Where and Who is God ?

By idea the God ( HE / SHE / IT ) must be :
1.
Something Infinity Absolute it means to be in every place
2.
And something Absolute Concrete/ Limited it means
to be exactly in the concrete place.

Question:
Can God create our World without physics laws and formulas ?
The answer is: No !
Question:
Have physicists found these two Absolute parameters
in the Universe ?
My answer is: Yes !
One Infinity Absolute Parameter is Vacuum: T=0K.
Second Absolute Concrete/ Limited Parameter is speed of
Quantum of Light in Vacuum: c=1.

Using these two Absolute Parameters I explain
the creation of the Universe step by step.
== .
Thomas Jefferson wrote in the letter to Joseph Milligan, April 6, 1816
/ ...the more a subject is understood,
the more briefly it may be explained. /

Einstein said:
/ You do not really understand something unless
you can explain it to your grandmother. /

I think everybody can understand my theory.
==== .
Best wishes.
Israel Sadovnik. / Socratus.

http://www.worldnpa.org/php2/index.php?tab0=Scientists&tab1=Display&id=1372
===================== . .

Science and Religion: Is there a conflict?
Or maybe:
Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.
/ Albert Einstein. /
Or maybe:
All religions, arts and sciences are branches of the same tree.
/ Albert Einstein. /
#
Science and Religion: Is there any conflict?
Or maybe there isnt any conflict.
Religion or Physics ? Faith or Knowledge ?
Or maybe our stupidity asks these questions.
===== .
Socratus.

Is God made out of the same substances as the Universe? Or did he make the Universe out of some invention of his own making?

Is God made out of the same substances as the Universe?
Or did he make the Universe out of some invention of his own making?
/ Anonymous /

As Thermodynamics says:
There is NOTHINGNESS: T=0K.
We cannot reach there.
And Quantum Theory says:
There, in the NOTHINGNESS,
in the Dirac sea different virtual particles exist.

Did I answer to your questions ?
============ .
Socratus.

vir·tu·al (vûr'ch-l)
adj.

1.

Existing or resulting in essence or effect though not in actual fact, form, or name: the virtual extinction of the buffalo.
2.

Existing in the mind, especially as a product of the imagination. Used in literary criticism of a text.

Answer to Your question: No.

1.
The extinction of the buffalo ( or the Schrödinger cat )
in the nothingness drives to existing it there (in the vacuum )
under new form, new physical parameters and new name.
2.
It is a pity that I didnt answer to your questions.
Maybe other time I will be wiser to do this.
========
Socratus

I don't believe it is your failing. If I were God, I would not reveal everything to my created beings. Some of them would always want to take over my position of power, and do away with me.

You gave subjective psychological answer
and as such it can be different.
For example:
If I were God, I would give to Human chance
to understand who I am by analyzing the physical
formulas, equations and laws. Because to create Everything
I need them. So, logically, catching the thread of the physics
Human can understand Me and My Work.
============== .
Socratus.

Anon: I don't believe it is your failing. If I were God, I would not reveal everything to my created beings. Some of them would always want to take over my position of power, and do away with me.





AAF: Anon; if I were God, I would scrap at once all my low-grade creations and concentrate single-mindedly on creating all-powerful Gods like Myself!

AAF: Anon; if I were God, I would scrap at once all my low-grade creations and concentrate single-mindedly on creating all-powerful Gods like Myself!

isn't that what God was supposed to have done in the first place with his angels; then one faction rebelled led by Satan. Frankenstein similarly had problems when he played God.

Dear Anon:


Based on what I've heard about 'em so far, Angels (including the rebellious Satan) are low-grade creations as well!

Yup, they're all horny, greedy, and egotistical. The truth about reality is in plain sight, it's simple, and no one can understand, because we already know everything.

like millions before us when we could not explain what we saw,
we turned to the gods for the answers
But Zeus never gave the answers, nor did Neptune or Ra
No answers are given by the most modern one!
The answers come from mankind
It is us and only us who can unravel this mystery.
With no help from any divinity
It is this mystery of who we are and what we see around us,
that gives birth to gods
If there is a string theory then we will find it
But to suppose there is a single theory of everything,
seems like we are still much like the ancients

Posted by 'canadapiper '

Re: AAF, Where and Who is God ? October 31 2009, 4:21 PM

AAF: "Anon; if I were God, I would scrap at once all my low-grade creations and concentrate single-mindedly on creating all-powerful Gods like Myself!"

So, you would create a Universe of all powerful Gods!!! An interesting concept AAF, but tell me, would the all powerful Gods that you create, to be like yourself, also have the power to create life? and, by default, have the power to "scrap" life!

For the record; Me, being a low-grade creation in comparison to an all powerful God, have no objection to being dispensed with for the greater good.

To be dispensed by God is one thing. To be dispensed by some who think they are God is totally another. The "Greater Good," how is that determined?

Every man is obligated to not burden others. The politically correct of late is to assume that society is obligated to care for each of us by burdening all against their will. Then, when the resources are thought to run short, Society takes upon itself to dispose of the "low grade creation."

We're going to miss you. (I hope you, at least put, up a fight.)

What are you, Anonymous? Some kind of comma freak?

Take your cash and invest in Lead, for it seems that the elite only understand one axiom, "It is good to feel like you're God".
We must stand for freedom, against all types of tyranny, whether federal or corporate, as their Greed knows no boundaries.
Freedom is always won and maintained with the blood and lead of patriots. Make no mistake, the time will come shortly when you must make decisions of just how far you will go to feel secure in your person and that your freedoms are not squandered in the name of that security.

http://www.theflucase.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=700%3Amicrobiologist-alleges-baxter-qswine-fluq-vaccine-is-a-bioweapon&Itemid=64

Re: first Grader, Where and Who is God ? November 4 2009, 12:18 PM

First Grader: "What are you, Anonymous? Some kind of comma freak?"

Read as: What are you Anonymous, some kind of comma freak? You would do well to learn the placement of commas yourself FG.

How to write good

1. Avoid alliteration. Always.

2. Prepositions are not words to end sentences with.

3. Avoid cliches like the plague. (They're old hat.)

4. Employ the vernacular.

5. Eschew ampersands & abbreviations, etc.

6. Parenthetical remarks (however relevant) are unnecessary.

7. It is wrong to ever split an infinitive.

8. Contractions aren't necessary.

9. Foreign words and phrases are not apropos.

10. One should never generalize.

11. Eliminate quotations. As Ralph Waldo Emerson once said, "I hate quotations. Tell me what you know."

12. Comparisons are as bad as cliches.

13. Don't be redundant; don't use more words than necessary; it's highly superfluous.

14. Profanity sucks.

15. Be more or less specific.

16. Understatement is always best.

17. Exaggeration is a billion times worse than understatement.

18. One-word sentences? Eliminate.

19. Analogies in writing are like feathers on a snake.

20. The passive voice is to be avoided.

21. Go around the barn at high noon to avoid colloquialisms.

22. Even if a mixed metaphor sings, it should be derailed.

23. Who needs rhetorical questions?

Re: Anonymous, Where and Who is God ? November 4 2009, 10:43 PM

How to write good

0. Don't fragment.

1. ...

1. Tell you audience what you are going to tell them.

2. Tell your audience what you are telling them.

3. Tell your audience what you told them.

4. Proof read your work.

God and Consciousness.

Mr. FF wrote:
There is only one place where "God" has been
demonstrated, even proven to exist - in human brains.
=== .
God and Consciousness.

