ago and be proud of it," ... i know you strut around like
a peacock in heat with pride over your masterful use of the english
language, but i have no such egotistical need ... the only good use of
the word "pride" to me, is to describe a bunch of lions ... now brock,
please go read your bible and you will see that "pride cometh before a
fall" ...
maybe you can pull a few of those colorful feathers out of your butt
and actually post something that doesnt sound like pompous fluff ...
the glee you get from feeling literally superior seems evident all
through your posting style ... personally, i would prefer to read
simple words [you know, like jesus spoke], rather than your arrogant
use of linguistics that some need to continuously use a dictionary to
understand [not that the bottom line makes any sense] ...
re: "I gladly share it with folks on the forum because I pray that it
will be a blessing to them as it has been a blessing to me" ... funny,
it seems to me that you are turning off more people than you are
turning on ... maybe you had better reconsider your approach if you
hope to reach your implied goal ... just an observation ;-^)
On May 19, 10:35 am, Brock Organ <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, May 19, 2011 at 9:49 AM, SM <14sm.j...@gmail.com> wrote:
e_space
May 19, 2011, 11:31:05 AM5/19/11
to A Civil Religious Debate
ah well brock, your observations of my posts are really quite
unimportant from my viewpoint ... your interpretation of whether i
have a "position at all" is especially insignificant to me ...
sorry ... after all, why would i consider that someone whose whole
belief system is based on what others have considered the "truth", to
have any significant currency? something to dwell on maybe?
On May 19, 10:37 am, Brock Organ <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, May 19, 2011 at 10:23 AM, SM <14sm.j...@gmail.com> wrote:
unimportant from my viewpoint ... your interpretation of whether i
have a "position at all" is especially insignificant to me ...
sorry ... after all, why would i consider that someone whose whole
belief system is based on what others have considered the "truth", to
have any significant currency? something to dwell on maybe?
On May 19, 10:37 am, Brock Organ <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, May 19, 2011 at 10:23 AM, SM <14sm.j...@gmail.com> wrote:
atypican
May 20, 2011, 3:17:26 AM5/20/11
to A Civil Religious Debate
> ....and articles, and papers, and trade journals, and...
Their "bible" is a bit more "living" don't ya think.
On May 18, 5:06 pm, "14SM.jcil" <14sm.j...@gmail.com> wrote:
SM
May 20, 2011, 7:52:37 AM5/20/11
to a-civil-reli...@googlegroups.com
On Fri, May 20, 2011 at 3:17 AM, atypican <david...@gmail.com> wrote:
> ....and articles, and papers, and trade journals, and...Their "bible" is a bit more "living" don't ya think.
I might...what do you mean by 'living'?
atypican
May 20, 2011, 1:56:48 PM5/20/11
to A Civil Religious Debate
You *might*..? .....what a jip!
I was thinking about how nothing new is being canonized in one, (the
CLOSED collection most commonly referred to as "The Bible") and the
other (the CONTINUALLY DEVELOPING collection produced by research that
utilizes the scientific method) is more readily adaptable and subject
to change based on new discoveries.
On May 20, 4:52 am, SM <14sm.j...@gmail.com> wrote:
I was thinking about how nothing new is being canonized in one, (the
CLOSED collection most commonly referred to as "The Bible") and the
other (the CONTINUALLY DEVELOPING collection produced by research that
utilizes the scientific method) is more readily adaptable and subject
to change based on new discoveries.
On May 20, 4:52 am, SM <14sm.j...@gmail.com> wrote:
SM
May 20, 2011, 2:42:10 PM5/20/11
to a-civil-reli...@googlegroups.com
On Fri, May 20, 2011 at 1:56 PM, atypican <david...@gmail.com> wrote:
You *might*..? .....what a jip!
:)
I was thinking about how nothing new is being canonized in one, (the
CLOSED collection most commonly referred to as "The Bible") and the
other (the CONTINUALLY DEVELOPING collection produced by research that
utilizes the scientific method) is more readily adaptable and subject
to change based on new discoveries.
Ok, thanks for the clarification.
