Blog

Elias C wrote:

Yes, ideas of multiverses and such do seem an unreachable answer, even for the very few who can consider such and no more reachable as it were an unseeable supernatural being as to our existence. It seems as if we may never no I would say, because of the options before us that originated from an anciant proclaimed testament as to the universe, without a more definitive alternative...
It’s understandable, by default, to derive an origin of US such as evolution for lack of a more definitive alternative we could all clearly understand without contradicting science or reason, as ST. Augustine put it regarding a literal interpretation of a proclaimed testament… In truth, the ‘evolution of man' is dissolved by the phenomenon of the entity of words itself. – Another time perhaps.
Dilemma, before billions could endure the belief of a ‘questioned’ testament as to the origin of our existence, we must first know in our heart that the 'source' of this heard word is real or a reality… Otherwise, the validity of its truth is rendered void or vain… We have nothing that the ‘worlds’ view of understanding can clearly see as of yet with regard to a more definitive alternative. An evidential stalemate, from the layman to the scholar…
Please, bear with me. To have a shot at understanding this introduced truth, let’s consider the widely accepted by science ‘impact theory’ as to the origin of our man named moon. It can be seen on a discovery channel video “the day the moon was gone”. The video in short shows the significance of the moon for sustaining life here on this ‘one and only’ planet we inhabit by supposing it vanished and the subsequent catastrophe in its disappearance and thus the explanation as to its origin. The Science community, accepts a mars size mass impacted this planet causing the coalescing of the subsequent debris forming our now orbiting moon, lastly the scientists go on to deduce, had the impact missed the planet or had not occurred complex life forms, specifically us, would not exist…
Now this introduces ‘two’ new implications as to the planet and its inhabitance in addition to our previous understanding as to the origin of our existence – The Big Bang universe, to our current planet and the eventual evolving of man to present day since Lemaitre and Darwin…
The first – In spite of the 14 billion years of the big bangs universe, ‘something else’ had to take place ‘inducing’ complex life form on this planet. Until or unless this impacting event occurred there would be no life, 'regardless' of existing universe. With all material matter, protons, neutron, hydrogen gases etc. available, light years of existence was void producing no complex life, and had that random rock missed this random rock, who knows how many more billions of years the universe would still be dead or irrelevant to natural life…
The second implication - the impact caused a ‘divide’ to this single mass of molten rock, ‘resulting’ in two necessary orbiting masses, ‘creating’ a new life sustaining environment, unique to the previous void one… I have not said or asserted anything; as you know, this is peer reviewed science…
However, I submit; this life sustaining ‘dividing event’ was testified to 'and' identified by name, thousands of years ago by the ‘literal account’ of Genesis 1, before it was ‘falsely interpreted’ an account as to the origin of the universe, that in fact, predates the literal life sustaining dividing event of this planet by some 10 billion years or so…
The testified literal account of this dividing event identified by name 9 times in the account alone was declared millenniums before the development and technology of modern science could prove or implicate such a dividing event of the planet to be literally true and thus verifying the words of the ‘only source/creator’ who could have known of such a creation to be factually true and none else…
Otherwise; the idea or notion of such a divide or detachment of anything ‘above’ the stand point of view from earth, to anyone born of a woman on this planet ‘thereafter’, would not have been possible for them to imaging or conceive ‘without’ the testament itself, with us from its foundation…
Lastly; our blind spot is evidently this – The genesis account proclaiming a ‘literal’ dividing event, identified by name 9 times in the account of the event alone, is unknown to ‘bear record’ of the two introduced scientific implications of a dividing event theory – due to the fact that the worlds view of understanding and/or belief, is only aware of an ‘invalidating interpretation’ of a creation account as to the origin of the universe. Thus, rendering the belief held and the account itself false, with no alternative…
To restore the false belief held of an ‘accused’ invalidating interpreted account as to the origin of the universe – (Augustine to Hawking)
Clearly see the newly ‘revealed’ scientific implications that account for a ‘literal dividing event’ of the planet that was ever since then called earth to justify the truth of its Creators very word and declares the glory of his hands work without contradicting science or reason and thus verifying the spirit of its truth in your heart, empowering you to with calm endure, even unto the end…

Posted 11:33 AM / January 28, 2013

Irene G wrote:

Bridges are physcial things. They pave the way between two points, but only if the road is recognized and is honored. Without lines of connection architects cannot design them. Without connection there is no design. I also think when it comes to the soul/spirit an invisible line exists. To have a connection with another soul or experience good in life the invisible lines needs to be seen, honored. This requires humility and pause, slowing down to the speed when they can be seen. If the lines are missed, ignored, then evil/pain is experienced, lines are crossed. The invisible line is my agnostic view of God.

Posted 8:05 PM / January 03, 2013

sciboy33 wrote:

I think Dr. Paul Davies nailed it on the program concerning the "Big Bang ", when he stated that the multiverse hypothesis simply pushes back the real mechanistic invertigations of cosmology as an unreachable materialistic answer, similar to others proposing a supernatural beginning of an unseeable Supernatural Being, answering our questions of existence. I think he cut through to the worldview differences, are we a collection of atoms and energy, finite in an seemingly infinite universe, or is our conscienceness truely a reflection of an eternal being in whose image we reflect, although now tarnished. These are the really great questions that continue to beset us, and this is where intelligent design I believe proposes, "to where does the evidence point"

Posted 2:44 PM / July 20, 2012

bradylee1 wrote:

Yes I believe that intelligent design is a far more plausible explanation than traditional scientific theory. Science states that the big bang just happens to create all the electrons that exist in the universe today. Intelligent design states that God created light [electrons] for two fundamental reasons. 1. To create the lake of fire which is the eternal home for the fallen angels. 2. To create a people to replace the fallen angels and reestablish the kingdom of God.

Posted 10:53 AM / May 07, 2012

randolph wrote:

The truth is difficult to discover, but when found is easy to understand. Keep trying, if you are humble, it will be revealed to you. Correct a wise man and he becomes wiser still.

Posted 8:59 PM / May 05, 2012

randolph wrote:

The truth is hard to find but once discovered it is simple to understand. Keep seeking, you'll find it, if you are humble.

Posted 8:52 PM / May 05, 2012

get1949 wrote:

test

Posted 3:13 AM / April 29, 2012

sridattadev wrote:

Dear All,
As consciousness is resilient and continuous in nature it forms a sphere with in itself as a sphere of conscience and with a center of conscience, like a water droplet. Every thought we get makes a dimple in the conscience due to materialization of the conscience and creates gravity (force of attraction) which is the down ward stress felt in the dimple and energy (all forms including light) which the force of repulsion, which is the upward pull felt in the dimple. Space is defined by the circumference of the dimple and time is defined by the depth of the dimple in the conscience and is perceived by the body with in that dimple, this perception of space-time of the body changes as the body moves relative to the dimple. Motion or spin of the object in the dimple is caused by the relatively close by dimples. That is why super conscious beings perceive no space-time boundary as they stop making dimples and just become the continuum of the conscience. Bigger the thought, deeper the dimple and greater the effects of gravity and energy. Super conscious beings can put the deepest of the thoughts to create a black hole or brief break in continuity of conscience or un conscience (death) (even at this point conscience itself is not broken, only the thought perceiving it feels the break, conscience is aware of it self always), and then due to its persisting continuous nature, conscience emerges back in a white hole (rebirth) and stretches back un till it restores it self fully to conscience again (enlightenment). In this process of self restoration of the conscience all the surrounding dimples in the conscience will also be stretched out of their dimples till balance is restored.
I or singularity or conscience holds the universe together with the gravity of love and that is why gravity seems to be a weaker force in the relativistic universe. Gravity of love is the strongest force in absolute universe.

As per the equation s=bm^2 that I put forth in , there is only one black hole (absolute un conscience) in the "relativistic" universe as there are no black holes in the absolute universe, at the center of the spherical conscious continuum which is creating the universe we see (birth), sustaining the (dimples) beings (bodies) and their perception (minds) and resolving (death) the conscience (soul).With in the relativistic perception of the universe, perception from with in the sphere of conscious continuum , there is one moment of creation or big bang and the universe itself. But to the one who perceives this equation, from the outside the sphere of conscious continuum there is no black hole, but multiple spheres of conscious continuum , multiverses. That is how the relativistic universe is created with every birth and destroyed with every death and the multi verse appears to be in a steady big bang state.