It seems you are right saying: There is only one place
where "God" has been demonstrated, even proven
to exist - in human brains.
Why? Because if God exist, HE /SHE/ IT must be
in every place it means in human brains too.
Question: is it possible to prove this ?
I will try.
Our brain works on dualistic basis: usually consciousness
(logically) and rarely unconsciousness ( at first it seems
illogically but at last it shows as very wise act) .
In his book The Holographic Universe Michael Talbot
on the page 160 explained this situation in such way:
Contrary to what everyone knows it is so, it may not be
the brain that produce consciousness, but rather consciousness
that creates the appearance of the brain - . . . .
But as the Bhagavad Gita says:
Fools deride Me when I descend in the human form.
They do not know My transcendental nature and
My supreme dominion over all that be.
/ Chapter 9. Text 11./
========== . .

Creation of some-thing from no-thing is impossible.

By the same token, existence without having been created is also impossible.

Science and religion in tandem can become a great force
to liberate the mind and help the humans to a fuller and better
understanding of reality.
/ Sikh Religion and Science
by G. S. Sidhu M.A; FIL (London) /
http://www.sikhroots.net/resources/Sikh_Religion%20&Science.pdf
===========================
Why every religion wants support from science ?
#
Where Science and Buddhism Meet PART 1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qj_i7YqDwJA&feature=related
. . .etc
=== .

Bob S: Creation of some-thing from no-thing is impossible. By the same token, existence without having been created is also impossible.





AAF: Bob, your statement that "creation of something out of nothing is impossible" is absolutely correct & true. That is on one hand.

On the other hand, the statement that "existence without having been created is impossible" is absolutely incorrect & false. Why? It is because existence necessarily implies the existence of time as a basic requirement to be meaningful or to make any sense at all. And since eternity is time without any beginning or end; existence as well can be eternal with no beginning and no end. Very briefly, eternal existence is not impossible, because eternity is not impossible.

Re: AAF, Where and Who is God ? November 7 2009, 12:16 AM

Bob S: "Creation of some-thing from no-thing is impossible. By the same token, existence without having been created is also impossible."

AAF: "Bob, your statement that "creation of something out of nothing is impossible" is absolutely correct & true. That is on one hand.

On the other hand, the statement that "existence without having been created is impossible" is absolutely incorrect & false. Why? It is because existence necessarily implies the existence of time as a basic requirement to be meaningful or to make any sense at all. And since eternity is time without any beginning or end; existence as well can be eternal with no beginning and no end. Very briefly, eternal existence is not impossible, because eternity is not impossible."

You passed up a question directed to you and responded to an offhanded statement? Your quest to be an all-powerful God is off to a shaky start.

The idea that the universe can be viewed as the compound
of two basic orders, the implicate and the explicate, can be
found in many other traditions.
The Tibetan Buddhists call these two aspects the void and
nonvoid. The nonvoid is the reality of visible objects. The
void, like the implicate order, is the birthplace of all things
in the universe, . . .
. . . only the void is real and all forms in the objective world
are illusory, . . . .
The Hindus call the implicate level of reality Brahman.
Brahman is formless but is the birthplace of all forms in
visible reality, which appear out of it and then enfold back
into it in endless flux.
. . . consciousness is not only a subtler form of matter,
but it is more fundamental than matter, and in the Hindu
cosmology it is matter that has emerged from consciousness,
and not the other way around. Or as the Vedas put it, the
physical world is brought into being through both the
veiling and projecting powers of consciousness.
. . . the material universe is only a second- generation
reality, a creation of veiled consciousness, the Hindus
say that it is transitory and unreal, or maya.
. . .
This same concept can be found in Judaic thought.
. . . . in shamanistic thinking . . . . . .
. . . . . .
Like Bohm, who says that consciousness always has its
source in the implicate, the aborigines believe that the
true source of the mind is in the transcendent reality of
the dreamtime. Normal people do not realize this and
believe that their consciousness is in their bodies.
. . . . .
The Dogan people of the Sudan also believe that the
physical world is the product of a deeper and more
fundamental level of reality . . . . . .
=== .
Book / The Holographic Universe.
Part 3 / 9. Pages 287 289.
By Michael Talbot. /
==================== . . .
My questions after reading this book.

Is it possible that Physics confirmed and proved the
Religion philosophy of life ?
How is it possible to understand the Religion philosophy
of life from modern Physics view?
#
My opinion.
Fact.
The detected material mass of the matter in the
Universe is so small (the average density of all
substance in the Universe is approximately
p=10^-30 g/sm^3) that it cannot close the
Universe into sphere and therefore our Universe
as whole is open, Endless Void / Nothingness /
Vacuum : T=0K.
Quantum Physics says the Vacuum is the birthplace
of all virtual particles . Nobody knows what there are,
but the virtual particles change the Vacuum in a
local places and create Nonvoid / Material / Gravity
World with stars, planets and all another objects and
subjects in the Universe.
=== .
Without Eternal/ Infinite Void / Vacuum physics makes no sense.
But . . . . . . .
" The problem of the exact description of vacuum,
in my opinion, is the basic problem now before physics.
Really, if you cant correctly describe the vacuum,
how it is possible to expect a correct description
of something more complex? "
/ Paul Dirac ./
==========.
Best wishes.
Israel Sadovnik. / Socratus.
http://www.physforum.com/index.php?showtopic=23624&st=15
http://www.physforum.com/index.php?showtopic=2547&st=105
http://www.physforum.com/index.php?showtopic=2548
================== . .

Re: socratus, Where and Who is God ? November 8 2009, 7:03 AM

socratus: "The idea that the universe can be viewed as the compound of two basic orders, the implicate and the explicate, can be found in many other traditions. The Tibetan Buddhists call these two aspects the void and nonvoid. The nonvoid is the reality of visible objects. The void, like the implicate order, is the birthplace of all things in the universe, . . .
. . . only the void is real and all forms in the objective world are illusory, . . . ."

Thing(s) can not be created from nothing.
Thing(s), can not exist without having been created therefor, Thing(s) are an illusion.
The illusion of Thing(s) exists within the Void.
The Void, is no Thing(s), does not require creation, and is therefor Eternal.
Time is a concept and does not exist without Thing(s), therefore the Eternal is a Time-less Void.
I think, therefor I exist, if I exist then I am a Thing, if I am a Thing then I too am an illusion, if I am an illusion then everyone is also an illusion.
If every Thing and every One is an illusion who, or what, is having the illusion?

Bob: If every Thing and every One is an illusion who, or what, is having the illusion?
***********************

Non-thinking Observer. He IS God as well. With a smile of innocent child.


So show me Observer


God bless you

AAF: Anon; if I were God, I would scrap at once all my low-grade creations and concentrate single-mindedly on creating all-powerful Gods like Myself!





Bob S: So, you would create a Universe of all powerful Gods!!! An interesting concept AAF, but tell me, would the all powerful Gods that you create, to be like yourself, also have the power to create life? And, by default, have the power to "scrap" life! For the record; Me, being a low-grade creation in comparison to an all powerful God, have no objection to being dispensed with for the greater good.






AAF: Bob; the point is this: God (if He does exist) is wasting His time on the creation of less important creatures (e.g. angels, devils, humans, dogs, etc.). If He is really powerful, then He should create Gods like Himself. Very briefly, creating humans, birds, horses, etc., is the job of Nature, not the job of God.

God created the Universe as a game just for his enterteinment. The laws of the Universe are just the rules of the game, the same as the rules we follow when we write a program for the computer for our games.

Re: AAF, Where and Who is God ? November 11 2009, 12:13 AM

AAF: "Anon; if I were God, I would scrap at once all my low-grade creations and concentrate single-mindedly on creating all-powerful Gods like Myself!"

Bob S: "So, you would create a Universe of all powerful Gods!!! An interesting concept AAF, but tell me, would the all powerful Gods that you create, to be like yourself, also have the power to create life? And, by default, have the power to "scrap" life!

For the record; Me, being a low-grade creation in comparison to an all powerful God, have no objection to being dispensed with for the greater good."