One might observe that the Bible did go through a similar period of compilation as you describe above, however the parallels quickly break down when one considers that the Author is perfect and thus no evolutions and adaptations are needed in response to modern 'discoveries' (one of the validating aspects of the Bible is how it has retained its precision and relevancy throughout the centuries).
e_space
May 20, 2011, 4:52:52 PM5/20/11
to A Civil Religious Debate
the "Author" of the bible was actually a collection of many men ...
when you have proof otherwise, i would like to see it ... btw, if "no
evolutions and adaptions are needed", why were a high percentage of
the original writings left out, and the rest modified, edited,
translated, re-translated, etc ... ?
what position are you in to claim emphatically that the bible is
precise? ... what "precision" are you referring to?
On May 20, 2:42 pm, SM <14sm.j...@gmail.com> wrote:
when you have proof otherwise, i would like to see it ... btw, if "no
evolutions and adaptions are needed", why were a high percentage of
the original writings left out, and the rest modified, edited,
translated, re-translated, etc ... ?
what position are you in to claim emphatically that the bible is
precise? ... what "precision" are you referring to?
On May 20, 2:42 pm, SM <14sm.j...@gmail.com> wrote:
SM
May 20, 2011, 5:05:39 PM5/20/11
to a-civil-reli...@googlegroups.com
On Fri, May 20, 2011 at 4:52 PM, e_space <espac...@gmail.com> wrote:
the "Author" of the bible was actually a collection of many men ...
e, I respect your right to believe that. I request that you respect my right to believe otherwise.
when you have proof otherwise, i would like to see it
Are you back to requiring 'proof' again for that which cannot be proven? I thought we had made progress in recognizing that some truths cannot meet a 'proof standard'...?
... btw, if "no evolutions and adaptions are needed", why were a high percentage of
the original writings left out, and the rest modified, edited,
translated, re-translated, etc ... ?
As I said, there was a process and period of compilation.
what position are you in to claim emphatically that the bible is
precise? ... what "precision" are you referring to?
My 'position' is from one who has and continues to assiduously study the Bible. The 'precision' that I was referring to relates to the fulfillment of prophecy. Perhaps, that term could apply to the Bible in other ways too, but in answer to your question, that was my reference.
atypican
May 22, 2011, 11:15:27 PM5/22/11
to A Civil Religious Debate
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RB3g6mXLEKk&feature=player_embedded
On May 20, 11:42 am, SM <14sm.j...@gmail.com> wrote:
On May 20, 11:42 am, SM <14sm.j...@gmail.com> wrote:
e_space
May 23, 2011, 5:57:32 AM5/23/11
to A Civil Religious Debate
imo, if something cannot be proven, it is a good idea not to state it
as fact ...
if the bible wasnt written by a bunch of men, why did they put their
names on the cover?
re: "there was a process and period of compilation" ... this means
nothing to me ... if the complete bible was the inspired word of god,
why was 80% of it left out of the book ... almost sounds sacrilegious
to me, to take gods word and throw it on the editors floor ... i would
appreciate a simple response, not a vague non-answer like the one you
offered ...
what fulfillment of prophecy are you referring to? was nostradamus
gods brother? a lot of what he predicted is coming to fruition ...
many people make predictions that come true ... what does this mean?
it would make for better reading if, on occasion, you proffered some
reference to support your claims ... it is my observation that you
have a habit of making claims, and accusations, but seldom seem to
provide the supporting evidence ... in a court of law, you would be
tossed out of the room if you continued this practice ...
On May 20, 5:05 pm, SM <14sm.j...@gmail.com> wrote:
as fact ...
if the bible wasnt written by a bunch of men, why did they put their
names on the cover?
re: "there was a process and period of compilation" ... this means
nothing to me ... if the complete bible was the inspired word of god,
why was 80% of it left out of the book ... almost sounds sacrilegious
to me, to take gods word and throw it on the editors floor ... i would
appreciate a simple response, not a vague non-answer like the one you
offered ...
what fulfillment of prophecy are you referring to? was nostradamus
gods brother? a lot of what he predicted is coming to fruition ...
many people make predictions that come true ... what does this mean?
it would make for better reading if, on occasion, you proffered some
reference to support your claims ... it is my observation that you
have a habit of making claims, and accusations, but seldom seem to
provide the supporting evidence ... in a court of law, you would be
tossed out of the room if you continued this practice ...
On May 20, 5:05 pm, SM <14sm.j...@gmail.com> wrote:
SM
May 23, 2011, 9:11:13 AM5/23/11
to a-civil-reli...@googlegroups.com
On Mon, May 23, 2011 at 5:57 AM, e_space <espac...@gmail.com> wrote:
if the bible wasnt written by a bunch of men, why did they put their
names on the cover?
