Subject: Re: Time travel? What about Deja Vu's?
From: Rooster
Date: Fri, 20 Dec 1996 01:41:06 -0800
Anthony Potts wrote:
>
> On Wed, 18 Dec 1996, Jye wrote:
>
> > When i get deja vu, i know i have seen it before. Sometimes i
> > remember vaguley how long ago, sometimes 2 weeks ago, maybe 2 years
> > ago. But Deju Vu (for me at least) sometimes is not caused by a
> > situation or sight of something straight on, but it could be somtimes
> > an image of the shapes of some of the shadows, sometimes the position
> > of some people walking by. But i always know i have seen this sight
> > more than once in my life. What i am trying to say is, maybe Deja Vu
> > is just your brain trying to remember somthing you have seen many a
> > times before.
> >
> I have heard it said that deja vu is triggered off by sensations other
> than sight. Most notably, by smell.
>
> The theory is that you smell something which you have smelled before, and
> that this smell triggers off a feeling that the events around you have
> gone on previously. It is then your mind that decides that it is actually
> the sights around you that you have seen before.
>
> Whenever I have had deja vu, I have attempted to predict what is coming
> next. It turns out that this has never been possible. On closer
> examination, it seems that it wasn't even a sequence of events that I felt
> I had seen before, but just one very fleeting moment, that appears
> afterwards to have been occurring for a finite time interval.
>
> It seems that in my case, the act of attempting to measure the deja vu is
> enough to knock my mind out of the state, which hints that it was all a
> construct in the first place. After all, if it was really caused by seeing
> things the same as before, you would experience the feeling nearly every
> time you looked around in familiar surroundings. As we all know, the
> feeling of deja vu is not like that. It is very different to just seeing
> something familiar to us.
>
> Anthony Potts
>
> CERN, Geneva
The effects your refering to are in reference to NLP Neuro-Linguistic
Programming or simple association , a net search will explain the cause
and effects of neuro ass. and how they can be manipulated.
Subject: Re: Creation VS Evolution
From: John Wilkins
Date: Fri, 20 Dec 1996 22:41:09 +1100
Pat Shelton wrote:
>
> In article <599hkj$837@nntp4.u.washington.edu> gwangung@u.washington.edu (R. Tang) writes:
> >In article , Pat Shelton wrote:
> >>In article mls@panix.com (Michael L. Siemon) writes:
> >>>In article , pshe@netcom.com (Pat Shelton) wrote:
> >>>+There was a famous treatise written in the Middle Ages that explained
> >>>+this quite easily. You ought to at least catch up with the Middle
> >>>+Ages before you debate this stuff.
> >>>+The subject of the treatise was whether Adam had a navel. However, I
> >>>+will make it even simpler. When God created trees (run with it) did
> >>>+they have rings?
> >>>You have a remarkably curious sense of historical chronology. The
> >>>"treatise" you refer to was published in the (latter part of the) 19th
> >>>century. Your other notions are (approximately) equally well-grounded
> >>>in reality. Are you making this junk up on the fly, or are you a victim
> >>>of some *other* lunatic?
> >>Its clear from you feeble ad hominem attack that you have nothing to say.
> >
> > You have a curious definition for both the word "feeble" and the
> >term "ad hominen", as Mr. Simeon clearly pointed out your egregrious
> >error. The term you are referring to is Omphalos.
> >
> >
> >>It was in the middle ages, however, I will get you the reference
> >
> > I don't think so.
> >
> >
> >
> >--
> >Roger Tang, gwangung@u.washington.edu, Artistic Director PC Theatre
> > Editor, Asian American Theatre Revue:
> > http://weber.u.washington.edu/~gwangung/TC.html
> >Declared 4-F in the War Between the Sexes
>
> You would learn in a basic logic class that all ad hominem
> attacks are falacious, no matter what they say. The issue
> here is if the argument I presented is correct. I could be
> wrong about the reference but the argument is correct.
You would learn in basic logic class that an ad hominem argument establishes nothing: neither
the truth nor the falsity of the argument (better, the soundness or the unsoundness). What
results did you get in Logic 101?