AAF: "Bob; the point is this: God (if He does exist) is wasting His time on the creation of less important creatures (e.g. angels, devils, humans, dogs, etc.). [linked image] If He is really powerful, then He should create Gods like Himself. Very briefly, creating humans, birds, horses, etc., is the job of Nature, not the job of God."

That was your point! That an all-powerful God should have, could have, created a Universe of all-powerful Gods just like himself, which, would have that all-powerful God a class "A" idiot, in companion with a Universe full of other all-powerful class "A" idiots all with the power to "scrap" each other.

But, my question was; is that a Universe YOU would create?

AAF: Bob; the point is this: God (if He does exist) is wasting His time on the creation of less important creatures (e.g. angels, devils, humans, dogs, etc.). If He is really powerful, then He should create Gods like Himself. Very briefly, creating humans, birds, horses, etc., is the job of Nature, not the job of God.





Bob S: That was your point! That an all-powerful God should have, could have, created a Universe of all-powerful Gods just like himself, which, would have that all-powerful God a class "A" idiot, in companion with a Universe full of other all-powerful class "A" idiots all with the power to "scrap" each other. But, my question was; is that a Universe YOU would create?





AAF: Call HIM what you want, Bob! But God can't be all-powerful unless Gods like HIM are created by HIM. That is the TRUE CHALLENGE, Bob. As for your question, it is not really that important; since by definition, I am not HIM; am I? Nonetheless, I can tell you that if God has devoted all His Power to the creation of those little and low-grade creatures, then He's lacking the wisdom and the intellect and the imagination to do better and to accomplish great deeds. And in that case, I'm certainly much wiser and more intelligent and imaginative than HIM; do you agree, Bob?

Different points of view.
1.
In Physics we trust. / Tarun Biswas /
and plus millions of other believers .
2.
Science is not always as objective as we would like to believe.
/ Michael Talbot. / and plus few others.
3.
Religion or Physics ? Faith or Knowledge ?
/ some doubtful people. /
4.
Science and religion in tandem can become a great force
to liberate the mind and help the humans to a fuller and better
understanding of reality.
/ G. S. Sidhu / and plus some individuals .
===== .
P.S.
In Physics we trust. Is it correct ?
Yes, it is logically correct. Why ?
Because only Physics can logically explain us
the Ultimate Nature of Reality.

Israel Socratus.
=====================

Re: AAF, Where and Who is God ? November 12 2009, 12:10 AM

AAF: "Call HIM what you want, Bob! But God can't be all-powerful unless Gods like HIM are created by HIM. That is the TRUE CHALLENGE, Bob. As for your question, it is not really that important;..."

Well, it was important enough to YOU to make the statement, "if I were God, I would scrap at once all my low-grade creations and concentrate single-mindedly on creating all-powerful Gods like Myself!". My question was posed out of curiosity...had you thought through the consequences of that action...I guess not! Past that, it is of no importance to me. No harm--no foul, right AAF?

Re: Israel Socratus, Where and Who is God ? November 12 2009, 7:25 AM

"Different points of view.
1. In Physics we trust. / Tarun Biswas /
and plus millions of other believers."

It is a misplaced trust if #2 is correct.

"2. Science is not always as objective as we would like to believe.
/ Michael Talbot. / and plus few others."

Nor is religion.

"3. Religion or Physics ? Faith or Knowledge ?
/ some doubtful people. /"

Do we have faith in our knowledge? Or, do we put our faith in the knowledge of others?

"4. Science and religion in tandem can become a great force to liberate the mind and help the humans to a fuller and better understanding of reality.
/ G. S. Sidhu / and plus some individuals."

Neither Science nor Religion seek to liberate the mind, both are dogmatic.

"P.S.
In Physics we trust. Is it correct ?
Yes, it is logically correct. Why ?
Because only Physics can logically explain us
the Ultimate Nature of Reality."

Science denies Faith as a reality, physics is a science, therefor, as long as science controls physics the "Ultimate Nature of Reality" will not be explained! Ask a physicists what the meaning of Life is.

In Re: Israel Sadovnik, Where and Who is God ? October 28 2009 at 6:44 AM

Isreal: My answer is: Yes!
One Infinity Absolute Parameter is Vacuum: T=0K."

I agree.

Isreal: "Second Absolute Concrete/ Limited Parameter is speed of Quantum of Light in Vacuum: c=1."

I agree.

Your theory explains c=1...>, but how do you explain T=0K...>1.?

In Re: Rebis, Observer November 8 2009, 11:27 AM

Bob: "If every Thing and every One is an illusion who, or what, is having the illusion?"
***********************

Rebis: "Non-thinking Observer. He IS God as well. With a smile of innocent child.

So show me Observer

God bless you"

Bless you too Rebis. You are an observer, but I hardly think you are a non-thinking observer.

Science denies Faith as a reality, physics is a science, therefor,
as long as science controls physics the "Ultimate Nature of Reality"
will not be explained! Ask a physicists what the meaning of Life is.
/ bob s /
=====
The physicists busy in the searching of a God- particle.
S.

Re: socratus, Where and Who is God ? November 12 2009, 12:01 PM

bob s: "Science denies Faith as a reality, physics is a science, therefor, as long as science controls physics the "Ultimate Nature of Reality" will not be explained! Ask a physicists what the meaning of Life is."
/ bob s /
=====

socratus: "The physicists busy in the searching of a God- particle."
S.

Don't you mean "The" God-particle? In this case "God" just happens to be the suffix to the word "particle" and has no meaning intrinsic to a Creator.

AAF: Call HIM what you want, Bob! But God can't be all-powerful unless Gods like HIM are created by HIM. That is the TRUE CHALLENGE, Bob. As for your question, it is not really that important!





Bob S: Well, it was important enough to YOU to make the statement, "if I were God, I would scrap at once all my low-grade creations and concentrate single-mindedly on creating all-powerful Gods like Myself!". My question was posed out of curiosity...had you thought through the consequences of that action...I guess not! Past that, it is of no importance to me. No harm--no foul, right AAF?




AAF: I'm sorry, Bob! I meant to say that [my answer to your question is not really that important, because, by definition, I am not Him.] PERIOD However, since you're obviously interested in what I would do, if I were God; here is the answer to your question: First of all and long before creating anything else, I would design and troubleshoot and redesign and re-troubleshoot and redesign and re-troubleshoot and finally create the most beautiful and breathtaking and perfect Goddess the Infinite Absolute Space of Isaac Newton has ever seen! After that and only after that, WE [I & the Goddess] would decide what to do next. That is the ANSWER to your QUESTION, Bob!

More correct:
Gods particle like a Mothers son.
The physicists busy in the searching of a Gods particle.
=== .

"First of all and long before creating anything else, I would design and troubleshoot and redesign and re-troubleshoot and redesign and re-troubleshoot and finally create the most beautiful and breathtaking and perfect Goddess the Infinite Absolute Space of Isaac Newton has ever seen!"

Sounds like a plan to me.

That is right, Bob.

HE would be a complete idiot, if HE didn't carry out such a magnificent PLAN!

"First of all and long before creating anything else,
I would design troubleshoot and redesign and
re-troubleshoot and redesign and re-troubleshoot
and finally create the most beautiful and breathtaking
and perfect Goddess the Infinite Absolute Space
of Isaac Newton has ever seen!"

Sounds like a plan to me.
=================== .
The Evolution was going exactly by your plan, bob s .

Re: AAF, Where and Who is God ? November 13 2009, 4:54 PM

AAF: "That is right, Bob.

HE would be a complete idiot, if HE didn't carry out such a magnificent PLAN!"

Yes AAF, as we know, God is no idiot, because he did indeed follow that very plan and created a Goddess, the most Absolutely Beautiful Goddess of All, we know her as Mother Nature, Beautiful by Design, Beautiful in Form and Beautiful in Function; Mother Nature...the True, and Only, Miracle! And the rest, as is said, is history or, as some might say, evolution.