<chuckle>
Hmm, d'you mean "Holy" and "Bible"? I don't think those are names, e.
re: "there was a process and period of compilation" ... this means
nothing to me ... if the complete bible was the inspired word of god,
why was 80% of it left out of the book ... almost sounds sacrilegious
to me, to take gods word and throw it on the editors floor ... i would
appreciate a simple response, not a vague non-answer like the one you
offered ...
Your confusion is acknowledged and understood. I'll try to keep it simple.
Most consider that none of the inspired Word of God was "left out of the book".
what fulfillment of prophecy are you referring to? was nostradamus
gods brother? a lot of what he predicted is coming to fruition ...
many people make predictions that come true ... what does this mean?
There are hundreds of already fulfilled prophecies (I think that about 2/3 of Biblical prophecies have been fulfilled, with about 1/3 as yet unfulfilled), so answering such a question is not an easy task. For those who are genuinely interested, there are numerous sources for a comprehensive and detailed mapping of Biblical prophecy with the corresponding historical record, and one of the easiest is an internet search. I found the following in about 90 seconds:
Babylon would be attacked by the Medes
Bible passage: Isaiah 13:17
Prophet: Isaiah
Written: perhaps between 701-681 BC
Fulfilled: 539 BC
In Isaiah 13:17, the prophet said the Medes would attack Babylon. This happened about 150 years after Isaiah is believed to have delivered this prophecy. The Medes joined the Persians and conquered Babylon in about 539 BC.
Babylon's gates would open for Cyrus
Bible passage: Isaiah 45:1
Prophet: Isaiah
Written: perhaps between 701-681 BC
Fulfilled: 539 BC
In Isaiah 45:1, the prophet said God would open the gates of Babylon for Cyrus and his attacking army. Despite Babylon's remarkable defenses, which included moats, and walls that were more than 70-feet thick and 300-feet high, and 250 watchtowers, Cyrus was able to enter the city and conquer it. Cyrus and his troops diverted the flow of the Euphrates River into a large lake basin. Cyrus then was able to march his army across the riverbed and into the city.
Israel would be partitioned by other nations
Bible passage: Joel 3:2
Prophet: Joel
Written: about 400 BC
Fulfilled: 1900s
In Joel 3:2, the prophet said that the nations of the world will be judged for having scattered the people of Israel and for having "divided up" (or "parted" or "partitioned") the land of Israel. Christian scholars believe that this is a prophecy that will be fulfilled during the End Times. But portions of the prophecy already have been fulfilled. The Jews have been scattered to nations throughout the world, and the nations of the world have divided up the land of Israel. On November 29, 1947, the United Nations General Assembly approved a motion to partition the land into two separate states, one for Jewish people and another for Arab people.
Ninevites would be wiped out
Bible passage: Nahum 1:14
Prophet: Nahum
Written: perhaps 614 BC
Fulfilled: 612 BC
In Nahum 1:14, the prophet said Nineveh would have no descendants to carry on the prestige of Nineveh. Nineveh's destruction in 612 BC marked a permanent end to the Assyrian Empire. The city itself never again rose to any significant importance. Today, Nineveh is an archaeological site in Iraq.
Isaiah said Israel's fruit would fill the world
Bible passage: Isaiah 27:6
Prophet: Isaiah
Written: perhaps between 701-681 BC
Fulfilled: late 1900s
In Isaiah 27:6, the prophet said Israel would one day blossom and fill the world with fruit. This prophecy has been at least partially fulfilled so far, literally and spiritually. Today, the land of Israel, which had been barren for centuries, is a leading producer of agricultural products, exporting food to many countries. This prophecy also has been fulfilled spiritually with the worldwide spread of Christianity, which began with Jesus in Israel.
As an aside, I believe that one of the prophecies included in this list (from the prophet Joel) has a prescient relevance for us right now, given the current discussions of a 'two-state solution', and even last week's speech about returning to 1967 borders.
I've looked into the claims of Nostradamus' predictions and I personally conclude that they lack the level of specificity of Biblical prophecy. The most specific that I recall hearing about are some statements that seem to be fulfilled by World War II, including a reference to "Hister" which many consider to be close enough to represent "Hitler".
"A lot of what he predicted is coming to fruition"
e, I'm not bothered by such statements made by participants in the forum, and I wouldn't have issue with you doing so either (I'd simply just ask you for an elaboration) except that you deny others the right to make such "vague", "unsupported", yet "factual" assertions.