>
> There is a good logical objection to what I said, but obviously
> neither of you can spot it. It is, however, a Catch 22.
>
> It also points out the basic dishonesty of the original poster.
> If he knew the argument, as he said, then he did know the
> creationist argument, contrary to what he said.
The text you are referring to is _Omphalmos_ by one of the Gosses in the late 19th century.
The response is correct. You don't know jack. That's not an ad hominem argument, just a
statement of fact.
Subject: Re: Creation VS Evolution
From: John Wilkins
Date: Fri, 20 Dec 1996 22:36:25 +1100
Pat Shelton wrote:
>
> In article <32b83a25.78619315@news> wf3h@enter.net writes:
> >On Wed, 18 Dec 1996 05:22:44 GMT, pshe@netcom.com (Pat Shelton) wrote:
> >
> >>>>
> >>Neither creationism or evolution have anything to do with scientific
> >>theory. However, the creationist can easily explain your bone.
> >>There was a famous treatise written in the Middle Ages that explained
> >>this quite easily.
> >
> >and thats where this post belongs. it is simply wrong to say that
> >evolution has nothing to do with science. ever hear of "laboratory
> >research"....happens with evolution all the time. evolutionary biology
> >is a science just like chemistry or physics.
>
> I didn't say it had nothing to do with science, learn to read better.
> If we are to believe GBS, the notion of evolution originated with
> Erasmus Darwin, Charles' grandfather. Of course, Lamarck published
> the vitalist notions some 50 years before Charles. But evolution
> is like psychology with theories of all types (that change every
> few weeks) floating around and expermental science that can't be explained
> by the theories.
So near, and yet so far.
Lamarck was not a vitalist, in the historical sense of the term. He was
a straight out mechanist (with a lousy mechanism).
Darwin was not a vitalist either. In fact, I am struggling to find
evidence of an evolutionist who was a vitalist before the late 19th
century.
Some indications of evolutionary theories appear in the mid-18th
century: Buffon considered it but rejected it. Erasmus D published in
1794, but his views were not taken very seriously. Lamarck published his
first evolutionary piece in 1800 (37 years before Darwin came up with
his own evolutionary theory and 58 years before he and Wallace
published).
That scientific theories themselves evolve is seen as a mark of
correctability, as opposed to the dogmatism of ideology and
theologically inspired pseudoscience. A scientific theory that did *not*
change on the strength of new evidence and better techniques is not
science, in any discipline.
And we are all still waiting to hear about the so-called "experimental
science" that cannot be explained by Darwinian science and which yet can
be by something more sophisticated than "God did it". There are gaps and
limitations in any theory, but so long as progress is being made, that
is still viable unless there's a better alternative. Creationism doesn't
even enter the stadium as a cheerleader. Darwinian science is on its
150th lap.
If you are interested in the historical background to biological moves
to embrace evolution, I have an essay at
. I'd be
interested in any substantial rebuttals.
John Wilkins on holidays
Subject: Re: Career opportunities
From: Anthony Potts
Date: Fri, 20 Dec 1996 11:09:14 GMT
On Thu, 19 Dec 1996 JRANCK@ix.netcom.com wrote:
> I am a high school student who greatly enjoys math and science
> courses. Physics is one class I enjoy a lot. My question is, could
> anyone give me more information about career options in the field of
> physics, or even tell me about what they do (and how it is related to
> physics)?
>
> Mike
Well, you could do what I am doing, and actually stick with academia,
researching the subject. There is still a vast amount to be learned about
the world around us, and pure research is still quite generously funded.
Alternatively, if you want an office job, you can become an accountant, or
something similar. Physicists are well able to head off and do this, if
they decide that there is no future in the subject.
A third choice is to work in industry, doing research for them, where
the work is aiming towards a definite product or result, rather than just
searching for information.
You could also teach the subject, if that's your thing.
If, however, you want a sense of competition in your work, and want
material success, then I would suggest that you look towards the big
financial institutions, for work in the international markets. Again,
physicists are in demand. So much so, that they are willing to give you a
large amount of money to work there.