"WE [I & the Goddess] would decide what to do next. That is the ANSWER to your QUESTION, Bob! [linked image]"

All my browser shows is the words: "[linked image]"

I wanna see!

Anon: All my browser shows is the words: "[linked image]" .





AAF: It was just a Big Grin, Anon!

Do you see this: []?

If you don't see it, then you should check the settings of your browser:
http://www.e-lindsey.gov.uk/accessibility/browser-settings.cfm

What does Religion expect from modern Science ?
What can modern Science learn from Religion ?
=========

In a lot of ways, Velokovsky was right. The Electric Universe boys have a lot to say about "Religion," and "Mythology."

LETTER FROM NIGEL RENNIE:

October 30, 2009

First of all let me congratulate you on your wonderful Symbols of an Alien Sky video. I watched it last night and was blown away, you are providing a tremendous service to mankind.

The reason I got so excited is because I am a student of the oldest book in existence, who's symbols are the root of the oldest surviving language; Chinese.

The book is an oracle, called I-Ching (pronounced Yi Jing). There is an English version of the book, by the scholar Stephen Karcher, titled; Total I-Ching Myths for Change This book has all the original pictographs for each of the 64 stages (hexagrams) of the process that your video describes. It not only describes what's happening at each stage, but also contains the original myths surrounding the various stages of the event.

I could quote half the book. It was a massive aha! moment for me to finally understand why on earth all these bizarre myths were being perpetuated in the most revered book handed down by the greatest minds ever to come from China. Confucius devoted his life to the I-Ching and wrote a set of commentaries called the 'ten wings', that are included in all modern versions.

A little background might be helpful. There was an oracle that existed before the I-Ching, is is known as the 'early heaven oracle'. In this earlier time, the world was in harmony, but it is later referred to as the 'original chaos'.

>From this the early heaven bagua depicted the orderly fashion. After this time, the world was reordered and the later heaven bagua was created, this is the form that the I-Ching and feng shui use as the basis for their systems.

Many thanks again for your brilliant work.

Nigel Rennie
----------------------------


DAVID TALBOTT RESPONDS

Hello Nigel,

Your enthusiasm could take you far, with many more "aha moments" along the way. My one suggestion would be to go broad at the same time you are going deep. As you see pieces of the puzzle falling into place in Chinese material, continue to note the parallels in other cultures, particularly in the earliest ancient sources. In these cases the languages are no longer "living," but their words and symbols will typically express the root concepts and literal forms most directly.

As for the I-Ching, notice that both the early and later bagua have their references in "creation." Of course this raises the question as to how the language could have anything to do with things remembered by human beings. Scholars have universally assumed that the creation myths refer to an imagined origin of our natural world BEFORE the birth of humans.

"CREATION" AS REMEMBERED EVENTS

The answer dawned on me in the first year of research (early seventies) and is now accepted by all who are participating actively in this investigation: creation mythology traces to events experienced by humans the world over. The archaic forms of the story told how a power in the sky brought forth a celestial habitation, the dwelling of the gods. Only later were the myths localized and converted into an explanation of the familiar natural world. By this process of localization, the gods themselves came increasingly to be remembered as divine ancestors, looking more and more like powerful kings, "great men" and "beautiful princesses." This can be readily confirmed by consulting the earliest-dated religious sources, in particular those of ancient Egypt and Mesopotamia, then following the regional evolution of the images and stories across the centuries.

Numerous parallels will be found between the bagua of the I-Ching and other essential concepts not only in China but amongst all of the archaic cultures. For example, the stylized form of the bagua will be seen to possess an underlying connection to the elemental "life energy" or chi (qi) and an eightfold division of space created by the exploding "rays" of a central star. Chinese symbolists, for example, spoke of bafeng or eight winds or paths of life energy, partitioning sacred space and serving as the guardians of temporal order. The elemental "wind" is acknowledged to be the "conceptual ancestor" of chi.

VISIBLE OUTFLOW OF THE EIGHT RAYED STAR

Here are some of the most prominent archetypal themes relating to the partitioning of space by an eight-rayed star:

1) effusive, frightful radiance, glory, splendor, and power, often represented by a celestial star-crown worn by warrior kings;

2) explosive scattering of luminous, elemental seed (semen, grain, fire, water, wind), the primeval matter that was given form in the events of "creation";

3)explosive, visible speech or wisdom of the gods, gathered into the divine habitation;

4) energetic, visible pathways of radiating life force, appearing as eight spokes of a wheel, the guardians of sacred space, and directional pillars holding aloft the sphere of heaven (not an abstract or undefined "sky," but a concrete, visible sphere).

For the Egyptians, this was the Ogdoad (Greek word for the "eightfold" place, or place of eight), arising from the heaven-god Atum, the primeval Unity, and "giving birth" to his external form. It was from this primal location that the Egyptian town Khmun ("eight-town") took its name. The Greeks named the town Hermopolis. The root concept was carried forward into modern times as el-Ashmunein, from the Coptic word for "eight."

The ancient Sumerians depicted an eight-rayed star in the center of An, dividing the sphere of "heaven" into eight parts. The star was the goddess Inanna, identified as the planet Venus. Precisely the same imagery is presented by the Babylonian star of Venus, the goddess Ishtar. The Persian goddess Anahita (Venus) was identified with the eight-rayed star-crown -- called "the glory and the life" -- worn by the warrior king, with counterparts in the eight rays of the star-crown worn by the Assyrian Assur and the Phoenician Eshmun. The buddhist goddess Usnisavijaya, the "Victorious Queen of the Crown of Light," was inseparable from the brilliant rays that crowned Shakyamuni Buddha.

FROM FORMLESSNESS TO CREATED FORM

To oversimplify a broadly documented theme, the eight-rayed star recalls a critical turn in the creation, distinguished by the emergence of discrete forms where there had been only a vast, "formless" (barely differentiated) sphere. The great sphere itself -- the primeval Unity -- was the original theater of creation. When a golden star or "seed," visually centered on the sphere, became active, it sent forth an explosion of luminous material, evolving into eight roughly symmetrical "rays". The visual effect was to divide the overarching sphere into the primordial eightfold province of world mythology, the sacred place of cosmic genesis.

These events were inseparable from the first appearance of the archetypal mother goddess and warrior-hero as discrete spheres in conjunction, emerging visually from the primal seed. As I've attempted to illustrate in "Symbols of an Alien Sky," the configuration evolved dynamically. The 8-rayed star, for example, evolved into the 8-petaled rosette or plant of elemental "life," remembered as the concrete form of the goddess when she gave birth to the "lotus-born" warrior or sage -- the Egyptian warrior god Horus, the Hindu Vishnu, or the celestial Buddha, to name but three of many examples.

Expect innumerable variations: the Taoist eightfold path; eight spokes of the Buddhist wheel of law; Incan eight ancestors of Tambo Toco, the place of the first emergence; Mexican Lord Eight-Wind; eight directions of the weather vane of the Tower of Winds in Athens, eight arms of Vishnu, taking form as the eight directional guardians of sacred space.

The concepts entered Gnostic Christianity as the star of eight rays that signified the Pleroma or fullness of divine creation, the sign of Christ in the catacombs. Even today the Rosicrucians speak of the "eight rays of creation." What the Sumerians and Babylonians remembered as the "terrifying splendor in the center of An" (represented by the eight-rayed star of Venus) the Taoists called "eight rays of unbearably splendid light." Examination will show that these "rays" meant the same thing as the divine, out-flowing "wind" or life-breath of ching.