What makes it ok for you to do that which you complain about others doing? Such is a double-standard which undermines what you claim to want in our discussions:
"imo, if something cannot be proven, it is a good idea not to state it as fact"
"it would make for better reading if you proffered some reference to support your claims"
"it is my observation that you have a habit of making claims, and accusations, but seldom seem toprovide the supporting evidence"
Why should I, or anyone here, continue posting in good faith with you when you deal in such double-standards?
e_space
May 23, 2011, 11:47:43 AM5/23/11
to A Civil Religious Debate
echo chuckle ... quite funny that you are saying that the bible is
only one book, and not a collection of them ... hmmm, guess ya learn
something new every day ... and here i thought there were books of the
bible [the ones i can still recite from a sunday school test i was
forced to take] ... how naive of me!!! ... i must write a letter to my
naughty sunday school teacher for lying to me and calling them
books! ;-^)
i guess the book of john, should actually be called the chapter of
john, since chapters typically make up a book, right? ... ooops ...
that cant be, because there are chapters in the book of john, arent
there? ... could you please clear my mind, im sooooo confused? ;-^)
btw, do you have any other option than to keep it simple? just
wondering, because inferring that i am too simple to tell me anything
complicated, while going into your normal smoke and mirror routine, in
order to divert any relevant answer with sarcasm and meaningless fluff
seems to be your MO ... i guess i should know better by now than to
ask you questions that you are incapable of answering ... i really
must learn that lesson and move on to greener pastures ...
there ya go with the typical and highly anticipated "double standards"
thingy again, without the required examples ... are you sure youre not
trance gemini? let me guess ... youre not a lawyer, right? ;-^)
On May 23, 9:11 am, SM <14sm.j...@gmail.com> wrote:
only one book, and not a collection of them ... hmmm, guess ya learn
something new every day ... and here i thought there were books of the
bible [the ones i can still recite from a sunday school test i was
forced to take] ... how naive of me!!! ... i must write a letter to my
naughty sunday school teacher for lying to me and calling them
books! ;-^)
i guess the book of john, should actually be called the chapter of
john, since chapters typically make up a book, right? ... ooops ...
that cant be, because there are chapters in the book of john, arent
there? ... could you please clear my mind, im sooooo confused? ;-^)
btw, do you have any other option than to keep it simple? just
wondering, because inferring that i am too simple to tell me anything
complicated, while going into your normal smoke and mirror routine, in
order to divert any relevant answer with sarcasm and meaningless fluff
seems to be your MO ... i guess i should know better by now than to
ask you questions that you are incapable of answering ... i really
must learn that lesson and move on to greener pastures ...
there ya go with the typical and highly anticipated "double standards"
thingy again, without the required examples ... are you sure youre not
trance gemini? let me guess ... youre not a lawyer, right? ;-^)
On May 23, 9:11 am, SM <14sm.j...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, May 23, 2011 at 5:57 AM, e_space <espace1...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > if the bible wasnt written by a bunch of men, why did they put their
>
> names on the cover?
>
>
>
> <chuckle>
>
> Hmm, d'you mean "Holy" and "Bible"? I don't think those are names, e.
>
> > re: "there was a process and period of compilation" ... this means
> > nothing to me ... if the complete bible was the inspired word of god,
> > why was 80% of it left out of the book ... almost sounds sacrilegious
> > to me, to take gods word and throw it on the editors floor ... i would
> > appreciate a simple response, not a vague non-answer like the one you
> > offered ...
>
> Your confusion is acknowledged and understood. I'll try to keep it simple.
>
> Most consider that *none* of the inspired Word of God was "left out of the
> > if the bible wasnt written by a bunch of men, why did they put their
>
> names on the cover?
>
>
>
> <chuckle>
>
> Hmm, d'you mean "Holy" and "Bible"? I don't think those are names, e.
>
> > re: "there was a process and period of compilation" ... this means
> > nothing to me ... if the complete bible was the inspired word of god,
> > why was 80% of it left out of the book ... almost sounds sacrilegious
> > to me, to take gods word and throw it on the editors floor ... i would
> > appreciate a simple response, not a vague non-answer like the one you
> > offered ...
>
> Your confusion is acknowledged and understood. I'll try to keep it simple.
>
> book".