This final option, as you can probably tell is my choice.
Basically, physicists are sought for pretty much anything numerate, such
as programming, accountancy, etc. We are not always the first choice,
though, and with the increasing specialisation of deree course, we do seem
to have less options than we might have had previously.
A physics degree will never do your prospects harm, but you might like to
look around at some similar courses, such as engineering or computing.
These have some of the same core areas as physics, but with a different
slant on it, that you might find that you prefer. Many people miss out on
these subjects because they never encounter them at school. I would advise
you to at least have a look at some prospectuses for these courses.
Cheers,
Anthony Potts
CERN, Geneva
Subject: Re: Why is faster than light so wrong?
From: Anthony Potts
Date: Fri, 20 Dec 1996 11:19:23 GMT
On 20 Dec 1996, Denny wrote:
>
> Very similar things were said about the speed of sound. Yet it was passed.
I am afraid that you are wrong about this. It was never said that there
were physical laws which disallowed faster than light travel. It was only
ever an engineering problem. Things have always been known to travel
faster than sound (well, for a lot longer than we have been trying). For
example, the speed of light was known hundreds of years ago, and was well
over that of sound.
>
> All the speed of light is, is the speed at which light particles (photons)
> travel. Nothing more, nothing less.
>
I am afraid that you are wrong again. It is a limiting speed in our
physical laws. Peculiar things happen as you approach that speed, which
stop you from accelerating beyond it. It is not just the speed of photons,
and nothing more.
For a start, we see things travelling faster than certain photons all the
time in high energy physics, but never faster than C.
We accelerate particles up to massive energies, yet still, they do not
exceed c.
This time, it's not a technological challenge, it's a law of physics.
Anthony Potts
CERN, Geneva
Subject: Re: Vietmath War: war victims; blinded victims
From: Andre Engels
Date: 20 Dec 1996 11:38:21 GMT
Archimedes.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Archimedes Plutonium) wrote:
>In article <598ml5$am5@svin12.win.tue.nl>
>Andre Engels writes:
>
>> No, it's not. You may say ....5555 is an integer (I won't stop you), but
>> then your concept of integer is not the one that FLT is talking about.
>
> Define "finite" for finite integers. Math is the science of precision.
>If you cannot define finite without a componentry of infinity. Then
>finite integer does not exist.
>
Why not? As long as I can define them in ANY way, they exist, IMO.
My first attempt of defining them would be Peano's axioms, but, as Godel
showed, this defines an infinite number of different systems, so we can't
really use it. So I go for this one:
A number is an integer if and only if it is a member of some finite set,
all of whose members are either 0, or such that they are n+1 for some
number n in the set. I here use Dedekind's of finite: A set S is finite if
and only if it cannot be put in a 1-to-1 correspondence to a strict subset
of S.
> Who cares about the properties of ether when ether does not exist.
>
> Who cares about the behavior of the Higgs boson when the Higgs does
>not exist.
>
> Who cares about FLT and whether finite integers have a solution, when
>Finite Integers do not exist.
>
> You guys are poor at mathematical reasoning, but poorer still at
>understanding what I write.
I'm sorry, I think you made a typo here, you must have meant:
"I am poor at mathematical reasoning, but poorer still are you at
understanding what I write."
>I think this is because you do not know
>math well enough to see the full issues here.
Can't it be that instead of all mathematicians of the world, it is perhaps
you that doesn't understand math enough?
>But, it is to your credit
>that you are stupid enough to attack anyone who says something that is
>not printed in one of your textbooks. Congratulations.
No, we don't attack anyone who says something that is not printed in one
of our textbooks. But we do attack someone who repeatedly asserts such
things without proving them in anything like the correct way and calls us
stupid. We attack those, yes.