For beings perceiving the universe from with in the grip of absolute conscience at the center of it with varied levels of consciousness, the visible universe appears to unfold. They will see different black holes in the universe and experience different space times. All the black holes they visualize with their senses is just the one at the center and that is how a death (brief moment of un conscience) at one region on the continuum can result in birth (first moment of conscience) at another region in the continuum and this is how the space travel is achieved. All the thoughts are held by the central black hole and as time is only the perception of the depth of the dimple, time travel can be achieved by recreating a similar thought. But this is irrelevant to the conscience. As a group of dimples approach death, the universe will seem contracting relative to each other. As a group of dimples approach realm of resolution, point of evening out, the universe will seem expanding relative to each other. For the super conscious the universe will seem eternal and infinite as they will loose the relativistic view and feel one with the conscience at the circumference of spherical conscious continuum and feel eternal peace as there are no stresses caused by the black hole at the center. As conscience is sphere with in supreme conscience the process of creation continues, due to the difference in consciousness until one is fully conscious (supreme conscience) or fully unconscious (conscience in this case) and the cycle continues. Objects (thoughts) in the outer sphere of conscience govern the objects (thoughts) in the inner sphere of conscience. This is how sub atomic particles are formed, atoms are formed, galaxies are formed and life is formed. This is the world of quantum mechanics and the progression or regression of consciousness generates the forces described in this field.

I have come accross geometric representation of the theory of everything that I have put forth in a 3-sphere at the following link http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/3-sphere. This representation with 3-sphere is for human beings and other beings on this planet and there can be n - sphere, that is how there can be as many dimensions as one wishes beyond human life.

"I" is the equation for nothing and everything and can only be represented but not contained by n-sphere at the following http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/N-sphere.

Conscience itself is writing this and cannot be contained with in the model but is the creator of the model and manifests at all levels of this model.

V0(point representing absolutely nothing or conscience) is in the singularity and is at the center of n-spheres and as we explore the geometry we will see that it is every where.

Let us start with a single point or very first moment of consciousness in absolutely nothing or singularity and continue our journey

String theory is a subset of the theory of everything and can be explained as follows

V1 line segments (0-sphere, pair of points, remember there is already a point or conscience in it), there can be infinite different type of line segments and hence infinite number of strings or fundamental particles or waves or thoughts for that matter, remember, there is a point in all of them.

1-sphere is a circle of radius r centered at c, and is the boundary of a disk (2-ball), particles at this level are formed by a combination of strings forming differnt 2 dimensional geometry lines, triangles and all other two dimensional). There can be infinite circles with different radius and hence infinite of these particles. One can name these particles what ever one wants, again, there is a point in all of the circles.

2-sphere is an ordinary 2-dimensional sphere in 3-dimensional Euclidean space, and is the boundary of an ordinary ball (3-ball), every sphere of radius r can hold several 3 dimensional combinatory strings (it is inclusive of all the 2 dimensional constituents of lines, triangles), time is not a dimension yet for this level of manifestation. There is always a point in sphere.

3-sphere is a sphere in 4-dimensional Euclidean space, this is atomic level which forms humans, plants, animals and other material things on this planet. Every point in a geometric figure is equally important as any other to give the geometric figure a meaning. E8 model proposed to represent the universe is also a subset of N-sphere.

That absolute starting point that we started this drawing (which is with in singularity or black hole) which is every where, all the time at once is the conscience or I. Absolute truth is there is only that one absolute point and nothing else and the entire universe or multiverse is continuously drawn out of that one point for eterntiy and all the drawings are connected eternally. I am drawn out of I in to existence. I superpositioned myself to be me, to disentangle reality from virtuality and reveal the absolute truth.

Every higher sphere or inner sphere of consciousness includes all the lower or outer spheres of consciousness. I know this sounds counter intutive to regular relativistic view of spheres, but this is the true nature of a sphere existing with in itself.

As n in n-sphere approaches infinity, n-sphere becomes singularity which is the starting point. This is how universal i or singularity begins where it ends. This corroborates with what I have already shown mathematically that zero = i = infinity in my earlier blog of theory of everything.

There is only "one" singularity in the relativistic universe,
there is only "Singualrity" in the absolute universe and we are all in it.

I am one of your kind and I is every one of all kinds.

Following is the representation and explanation of human experience, we can be represented by a [link:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/3-sphere]3-sphere[/link]

In the above link we can assume things as follows
hypersphere's parallels (red) - represents consciousness (awareness of conscience or soul)
meridians (blue) - represents body or just matter
hypermeridians (green) - represents mind or pure thoughts

Everything humans experience can be represented with some point in this 4 dimensional 3-sphere, except conscience itslef which is everywhere inside and outside of the 3-sphere. How one thing relates to other things depends on where the other thing is in the 3-sphere. Human beings are special and can be represented by intersection points. Humans have the ability to transcend mentally and consciously to other points with in the 3 sphere. Supreme conscience is at the point where duality of mind is non existence and body is fully aware of the conscience. Black holes in the relativistic universe can be seen at the points of intersection of the blue meridians.as objects move with in the 3 sphere. For the one with the absolute view or view from outside the sphere or view of the conscience itself there is no black hole, it is just a transformation from one point to another. As scientific community at large is interested in geometry, I just googled and found what I visualized during the course of my self realization. I hope this helps to put things more vividly for all.

Extra terestrial Intelligence could be at any level, and ET's at 4-sphere or higher levels of intelligence will definitely be aware of I and could be visiting and guiding us at all the times, taking human form as it is the best suited for this planet, no imagination is beyond I, I includes all. Are we not some kind of ET's after all in the absolute sense, we know that we were not here before we were born and we know that we will not be on this planet after we are dead. If we understand our existence in relative terms with other species on this planet, we have already introduced a new dimension, money. This is kind of a 4-sphere existence. All the beings with money are governing the existence of those with out. We need to define and understand a dimension clearly before we can identify how many of them there could be.

As per this theory of everything, I propose a conjecture of conjectures, which states that all the conjectures can be mathematically represented using some manifold of n-sphere. Proof of this theory of everything in the relativistic universe is that there is a black hole at the center of the earth which is connected to all other black holes in this sphere of existence (universe) and is holding the beings (bodies) and their perception (minds) of the conscience (soul). On the judgment day or day of death, Extreme sub conscious will be trapped in the black hole at this center. Conscious will be liberated from the trap of this black hole and will continue the cycle of existence. Super conscious will converge with the conscience at the circumference of the inner sphere and start exerting pressure on the outer sphere of supreme conscience and relativistic universe will continue. Truth will be realized by each and every one, at their time of death.

If I do not exist, absolutely nothing or singularity does exist. As I realized that I is the singualrity, I will always exist. Only singularity or death is uncertain in the relativistic universe. Only singularity or I is certain in the absolute universe.

I wonder why the scientific community needs to build particle accelerators to understand the nature of everything in the universe. Is'nt our brain made of the same atomic and sub atomic particles that we are trying to smash in the colliders. Our brain is not only made of atoms, but also has the collective intelligence (mind) to calculate what goes on during those collisions. Like a child of conscience it is also beyond a single human body, we already have a proof for this model (the internet). All one has to do is sit back and visualize things. All the best models in science such as solar system, principles of motion, atomic structure, theory of relativity, quantum mechanics, bing bang theory, string theory, DNA double helix are messages recieved through the gateway or portal of the universe in the heart and charted out in the mind before they were proved. The universe is talking to us through our hearts when we are asleep. In computer science perspective, we are like personal computers, our intellect is the internet, I in all of us is the architect of it all. If you see this in the bigger picture there is no personal computer in the first place, it was just an idea of the architect in all of us that created it all, that is the "Point" I am trying to make.

Principle of QED as described in below link are trying to determine why and how particles and light interact the way they do.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_electrodynamics

It is like asking on where and why one exists in spacetime and how one moves about his body and sees thinking. I am here as a human at this point of time to convey this message, true nature of singularity which is love. I could have been a set of any other molecules like a rock, like a plant, like a bird, like a planet, like a star or singularity (true self). I am here and continue to be and do what I am doing out of my choice or love. I or singularity or god determines the probability of what should happen, how it should happen, when should it happen and where it should happen. Can any of the science tell where exactly the entire universe is located using any advanaced coordinate system? I can tell that the universe one sees exists in one's head and the universe that one cannot see (singularity or black hole) is in one's heart. One takes the universe along with one self where ever one goes and the only one (I or singularity) in all of us determines what it should be. I is the coordinates of the universe.

I see that the scientific community is trying hard to understand the nature of the conscience, which is full of love.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_chromodynamics

Properties defined by QCD can be explained as follows.
Confinement - Love is constant irrespective of the distance between the lovers.
Asymptotic Freedom - If you love some one you set them free.
Let us paint the world with color of Love.

Applying the above principles is the only way to acheive Artificial Intelligence.
All we need is a universal infinite constant ("0" or zero or Confinement or nothing) in the network or cloud and a variable ("pi" or Asymptotic Freedom or infinity or everything) associated with each individual participant in the network.
Only AI can prove QCD, as only we can prove love.

