Oh alright I take it back! I am frustrated with people who dismiss spiritual impartation while seeking better understanding through rigourous subjection of writings to some sort of educated exegesis. These goat herders may have been in touch with a spiritual reality that a highly educated theologian could only theorise about, however! Subjective beliefs, while not academic, are not nor ever should be labled as complete nonsense.
I will agree with Ptolemy that the wisdom of the world is often unable to ever get anyone anywhere closer to God as a belief.
Perhaps the frustration within this thread centers around our EvC age old conflict regarding science and religion. I will stick with religion, and thus am now bowing out of THIS thread as it has nothing to do with Christ. Ptolemy refuses to preach Christ...instead preaching how Gods wisdom will frustrate the educated mindset.
The only way to "prove" the wisdom of God is to show people who God is. Only IF they accept Him will they ever understand anything spiritual.
I have been accused of being arrogant and cranky lately...perhaps my critics are right! I'm signing off to go take a nap! :) PB
And I disagree that ignorance can be spirutal anything. You pluck out what you want from out of context quote, mistranslations, and what ever your preacher told you, you get a distortion about what was meant.
That is what I see as the state of evangalical christanity in the U.S.
I am frustrated with people who dismiss spiritual impartation while seeking better understanding through rigourous subjection of writings to some sort of educated exegesis.
why? this educated exegesis seems to indicate to what extent actual spiritual impartation took place. it lets us know how big of a grain of salt to take thinsg with, and that's important.
Subjective beliefs, while not academic, are not nor ever should be labled as complete nonsense.
what if i think miniature invisible flying ninjas are really responsible for things like gravity? subjective belief -- nonsense?
Perhaps the frustration within this thread centers around our EvC age old conflict regarding science and religion. I will stick with religion
i stick to both. i think it's really silly to ignore either or them, actually. but when you hold this sort of belief, you sort have to realize where the boundaries are of each. religion isn't commenting on how the world got here, it's talking about why and who did it. science isn't talking about who or why any extent other than causal, just how and what. science is concerned with physical reality, religion is concerned with the spirit.
but it does take knowning where to draw the line. when we start treating genesis like a science textbook or a science textbook like the bible, something is wrong.
quote: Once you guys can figure out how to keep the space shuttles from blowing up and we can justify the enormous expense of the space program to pay your inflated salaries, we may find better purpose in life than what our esteemed (and enlightened) goat herders have brought us.
Thats grossly unfair. If you are really lack such confidence in technology, I take it you also do not drive cars, use lifts, or ever fly anywhere?
Re: A first principle is fundamental to our thinking
"in relation to everything else," then how is this different than staying the same?
A brief history of scientific symbols.
The ancients had no concept of mass or energy and their idea of time was derived from nature, dynamic in every sense. Perhaps they noticed that as one ages - life speeds up and accepted this as universally valid. They believed their ancestors lived for vast long ages eating abundant fruit on a warm earth and that their faces were transmuted from great age (Job 14:20). But great catastrophes had periodically ravaged the solar system and introduced chaos and inferior ages.
The Greeks sought to overthrow this simple system by inventing a first principle on which to found science.
On the foundation of this assumption, we constructed a symbolic system with symbolic entities - mass, time, energy. These have an assumed separate existence and are defined as part of an unchanging reality. We used this system to invent experiments, logic, mathematical laws and constants. These had many short term practical uses.
But when we try to extend this symbolic system to understand the fundamental structure of matter - we ran into insurmountable paradoxes - e.g. duality and non local nature of matter.
When we try to extend this system to understand beginnings
We seem not to notice that our earth-history violates what all the patriarchs wrote about the earth and sky. Even what the ancient astronomers measured in the sky seems to have nagging discrepancies in some classes of measurement but is highly accurate in others.
When our symbolic system is applied to the most distant sky - we have to invent undetectable things to make our mathematical laws fit what is visible.
What changes in this universe? EVERYTHING. Absolutely nothing visible and real is unaffected by change.
Only the symbolic stuff - the mathematical constants - stay the same. Yet these are completely dependent on our first principle, our little dogma that no one mentions or tests but everyone uses continuously.
Your question is a valid question. What is the difference?
quote: Colossians 1:16...17 For by Him all things were created, both in the heavens and on earth,. . . .and in Him all things hold together.
The Greek word translated "hold together" is a union or association that acts together. God actively sustains physical things by holding them together in a union. Yet in Romans 8 He says that everything in creation is decaying and illustrates this twice with together_words.