Andre Engels
Subject: Re: The Physics of Absolute Motion
From: singtech@teleport.com (Charles Cagle)
Date: Fri, 20 Dec 1996 00:27:39 -0800
In article <58v1ej$eo6@dismay.ucs.indiana.edu>,
glhansen@copper.ucs.indiana.edu (Gregory Loren Hansen) wrote:
>In article ,
>Charles Cagle wrote:
>>In article <58sn4j$pju@dismay.ucs.indiana.edu>,
>>glhansen@copper.ucs.indiana.edu (Gregory Loren Hansen) wrote:
>>I don't mean they actually have the entire details of the wholeness but
>>that they have a sense of its existance and can benefit from that
>>fundamental sense so that the particular area they are interested in falls
>>into place. Now as for myself I think my gift from God is that I have
>
>Hmm... well, it's inspired, wherever it comes from.
If one believes the doctrine as simplistically revealed in scripture then
one attributes all revelation to God. And it seems God is just as willing
to send delusion to those who really don't love the Truth as He is willing
to send Truth to those who do love it.
>>I'd have to disagree here. The Cosmic Blueprint is stamped into men's
>>hearts and minds. You know it is true when you hear it or when it first
>>occurs to you. Sort of like the fact that all men know the Gospel of
>>Messiah is true when they hear it. They don't need proof because they
>>already know it is true. What they need is repentance.
>
>That sounds downright mystical to me. In a sense, I side with the logical
>positivists on this one. The only really scientific knowledge is that
>which can be experimentally tested. Anything that cannot be subject to
>empirical examination is not a part of scientific knowledge.
empirical () adj.
1. derived from experience or experiment.
2. depending upon experience or observation alone, without
using scientific method or theory, esp. in medicine.
3. verifiable by experience or experiment.
Well then, what say you? Is revelation empirical since it can be experienced?
Science, being the process of experimentation and then looking at the data
gathered from the experiments with a view to fitting that data to a causal
framework which might be termed a theory is not quite a perfected process
for the acquisition of truth. Pure experimentalism as a restricted
scientific process works fine to develop just about any technology that we
have. On the far edge we have theories which may help lead us to
different types of experiments to develop technology but in the end the
only thing that is 'scientific' by the strictest definition are the
experiments and the data. But where do theories come from and why do we
like to refer to them as 'scientific' theories when often there is nothing
'scientific' about them at all other than the fact they may have been
dreamed up by persons who are esteemed to be 'scientists'.
>They then go on to claim that metaphysics is therefore useless, but I
>disagree with that. The metaphysics gives your theory an underlying
>structure, guides your thinking. But I'm something of a metaphysical
>relativist in that sense; if it's internally consistent, consistent with
>the data, and works for you, one is as good as another.
One may appear to be as good as another and the difference is made
manifest when one predicts things not predictable by the other whether it
be data that is already in hand or data to be gathered. Then one can
advance ahead of the other.
>I'm sure that
>must be an officially catagorized and labelled school of thought, but I'm
>equally sure I have no idea what it would be called.
You already labeled it. Metaphysics. A person who practices it would be
a Metaphysician or Metaphysicist. I've heard of the former not the
latter.
>And now I begin to see there are some things we will probably just never
>agree on.
>
>>>>Well we're talking about the Cartesian idea of tearing down structures
>>>>because of some fault in their foundations. Even Descartes recognized the
>>>
>>>Tear down as much as you want, but the equations must remain intact
>>>because within their realm of validity, they are correct.
>>
>>This isn't as coherent a concept to me as it must be to you. You're sort
>>of saying 'its close enough for gov't work' here aren't you? It is likely
>>the equations which (if even they can be articulated in equations) can
>>express the true physics have not yet been invented. Nevertheless the
>>physics may simply be expressed qualitatively at first and perhaps
>>quantitatively as the details and means to express them become more
>>apparent.
>
>Notice I've always been careful to say "within their realm of validity".
>For instance, relativity is the correct theory to describe motions at high
>speeds and under certain other conditions. But at slow speeds, when the
>velocity is much less than the speed of light and the ratio v/c becomes
>"negligibly" small, we can cancel that away and the relativistic equations
>reduce to the Newtonian equations. Likewise you need QM to describe the
>motions of very small things. But in the limits of large quantum numbers
>or large masses, the equations of quantum mechanics reduce to those of
>Newtonian physics.