THE UNITY OF COMPETING SYMBOLS

Taken in isolation from the forms and events seen in the sky, the aligned symbols may seem random and contradictory. One may suspect that the appearance of coherence is due to mere cherry picking or selective perception, the one thing that the protocol for the reconstruction strictly prohibits: If the theme is not archetypal (that is, cross-cultural or global), it cannot be included at the foundational level. And if it IS archetypal, it cannot be EXCLUDED from the reconstruction.

The root concepts repeatedly stand side by side in ways that are simply preposterous UNTIL the celestial provocation is seen in its visible, audible, earthshaking, and mind-altering contexts. In Egyptian legends, an outpouring of fiery "words of power" provided the primeval matter of creation. In Taoist thought, too, the eight "rays" of creation were also a form of divine speech. They had the power to create a "celestial book" of nature; indeed, creation myths the world over frequently use such terms. According to the Dogon of Africa, eight celebrated ancestors distributed seed(s) as divine speech. "The Word is therefore symbolized by the number eight, which also comprehends water, semen, and the whole range of fertilizing powers." Similarly, the Mande of West Africa remembered the "Eight rays of Creation" as scattered "seeds," the cosmic source of fertility.

Not one of the overlapping concepts was merely local. All are part of one puzzle whose pieces fit only because the roots of archetypal mythology lie in experiences shared by all of humanity.

CONTRASTING VIEWS OF PLANETARY HISTORY

To those who are just now coming to this subject via "Symbols of an Alien Sky," I would emphasize that every "snapshot" of events depicted in the DVD can be independently examined, down to innumerable details. The issue of veracity CAN be settled by simply contrasting the explanatory and predictive abilities of two models -- the standard view of planetary history, and the radical reconstruction now proposed. Under the first there is no explanation for any of the global themes. Under the second, there can be no doubt that, if the claimed events occurred, the themes ARE explained.

Obviously, full clarity will not happen overnight, because the libraries of evidence are vast. But as so many viewers of the DVD have already discovered, even this simple starting point, a first scratch on the surface, will provide a meaningful guide to those who really want to know. And you, Nigel, have given us a poignant example of what this means.
___________________________

Who is "Velokovsky," a Jewish bicyclist? Maybe you mean Immanuel Velikovsky.

Re: socratus, Where and Who is God ? November 15 2009, 2:40 PM

"What does Religion expect from modern Science ?
What can modern Science learn from Religion ?"
=========

What can Religion learn from Science?
Why is Science so fearful of Religion?

1.
bob s:
What can Religion learn from Science?
S.
Good question and I dont have answer to this question.

But Mr. / d_r_siva / wrote interesting answer to the question:
What does Religion expect from modern Science ?
== .
Visit anthropology department of a university nearest to you
and ask if they have found an ethnic tribe in any inaccessible
land which did not have a religion.

Religion expects science to understand the facts about religion.
/ d_r_siva /

2.
bob s:
Why is Science so fearful of Religion?
S.
Ask this question not me but a psychologist.

Bob S: What can Religion learn from Science? Why is Science so fearful of Religion?






AAF: Religion can learn nothing from science, because religion can learn only from other religions, and because religion is inherently autistic. That is the answer to your first question. As for your second question, I think you got it backward, Bob! Religion is so fearful of science, but the reverse is not true. Why is religion always so fearful of science? That is because religion loves the static and wants everything to remain unchanging and static. Science, by contrast, loves the dynamic and wants everything to remain updated and at the cutting edge.

"That is because religion loves the static and wants everything to remain unchanging and static."

>>The Electric Universe boys are correlating ancient myths with what is possible and may have actually happened in the past. Religions attempt to explain reality just as "scientists" try to do.

"Science, by contrast, loves the dynamic and wants everything to remain updated and at the cutting edge."

>>If only this were true, AAF. I suspect that Halton Arp would vehemently disagree with that statement.

John Polkinghorne and his book Quantum theory.
=== .
I like to read his books because they raise many questions.
And these questions give information for brain to think.
John Polkinghorne took epigraph of his book Quantum theory
the Feynmans thought : I think I can safely say that
nobody understands quantum mechanics.
Why?
Because, he wrote:
,we do not understand the theory as fully as we should.
We shall see in what follows that important interpretative
issues remain unresolved. They will demand for their
eventual settlement not only physical insight but also
metaphysical decision .
/ preface/
Serious interpretative problems remain unresolved,
and these are the subject of continuing dispute
/ page 40/
If the study of quantum physics teaches one anything,
it is that the world is full of surprises
/ page 87 /
Metaphysical criteria that the scientific community take
very seriously in assessing the weight to put on a theory
include: . . . .
/ page 88 /
Quantum theory is certainly strange and surprising, . . .
/ page92 /
Wave / particle duality is a highly surprising and
instructive phenomenon, . .
/ page 92 /

Togetherness.
John Polkinghorne, as a realist, want to know
what the physical world is actually like, but until now
physicists dont have the whole picture of Universe.
And in my opinion John Polkinghorne was right writing
what to understand the problems of creating the Universe:
They will demand for their eventual settlement not only
physical insight but also metaphysical decision .
=== .
Best wishes.
Israel Sadovnik. / Socratus.
http://www.wbabin.net/comments/sadovnik.htm
http://www.physforum.com/index.php?showtopic=23624&st=15
http://www.physforum.com/index.php?showtopic=2547&st=105
http://www.physforum.com/index.php?showtopic=2548
================== . .

Re: AAF, Where and Who is God ? November 16 2009, 11:59 PM

Bob S: "What can Religion learn from Science? Why is Science so fearful of Religion?"

AAF: "Religion can learn nothing from science, because religion can learn only from other religions, and because religion is inherently autistic. [linked image] That is the answer to your first question. As for your second question, I think you got it backward, Bob! Religion is so fearful of science, but the reverse is not true. Why is religion always so fearful of science? That is because religion loves the static and wants everything to remain unchanging and static. Science, by contrast, loves the dynamic and wants everything to remain updated and at the cutting edge."

"[A]nd because religion is inherently autistic." WHAT!!! As to my first question, you had better go back and review history AAF. Science has been stagnant (as in, not advancing or developing) since Eddington Canonized Einstein in 1919. Religion has acknowledged many discoveries of Science.

"Science, by contrast, loves the dynamic and wants everything to remain updated and at the cutting edge." Again, the only 'dynamics' of Science is stagnation. You are confusing Technology with Science. Technology advances in spite of Religion and/or Science.

As to my second question, there is a more concerted effort to suppress Religion in the name of Science than there is to suppress Science in the name of Religion. The only true dispute between Science and Religion is the origin of the "ALL" (Creation) and even there Science is at the disadvantage because they are obfuscating the issue; Religion is arguing the cause while Science is arguing the effect. Even if Science were able to suppress Religion it (Science) still falls short of explaining the cause. Science is more fearful of Religion than Religion is of Science, and that's a fact!

Religion is not trying to restrict, or inhibit, the teaching of Science in schools; Science, on the other hand, is, and that is another fact!

Unless, maybe you could show me where Religion wants Science taken out of the academic curriculum.

Personally, I don't trust either Science or Religion but if I had to choose between the two it would be Religion, because it has a better ending to the story.

http://fractalcosmology.com/main.php?lang=en&root_menu=3

http://www.fractaluniverse.org/v2/?page_id=2

This thread is infinitely small and infinitely large at the same time!. . . Maybe.

AAF: Why is religion always so fearful of science? That is because religion loves the static and wants everything to remain unchanged and static.





Anon: The Electric Universe boys are correlating ancient myths with what is possible and may have actually happened in the past. Religions attempt to explain reality just as "scientists" try to do.





AAF: Yes, religions attempt to explain reality, but their explanations are very primitive and horribly unsatisfactory! Anyway, science loves the dynamic and wants everything to remain updated and at the cutting edge.