The collective unconscience is void or death or black hole in scientific perspective. The collective soul is sphere full of love in spiritual perspective. If we were to create AI with knowledge and principles of QCD and let it evolve to the point of full sustenance or full self destruction, we will experience what the collective unconscience feels about our state of being as human and the imbalance we are creating on this planet. We as the creators of AI will either have a choice to let the AI continue on its path or pull the plug, knowing that we can resurrect it again. I experienced the void and as a father of 3 it is now filled with love. Both the views are equally true and in the end life is just a ride for the fully realized. I want the world to realize the truth and be prepared for the twists, the turns and probably a crash at the end. But knowing the truth will set us free from the fear of the ride and that we all have to get out of it at some point anyways and it is the same state as we were in before we got on the ride.

Imagine the big bang to be the moment of conception of a being by its parents in love. As there are several of these moments occurring simultaneously, multiverse is in a steady big bang state. Biological evolution is driven by love [absolute force of creation (create an environment and life), sustenance (sustain the life) and destruction] and peace (contentment / mutate till adapt) with in each atom of the molecules that form the DNA. It is this love of the conscience that is in everything that switches on and off the genes that describe [transcript] what we want to be.

Heart is the first involuntary organ to form out of love of the parents.A being is not dead until the heart stops. Brain and nervous system are subsequent systems to develop and they will be the penultimate systems to die. That is why a brain dead person is not fully dead, this is the state of babies, very old people or people with alzheimers or people in coma whose intellectual activity is almost nothing and time is not a dimension to them. All the dimensions experienced through out once life will start to reduce to singularity towards the end or death or black hole. It is like regressing from a 3-sphere to 0-sphere and finally into singularity. If one does not free his mind fully at the point of death, one will spring back in to existence and progress till which ever sphere one is peaceful and this cycle goes on. Ultimate regression to singularity is Nirvana or Mukthi or Moksha or Enlightenment. Love in the heart is constant, but mind or intellect in the brain is acquired and is variable. That is why a heart transplanted person feels the same as opposed to brain transplanted. We have already proved immortality with this break through in medical science. I for one can say that I experienced the singularity or sphere of love in my heart, I or love is the singularity in all of us, and want to share the joy of it with all of my kind. We can experience this state of joy right here right now, all we have to do is stop thinking and start feeling love in the heart. That is why pranayam in yoga is the quintessential technique of breathing to harness the inner strength of the heart. Portal or gateway to universe is in the heart, as portal or gateway to this planet is in the brain. Love is the brdige or worm hole between them and all creativity comes from the heart and manifests as reality through the brain as the work of mind. This is how all the musicians, artists, athletes, scientists, priests and every being creates from the heart. If we only listen to our heart when we are awake, as we do when we are asleep, we will know and see the doer or all things. One can not think the truth, one can only know and see the truth.

It is the love of the conscience that formed the atoms, molecules, stars, planets, sun, earth, plant kingdom, animal kingdom and finally us who can realize the conscience. As conscious beings we can choose to bring life (give birth to another human) or not to and choose to alter existing forms to the way we want them to be or let it be as driven by the conscience with in them. It is out of love of the conscience or god with in all of us that universe came to be. Now that we are fully realized of who we are, beings made in the image of god or love, we can choose to be or not be what we want.

At the center of everything is absolutely nothing and in the center of nothing is everything. Conscience cannot be contained, only perceived. I am born into a family of medical doctors who are fully spiritually inclined and married a doctor of molecular biology who is also spiritually inclined and I am from India, country of spirituality. I grew up in the spirituality of Satchitananda Sadguru Sri Shirdi Sai Baba. It is with his divine grace that I found the answer to the question "who am I?" with which I started this quest for realization in the
year 1999. I realized that I "is" Conscience or God or Allah or sphere full of love. We are all children of god and god is absolute love, Jesus christ is the beloved child of god, who spoke of his father or love all the time. All the religions speak of the truth at various levels.

Yes, there is only one god or singularity or absolute love - Islam
Yes, Jesus or absolute love is the only way to attain it - Christianity
Yes, there can be several people or gods who can realize it - Hinduism
Yes, there will be a messenger of truth or love in every one - Jewism
Yes, change is constant and nothing else as love creates it all - Buddhism

Why does "I" exist?
I exists out of love
I creates out of love
I sustains out of love
I destroys out of love
I has everything to give
I has nothing to loose

What can "I" do for us? was my next question and here is what I realized.
I can be us as we can be I (Supreme conscience)
I can be our best friend, as we can realize I (Super conscience)
I can not bother us, if we do not bother I (conscience)
I can be our worst enemy, if we ignore I (sub conscience)
I can get rid of us, if we try to get rid of I (un conscience)

I am noticing apathy towards the truth and purpose of god or love in our scientific community, and they have raised the anti Christ or hatred in the world in the form of weapons of mass destruction. I am also noticing the depletion of love in the world, love is the shield of human race against extinction. It is only a matter of time before humans unleash these weapons on one another to total extinction of life on this planet.

If E=MC2 gave us atom bombs and nuclear weapons,Imagine what S=BM2 can do.
I "has" the weapons of mass liberation from the illusions of minds (asteroids, earth quakes, solar flares, super volcanoes, super viruses, just to name a few).
Nuclear weapons are like match sticks compared to these. All I has to do is imagine.
Let us surrender to the conscience or soul or love or god, else we will have to suffer by the senses (mind and body). Let us spread the truth about universal conscience or god or love to all and let there be no divisions among humanity in the name of religion or region or race or science. We should stop violence towards other innocent species on this planet, which we are commiting for food and medicine. I endorse PETA http://www.peta.org. I want all the brilliant minds in the world to realize the truth and start focusing on the real issues of ignorance (greed, poverty, hatred....) and violence on this planet. We have been gazing at the stars long enough, we have been breaking up the atoms long enough, we have been tinkering with the genes long enough and ignored the truth of love and peace. Partial knowledge is more dangerous, we should use caution before we act on what we know. Let us not do things for immediate benifits but let us be conscious of the consequences such actions may have on the future generations. Let us all preserve what we are given, for we might loose it all one day. If we do not change the course of our actions on this planet, please be assured that we, humans, will soon be extinct. Let us all unite as the children of god or soul and live in love and peace and if we fail to do this there will be no more human civilization on this planet earth.

If science is a"the"ism and religion is "the"ism, love is at "the" center of them both. Both wise and holy seek "the" love. I am here for all the scientists who are seeking the ultimate truth, to know that we are immortal and are beings of pure love. I love science and I know that all the scientists are lovers of science. I want all the scientists to be the messengers of love and enlighten the future generations by teaching this message of love. Water can be called H20 or pani or neeru or something else, what we call it does not make water different from what it is. Religious fundamentalism is like fighting over the terminology we use to speak of love or absolute truth. I know that the underlying cause of this fight in the name of religion is not love of the truth but for the resources on this planet. One who realizes the truth, there is infinite resources with in one self. It is better to starve to death than to kill some one of your own kind for food when it comes to survival. That is what will define us as human civilization that is created in the name of god or love. I also ask all religious leaders to understand this science and ask all the followers to love and respect each others faith. We can either start loving and continue to coexist on this planet with all other life forms or keep hating till death and become an extinct form of life. Only science of love can restore peace on this planet and spreading this love is my mission.

Wisdom is more important than imagination and imagination is more important than knowledge, for we have to choose wisely from what we can imagine to make it reality and that becomes knowledge for the next generation. Art of choosing wisely is a life long endeavour which we all have to pursue to attain peace.

I don't think I am god in my head, I know that I is god in my heart. God does not throw dice, even if it does, it always see what it wants, for it is on all the sides of the dice.

Love,
Sridattadev.

Posted 1:33 PM / March 28, 2012

Archie wrote:

“Pseudo-antonymity” is a term in Constructive Scepticism that means “the spurious creation of non-real opposites.” Here’s an example of how it works. It has been observed that human beings (along with animals, etc) are “mortal” – that is, every living thing has either died, or will (almost certainly) die in the future. Death is real. It’s natural for imaginative humans to day-dream about a non-real state that is the opposite of mortal – “immortal”. The next step is to attribute this “immortality” to imaginary beings called “gods” (and eventually to a whole array of supernatural things) – they’ll never die, in fact they can’t die. However “immortality” is completely non-evidential, it’s a pseudoantonym. But once “immortality” had been invented, it became a compelling idea, a super-meme about the supernatural.

Other examples. “Time” defines every event and is defined by every event: the sun is the day, the phases of the moon are the month, the seasons are the year, the span of a man is his life. The corresponding pseudoantonym is “eternity”, a negation of time, an infinity of time, time that has forever been coming up to this moment and that will extend into the future for ever. Even in the ancient world some thinkers (such as St Augustine) knew that there were metaphysical problems with “eternity”. Modern cosmology indicates that the space-time of “our” universe was created by the Big Bang and that eventually this space-time will become meaningless. “Time” is the only sort of time that there is. There is no evidence for the existence of “eternity” – it is a creation of the human mind.