The difference comes out in the stochastically measured effects. Like the
general effect of having a multiplicity of particles in a container is gas
pressure because of the impracticality of computing and tracking what
appears to be random motions of particles. A tabulated report, however,
of the processes at the individual particle level would provide me with
more information than I might need to build, say, airpump technology.
What we want in the end to build most technolgy are averages. I would
make the point that the most advanced technology would be to learn what to
do to control the statistics so that we don't deal with randomness but can
direct the quantum states of whole ensembles of particles at once. We
wouldn't be able to achieve that level of control without a deep
understanding of the most primal principles of physics.
>Likewise if you bring to this world a theory that supercedes QM and
>relativity, within the appropriate limits your theory must reproduce QM
>and relativity, and within even tighter limits will become identical to
>Newtonian physics. I say this because, within those limits of validity,
>QM and relativity are amazingly successful, and even if you disagree with
>the metaphysics of the theories, the equations still stand.
QM is a statistical theory and the mathematical mechanics of it are well
tested. But QM doesn't point any deeper, in fact, it doesn't really
address process at all.
>>There is more than one kind of tweezers. And some can pick up and hold
>>single electrons.
>
>Right. But you're still not going to see the electrons. You can only
>infer their existence based on how the tweezers interact with them, which
>is in turn based on the theory used to design the tweezers. But we *can*
>infer their existence by following the whole chain of reasoning and
>testing assumptions by further experiments (which are usually done before
>the tweezers were even designed). We can get some knowledge about things
>like electrons, but I wouldn't call it "certain" knowledge.
Seems agreeable (or at least understandable) to me when framed from that
perceptual standpoint.
>>>The basic process goes something like "If our theories are correct, and
>>>black holes exist, then we should see this type of X-ray emission, which
>>>can't be accounted for by anything else we know of.
>>
>>Whoa there. This is the point. "anything else we know of" is the torpedo
>>that sinks this process.
>
>But it's all we have. It's easier to make that objection in cosmology
>because there is more out there that we haven't seen than we've seen. But
>it's no different, in principle, than stating "This is my friend Bob,
>because there is nothing else I know of that looks like him, talks like
>him, acts like him, and has the same memories I believe Bob should have."
I disagree. It is quite a bit different than Bob. We can interact
directly with Bob. We can talk to Bob and hear what he has to say and
observe him even when he may be unaware that we are observing him. Since
we only identify 'candidates' for black holes - and even then we are
surmising things about physics which we are totally in the dark about,
such as gravity. What is it? Why is it? How is it? So far it has
remained inscrutable to us, even though it seems to shape the entire
cosmos. Same thing for electric charge! Now these two things along with
a third (the emission of EM quanta) really remain quite mysterious as to
their essence and their interrelationships with each other. But
nevertheless we then start pontificating about black holes and even make
it a career (Hawking for example) when the facts are that the three
inscrutable fundamental aspects of a BH remain in the sphere of absolute
conjecture. This is nothing less than the blind men describing the
elephant.
>>> We should see this
>>>distribution of Doppler shifts in light from objects orbitting a black
>>>hole and this pattern of light caused by a gravitational lensing, which
>>>cannot be caused by a less dense object." Then turn our augmented eyes
>>>to the heavens and see what we can find. To disprove, for example but
>>>this process also applies in general, black holes, you must break the
>>>chain of reasoning somewhere.
>>
>>Not so. Things don't stand proven just because they are not disproven.
>
>The old saying goes, "If you want proof, go to the mathematics
>department." Science in general, including physics, can't supply "proof"
>in the same sense that a mathematician can prove the Pythagorean theorem.
>It would at first seem a theory can be proven correct by running an
>experiment and showing the results match the predictions. But you've only
>done one of an infinite number of possible tests, at one time out of all
>possible times and one place out of all possible places. So "proof" in
>science really does reduce to failing to disprove.
Oh come now. That is insane. How did you ever talk yourself into that?
Any accusation (or assertion) then, would constitute proof if one could
not prove otherwise. This is science ala Maxwell's demons.