Anon: If only this were true, AAF. I suspect that Halton Arp would vehemently disagree with that statement.






AAF: Arp might vehemently disagree, but he can't deny the fact that the alienation would have been much worse, if he were vehemently heretic in the field of religion! The point, Anon, is this: All correct ideas, including those of Hilton Arp, once discovered, are going to prevail and to be accepted sooner or later in the field of science.

QT . . . ,we do not understand the theory as fully as we should.
We shall see in what follows that important interpretative
issues remain unresolved. They will demand for their
eventual settlement not only physical insight but also
metaphysical decision .
/ Quantum theory by John Polkinghorne /
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Polkinghorne
#
So, maybe, Aristotle was right separating the knowledge
of Nature on two parts: Physics and Metaphysics.
==== .
S.

Israel, I would disagree with Dr, Polkinghorne on at least one issue which is "Truth". Science, IMHO, does not seek "Truth" rather, Science seeks understanding "Truth".

Religion does not seek "Truth" either, rather, it seeks to dictate what "Truth" is and discourages seeking understanding of that "Truth".

Dr. Polkinghorne is the rare exception to my opinion because he has studied both sides of the Science-Religion debate and does not seem to favor one side over the other. Truth, after all, is subjective.

Is truth different from reality?

Re: First Grader, Where and Who is God ? November 18 2009, 11:08 AM

"Is truth different from reality?"

Truth is what you believe, reality may, or may not, agree.

#
So, maybe, Aristotle was right separating the knowledge
of Nature on two parts: Physics and Metaphysics.
==== .
Socratus.
=== . .
Comment by Dr. Kanda

Hello Mr. Israel,

Correct. Vatican was correct!
It goes even further.
Physics is based upon metaphysics.
This is precisely what dimensional analysis says.
We cannot make physics of time, space and mass etc,
namely most basic (prime) quantities.
We cannot define metaphysical concepts using physical concepts.
This is where things went wrong with contemporary physics
QM defines time from momentum.
Relativity theory defines time and space using speed and acceleration.
This is all nonsense. All of this led us to inconsistency.

Best regards,
Dr. Kanda
============== .

AAF: Religion can learn nothing from science, because religion can learn only from other religions; and because religion is inherently autistic! That is answer to your first question.





Bob S: "[A]nd because religion is inherently autistic." WHAT!!! As to my first question, you had better go back and review history AAF. Science has been stagnant (as in, not advancing or developing) since Eddington Canonized Einstein in 1919. Religion has acknowledged many discoveries of Science.





AAF: It's true, Bob; religion is indeed inherently autistic! No matter how hard you teach religion to be modern and progressive, it would eventually regress and go back to the time of its origin. In other words, the golden age (the ideal time) for religion is always in the past. Furthermore, religion is so fearful of science, but the reverse is not true. Why is religion always so fearful of science? That is because religion loves the static and wants everything to remain unchanging and static. Science, by contrast, loves the dynamic and wants everything to remain updated and at the cutting edge.





Bob S: Again, the only 'dynamics' of Science is stagnation. You are confusing Technology with Science. Technology advances in spite of Religion and/or Science. As to my second question, there is a more concerted effort to suppress Religion in the name of Science than there is to suppress Science in the name of Religion. The only true dispute between Science and Religion is the origin of the "ALL" (Creation) and even there Science is at the disadvantage because they are obfuscating the issue; Religion is arguing the cause while Science is arguing the effect. Even if Science were able to suppress Religion it (Science) still falls short of explaining the cause. Science is more fearful of Religion than Religion is of Science, and that's a fact! Religion is not trying to restrict, or inhibit, the teaching of Science in schools; Science, on the other hand, is, and that is another fact! Unless, maybe you could show me where Religion wants Science taken out of the academic curriculum. Personally, I don't trust either Science or Religion but if I had to choose between the two it would be Religion, because it has a better ending to the story.






AAF: Look, Bob! Religion is inherently reactionary. There can be no doubt about it. Its golden age lies always in the past. It can't get more reactionary than that. For science, by contrast, the golden age lies always in the future. All the sciences of the past, as seen by the science of the present, are outdated and obsolete. It's true that one or more branches of science can go stagnant for decades or even centuries. But in the end, the glittering golden time ahead of them would compel all of them to overcome the stagnation and move forwards.

Re: AAF, Where and Who is God ? November 20 2009, 5:11 PM

AAF: "Look, Bob! Religion is inherently reactionary. There can be no doubt about it. Its golden age lies always in the past. It can't get more reactionary than that. For science, by contrast, the golden age lies always in the future. All the sciences of the past, as seen by the science of the present, are outdated and obsolete. It's true that one or more branches of science can go stagnant for decades or even centuries. But in the end, the glittering golden time ahead of them would compel all of them to overcome the stagnation and move forwards."

You are comparing the Apple to the Tree AAF. Religion tells us how the Tree got there---Science can only tell us where the Apple will fall. "It's golden age lies only in the past.", of course it does AAF, there is only one Past---what do you expect? that Religion should come up with a new version of the Beginning every few hundred years or so!

Religion has its story and it's sticking to it! Science is just wandering aimlessly in the desert, like a blind squirrel in search on an acorn and each time it happens upon one thinks it has made a new discovery.

Religion is about cause while Science is about effect. While I enjoy the beauty of the Tree you can poke at the rotting Apple.

AAF: Look, Bob! Religion is inherently reactionary. There can be no doubt about it. Its golden age lies always in the past. It can't get more reactionary than that. For science, by contrast, the golden age lies always in the future. All the sciences of the past, as seen by the science of the present, are outdated and obsolete. It's true that one or more branches of science can go stagnant for decades or even centuries. But in the end, the glittering golden time ahead of them would compel all of them to overcome the stagnation and move forwards.






Bob S: You are comparing the Apple to the Tree AAF. Religion tells us how the Tree got there---Science can only tell us where the Apple will fall. "It's golden age lies only in the past.", of course it does AAF, there is only one Past---what do you expect? that Religion should come up with a new version of the Beginning every few hundred years or so!  Religion has its story and it's sticking to it! Science is just wandering aimlessly in the desert, like a blind squirrel in search on an acorn and each time it happens upon one thinks it has made a new discovery.  Religion is about cause while Science is about effect. While I enjoy the beauty of the Tree you can poke at the rotting Apple.






AAF: Bob; religion tells us nothing but fables and fantasies! That is the truth. So, what is religion? Religion is the poor man's philosophy. Unfortunately, the founders of this poor man's philosophy passed away long time ago. But their poor philosophy is still exactly where they left it: Shaky, groundless, backward, outdated, and very primitive. That what religion really is, Bob!

Re: AAF, Where and Who is God ? November 24 2009, 12:10 AM

AAF: "But their [Religon's] poor philosophy is still exactly where they left it: Shaky, groundless, backward, outdated, and very primitive. That what religion really is, Bob!"

That is what Religion is to YOU, AAF. To me, Science and Religion are but two sides of the same coin, which is, (the study of the same human experiment). I do not know of a one sided coin, do you?

In the final analysis though, neither Religion nor Science are of any value because death is the default state of life. After death the study of either is no longer possible, right bob?...Right!

Science or Religion ?
Religion tells us nothing but fables and fantasies!
That is the truth.
So, what is Religion?
Religion is the poor man's philosophy.

Modern Physics tells us nothing but fables and fantasies!
That is the truth.
For example: One Galaxy can eat another Galaxy.
#
Cosmic cannibalising:
Images show one galaxy engulfing another
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/cosmic-cannibalising-images-show-one-galaxy-engulfing-another-1780652.html
#
The Discovery of one Galaxy "Attacking" Another
http://www.astronomyexpert.co.uk/the-recent-discovery-of-one-galaxy-attacking-another.html
. . .. etc
So, what is Physics?
Physics is the poor man's philosophy.
== .
What to do?
I think we must answer to the simple classic question:
what did come first the chicken or the egg ?
If somebody didnt understand this question, I will ask it simpler:
What was before Vacuum or Gravity ?
Does Gravity exist in Vacuum or vice versa?
Why I ask these questions.
Because the Universe ( as a whole ) is Two- Measured,
there are two Worlds: Vacuum and Gravity.
=== .
Israel Socratus.