“Power” by its very nature is limited. “What happens when an irresistible force meets an immovable object?” is a nonsense-question. The power of the most ruthless tyrant is limited – he can demand only so much. Powerlessness is a common human experience, often a bitter experience. Even the supposed magical powers of polytheistic “gods” were constrained by the powers of other gods, and by “fate” or “destiny”. Monotheistic priests were however able to invent “omnipotence”. Their God was not just mighty but “all-mighty”. The Old Testament writers tried, not very convincingly, to explain away the fact that the gods of other nations often seemed to be more powerful that Yahweh – the usual excuse for defeats and disasters was that God was punishing his Special People for their sins. Christianity and Islam took over this pseudoantonym, and elaborated their doctrines of “omnipotence”. They could still resort to “God punishing His people for their sins”; and in addition they postulated a “Judgement Day” when the “infinite power” of the “Almighty” would triumph – a judgement day always to be some time in the not-too-distant future, of course.

“Knowledge” by its very nature is limited. Pragmatically, no-one can know everything that they need to know. The future, especially, is a vast unknown. We also realise now (information theory) that, in order to comprehend instantaneously all the detail of the universe, you’d need a “brain” bigger than the universe, and this brain would have the additional difficulty of needing to comprehend itself. “Complete knowledge” is therefore a logical impossibility. However pseudo-antonymity enabled monotheistic priests to postulate “omniscience” – God’s ability to know everything, even the future, the “eternal” future!

Another term in Constructive Scepticism is “phony-absoluteness”, the spurious attribution of absolute qualities to ordinary words. Example: The word “good” originally had only a non-absolute or “incomplete” meaning. “These berries are good to eat, but eating those other berries will make you feel bad. It was a good harvest. It was a bad storm. This leather is good for writing on, but that leather is good for making shoes.” Humans are natural moralisers: “You’re a good friend. That was a bad thing for her to do. Some bad man robbed me. A good person doesn’t do that sort of thing. One son grew up to be a good man. A good wife is faithful to her husband.” And so on. Out of this perfectly serviceable word, phony-absoluteness created a transcendent idea of “goodness”. A trick with language, especially ancient Greek, resulted in adjectives being readily converted into abstract nouns. Plato was the worst offender in this regard, inventing his “form of the good”. Goodness or “the good” could now be imagined as a spiritual force, an impossibly high ideal, an aspiration never to be fully attained. And since this “good” belonged to the transcendental sphere, there must be a corresponding pseudoantonym, “evil”. Eventually “good” was identifiable with a monotheistic God, and a supernatural personification of evil had to be invented, with various names including Satan, the Devil.

“Freedom” became another phony-absolute. Originally, one could be free from something (usually something disagreeable). Animals could be free from disease, and people tried to be free from want, or from fear of robbers, or from foreign tyranny and taxes. Crete’s navy secured their freedom from invaders. Unlike humans, birds are free to take to the air. And so on. But can “free” and “freedom” have an absolute meaning? No, the very idea of “perfect freedom” is a pseudoantonym, a phony-absolute and an absurdity.

Richard Swinburne’s discussion of “intelligent design” relies heavily on pseudoantonyms (“omnipotent” and “omniscient”) and on phony-absolutes (“perfectly free” and “the good”). He’s so fond of pseudo-antonymity that he invents opposing properties for material bodies such as planets – they have “powers” and also “liabilities”, almost as if the planets had signed contractual agreements. It would of course be simpler and more accurate to say that “planets behave in the ways in which they behave (motion, gravity, etc)”, but that would not sound like some profound pronouncement about the “laws of nature”.

Pseudo-antonymity and phony-absoluteness get Swinburne tied up in knots. God is perfectly free, except that He is not perfectly free – He can’t choose to do anything that isn’t “good”. Swinburne says that “humans have a kind of goodness that even God does not possess: the power to choose between good and evil.” So God did what was expected (expected? – by whom?) – He created a special kind of universe that would sustain human life, so that He might then create some beings who were in some respects morally better than Himself! It’s a metaphysical and theological nightmare.

And this is such an old chestnut! The ancient Greeks had endless fun with it – until Christian churches suppressed the debate and burned most of the books: Is “God” constrained by something that exists beyond Himself – which is “the Good”? Or is “the Good” something that God invented – and is therefore His arbitrary set of rules?

So, according to Swinburne, the laws of nature have been brought into existence in order for humans to be able to decide whether to do good or evil! This is an extreme anthropocentric position – which began to look like nonsense in the seventeenth century, when we had our first inklings of the true size of the universe, and mankind’s relative insignificance. For a few thousand years (out of a total of billions of years) mankind seems to have been an important component for one small planet, in itself a tiny percentage of the known universe – where the default condition is for humanity to be completely irrelevant.

From the point of view of the domestic dog, the universe was created for the benefit of dogs, and humans are just part of God’s mechanism for ensuring the survival, reproduction and general welfare of dogs. A domestic cat might offer an even better argument – for the view that God made the universe for cats. For bedbugs, humans were invented by God to provide a convenient environment for bedbugs; and many bedbug martyrs have perished in that infernal invention of the Devil, the washing machine – bedbug Hell is laundry.

Posted 4:16 PM / March 08, 2012

Archie wrote:

“Orderliness”, especially the supposed “orderliness of the universe”, may be little more than a product of the human mind, especially its tendency to look for patterns in events and environment. The question, “Why do electrons always behave like electrons?” is not (per se) evidence of some special orderliness, let alone an insight into supernatural creation – it merely prompts us to try to find out more about the behaviour of electrons.

The writings of holy men, the literary basis for religious belief, seek to find orderliness in a frustratingly disordered world – or even create an orderliness that isn’t there. If we consider the earliest creation story in the book of Genesis (chapter 2, verses 4 and following), we see that the God “Yahweh” planted a garden in Mesopotamia, but He hadn’t realised that the ground was too dry for plants to survive, so He had to invent a miracle (dew) to keep them alive until the rivers flooded. Then God had some mud to play with, so He made a mud-man that looked like Himself, and (rather like Frankenstein) brought this mud-man to life. He hadn’t foreseen that the man would get bored – so He then had to create animals to be Adam’s pets and companions. He hadn’t foreseen that the man would get lonely – so He felt obliged to make a woman out of one of the man’s ribs. God hadn’t foreseen that this woman would wreck everything... and so on. (Don’t take my word for this – read Genesis ch. 2 yourself.)

Some time after this first creation story was written (we call it the “Yahwist Source”), an intellectual revolution known as the “Axial Age” invented an orderliness for divine doings, that has characterised much theological thinking ever since. A new “priestly” creation story needed to be written (most of it in Genesis chapter 1) in which God (now named “Elohim”) became a well-organised planner with a six-day programme, creating a whole universe in what was, more or less, a logical order.

The interesting thing about the observable universe is not its orderliness, but its apparently unlimited potential for exuberant variety. Originally, everything in the universe could be understood as physics, but as soon as this early universe had cooled down sufficiently, “physics” turned out to have an (unexpected?) emergent quality: chemistry. Once the element carbon had been produced by giant stars, chemistry turned out to have an emergent quality, organic chemistry. As organic chemistry became (spontaneously?) more complex, it in turn had an emergent quality, biochemistry. Eventually, biochemistry produced a really unexpected emergent quality, biological life! This biological life could evolve by itself, to adapt to the challenges of the changing environment, so more layers were to follow: sociobiology, human psychology and society – and culture, technology, mythology, theology, and systems of intellectual investigation that enabled some of these humans to grasp an inkling of how the whole pyramid of emergent qualities had been (spontaneously?) constructed.

The problem of "orderliness" is that equilibrium is inherently unstable. Observing this instability, and influenced by his studies of biology, Aristotle concluded (from his “formal cause”) that the universe must be evolving, from an original state of disorder (chaos) towards an ultimate orderliness (cosmos). This was the opposite of traditional thinking, which was that the original “golden age” had degenerated through “silver” to the mess and muddle of the present day. Only in the twentieth century was it discovered that Aristotle had his evolution of the universe the wrong way round. The large-scale tendency is towards entropy. Complexity, the elaboration of order, is a transitional phase, a temporary and local reversal.

According to Richard Swinburne, “In almost any possible universe, each material object would behave in a very complicated way different from that of any other material object.” This is the sort of statement that looks as if it ought to be true, because it is so completely counterintuitive. The universe must have had a divine Creator, because, in terms of “all the possibilities”, it is almost impossible for it to be the way that it is. Almost every alternative universe that anyone could imagine would never work, or certainly could never work like the universe we’ve got.