> The number one most important step is to formulate your hypothesis in
>a falsifiable form. You must be able to make some prediction that can, at
>least in principle (even if engineering difficulties currently prohibit
>it) show your hypothesis is false by not giving you the results you
>expect. This is the fundamental difference between science and
>disciplines like theology.
Then there is an open endorsement to the concept that there is no such
thing as 'absolute truth'. Because if there were absolute truth it could
never be falsified nor could one cobble up a test to disqualify if from
the realm of absolute truth. This is a variant of Russell's Paradox. If
you were in possession of the 'absolute truth' or perfect universal theory
then you would not be able to logically derive any test except tests which
would confirm it. Even if you could do the most miraculous things in the
world which science had not even yet dreamed of with certainty then this
perfect universal theory could not cut the mustard if cutting the mustard
meant to be falsifiable. This requirement stands as the insidious
guardian of truth not as a beacon to lead you to it but rather to forever
prevent you from obtaining it.
> Theology may be logically rigorous, but the
>subject is one that cannot be disproven (i.e. revealed knowledge,
>scripture, God). Or art. We cannot run a chemical analysis on a painting
>to see if a particular interpretation is "correct".
This is non sequitor because a painting might be a very subjective
abstract. There is no right or wrong to interpret.
>>Theory should spring from philosophy. That's where structure is given to
>>the whole process.
>
>I simply can't agree. Quantum mechanics and relativity did not come from
>philosophy, they came from experimental details that couldn't be
>reconciled by Newton. And these two revolutionary new theories did much
>to influence philosophy.
There is always a subtle philosophy underlying concepts but I would agree
that philosophy of a consistent nature did not underlie either QM or GR.
This is one of the reasons that GR and QM has been discomforting to so
many people. They (GR and QM) both lack a wholism (because of infinities
implicit in their structure(s)) that many people innately sense is present
in the Cosmos. You know, for instance, that some criminals lack any sense
of connection with other people so that they are compassionless sorts.
Their perception of the universe is mainly separatistic so they don't mind
knocking you off to take your watch or wallet. They equate not getting
caught in a lie with telling the truth. I would say that the underlying
philosophy of modern physics is not much different. The principle of
falsifiability is exactly the same thing.
>>>Oh. Who designed it?
>>
>>I might become aware of the design but not be the designer. It would be
>>presumptious to imply that I was. Who was, who is? Who do you suppose?
>>Wouldn't you suppose that God Himself framed the Cosmos? If He did and
>>you refuse to consider that then you will forever remain outside even
>>though you spend your life searching.
>
>Oh, I get it. God designed it, you discover it.
I detect a little sarcasm here. Anyone can 'discover' it. Crick or
Watson (sorry I don't have the details) who was a Nobelist testified that
a 'dream' was the source of his revelation re: the DNA double helix.
>But I hold that scientific theories are human inventions. They organize
>and make sense of natural phenomena. The phenomena are discovered, the
>theories are invented.
In most instances I would agree with you and go along with this analysis
of the genesis of modern scientific theory. And this is precisely why
most (if not all) are inadquate. But there is a more excellent way.
>>>I thought it was because you can't measure Coulomb's law by holding two
>>>elementary particles stationary and measuring the force between them. How
>>>can you do that? Applying QM to the problem, this experiment can't be
>>>done even in principle because if we were to hold two particles completely
>>>still we would have no idea where they even were, and the act of measuring
>>>their position would give them velocity.
However you wish to view this, the point is that a theory (Coulomb's Law)
then cannot be verified, even in principle, by current acceptable
'scientific processes'.
>>Aren't you assigning a priori validity to QM (which is only a statistical
>>method and not really a deterministic theory of actual interactions) and
>>assuming that two electrons (for example) cannot overlap in momentum space
>>when in fact that is exactly what they are doing in superconduction as
>>Cooper Pairs?
>
>If you want to argue about the uncertainty principle, you have a lot of
>experimental data to wade through, first. Something like that would
>*never* have been accepted by the scientific community if the facts didn't
>say they must. No matter how you want to interpret it, Dx*Dp is still
>greater than h-bar.