AAF: But their poor philosophy is still exactly where they left it: Shaky, groundless, backward, outdated, and very primitive. That what religion really is, Bob!




Bob S: That is what Religion is to YOU, AAF. To me, Science and Religion are but two sides of the same coin, which is, (the study of the same human experiment). I do not know of a one sided coin, do you? In the final analysis though, neither Religion nor Science are of any value because death is the default state of life. After death the study of either is no longer possible, right bob?...Right!




AAF: Bob, the COIN of the 'human experiment' has so many faces, not just two! As I said before, religion is the poor man's philosophy, which implies, in this context, that religion is the philosophy of all those who do not have the time or the skills to develop their own personal philosophies. By this I mean that religion is just one philosophy among so many philosophies. Science too is just one philosophy among those so many philosophies. And it is called 'natural philosophy'. However, among all those philosophies, science (natural philosophy) is the closest to reality; and religion (the poor man's philosophy) is the farthest of them all from reality. I don't think you can disagree with, Bob!

Re: AAF, Where and Who is God ? November 25 2009, 4:40 PM

AAF: "Bob, the COIN of the 'human experiment' has so many faces, not just two!"

No, but we were only discussing two; Science and Religion. Diffusing the argument does not enhance your position.

AAF: "As I said before, religion is the poor man's philosophy, which implies, in this context, that religion is the philosophy of all those who do not have the time or the skills to develop their own personal philosophies."

That is a rather assuming statement. My personal philosophy includes Religion and Science, yours denies Religion, are you suggesting an open mind is poorer than a closed mind?

AAF: "By this I mean that religion is just one philosophy among so many philosophies. Science too is just one philosophy among those so many philosophies. And it is called 'natural philosophy'. However, among all those philosophies, science (natural philosophy) is the closest to reality; and religion (the poor man's philosophy) is the farthest of them all from reality."

As I said before, Science studies the "force" of nature Religion studies the "source" of nature; two different fields, call it what you will, but both are (natural) and both are (reality).

AAF: "I don't think you can disagree with, Bob!"

No! I don't disagree with Bob, but, if you mean I don't disagree with You, then You, need a (reality) check.

AAF: Religion tells us nothing but fables and fantasies! That is the truth. So, what is Religion? Religion is the poor man's philosophy.





Israel Sadovnik: Science or Religion? Modern Physics tells us nothing but fables and fantasies! That is the truth. For example: One Galaxy can eat another Galaxy. # Cosmic cannibalising: Images show one galaxy engulfing anotherhttp://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/cosmic-cannibalising-images-show-one-galaxy-engulfing-another-1780652.html # The Discovery of one Galaxy "Attacking" Another http://www.astronomyexpert.co.uk/the-recent-discovery-of-one-galaxy-attacking-another.html . . .. etc So, what is Physics? Physics is the poor man's philosophy. == . What to do? I think we must answer to the simple classic question: what did come first the chicken or the egg? If somebody didnt understand this question, I will ask it simpler: What was before Vacuum or Gravity? Does Gravity exist in Vacuum or vice versa? Why I ask these questions. Because the Universe ( as a whole ) is Two- Measured, there are two Worlds: Vacuum and Gravity.





AAF: "Modern Physics tells us nothing but fables and fantasies!" This statement is true only in two fields of science: Theoretical physics and cosmology. And yet, even in theoretical physics and cosmology, reality is still KING! Yes, many of their conclusions are very close to fables and fantasies. But the important thing here is that their tentative nature is taken for granted and no permission from any divine or hypothetical entity is needed to change those outlandish conclusions or turned them upside down. That is very different from the fables and myths of religion that cannot be changed or even updated under any conceivable circumstances.

Re: AAF, Where and Who is God ? November 28 2009, 6:23 PM


AAF: "...That is very different from the fables and myths of religion that cannot be changed or even updated under any conceivable circumstances."

Don't you realize AAF, that if you get it right the first time there is no reason to change or update. Religion has their story and they are sticking to it!

AAF: Bob, the COIN of the 'human experiment' has so many faces, not just two!





Bob S: No, but we were only discussing two; Science and Religion. Diffusing the argument does not enhance your position.





AAF: Yes; but science & religion have so many faces as well! As I said before, religion is the poor man's philosophy, which implies, in this context, that religion is the philosophy of all those who do not have the time or the skills to develop their own personal philosophies.





Bob S: That is a rather assuming statement. My personal philosophy includes Religion and Science, yours denies Religion, are you suggesting an open mind is poorer than a closed mind?





AAF: You may think it's assuming, but it is not! Religion is indeed the philosophy of the intellectually challenged persons. By this I mean that religion is just one philosophy among so many philosophies. Science too is just one philosophy among those so many philosophies. And it is called 'natural philosophy'. However, among all those philosophies, science (natural philosophy) is the closest to reality; and religion (the poor man's philosophy) is the farthest of them all from reality.





Bob S: As I said before, Science studies the "force" of nature. Religion studies the "source" of nature; two different fields, call it what you will, but both are (natural) and both are (reality).





AAF: I totally disagree with you on that, Bob! Science may study or may intend to study nature; but religion has absolutely no interest in nature or the study of nature. Here is the sole interest of religion: Death and nothing else but how to cope mythologically and in a childish way with the bleak realization of the inevitability of death. You can't disagree with that, Bob; can you?





Bob S: You can't disagree with Bob. No! I don't disagree with Bob, but, if you mean I don't disagree with You, then You, need a (reality) check.





AAF: Stop play around with that 'that', Bob! And I don't need any reality check to know before hand that Bob can't come up with any serious objection to my previous statements; because in reality he can find none...

Re: AAF, Where and Who is God ? November 30 2009, 6:30 PM

"AAF: Bob, the COIN of the 'human experiment' has so many faces, not just two! Bob S: No, but we were only discussing two; Science and Religion. Diffusing the argument does not enhance your position. AAF: Yes; but science & religion have so many faces as well! As I said before, religion is the poor man's philosophy, which implies, in this context, that religion is the philosophy of all those who do not have the time or the skills to develop their own personal philosophies. Bob S: That is a rather assuming statement. My personal philosophy includes Religion and Science, yours denies Religion, are you suggesting an open mind is poorer than a closed mind? AAF: You may think it's assuming, but it is not! Religion is indeed the philosophy of the intellectually challenged persons. By this I mean that religion is just one philosophy among so many philosophies. Science too is just one philosophy among those so many philosophies. And it is called 'natural philosophy'. However, among all those philosophies, science (natural philosophy) is the closest to reality; and religion (the poor man's philosophy) is the farthest of them all from reality. Bob S: As I said before, Science studies the "force" of nature. Religion studies the "source" of nature; two different fields, call it what you will, but both are (natural) and both are (reality). AAF: I totally disagree with you on that, Bob! Science may study or may intend to study nature; but religion has absolutely no interest in nature or the study of nature. Here is the sole interest of religion: Death and nothing else but how to cope mythologically and in a childish way with the bleak realization of the inevitability of death. You can't disagree with that, Bob; can you? Bob S: You can't disagree with Bob. No! I don't disagree with Bob, but, if you mean I don't disagree with You, then You, need a (reality) check. AAF: Stop play around with that 'that', Bob! [linked image] And I don't need any reality check to know before hand that Bob can't come up with any serious objection to my previous statements; because in reality he can find none..."