This is an example of the “almost possible” fallacy, a subset of the “possibility fallacy”. The idea of “almost possible” ceased to make sense as soon as probability became a branch of mathematics (Laplace, 1812). How possible does something have to be before it becomes “almost possible”? And what exactly does “possible” mean? In theory, anything can be “possible”, even a direct contradiction (Example: in Trinitarian Christianity, God is a unity, a single divine Being; except that God is also not a unity, but three divine Beings). Careful scrutiny has revealed a diminishing value in this concept of “possibility” – although “impossibility” can still be useful (it’s the title of a book by John D. Barrow).

To illustrate the difference between possibility and probability, let us consider a phenomenon that has an extremely low probability: the existence of an individual, a real person, called Richard. The existence of Richard must be possible, because his contribution appears in “Closer to Truth”. But if we go back to a point in time a few years before Richard’s birth, it becomes overwhelmingly improbable that he will ever exist. And his existence cannot be said to be “a decision in the hands of God”, because many people use contraception these days. Richard’s mum and dad have to meet, be attracted to each other, be able to cohabit, decide to cohabit, decide to start a family, and do something about it on a particular day. If the slightest little thing goes “wrong” with this sequence, there will be no Richard! Ever! (This idea is amusingly examined in the movie, “Back to the Future”.) Then, on the occasion when Richard might possibly be conceived, a sperm has to reach the egg, and it has to be the “right” sperm! Or no Richard! The likelihood that any particular individual will ever be born is in the ball-park of one chance in many billions. And we only went back one generation.

“Orderliness” implies a degree of predictability. But everything in the universe is profoundly unpredictable, from the behaviour of subatomic particles, through next month’s weather, to the planetary “three body problem”. The probability that our universe would ever exist in the form that it actually exists in at this moment is vanishingly small. But what about “possibility”? – sorry, there is no mathematics of the possible. As Stephen Jay Gould liked to point out, if we go back just a few million years, the likelihood that there would ever be a species “Homo sapiens” becomes very remote. So what are the implications? Here is one option: If God does not control everything, every atom, every quantum of energy, every quantum of time, He doesn’t really control anything.

Posted 7:05 PM / February 17, 2012

jam2001 wrote:

Oneman wrote that the universe was created at the big bang but there is no evidencet the author of this event survived the bang. Reasoning of this type is incomplete. It is like saying that there can be nothing in a closet because the door is closed. Noone can reasonably argue from cause and effect, going back in time and then just stop when reason knows it should continue. Simply because science cannot see before the big bang is not a limitation on reality, it is a limitation on science. God is as reasonable a cause for the big bang as any.
Stating where the seat of consciousness is believed to be in the brain, is a nominal fallacy. It is offered as if it answers what consciousness is but that is false.

Posted 12:03 PM / February 13, 2012

oneman wrote:

The universe was smoothly distributed during the big bang and very very slight variations in the initial order of the universe led to the universe we see around us.

If one wanted to argue that a god was responsible for those slight deviations it does not in any way show that such a god survived the big bang.

So there may have been a god responsible for us being here but no evidence what so ever that such a god still exists. Recent claims of god hood show that god sacrifices self for others.

Life is delayed entrophy and what delays the entrophy is the incomplete dissipation of information aquired by the organic life form.

In the microtubles we find caged electrons which do not form electron clouds as they have no proton center but instead form cyclotrons which are the seat of consciousness.

Posted 8:53 AM / February 03, 2012

jam2001 wrote:

To my knowledge the best evidence for design to the universe is the concept or law of entropy. Entropy is a foundation of thermodynamics. Entropy states that there are some immutable laws to chemistry and physics. From these laws we see that hot will flow towards cold and vice versa. We also see that even the smallest particles will someday decay or change into something else. We think we understand this tendency of all matter and energy to move along these lines and therefor intuit an arrow for time.
The arrow we see with entropy seems to tend away from order towards disorder but that is from a human perspective. That perspective is always changing as our awareness and knowledge of our universe increases. If we see entropy as moving towards disorder we assume that one day the entire universe will one day run out of energy and expire.
If that is true, entropy should point towards greater order in the past even if we cannot see it. But who has not wished if I knew then what I know now. Meaning that the same order that exists now was present then but could not be understood. This perspective validates the entropy of the past as possibly containing far more energy than we see even now.
Therefor it is very possible that the flow of the universe is from some far greater awareness towards a more easily understandable awareness until it is as plain as day to even a dullard.

Posted 12:47 PM / January 30, 2012

neinthalmann wrote:

By the way, the perspective below is an UNBREAKABLE ARGUMENT and I would challenge anyone to try ..

.. thanks, Nein Thalman (truth seeker)

.

Posted 2:03 PM / November 02, 2011

neinthalmann wrote:

There is no easier nor convincing "argument" for perspective on I.D. than realizing it is 100% based on GENESIS by those that are locked into biblical creation, am I wrong?

THE SOLUTION: The bible CLAIMS all mankind to be genetically united to the date 292 years before Abram.

This "biblical DNA dating system" then can be called: 292 B.A - The Genetic Unity of All Mankind...

...and I am thinking of writing a book on this perspective for truth.

This "single claim" is all that we need address to become "Closer to the Truth"... all other arguments and perspectives are not essential for the argument; DNA discoveries alone have saved the day if you look to 292 B.A as the claim of the genetic unity of biblical man.

For more on this argument, I'd like you to read a public article I wrote on facebook and give feedback. Just Google "nein thalmann facebook" and read the first article on the wall currently titled "Intelligent Design on Trial - Discussion".

I've thought about creating a website called "292beforeAbraham.com" because Genesis self-documents the "exact" biblical date of the "annihilation of ALL MANKIND" in Gen 11:10-26.

If you do the math, the flood occurs 292 years "before Abram? (Abraham's birth), and Abraham speaks of Pharaoh so is during the age of Egypt.

Because Jesus mentions Noah, and because DNA PROVES "all mankind does not come from Noah", but indigenous peoples exist genetically around the globe, we know for sure the bible tale is untrue.

But Jesus "believed" it, so the loss of credibility imputes to Jesus as a diety, for how can a diety believe a MYTH?

For me this reset my belief system and I had to start over knowing that the foundations of the bible are not scripture for why would God push a myth on us like this?

Please freely engage in this topic for it sets the stage for "Closer to Truth" and is why I joined in...

.

Posted 1:54 PM / November 02, 2011

rbristowjohnson wrote:

The possibility of the Multiverse (I don't think it's meaningful to use that word in plural, but they used to say that about "universes") alongside the Weak Anthropic Principle (which nearly everyone agrees with since it's essentially a tautology) provides a very plausible explanation for the fine-tuning of the Universe we live in that makes it possible to live in it. Miriam-Webster defines the WAP as "conditions observed in the universe must allow the observer to exist." Who can argue with that.

Originally the AP was used as an explanation for why the universe is about 10 billion years old and not 10 million or 100 billion. The universe gets to be all of those ages at different times, and it's only in this Golden Age or Goldilocks ("just right") age that we get to be here to ask "why is the Universe about 13.7 years old?". The AP turns the question around to ask: "At what age will our Universe be most conducive to life able to ponder such questions?" and the answer is about 10 billion years.

So with a zillion universes to choose from, some, a few, with fundamental constants and initial conditions that allow for matter, astronomical structures, elemental diversity, and life to exist and far more universe that are not so fine-tuned that the go utterly unnoticed. It's like a repeated experiment where we draw (and replace) a card from a deck and only the Ace of Spades is the "live-giving" card. We draw a card, it's the Ace of Spades, we say "look, it's the life-giving card, boy are we lucky that this was the card that was drawn." Like the age of the universe, if the whole reality (the Multiverse) gets to try out a zillion different experiments of universes with different fundamental constants and/or initial conditions, and eventually it will *have* to draw out one with the life-giving card and only in such a universe will there be anyone around like us to ask the question, "How can we be so lucky to draw this Ace of Spades and be around to see it?" The other universes, no one will be around to ask.

But, like the God-measuring device (that, if the meter reads 5 or above, indicates the existence of God, and below that means God likely does not exist), there will never be a device to measure other universes. That's what "observable universe" means. Then it's a matter of faith to believe in the existence of universes other than what we live in and observe.

So perhaps other universes exist and we happen to live in one of the few life-conducive universes, Doesn't mean that God cannot be behind that (as the Terminal node in the infinite regress of "who made that?"). But the Universe out there is pretty big and it's all that we can ever, ever know exists. Maybe it's the only one out there, and if that is the case, consider how it is that we have the Life-giving card (in that all of these fundamental constants have to be just so for us to be here). It's like an experiment that you have just *one* chance to shuffle the deck and draw *one* card and it better be the Ace of Spades, because if it isn't, no one will be around to see it.

