tangle writes:
We've quite literally only just started beginning to understand it...
And I can appreciate that our understanding need involve maths and physics. We can't simply make up stories without some basis of understanding the way that the hypothesis fit(s).
tangle,to GDR writes:
Basically you can invent anything here you like. But I'm not sure why you would.
GDR likes to tie his evolving understanding of science in with his dogmatic beliefs, as do I. It is ironic, but your input helps to cut through some of the clutter. Being unburdened with dogma frees up your mind.
Basically, I'm attempting to keep my idea of God existing and being understood through Jesus. I think that GDR is attempting the same thing, though perhaps in a different way than am I.
I don't want to lessen any respect that
must be given to the maths in this discussion. The only comment that I would make is that there is a vast difference between knowing about something mathematically and knowing it experientially. (You also pointed this out)
Chance as a real force is a myth. It has no basis in reality and no place in scientific inquiry. For science and philosophy to continue to advance in knowledge, chance must be demythologized once and for all. ~RC Sproul
"A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." ~Mark Twain "
~"
If that's not sufficient for you go soak your head."~Faith
You can "get answers" by watching the ducks. That doesn't mean the answers are coming from them.~Ringo
Subjectivism may very well undermine Christianity.
In the same way that "allowing people to choose what they want to be when they grow up" undermines communism.~Stile