You stop playing around with "THAT", AAF, whatever you mean by "THAT"!

Your denigrating of people for their choice of study field is not a compelling argument. You diffusing the subject is not a compelling argument. Nor is your condescension a compelling argument. My replies to you are far better than you deserve. Science and Religion both have blood on their hands and my study of them is to know what my enemies are up to.

You are not the final authority on the subject of what constitutes Reality and you opinion of Religion or Science carries no more weight than does mine but at least I try and stay on subject.

If you don't care for what I have to say then I suggest you return to your phantom dialog with cincirob and friends.

Scientists are followers of a cult, defending dogmas with which they do not wish to part. Scientists have proclaimed these dogmas to be established laws, when in reality they are nothing but views, and erroneous ones at that.

Religionists are followers of a cult, defending dogmas with which they do not wish to part. Religionists have proclaimed these dogmas to be established laws, when in reality they are nothing but views, and erroneous ones at that.

The age of true science (science for the sake of understanding) passed some 150-200 years ago. Instead of science being focused on experimentation, its focus turned to maths as a false idol.

The age of true Religion (Religion for the sake of understanding) has yet to come.

AAF: That is very different from the fables and myths of religion that cannot be changed or even updated under any conceivable circumstances.






Bob S: Don't you realize AAF, that if you get it right the first time there is no reason to change or update. Religion has their story and they are sticking to it!





AAF: Don't you know, Bob, that whenever you think you get it right the first time, more than not, it turns out to be less likely you get it right? In other words, errors are among the best teachers in the entire world. Thus, by sticking to the same fables and myths, religion has enlisted itself among the most fossilized and wrong-headed and stupid creations of the human imagination; am I right, Bob?

"More than not" does not mean always AAF, it means more of one than the other

Bob: Scientists are followers of a cult, defending dogmas with which they do not wish to part. Scientists have proclaimed these dogmas to be established laws, when in reality they are nothing but views, and erroneous ones at that.

Religionists are followers of a cult, defending dogmas with which they do not wish to part. Religionists have proclaimed these dogmas to be established laws, when in reality they are nothing but views, and erroneous ones at that.

The age of true science (science for the sake of understanding) passed some 150-200 years ago. Instead of science being focused on experimentation, its focus turned to maths as a false idol.

The age of true Religion (Religion for the sake of understanding) has yet to come.

***********

Those are fine and gentle words, almost nothing to add because in his heart man, before and above all, is "a believer", "an alchemist" so to speak. I can only hope the same man will win in race with forces of Chaos.


God bless you

Re: Rebis, homo religiosus December 3 2009, 2:37 PM

Bob: "Scientists are followers of a cult, defending dogmas with which they do not wish to part. Scientists have proclaimed these dogmas to be established laws, when in reality they are nothing but views, and erroneous ones at that.

Religionists are followers of a cult, defending dogmas with which they do not wish to part. Religionists have proclaimed these dogmas to be established laws, when in reality they are nothing but views, and erroneous ones at that.

The age of true science (science for the sake of understanding) passed some 150-200 years ago. Instead of science being focused on experimentation, its focus turned to maths as a false idol.

The age of true Religion (Religion for the sake of understanding) has yet to come."

***********

Rebis: "Those are fine and gentle words, almost nothing to add because in his heart man, before and above all, is "a believer", "an alchemist" so to speak. I can only hope the same man will win in race with forces of Chaos."

Thank you, I think you might agree that a belief based philosophy is much stronger than a knowledge based philosophy. People, in general, are more inclined to stand and defend what they believe more so than what they know.

History has shown that many people have died defending their Religious beliefs but, how many people would do the same for a Scientific theory. The cases are few and those who did die in defense of a Scientific theory were, for the most part, the originators of that theory.

Belief is a far stronger force than Science gives credit for. Science on the other, hand is a far weaker force than they are willing to admit.

God bless you also.

Bob; to die defending your belief
is a measure of how NUTS you are,
NOT a measure of how STRONG your belief is!

Re: AAF, Where and Who is God ? December 4 2009, 3:20 PM

Tell me AAF, would you stand in the center of Arlington National Cemetery and shout those very words to those who died defending what they believed in?

Do you want me to DIE defending my BELIEF; Bob?

Re: AAF, Where and Who is God ? December 4 2009, 10:01 PM

AAF: Do you want me to DIE defending my BELIEF; Bob?"

I don't want anyone to DIE, AAF. But it would be nice if you had answered my question.

Good!

To answer your previous question, I would not shout those very true words at the center of Arlington cemetery, because that sort of NUTTY behavior might lead to being shot on the spot by the US Military.

Re: AAF, Where and Who is God ? December 4 2009, 11:04 PM

AAF: "Good! [linked image]

To answer your previous question, I would not shout those very true words at the center of Arlington cemetery, because that sort of NUTTY behavior might lead to being shot on the spot by the US Military."

But, I don't believe you would even THINK those words at such a place. Hell, I doubt you could even stand at the the center of Arlington Cemetery. The interred there died for what they BELIEVE so that you had the right to call them NUTS, albeit from behind a computer.

Where might I find the Science National Cemetery, I will be glad to shout my words there! Belief is a far stronger force than Science gives credit for. Science on the other, hand is a far weaker force than they are willing to admit.

It is not accurate to say soldiers die for their beliefs.
Most of the time, they got killed in the line of duty.

You see, Bob; when you volunteer for military service, you give your military superiors the right to order you to go to battle; I mean real nasty battles!
And if you refuse to carry out their order, they will execute you right there.

Re: AAF, Where and Who is God ? December 5 2009, 12:49 AM

AAF: "It is not accurate to say soldiers die for their beliefs. Most of the time, they got killed in the line of duty.

You see, Bob; when you volunteer for military service, you give your military superiors the right to order you to go to battle; I mean real nasty battles! And if you refuse to carry out their order, they will execute you right there."

If it is your intent to disagree with me you are doing a poor job of it. First let me restate my point; from December 4, 2009, @ 10:42 AM,
"...a belief based philosophy is much stronger than a knowledge based philosophy. People, in general, are more inclined to stand and defend what they believe more so than what they know."
Now, in response to your post; people who volunteer for military service because they BELIEVE, people who are drafted comply because they are REQUIRED to comply, people who do not volunteer and try and avoid their obligation at the risk of imprisonment do so because they BELIEVE they should not have to comply. Either way, it is a BELIEF philosophy which is stronger than their KNOWLEDGE philosophy because AAF, (try and read slowly) even though they KNOW that they may either die or be jailed they do what they BELIEVE they should do.

Belief is a stronger motivator than knowledge.

Bob S: Scientists are followers of a cult, defending dogmas with which they do not wish to part. Scientists have proclaimed these dogmas to be established laws, when in reality they are nothing but views, and erroneous ones at that. Religionists are followers of a cult, defending dogmas with which they do not wish to part. Religionists have proclaimed these dogmas to be established laws, when in reality they are nothing but views, and erroneous ones at that. The age of true science (science for the sake of understanding) passed some 150-200 years ago. Instead of science being focused on experimentation, its focus turned to maths as a false idol. The age of true Religion (Religion for the sake of understanding) has yet to come.






Rebis: Those are fine and gentle words, almost nothing to add because in his heart man, before and above all, is "a believer", "an alchemist" so to speak. I can only hope the same man will win in race with forces of Chaos. God bless you





AAF: Rebis; you think Bob's words are gentle; but, in reality, they are anything but gentle! Why? Because this 'audacious' BOB has dared to put our most esteemed science into the dustbin with rubbish & cults; and that can't be gentle. Surely, some branches of science (e.g. STR & QM) show from time to time some symptoms of cults. Nevertheless, science generally is a very decent undertaking; and it is not a cult; and it can never be made a cult by any stretch of the imagination.