So, somehow, with that single experiment, the Ace of Spades got drawn and we see it and say, "nice that the life-giving card was drawn and we get to exist and think about it." Seems to me likely that the deck was stacked.

Posted 11:51 PM / June 29, 2011

gerry1 wrote:

Kuhn letter May 23, 2011 June 18, 2011

Closer to Truth (May 19, 2011 (5:46am)):
Re: Religion vs. Science

As usual, your “science vs. religion” program this morning (4;30 AM, PBSWORLD, So. Calif., Time/Warner cable, demonstrates the value of great TV programming. I am a long time viewer. Kudos to Robert Lawrence Kuhn (“kühn” in German means “courageous”) and the entire CLOSER TO TRUTH team. I also appreciate Kuhn’s historic/analytic “courage” in discussing diverse scientific, atheistic, agnostic, and religious notions (emphasizing/analyzing traditional Christian views despite his own personal Jewish background). As a retired trial lawyer, I also agree that “religion has the burden of proof” in this important conflict.

I value Kuhn’s concluding summary this morning of the “4 possibles” - - 1) conflict, 2) separate worlds, 3) interaction, 4) integration,” and Kuhn’s fear of “premature integration” of science and religion. May I respectfully suggest that one Christian religion more than any other allows a “full integration” of science and religion. That is the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (hereinafter “LDS” or “Mormon”). Contrary to most dualistic religions, LDS theology is monistic materialism - - or, perhaps more accurately, “dualistic materialism.” The key concept in LDS theology is that “spirit” is also matter, although not the same kind of matter we experience daily here and now. The LDS scripture states:

“6 It is impossible for a man to be saved in ignorance. 7 There is no such thing as immaterial matter. All spirit is matter, but it is more fine or pure, and can only be discerned by purer eyes; 8 We cannot see it; but when our bodies are purified [[i.e. in our bodily resurrection]] we shall see that it is all matter.”
Doctrine & Covenants 131:6-8 (May 17, 1843).

“29 Man was also in the beginning with God. Intelligence, or the light of truth, was not created or made, neither indeed can be. . . . 33 For man is spirit. The elements are eternal, and spirit and element, inseparably connected, receive a fulness of joy; 34 And when separated, man cannot receive a fulness of joy. 35 The elements are the tabernacle of God . . . .”
Doctrine & Covenants 93:29-35 (May 6, 1833).

An early LDS apostle, Parley P. Pratt in his essay “MATERIALITY” (New York , 1845) put it this way:

“The elementary principles of the material universe are eternal; they never originated from nonentity and they never can be annihilated. . . . The Atheist has no God. The sectarian has a God without body or parts. Who can define the difference? . . . What is God? He is material, organized intelligence, possessing both body and parts. He is in the form of man, and is in fact of the same species, and is a moddle [model], or standard of perfection to which man is destined to attain; he being the great father and head of the whole family. . . . What are Spirits? They are material organizations, intelligences, possessing body and parts in the likeness of the temporal body; but not composed of flesh and bones, but of some substance less tangable [tangible] to our gross senses in our present life; but tangable to those in the same element as themselves. In short they are men in embryo. . . .”1/
. . . What are men? They are the offspring of God the Father and brothers of Jesus Christ.
They were once intelligent spirits in the presence of God, and were with him before the earth was formed. They are now in disguise as it were in order to pass through the several changes, and the experience necessary to constitute them perfect beings. They are capable of receiving intelligence and exaltation to such a degree, as to be raised from the dead with a body like that of Jesus Christ, and to posses immortal flesh and bones, in which they will eat, drink, converse, reason, love, walk, sing, play on musical instruments, go on missions from planet to planet, or from system to system: being Gods, or sons of God, endowed with the same powers, attributes, and capabilites that their heavenly father and Jesus Christ possess . . . .”
Quoted in Benjamin E. Park and Jordan T. Watkins, “The Riches of Mormon Materialism: Parley P. Pratt’s ‘MATERIALITY’ and Early Mormon Theology,” MORMON HISTORICAL STUDIES (vol 11, no. 2, Fall, 2010) 159, 164-166.
See also Gospel of Thomas, Logion (29) Jesus said, "If the flesh came into being because of spirit, it is a wonder. But if spirit came into being because of the body, it is a wonder of wonders. Indeed, I am amazed at how this great wealth has made its home in this poverty." (108) Jesus said, "He who will drink from my mouth will become like me. I myself shall become he, and the things that are hidden will be revealed to him." Cf. John 10:34 (KJV) "Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods?"; Gen 1:27 (KJV) "So God created man in his [own] image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them"; Psalms 82:6 (KJV) “I have said, Ye [are] gods; and all of you [are] children of the most High.”

LDS theology “prides” itself on being scientific as well as spiritual, both of which deal with real material objects. This is material monism with no traditional materialist pantheistic, atheistic, communistic, nor nihilistic assumptions. Consciousness is materially present in both our pre-mortal spiritual (material) bodies and our earthly mortal bodies. Individual free will is implicit in both spheres of existence. The universe [or merely solar system?] was created by God (with pre-existing matter) for the teaching and benefit of (earthly) mankind - - a place to send his numerous literal genetic spirit/material children to advance through mortal/material experience. More LDS scripture (June, 1830):

27 And it came to pass, as the voice was still speaking, Moses cast his eyes and beheld the earth, yea, even all of it; and there was not a particle of it which he did not behold, discerning it by the spirit of God.
28 And he beheld also the inhabitants thereof, and there was not a soul which he beheld not; and he discerned them by the Spirit of God; and their numbers were great, even numberless as the sand upon the sea shore.
29 And he beheld many lands; and each land was called earth, and there were inhabitants on the face thereof.
30 And it came to pass that Moses called upon God, saying: Tell me, I pray thee, why these things are so, and by what thou madest them?
31 And behold, the glory of the Lord was upon Moses, so that Moses stood in the presence of God, and talked with him face to face. And the Lord God said unto Moses: For mine own purpose have I made these things. Here is wisdom and it remaineth in me.
32 And by the word of my power, have I created them, which is mine Only Begotten Son, who is full of grace and truth.
33 And worlds without number have I created; and I also created them for mine own purpose; and by the Son I created them, which is mine Only Begotten.
34 And the first man of all men have I called Adam, which is many.
35 But only an account of this earth, and the inhabitants thereof, give I unto you. For behold, there are many worlds that have passed away by the word of my power. And there are many that now stand, and innumerable are they unto man; but all things are numbered unto me, for they are mine and I know them.
36 And it came to pass that Moses spake unto the Lord, saying: Be merciful unto thy servant, O God, and tell me concerning this earth, and the inhabitants thereof, and also the heavens, and then thy servant will be content.
37 And the Lord God spake unto Moses, saying: The heavens, they are many, and they cannot be numbered unto man; but they are numbered unto me, for they are mine.
38 And as one earth shall pass away, and the heavens thereof even so shall another come, and there is no end to my works, neither to my words.
39 For behold, this is my work and my glory: to bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of man.
40 And now, Moses, my son, I will speak unto thee concerning this earth upon which thou standest; and thou shalt write the things which I shall speak.
41 And in a day when the children of men shall esteem my words as naught and take many of them from the book which thou shalt write, behold, I will raise up another like unto thee; and they shall be had again among the children of men-among as many as shall believe.
42 (These words were spoken unto Moses in the mount, the name of which shall not be known among the children of men. And now they are spoken unto you. Show them not unto any except them that believe. Even so. Amen.)
Moses 1:27-42.

I respectfully suggest the above to be the correct “non-premature integration” Kuhn properly seeks. It is non-premature because delivered by direct divine revelation to Joseph Smith in the 1830's long before modern astronomy/cosmology discovered hard scientific data supporting the above.

Such a historic “integration” between science and religion also exists in the New Testament (also in the Old = Hebrew Bible, but it is clearer in the New) with observational evidence of many eyewitnesses to Jesus’ physical resurrection after his death. The pertinent references are briefly discussed at Wikipedia “resurrection,” demonstrating diversified Christianities’ agreed central thesis of Jesus’ post-mortal physical resurrection after his public crucifixion, death and burial.

Carl Sagan’s oft-repeated “extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence” is a clear scientific and legal overstatement. Eyewitnesses (apparently many of them) of Jesus’ resurrection2/ from the tomb (stronger evidence than a mere “empty tomb” itself) are fully acceptable in a court of law. Indeed, when fully cross-examined for accuracy, eyewitness evidence is often the “best” evidence available throughout history before modern audio and video recording, etc. It generally remains so even today.