>
> > what fulfillment of prophecy are you referring to? was nostradamus
> > gods brother? a lot of what he predicted is coming to fruition ...
> > many people make predictions that come true ... what does this mean?
>
> There are hundreds of already fulfilled prophecies (I think that about 2/3
> of Biblical prophecies have been fulfilled, with about 1/3 as yet
> unfulfilled), so answering such a question is not an easy task. For those
> who are *genuinely* interested, there are numerous sources for a
>
> > what fulfillment of prophecy are you referring to? was nostradamus
> > gods brother? a lot of what he predicted is coming to fruition ...
> > many people make predictions that come true ... what does this mean?
>
> There are hundreds of already fulfilled prophecies (I think that about 2/3
> of Biblical prophecies have been fulfilled, with about 1/3 as yet
> unfulfilled), so answering such a question is not an easy task. For those
SM
May 23, 2011, 12:00:36 PM5/23/11
to a-civil-reli...@googlegroups.com
On Mon, May 23, 2011 at 11:47 AM, e_space <espac...@gmail.com> wrote:
echo chuckle ... quite funny that you are saying that the bible is
only one book, and not a collection of them ... hmmm, guess ya learn
something new every day ... and here i thought there were books of the
bible [the ones i can still recite from a sunday school test i was
forced to take] ... how naive of me!!! ... i must write a letter to my
naughty sunday school teacher for lying to me and calling them
books! ;-^)
i guess the book of john, should actually be called the chapter of
john, since chapters typically make up a book, right? ... ooops ...
that cant be, because there are chapters in the book of john, arent
there? ... could you please clear my mind, im sooooo confused? ;-^)
btw, do you have any other option than to keep it simple? just
wondering, because inferring that i am too simple to tell me anything
complicated, while going into your normal smoke and mirror routine, in
order to divert any relevant answer with sarcasm and meaningless fluff
seems to be your MO ... i guess i should know better by now than to
ask you questions that you are incapable of answering ... i really
must learn that lesson and move on to greener pastures ...
there ya go with the typical and highly anticipated "double standards"
thingy again, without the required examples ... are you sure youre not
trance gemini? let me guess ... youre not a lawyer, right? ;-^)
I note that some questions appear rhetorical. I don't want to assume your intent...please list only the questions that you want a response to.
e_space
May 23, 2011, 1:14:56 PM5/23/11
to A Civil Religious Debate
awwww ... please dont stop assuming now, just as im getting used to
it ;-^)
in regards to your request ... if one speaks in rhetorical terms, they
should expect questions that have something to do with rhetoric ...
your claims of "truth" that are based on your belief, come across very
much like religious rhetoric at times ... so when i ask you questions
about them, rhetoric is obviously going to be an ingredient, as it is
the source of the question ...
i am fully aware that some of the questions i ask cannot be answered
with anything substantial, and in reality, i grow weary of the uphill
slogging that has no prize when the summit is reached ... in fact, i
dont recall reaching the summit at all ... so, since our conversations
are liking eating LOTS of food that has NO nutritional value, i bid
them adieu ...
On May 23, 12:00 pm, SM <14sm.j...@gmail.com> wrote:
it ;-^)
in regards to your request ... if one speaks in rhetorical terms, they
should expect questions that have something to do with rhetoric ...
your claims of "truth" that are based on your belief, come across very
much like religious rhetoric at times ... so when i ask you questions
about them, rhetoric is obviously going to be an ingredient, as it is
the source of the question ...
i am fully aware that some of the questions i ask cannot be answered
with anything substantial, and in reality, i grow weary of the uphill
slogging that has no prize when the summit is reached ... in fact, i
dont recall reaching the summit at all ... so, since our conversations
are liking eating LOTS of food that has NO nutritional value, i bid
them adieu ...
On May 23, 12:00 pm, SM <14sm.j...@gmail.com> wrote:
14SM.jcil
May 23, 2011, 1:32:18 PM5/23/11
to a-civil-reli...@googlegroups.com
On May 23, 2011, at 13:14, e_space <espac...@gmail.com> wrote:
> awwww ... please dont stop assuming now, just as im getting used to
> it ;-^)
>
> in regards to your request ... if one speaks in rhetorical terms, they
> should expect questions that have something to do with rhetoric ...
> your claims of "truth" that are based on your belief, come across very
> much like religious rhetoric at times ... so when i ask you questions
> about them, rhetoric is obviously going to be an ingredient, as it is
> the source of the question ...