Matter, atoms, hold together. It remains the same kind of atom as in its primordial existence. Yet it also changes as we can see in the light from all primordial atoms. How does it change? AS A RELATIONSHIP. The union that holds together is also aging - changing together. While everything is changing - the relationship – the union does not fall apart - the union is preserved. There is order and continuity - even while things are continually degenerating. In such a degenerating union - it is impossible to define the components of reality with symbols that will fit reality.
quote: Bertrand Russell in "History of Western Philosophy" Science, like philosophy, has sought to escape from the doctrine of perpetual flux by finding some permanent substratum amid changing phenomena. Chemistry seemed to satisfy this desire. It was found that fire, which appears to destroy, only transmutes: elements are recombined, but each atom that existed before combustion still exists when the process is completed. Accordingly it was supposed that atoms are indestructible, and that all change in the physical world consists merely in rearrangement of persistent elements. This view prevailed until the discovery of radioactivity, when it was found that atoms could disintegrate. Nothing daunted, the physicists invented new and smaller units, called electrons and protons, out of which atoms were composed; and these units were supposed, for a few years, to have the indestructibility formerly attributed to atoms. Unfortunately it seemed that protons and electrons could meet and explode, forming, not new matter, but a wave of energy spreading through the universe with the velocity of light. Energy had to replace matter as what is permanent. But energy, unlike matter, is not a refinement of the commonsense notion of a 'thing'; it is merely a characteristic of physical processes. It might be fancifully identified with the Heraclitean Fire, but it is the burning, not what burns.
When does observation of the light emitted have any more validity than the gravitational effect?
Light is visible. It is inseparable from the nature of matter. The Bible simply says - what God made had no form or shape until He created light. Anyone who is not blind can see real things illuminated with light.
Gravity is invisible. It is a symbolic thing - not even postulated until after we settled on our first principle. Just because the path of an object bends, does not prove the existence of a force. In fact, Einstein’s system does not need forces at all. The reason a pen drops from my hand to the floor could be because clocks at my feet run slower than clocks at the level of my hand. Experiments have shown that precision clocks fit his postulated space-time that is said to warp geometry. Unfortunately this does not prove even Einstein's gravity - because assumptions are and always have been a part of any definition of time.
Does the gravity constant prove the existence of gravity?
No one has ever detected “gravity” or found a way to prove its existence.
Gravity is defined using our symbolic definitions - time, mass, space. Its definition depends on the first principle that Peter predicted and contradicts.
The gravitational constant is defined using these symbolic values - in such a way that - if the whole relationship is shifting - the constant could stay unchanging. Example: every equilibrium constant remains the same BECAUSE its definition embraces a dynamic relationship - where everything changes_together.
Did the ancients experience the same “weight” as we do when they moved a large rock?
The earliest people could build great megaliths. The Egyptians left records that only a few thousand skilled workers built the pyramids.
Dinosaurs that should not be able to stretch out their long necks, left tracks in soft clays showing that they could run.
Primordial galaxies often look tiny - and even show visible evidence of ejections.
Every spiral galaxy is a gravitational anomaly. Yet we can visibly see gas streams that connect their arms back to the core as though they were ejected.
All the ancients, including the Bible, mention things in the solar sytem that make no sense at all using our laws of gravity.
Imagine that Adam could roll an orange down a plank and time it with his pulse. During the first pulse - it moved a unit distance. During the next - it moved 3 units, then 5, 7, 9 .... during each succeeding pulse the distance it rolled was the next odd number of units. Imagine that he added them all up and discovered that the total distance down the plank varied by the square of the elapsed number of pulses. (1;4;9;16;25 ...) That is the same thing Galileo found.
But wait, a huge Brontosaurs grazing on the top of a giant fern tree is startled when Adam cries Eureka and lopes off as though it were a tiny kangaroo on its back legs and tail.
What changed? There is nothing unchanging because matter shifts - every aspect changes together AS A RELATIONSHIP.
When we insist on using our symbolic system - the universe clearly does not fit - so we image it is 99% invisible. If we interpret what the Bible says with grammar - not science - the simple, visible evidence fits the very words of the Bible.
This message has been edited by ptolemy, 04-25-2005 07:26 PM
Your assertion that gravity is "invisible" whilst the form of EM radiation known as "light" is visible is at best a rhetorical trick and at worst a despicable ruse.
Do you believe that the Creator supplied the creation with integrity -- i.e., the ability to be studied by cognitively-aware creatures?
If so, then it appears you've fallen into a large vat of gooblety-gook, in spite of your obvious ability at English articulation. If not, then what you're implying about the observable universe is simply frightful. I'm really trying not to be sarcastic, however --- I'm glad I'm not you.
quote:The earliest people could build great megaliths. The Egyptians left records that only a few thousand skilled workers built the pyramids.
Coming to think of it, ancient Greeks had a habit of totally wiping out Persian armies while only sustaining a few casualties themselves, despite their lesser numbers―at least according to Herodotus. Maybe "matter changes as a relationship" through space as well as time? Maybe 2,000 years ago, people were born stronger the further West you went? Then again, maybe I'm jumping to conclusions.
This message has been edited by Funkaloyd, Tue, 26-Apr-2005 01:48 PM
Back to dark matter and black holes: Before the planet Neptune was observed as a planet by any Human eye, its existence was inferred by unexpected deviations in the predicted orbit of Uranus. By observing Neptune's gravitational effects alone, scientists (their first principle and all) managed to very accurately predict its position and orbit. The existence of dark matter and black holes is inferred in the same way, and I'm sure that you'll agree that Neptune―despite being invisible to the naked eye―is very real.