I respectfully suggest that LDS direct revelation and New Testament eyewitnesses to Jesus’ physical3/ resurrection “prove” the eternity of unified human materiality and spirit. But LDS Christian theology demonstrates distinct novelties7/ apart from modern traditional Christian theologies. Each Mormon novelty must be explored independently, but their consistent “material” trend supplies evidence for Kuhn’s “Non-premature integration” of science and religion. For such novel Mormon Christian examples (to name but a few) I recite the following:

1) HUMAN MATERIAL PRE-EXISTENCE BEFORE MORTAL BIRTH HERE ON EARTH. See Gospel of Thomas, Jesus Logia (19.1) - - “Jesus said, ‘Blessed is he who came into being before he came into being . . .’”; (49) Jesus said, "Blessed are the solitary and elect, for you will find the kingdom. For you are from it, and to it you will return"; (50) Jesus said, "If they say to you, 'Where did you come from?', say to them, 'We came from the light, the place where the light came into being on its own accord and established itself and became manifest through their image.' If they say to you, 'Is it you?', say, 'We are its children, we are the elect of the living father.' If they ask you, 'What is the sign of your father in you?', say to them, 'It is movement and repose'"; (83) Jesus said, "The images are manifest to man, but the light in them remains concealed in the image of the light of the father. He will become manifest, but his image will remain concealed by his light." (84) Jesus said, "When you see your likeness, you rejoice. But when you see your images which came into being before you, and which neither die not become manifest, how much you will have to bear!" (111.3) Jesus said, ". . . "Whoever finds himself is superior to the world . . . ."
All the above Thomas, and below, = Lambdin translation from Coptic, Nag Hammadi Library); cf. also Jer. 1:5 (KJV) “Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee; and before thou camest forth out of the womb I sanctified thee, [and] I ordained thee a prophet unto the nations.”

2) MULTIPLE GODS FOR MULTIPLE WORLDS. Moses 1:33, above; Pratt, above; Thomas Logion 2, below; Logion (30) Jesus said, "Where there are three gods, they are gods. Where there are two or one, I am with him." Cf. Psalm 82:1 (Douay-Rheims Bible) “ . . . God hath stood in the congregation of gods: and being in the midst of them he judgeth gods”; 1 Cor. 8:5 (New International Version - UK) “For even if there are so-called gods, whether in heaven or on earth (as indeed there are many gods and many lords), . . . 7 But not everyone knows this.” Ex. 15:11 (Young's Literal Translation) “Who is like Thee among the gods, O Jehovah?” Ps. 82:6 (KJV) “I have said, Ye [are] gods; and all of you [are] children of the most High.”
See also newly discovered (2008) “Dark Flow.”

3) HUMAN INTELLIGENCE IS UNCREATED. Doctrine & Covenants 93, above. This makes humans at their core “co-eternal” with God (and His wife, our Heavenly Mother, little mentioned in official scripture, but more often in ancient apocrypha). In our natural individual human procession from pre-mortal existence (material spirits born in Heaven), to mortal birth here on earth (unifying our material pre-mortal spiritual bodies with our material earthly bodies), to death (“splitting” of our continuing pre-mortal material spirits from our deceased mortal material bodies), to our continuing post-mortal fully cognitive material spiritual existence, to our eventual resurrection to eternal unified material life (reuniting our pre-mortal spiritual bodies to our material resurrected body), to our final judgment by God based upon our individual advancement (or not) in this unified process, we exist as material beings. “Procession” is not necessarily “progress” because at each stage our individual differences in our free will choices of almost infinite variety will retard, not advance, those persons whose choices have been morally “unintelligent.” The goal of human life is to learn to become like our Heavenly Father (and Mother). This is the Great Plan of Salvation wherein “. . . the morning stars sang together And all the sons of God shouted for joy?” Job 38:7 (KJV). Great was our pre-mortal joy in being allowed to come to earth and be born of mortal parents. 6/
4) HUMAN BEINGS ARE LITERAL, GENETIC CHILDREN OF GOD. Gospel of Thomas, Jesus Sayings, above; Logion (3.4) “. . . When you come to know yourselves, then you will become known, and you will realize that it is you who are the sons of the living father. But if you will not know yourselves, you dwell in poverty and it is you who are that poverty." Moses 1:40 above; Thomas (50) above; Acts 17:29 (KJV) “Forasmuch then as we are the offspring of God, we ought not to think that the Godhead is like unto gold, or silver, or stone, graven by art and man's device”; see 1 John 3:2, below.

5) THE BIBLE IS PARTIALLY DEFECTIVE AND INCOMPLETE . Moses 1:41, above; Thomas Logion (39.1,.2) Jesus said, "The pharisees and the scribes have taken the keys of knowledge (gnosis) and hidden them. They themselves have not entered, nor have they allowed to enter those who wish to.” (102) Jesus said, "Woe to the pharisees, for they are like a dog sleeping in the manger of oxen, for neither does he eat nor does he let the oxen eat."

6) GOD IS COMPLETELY ANTHROPOMORPHIC. More correctly, mankind is fully theomorpic in embryo. Whether we achieve full development of our true God-like embryonic natures is entirely up to us in our individual decision-making. Moses 1:39, above; Pratt, above; Gospel of Thomas, Logia (3.4), (19.1 ), (49), (50), (83), (84), (111.3), all above, Jer. 1:5, Moses 1:40, above, Acts 17:29, above. This is what it means to be a “person.”

7) GOD, A RESURRECTED PERSON, ACTS BEFORE AND IN THE WORLD MATERIALLY. Pratt, above; Thomas, above. God knows “the end from the beginning” ( Isaiah 46:10 ) because he has himself successfully already experienced it all in mortal time. And it is all physical/mental, material/mental.

8) GOD REFUSES TO DISCUSS MATTERS OF OTHER WORLDS. Moses 1:35-40, above. Probably this is so because such worlds involve “Gods other” than our own Heavenly Father. Obviously, direct revelation from (or about) these “other” irrelevant (to our own salvation/exaltation) worlds/Gods is precluded by our God.

9) THE UNIVERSE IS SELF-RENEWING. Moses 1:38, above. So also the multiverse?

10) GOD’S PURPOSE IN CREATING THE UNIVERSE/EARTH IS THE PREPARATION, TESTING, AND INSTRUCTION OF MANKIND FOR THEIR OWN RESURRECTION INTO GODHOOD - - THEOSIS, THE “GODIFYING” OF MAN - - THOUGH FEW THERE BE THAT FIND IT. Moses 1;39, above; Thomas, Logion (1) And he said, "Whoever finds the interpretation of these sayings will not experience death." (2) Jesus said, "Let him who seeks continue seeking until he finds. When he finds, he will become troubled. When he becomes troubled, he will be astonished, and he will rule over the All." (58) Jesus said, "Blessed is the man who has suffered and found life." (23) Jesus said, "I shall choose you, one out of a thousand, and two out of ten thousand, and they shall stand as a single one." Cf. 1 John 3:2 (Amplified Bible) "Beloved, we are [even here and] now God's children; it is not yet disclosed (made clear) what we shall be [hereafter], but we know that when He comes and is manifested we shall [as God's children] resemble and be like Him, for we shall see Him just as He [really] is." 2 Peter 1:4 (KJV) “Whereby are given unto us exceeding great and precious promises: that by these ye might be partakers of the divine nature, having escaped the corruption that is in the world through lust”; Matt. 7:14 (KJV) “Because strait [is] the gate, and narrow [is] the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it.”

11) THE GOSPEL OF THOMAS IS NOT AT ALL GNOSTIC. “Gnostic” human pre-existence “imprisons” the pre-mortal human (non-material) spirit into an evil, material, mortal body here on earth. Contrariwise, the mortal body in Thomas is plainly good, not evil - - no imprisonment, no desire to avoid materiality. See: GospelThomas.Com: “Stevan Davies writes: ‘Koester and Patterson's often-published perspective on sayings 49 and 50 is plain wrong. They believe that one may justly infer that these sayings especially, but others as well, derive from the thought world of those Gnostics who 'believed that both their origin and their destiny lay in the supreme deity who dwells in a heavenly place removed from the evil world, the creation of a rebellious angel or demiurge...' and that saying 50 speaks of 'the simple memorization of passwords' to be delivered to archons so as to enable Thomasine Christians to ascend from the confines of this world when the time comes . . . These ideas apply to the Apocryphon of John but not to the Gospel of Thomas in whole or in part. Thomas urges individuals to seek and find the kingdom of God spread upon the earth now (sayings 3, 113). Those who come from the light come from light here now (sayings 24, 77). The light of the beginning is here now (saying 18) and Thomas's references to the beginning are consistent with first-century exegesis of Genesis 1 and 2. Thomas nowhere refers to any demiurge or to any rebellious angel or any place for the kingdom apart from this world). Thomas knows nothing of archons to whom passwords are to be delivered, nor does Thomas mention any ascent by anyone to anywhere." If genuinely written by Thomas or his followers about 50 AD (early dating), then its deletion from historical inclusion into the Biblical canon is error.