>
> i am fully aware that some of the questions i ask cannot be answered
> with anything substantial, and in reality, i grow weary of the uphill
> slogging that has no prize when the summit is reached ... in fact, i
> dont recall reaching the summit at all ... so, since our conversations
> are liking eating LOTS of food that has NO nutritional value, i bid
> them adieu ...
<chuckle>
Mardi
Jun 1, 2011, 10:44:13 AM6/1/11
to A Civil Religious Debate
SM, this is a really wonderful discussion of your insight about a
spirituality accessible through mathematics. I've read some books
(designed for the non-scientific) on quantum theory that I've totally
incorporated into my own metaphysical understanding of reality. But
I've never pursued these higher forms of mathematics (even the lower
forms are way too complicated for me!) I love the way you have woven
together spirituality with materiality, bridging what we have
perceived as an unbridgable divide. Would you consider taking this
post as a starting point for writing an article or a book? Do you have
a website you could post it on? If you do, please send me the link!
On May 18, 8:46 am, SM <14sm.j...@gmail.com> wrote:
> My East Bay buddy, Les, lived, breathed, and occasionally smoked so-called
> “superstrings.” Les was a software engineer by day and a quantum junkie by
> night. He chewed-up and digested everything he could on String Theory,
> M-Theory, and the Theory of Everything. The “TOE” was Albert Einstein’s
> illusive one-inch formula that would provide the “simple” unification of all
> forces in the cosmos.
>
> Initially, I hung out with Les because he played guitar and grew special
> plants in his little atrium off the back porch. Over time, it was more than
> the music and the horticulture that wooed me over the Bay Bridge a couple
> times a week. I really started to crave these quantum expressions of unseen
> realms. Les’ explanations of superstrings and the Theory of Everything (TOE)
> seemed to act as physical bridges in the midst my metaphysical battles. I
> won’t rehash the gory details here, but let’s just say that Les’ ability to
> share eccentric scientific theories acted as naturalistic peace in my
> “supernatural” storms.
>
> One day, Les and I were enjoying the atrium and ragging on the majority of
> the population who still believes in God, angels, and heaven. We laughed at
> the actual notion of the “supernatural” – the unseen crutch – for so many
> religious fundamentalists. And then it hit us – both at once... This is our
> unseen world too. We tend to use terms like “extra-dimensional,” but it’s
> the same thing! Natural, Supernatural, Omni-Natural… Mathematically, it all
> coexists!
>
> Superstrings – Naturalists Forced to go SupernaturalAs materialistic
> atheists, we like living in a “naturalistic vacuum.” All things observable
> in nature can be explained by matter acting on matter in the physical realm.
> There’s no need to invoke the non-physical… There’s no need to conjure the
> supernatural. And yet, “in the name of science,” that’s exactly what we’re
> doing. The observations and calculations underlying superstrings and the
> Theory of Everything require it of us!
>
> Remarkably, String Theory requires ten dimensions to work. M-Theory requires
> eleven. Last I remember, I can only experience (let alone fathom) four
> dimensions --- three of space and one of time. Even with technological
> enhancements such as telescopes and microscopes, my five physical senses can
> only muster the four physical dimensions in our space-time continuum.
>
> Therefore, if scientists are now telling me that there are ten, eleven, or
> more dimensions, what does that make the extra, unseen ones? Yes, by
> definition, they are extra-dimensional. Said another way, they must be
> non-physical (aka “metaphysical”) and non-natural (aka “supernatural”).
>
> That’s profoundly crazy -- I believe in the supernatural. The mainstream
> 21st century scientists and mathematicians require it. Whether we like it or
> not, quantum physical discussions make it mandatory for us to quietly return
> to metaphysical discussions...
>
> “Is it really true that what we see is all that’s there? Or is it the case
> that we’re just not physiologically designed to experience or see those
> dimensions, but we’ll eventually find evidence of them?” (Lisa Randall,
> Harvard Physicist)
>
> *By faith we understand that the universe was formed at God's command, so
> that what is seen was not made out of what was visible.* (Hebrews
> 11:3<http://biblia.com/bible/esv/Hebrews%2011.3>
> )
>
> Superstrings – The Extra-Dimensional Ripples of Michio KakuThink about it…
> 21st century technology allows scientists to see billions of light years
> into the massive cosmos, yet process in terms of “infinitely-small” hadrons,
> gluons, and quarks… My head always hurt, until I discovered a new hero, Dr.