No. I think the uncertainty principle articulates the principle that
knowledge can only be relativistically obtained and by the rules which
qualify data from that playing field this is reasonable. I would merely
state that contrary to this view, all knowledge is not obtained only by
local interaction but rather some (if, indeed, not all) can be obtained
nonlocally.
>Our differences seem to be entirely one of philosophy rather than the
>data. I guess all I can ask is that you understand my philosophical
>position, not agree with it. And that I have a very low opinion of
>revealed knowledge about the natural world.
Sure, philosophy is indeed the thing that separates people because it is
from distinct philosophical frameworks that all data is interpreted. I
believe, however, that all philosophies reduce to only two general
underlying constructs. Everything else in the way of details is merely
window dressing to hide the basics. I do understand your philosophical
position and that is why I might make the effort to encourage you to
rethink it and perhaps change it. There is a better way of doing science
than you ever imagined.
As far as your low opinion of 'revealed knowledge' there would be little
point in arguing this with you if you have had no such experience
yourself. But I'm not talking about the sort of 'revealed knowledge' that
someone like Jean Dixon, or Omar the Astrologer might come up with or that
which allegedly has come through from some 'channeler' or some UFO
'contactee'. Rather I am testifying that the Living God can make known
to those who love Him all mysteries.
Regards,
--
C. Cagle
SingTech
Subject: Re: Creation VS Evolution
From: Michael Martin-Smith
Date: Fri, 20 Dec 1996 13:15:45 +0000
In article <32B81457.4FA5@mci.com>, Mike Secorsky
writes
>Trish wrote:
>>
>> ph wrote:
>> >
>> > >
>> > >> If a person acted the way God acts throughout the Bible he would
>> > >> be considered extremely cruel and unjust. Therefore even if the
>> > >> Christian God existed as described in the Bible, I would not
>> > >> worship him, I would spit on him!! I would rather go to Hell
>> > >> than worship something so evil.
>> > >>
>> > >> God = Devil
>> > >>
>> > >> Steve
>> >
>> > This is a very very sad post. No one should ever say they would rather
>> > go to hell than do anything. Just stating this means you believe in hell
>> > but you must have no idea what it is like.
>> >
>> > I have no idea where the conclusion is made that God could be cruel or
>> > unjust. The very fact that God has not struck this person down shows his
>> > mercy.
>>
>> If I might interject .. I believe that Steve is trying to say that IF
>> the Christian God does exist, then he would rather be in hell than fall
>> at the feet of such an arrogant God. Case in point .. he doesn't
>> believe that the Christian God exists. And in fact, I agree with him.
>> All one has to do is open a bible .. and one sees divine arrogance
>> written all over the place. If one were to believe in such a God, I
>> would suggest the famous Zeus of the Greeks. He was far more
>> interesting.
>>
>> Trish
>Actually, the Norse god Loki is much more fun at parties. ;})
I find Spinoza's idea of God more satisfactory; the Universe, being
Infinite, cannot allow an entity of Infinite scope detached from itself
- there cannot be two infinities; ergo God and the universe are two
halves of the sqame coin. Put another way, the observed Universe is the
body of an entity whose Mind is whrt we term God. Spinoza goes on to say
that as mental and spiritual beings, our ultimate task is to extend our
physical and mental presence to the whole of this creation in an attempt
to know live and serve God better. To do this, we now know, we must
ultimately take Mind and Life out into the Cosmos. Thus the colonization
of Space becomes not merely an eventual economic good, but a supremely
religious duty. It is the one thing we can do which no other creature on
earth can accomplish, and so, in a teleological sense , must be what we
as a species are "for". To do it requires that we build a civilization
based on co-operation, discipline, and a willingmess to forego instant
gratifications in favour of a long-term goal In a word, Religious ethics
at their best and noblest. Thus , in the next Millennium, I can advocate
a rapprochement between true religion and science on the New Frontier of
Space. Such a Faith strongly resembles aspects of the Bahai, which has
long taught that the major religions all share a common source, whose
revelation evolves to meet advanciong human conditions.
--
Michael Martin-Smith