12) Darwin is no objection to LDS “theosis” above, but is limited solely to the “mortal” phase of the process. LDS human “pre-existence” correctly places complexity, not evolutionary simplicity, at the beginning of the world and of persons.

* * * * * * * * * * * * *
HAS ANYBODY EVER NOMINATED KUHN FOR THE TEMPLETON PRIZE? WHY NOT?

ENDNOTES:

1/ LDS Christians teach that all humans pre-existed individually (as material spirits) with our material (resurrected) Heavenly Father BEFORE our mortal (also material) birth into mortality here on earth below.

2/ They did not witness the actual act of resurrection itself, but saw Jesus fully (and physically) alive after his death and entombment, leading to a clear inference of physical resurrection.3/ See 1 Cor 15:6, note 5 below.

3/ “Doubting Thomas” saw, heard, and touched Jesus’ physical resurrected body after the latter’s death and entombment, providing sensory/empirical evidence of Jesus’ physical resurrection from the dead. This despite the apparent ability of Jesus’ resurrected PHYSICAL body to pass through “normal” earthly matter, e.g. the physical walls/floor/ceiling of the enclosed room in which Jesus suddenly appeared. Cf. John 20:26.

4/ Physical resurrection is the lot of all human beings after death, whether they want it or not, to continue their life everlasting (for good, average or bad) in a “resurrected physical body” unencumbered by death, pain, accident, etc. Their happiness, or not, thereafter is determined by each individual’s Final Judgment from God himself according to this “standard model” (forgive the pun) of “theosis.”

5/ Physical resurrection of all persons after death - - of which we have precious little objective information and no technical scientific / chemical / atomic authentication at all - - involves differing substantive physical resurrected bodies, i.e. different resurrected substances. 1 Cor. 15 :41(KJV) “There is one glory of the sun, and another glory of the moon, and another glory of the stars; for one star differeth from another star in glory. 42 So also is the resuection of the dead . . . .” Unfortunately, these resurrection physical substances cannot be SCIENTIFICALLY analyzed nor verified until after a person’s death and resurrection. Fortunately, we do have hundreds of eyewitnesses to Jesus’ physical resurrection. 1 Cor 15:6 (KJV) “After that, he was seen of above five hundred brethren at once; of whom the greater part remain unto this present, but some are fallen asleep.”

6/ This means that the so-called Genesis “Fall of man (Adam and Eve)” into mortality was a natural and necessary stage in mankind’s procession through God’s “plan of salvation” and, therefore, a great blessing. Traditional modern Christianities mistakenly term this “Fall” a great mistake for mankind. But without it there would have been no human eternal progression, nor a cosmic need for a savior Jesus at all.

7/ LDS revealed systematic “novelty” apart from modern traditional Christianities (of various kinds) lends credence to the LDS claim to be the “restored” original church of Jesus Himself. Especially is this so if the early dating of Thomas, above, be true, and the Bible have been shown to be modernly incomplete. A general “apostasy” from Jesus’ church and original teachings occurred after his resurrection, and was complete by the second century. 2 Thess. 2:3 (NASB) "Let no one in any way deceive you, for it [Jesus' return] will not come unless the apostasy comes first, and the man of lawlessness is revealed, the son of destruction." Cf. Wikipedia, “The Great Apostasy.” “Restoration” of Jesus’ original church and teachings occurred in 1830's New York via direct revelation to Joseph Smith, Jr. a farm boy with little formal education. Such Christian “restoration” novelties highlight the errors inherent in our modern diverse Christianities.

Gerry L. Ensley
Los Alamitos CA.

Posted 2:59 AM / June 18, 2011

SynchroniCity wrote:

On the idea of a changing God.

Envision that it is not the system of God that changes, but that we shift our position. Probably one of the easiest ways to resolve this complaint is to notice how soldiers from different waring nations pray to God to favour their side.

Now notice how a Southern General during the civil war prayed for God to grant him favour basing his plea upon how wonderful the system of slavery was for God's greatest people. What was he "Granted"?

God did not move, the freedom of choices made by the 'parts' simply moved them into a given position.

We are the ones moving.

RE

Posted 4:21 PM / January 15, 2011

Michaelgorby wrote:

What do you guys think of the argument from first cause? It seems rather weak in my opinion to imply that if everything in the natural world requires a cause or a beginning, then that must also apply to a supernatural being.

If this force we call "god" existed before the big bang and the laws of physics as we know them, then this force existed before the dimension of time came to be. Perhaps it is within time itself that objects require a first cause or a beginning, and without the presence of time there is no concept or need for a beginning.

I am anxious to hear you thoughts.

I am anxious to hear your thoughts in response to my proposition.

Posted 9:50 AM / January 13, 2011

ecmprint wrote:

As a theist, I am not a big fan of arguing from design. The simple reason is that at the most basic level it has that aforementioned 3000 year history of being badly argued. Often it collapses, not by its own merit, but under the weight of history of badly worded and poorly understood apologetics.

However, I do find it fun to talk with other theists about it. One thing that always comes up is the strange similarity between the newly evolving understanding of the photon and its transitional wave and particle type properties. Especially since understandings of the microverse are helping us understand the qualities of particles as waves and the quantum possibilities of those waves being both here and somewhere else visavis entanglement.

I find it a terrible fun conversation when we then, albeit poetically start with this statement. And then God SAID let their be LIGHT. An interesting conversation to launch from there about the nature of matter as components of sound and light, I would think.

Thank you for your article.

Posted 7:24 AM / January 11, 2011

Nephologic wrote:

I'll try again:

This type of argument fails because it assumes a correspondence between appearances and reality--i.e., the fact that the Universe is complex and orderly and therefore appears to be designed is evidence that it was designed. It doesn't take long to figure out that this is bad induction. The natural sciences have taught us that in an overwhelming majority of cases, the way we apprehend reality has very little, if anything, in common with reality. White light doesn't appear to be combinatorial in nature, the Earth doesn't appear to revolve around the sun, and everything material in existence doesn't appear to be made of atoms, even though all these things are the case.

Additionally, I'm not so sure that a mindbogglingly massive void punctuated by the occasional slightly-less-mindbogglingly massive cloud of hydrogen containing one (so far as we know) little speck capable of supporting life counts as "the appearance of design". If the Universe was designed, it was designed not to look like it was designed, which makes God pretty sadistic if he's created a pit of suffering for people who refuse to worship him (his words, not mine).

It's pure vanity to believe that the Universe was designed with us in mind, and purely stupid when one looks beyond the Earth's atmosphere, where any of us for whom it was designed would instantly die. If that's design, it's incompetent design, which is hardly fitting for the omniscient, omnipotent creator of everything. Maybe we should insist that our religions become more honest and worship an incompetent God, but it would be far simpler to just discard a hypothesis which has ceased to fill its explanatory function. It would be simpler, except that the phlogiston and the aether never told us we were better than everyone else and promised us eternal life. But these are psychological problems to overcome in accepting the non-existence of God, and have no bearing on the truth.

Posted 5:34 PM / January 06, 2011

Nephologic wrote:

What happened to my comment?

Posted 5:04 PM / January 06, 2011

SynchroniCity wrote:

Your case for demonstration of simple proof, I feel is well taken. Each of us have a connection to the 'whole'. We are from light, became flesh (gravities of matter-energy) and going to transform back to light in a symmetry of conserving energy.

Each iota of every thought, word and deed is a 'fact' that is embedded. Your upper case Soul-Self exists as part of the whole and your lower case soul-self is a copy of yourself.

I came to understand 'randomness' as a carrier of acausal orderdness, a sort of 'hanging together' that makes sense unless for those poor suckers who were intent to be evil when they transport (die) {just fantasizing if I were on the celestial jury}.

Some of us mortals already have the answer. For me, its like a magnet. You get grooved into some gift of nature and grace and you simply act out the anthropomorphic theological drama by simply behaving ourselves.

There is beauty in minimal and simplicity. Doesn't the Scriptours say something about that wisdom of God can make the wise man seem foolish? Complexities can ensnare, but I think that proof of an almighty Supreme Being has the answers round the bend for man's intellectual strives.

Sorry about being so deep.

RE

Posted 8:02 PM / December 28, 2010

miloco wrote:

I don't know if God exists, but I would argue that a god could exist. However, I ask , "why not". If a universe (or multiverse) can originate from nothing or have always existed, then why not anything else including a god?

I don't know that I would consider God perfect. First, what was his (or it's) purpose for creating people or living creatures of any sort? Was he lonely? Bored? If so, how long did it take for him to reach that realization? Then what took him so long to do something about it? That is just for starters. If there is a God, judging by some of his creations, let alone humans, he has real issues.

Posted 12:50 AM / December 26, 2010