> Michio Kaku.
>
> Michio Kaku is brilliant and probably the top mind in quantum physics and
> superstrings. However, he uses story and illustration to bring the notion of
> extra-dimensional strings down to my spongy-headed level. As a young child,
> Michio spent hours watching carp at the Japanese Tea Garden in San
> Francisco. (I love this story because I discovered it online when I lived a
> couple miles from here.) He imagined the pond as an entire, two-dimensional
> universe, where the carp could only swim forwards and backwards, left and
> right. The concept of “up,” beyond the lily pads, was totally alien to them.
>
> Michio wondered, “What if I could reach down and grab a carp and lift him up
> into my universe?” What a wondrous story the carp would tell the others! He
> would babble on about new laws of physics and unbelievable creatures that
> move without fins and breathe without gills. However, without such a visit
> to the third dimension, how could a “thinking” carp know anything about the
> unseen world above?
>
> One day it rained, and Michio saw the drops form ripples on the surface of
> the pond. Then he understood. The carp could see the rippling shadows. The
> third dimension was invisible to them, but vibrations in this dimension were
> clearly visible. The ripples might even be felt by the carp, who would
> invent scientific concepts such as “light” and “gravity” to help describe
> the unseen “force.” Of course, the other carp in the pond would laugh at the
> notion, since carp know there’s no “force” at all, just the rippling of the
> water.
>
> Today, Michio Kaku believes we are the carp swimming in our tiny pond,
> blissfully unaware of invisible universes hovering just above us in
> hyperspace. As described on his self-named website, 21st century physicists
> can now “see” and “feel” the “ripples,” and Michio Kaku is leading the
> charge towards a scientific formula that explains it all – yes, The Theory
> of Everything. Les and I love Dr. Kaku and follow his work “religiously.”
> Indeed, he is the leading scientist in 10-dimensional string theory modeling
> – He truly believes he’s tapped into unseen superstrings vibrating at the
> quantum level that provide the perfect harmony for all the fine-tuned forces
> in the cosmos.
>
> *For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities—his eternal
> power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what
> has been made, so that men are without excuse.* (Romans
> 1:20<http://biblia.com/bible/esv/Romans%201.20>
> )
>
> As hard as I try to dodge the truth, it seems the pursuit of the TOE – The
> Theory of Everything – is really the pursuit of GOD.
>
> http://thinkabout.blogos.org/superstrings.html
spirituality accessible through mathematics. I've read some books
(designed for the non-scientific) on quantum theory that I've totally
incorporated into my own metaphysical understanding of reality. But
I've never pursued these higher forms of mathematics (even the lower
forms are way too complicated for me!) I love the way you have woven
together spirituality with materiality, bridging what we have
perceived as an unbridgable divide. Would you consider taking this
post as a starting point for writing an article or a book? Do you have
a website you could post it on? If you do, please send me the link!
On May 18, 8:46 am, SM <14sm.j...@gmail.com> wrote:
> My East Bay buddy, Les, lived, breathed, and occasionally smoked so-called
> “superstrings.” Les was a software engineer by day and a quantum junkie by
> night. He chewed-up and digested everything he could on String Theory,
> M-Theory, and the Theory of Everything. The “TOE” was Albert Einstein’s
> illusive one-inch formula that would provide the “simple” unification of all
> forces in the cosmos.
>
> Initially, I hung out with Les because he played guitar and grew special
> plants in his little atrium off the back porch. Over time, it was more than
> the music and the horticulture that wooed me over the Bay Bridge a couple
> times a week. I really started to crave these quantum expressions of unseen
> realms. Les’ explanations of superstrings and the Theory of Everything (TOE)
> seemed to act as physical bridges in the midst my metaphysical battles. I
> won’t rehash the gory details here, but let’s just say that Les’ ability to
> share eccentric scientific theories acted as naturalistic peace in my
> “supernatural” storms.
>
> One day, Les and I were enjoying the atrium and ragging on the majority of
> the population who still believes in God, angels, and heaven. We laughed at
> the actual notion of the “supernatural” – the unseen crutch – for so many
> religious fundamentalists. And then it hit us – both at once... This is our
> unseen world too. We tend to use terms like “extra-dimensional,” but it’s
> the same thing! Natural, Supernatural, Omni-Natural… Mathematically, it all
> coexists!
>
> Superstrings – Naturalists Forced to go SupernaturalAs materialistic
> atheists, we like living in a “naturalistic vacuum.” All things observable
> in nature can be explained by matter acting on matter in the physical realm.
> There’s no need to invoke the non-physical… There’s no need to conjure the
> supernatural. And yet, “in the name of science,” that’s exactly what we’re
> doing. The observations and calculations underlying superstrings and the
> Theory of Everything require it of us!
>
> Remarkably, String Theory requires ten dimensions to work. M-Theory requires
> eleven. Last I remember, I can only experience (let alone fathom) four
> dimensions --- three of space and one of time. Even with technological
> enhancements such as telescopes and microscopes, my five physical senses can
> only muster the four physical dimensions in our space-time continuum.
>
> Therefore, if scientists are now telling me that there are ten, eleven, or
> more dimensions, what does that make the extra, unseen ones? Yes, by
> definition, they are extra-dimensional. Said another way, they must be
> non-physical (aka “metaphysical”) and non-natural (aka “supernatural”).
>
> That’s profoundly crazy -- I believe in the supernatural. The mainstream
> 21st century scientists and mathematicians require it. Whether we like it or
> not, quantum physical discussions make it mandatory for us to quietly return
> to metaphysical discussions...
>
> “Is it really true that what we see is all that’s there? Or is it the case
> that we’re just not physiologically designed to experience or see those
> dimensions, but we’ll eventually find evidence of them?” (Lisa Randall,
> Harvard Physicist)
>
> *By faith we understand that the universe was formed at God's command, so
> that what is seen was not made out of what was visible.* (Hebrews
> 11:3<http://biblia.com/bible/esv/Hebrews%2011.3>
> )
>
> Superstrings – The Extra-Dimensional Ripples of Michio KakuThink about it…
> 21st century technology allows scientists to see billions of light years
> into the massive cosmos, yet process in terms of “infinitely-small” hadrons,
> gluons, and quarks… My head always hurt, until I discovered a new hero, Dr.
> Michio Kaku.
>
> Michio Kaku is brilliant and probably the top mind in quantum physics and
> superstrings. However, he uses story and illustration to bring the notion of
> extra-dimensional strings down to my spongy-headed level. As a young child,
> Michio spent hours watching carp at the Japanese Tea Garden in San
> Francisco. (I love this story because I discovered it online when I lived a
> couple miles from here.) He imagined the pond as an entire, two-dimensional
> universe, where the carp could only swim forwards and backwards, left and
> right. The concept of “up,” beyond the lily pads, was totally alien to them.
>
> Michio wondered, “What if I could reach down and grab a carp and lift him up
> into my universe?” What a wondrous story the carp would tell the others! He
> would babble on about new laws of physics and unbelievable creatures that
> move without fins and breathe without gills. However, without such a visit
> to the third dimension, how could a “thinking” carp know anything about the
> unseen world above?
>
> One day it rained, and Michio saw the drops form ripples on the surface of
> the pond. Then he understood. The carp could see the rippling shadows. The
> third dimension was invisible to them, but vibrations in this dimension were
> clearly visible. The ripples might even be felt by the carp, who would
> invent scientific concepts such as “light” and “gravity” to help describe
> the unseen “force.” Of course, the other carp in the pond would laugh at the
> notion, since carp know there’s no “force” at all, just the rippling of the
> water.
>
> Today, Michio Kaku believes we are the carp swimming in our tiny pond,
> blissfully unaware of invisible universes hovering just above us in
> hyperspace. As described on his self-named website, 21st century physicists
> can now “see” and “feel” the “ripples,” and Michio Kaku is leading the
> charge towards a scientific formula that explains it all – yes, The Theory
> of Everything. Les and I love Dr. Kaku and follow his work “religiously.”
> Indeed, he is the leading scientist in 10-dimensional string theory modeling
> – He truly believes he’s tapped into unseen superstrings vibrating at the
> quantum level that provide the perfect harmony for all the fine-tuned forces
> in the cosmos.
>
> *For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities—his eternal
> power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what
> has been made, so that men are without excuse.* (Romans
> 1:20<http://biblia.com/bible/esv/Romans%201.20>
> )
>
> As hard as I try to dodge the truth, it seems the pursuit of the TOE – The
> Theory of Everything – is really the pursuit of GOD.
>
> http://thinkabout.blogos.org/superstrings.html
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages