adam1

'but I tried', is the most honorable and measurable statement in my opinion, that anyone can make. I appreciate your frankness and willingness to discuss these subjects. They are both, challenging, controversial and.... personal. The beauty of chioce is the exercise of the function itself. It is the one thing we all need to protect and defend more then any other. I vigilantly defend your pleasure to exercise your free choice in every matter every day. It is a pleasure to dialog with you String. Thank you

It is more then mere popularity, it is continuous unbiquity... not just among the isolated ancient cultures but consistantly carrying throughout the intermediate ages and into the 'scientific' modern era. In otherwords, a massive percentage of the global population throughout the ages thoroughly believes that life consists of more than just molecules. To not go beyond the physical realm to comprehend the essence of life is equivalent to essentially exist in a two dimensional reality. There is left, right, forward, backward but no up or down, no third demensional essence of life. When discussion of a third demension passes through their world it is seen simply as a flat, two dimensional line first appearing then passing through their plain of vision and vanishing. There is no perception of any dimension of depth to the subject that just passed by. The third demension is entirely imperceptable from their prespective of life. So be it. One who is unwillling to consider that this third dimension of life exists will never look for it and therefore will never find it. One of the famous globally recognized spiritual founder put it this way, 'Seek and you shall find. . .' Conversely, Do not seek and you shall not find. The assurance is there which ever way you say it.

Well lets try to return to the basic intent of the thread. Is there a god or not? The collective evidence of overwhelming consistent beliefs in so sort of god or gods throughout the ages form diverse and once entirely disconnected and mutually isolated cultures suggest that it is a subject of ongoing pervasive magnitude among mankind. The chances of them all being wrong are extremely low. Therefore, the probabilities, in my opinion are the chances are very high...

Tar.... I agree that the question, "what is the nature of God?", is the necessary door through which an basic, introductory understanding of God would be found. That requires that we consider and detemine first the medium, the model, that is man most familiar with and would tend to be able to understand in the clearest terms. For me, that conclusion would be man himself. We are not more acquainted with the familiaity of any animated, living entity than that of humankind. Therefore we are best equipped to evaluate a life that would claim to represent God to see if there are any distinct characteristics within that life that may point to characteristic unique, distinctly different, then we find typical to man and that may be found differently in a God. But the question is, would God choose to manifest his character in such a way? It would seem plausible that he may elect to do so. His two other choices would be; 1. a direct manifestation, direct manifestation or, 2. through a supernatural phenomenology of some element or combination of elements. In the first choice, if his form where different from what we would expect, how would we know if it was God or not? We wouldn't. We'd have to simply take his word for it, faith alone. If he used the elements, even in an unexplainable event, again, how would we know it was God's doing. More importantly, neither option would leave us with any greater undrstanding of ....what he is really like. So the most logical answer for me is that God would choose to manifest himself through an entity that we, as humans, would be able to evaluate best, that is, a person in the form of a human being.

If you look at the empirical, measurable evidence that historically remains as a result of these three men of science I'm certain that, as person who apprears to trust in and rely on evidence, you will reconsider your conclusion that there is no compatibility between science and one's spiritual beliefs. As you may know, science is as much an intuitive inquiry, whose conclusion are then subjected to empirical testing, as it is an exercise in reason and logic. It would seem a grevious error to discount, and even detach, the influencing factors and giudance that are invoved in the based investigation of ones life in nearly every realm of existence. Man is far from a simple automaton functioning rawly on logistical proofs. To then attempt to negate such intuitive influences or propose a conclusion of having no relevant means in the life work of these universally proclaimed, profoundly insightful champions of science would be either entirely naive or an intensional aviodance. It can unquestuionably be said that each of these giants of science found a distinct compatibility between their SPIRITUAL beliefs and science. It was, unfortuately, a particular RELIGIOUS entirprize that took issue with the findings of Galileo and Copernicus. The God of these champions, however, seemed to have no problem with either their inquiry or conclusions. I think you may agree that there can be a massive and distinct difference between the human pursuit of institutional religion and a genuine pursuit of God. Their testimonies indicate that these men pursued God. The unfortunate conditions of their day dictated they do that within the limits of a system that was then fouled within its own corruption.

As you probably know, the scientific community does not even sanction, much less consider, investigations of any kind that relate to the supernatural or to a God. This seems paradoxical in the sense that they are fully aware that men like Galileo, Coperniicus and Newton, all profound men of science, carried sincere and deeply rooted beliefs in a Divine Creator and Supreme being. These are the men, who today, remain as to be lauded by science for introducing and developing methods and mathemetics that transformed scientific inquiry and the human understand of the universe forever. You would think that the scientific community would begin to be mature enough to give recognition to the reality that their is a sound compatability between the belief in a supernatural being and good science. Yet they contiune to promote a disparity between science and such beliefs rather than embrace a mutual pursuit that, in the cases of the profound examples of these men, brought forth insights of the physical universe and methods of inverstigation that are, even today, of immeasurable value to all of mankind. This, to me, does not speak of a God who wants to limit man's understanding but wishes to reward his inquiry and improve his understanding.

Prayer, of course, is not a phenomenon of nature. It is a willful engagement of humankind directed at being that transcends the physical, empirically measurable elements and natuarlly derived processes of the physical universe. The function of prayer, therefore, falls outside of the bounds of the criteia of the strict Scientific Method which applies to empirically measurable phenomenon and events ONLY. It is, therefore, beyond the criteria set forth by the sceintific community and their accepted forms of experimentation.

The metaphor of the sun was used only as a analogy not a parallelism of an empirically based scientific experiment. A refresher review of the scientific method may be helpful to refresh the understanding that the fundimental premise of all science is founded on allowing ONLY the consideration of natural process as the singular means and explanation for the existence and phenomenon of all things. That, of course, immediately excludes anything relating to an investigation of the existence of the supernatural..... including the effects of ...prayer.

With all of the diverse testimonies from the ancients to present about the various beliefs in a god into the modern era, it would seem neive to ignorea strong probablity, at the very least, that their is the existence of a supernatural realm of some kind and therefore a presence of some sort or sort of deistic beings humankind has learned to refer to as a god. To ignore such a unbiquious extent and duration of such beliefs, purporteded dialogs, experiences and the enormous force of its influence throughout cultures on every continent of the world that were once entirely once enitriely culturally isolated form one anothe, would be tandamount to burying ones head in the sand. Lets face it folks, the universal belief in a god has always been there. That discount to avoid the need for a basic investigation into the subject would be similar to denouncing that the sun has risen daily since at least the beginning of recorded astronomical observation.

Three elements of influence are present in the lives of those who develop a genuine belief in a god. They are based on the widley accepted accounts of the founders of major belief systems and sages of all eras and cultural backgrounds. They are: 1. an innate and genuine personal pursuit of the subject of a god 2. related testimonies of either a direct or narrative nature 3. the reported experience, in varying degrees, of a drawing or influencing presence from a transcendent spiritual realm Although the relevant sequence of important varies among religous factions related to these factors, one universally element remains critically important; a personal interest pursuit and volitional choice to accept or reject. As important as the point of a volitionally free choice is in this matter, we find in history clear evidence that some founders, and in other cases self-acclaimed groups purporting to be followers, go on to claim that they have been authorization by the same god to implement military campaigns, use coresions, intimidation, even the most henious forms of torture and death to secure the belief of other subjects of the religious dogmas they purport to be authentic. This is an obvious contradiction and blatant reversal of an earlier divine policy of allow a free, volitional choice in the case of a follower. Such forms of religious practices produce heirarchical structures have also provided a shroud of sacred sanction to ruling and elities expansionist classes to exploit every kind of human and natural resource while partaking in a slice of an ever-riching pie. This type of religious mode of operation has remained unchanged throughout the ages; from the time of the kingdoms of the ancients, through the empires of the classical and medieval periods and into the blood ravaged era of the religio-polictical fabric of power-based nationalism, now set to embrace the emergence of globalism. So check-out the teachings and philosophy of the founders themselves, as much as is possible. Watch for an advocated presence or warned abstinence from the mixing of world-politic based agendas in his teaching. Most importantly, determine if the founder has revoke the right to an unincumbered volitional choice to accpet or reject the following of his god. You'll find the contrasts to be distinct and compelling. ------

Michel, Schrodinger, ewmon.... Thanking each of you for your inputs. Taking time to review and digest your references and ideas... Also trying to learn the mechanics of pasting partial quotes from prior posts into responses. Haven't found the combination yet. Is there a Help location this type of thing?

AGC..... Thank you for sighting this principle. I will definitely need to look into the understanding of how a Joule is expressed and why the squaring of any veliocity is essential. I appreciate this explanation. I read your earlier reply that also implicated the Joule but failed to see the point of its application as clearly as I have in this explanation. Your generalization of the necessity of squaring the velocity when dealing with the Joule unit of energy seems to be the key to my question. Again, thank you very much for readdressing your initial response.

Janus.... Thank you It is very understandable, and helpful, to know that the same content, c2, is used in the associated concepts of time dialation and length contracrion. But...both of these phenomenon are directly related to Einstein's Theory of Relativity that is fundimentally expressed in the profound equation E=MC2. Therefore the use of C2 in the two additional calculations is clearly consistant with the same constant used in Einstein's primary equation E=MC2. Additionally, the compound use of the same constaint, C2, makes its importance even more pervasive and profoundly significant to understand. This brings us full-circle back to the initial inquiry as to why SQUARING the speed of light is the crucial factor to the equation that unlocks one of the greatest secrets of the universe, that all static mass can be directly expressed and understood as energy. Why then does the squaring of the known speed of light play the crucial role in unlocking this secret? Why wasn' t, for example, just using the speed of light alone sufficent to unlock this profound and critically fundimental secret? What does the squaring of the constant crirtically do to this equation?

Ewmon....Thank you for your reply. The phrase 'derivation of the equation' makes a lot of sense with regard to my question. My real thought is Why is this constent, C squared, the majic bullet that reveals the amount of energy that exists in a static mass? Second, and even possibly more abstract, HOW did Einstein determine that by squaring the value of the fastest known speed inthe universe was the constsant that was needed to unlock the key to the fact that enegry and static mass are eqaul? Here are the reasons I have such questions. The speed of light is the absolute known speed in our universe. Everything else is relative and subserviant to be. It sets the 'speed limit' for all other things. Therefore it fastinates me that Einstein would conclude that it was necessary to go vastly far beyond that number, @ 186,000 miles per second, and square such an absolute value in order to make his conclusion about the equality of static mass and energy make sense mathematically. Does anyone know or has anyone read HOW Einstein hit on that value for his constant in this most well known and famous of all physics formulas?

reply: I do understand that C squared is used as the constant in the equation; but my question is WHY must the speed of light number be squared in order for the formula to reveal that Energy = the static mass of an object?

I have never read anywhere, our heard an explanation of, WHY the speed of light figure, @ 300,000,000 meters per sec, has to be squared, light speed times itself, in order for the conversion of energy to mass or vis-versa can be understood. The squaring of the number seems to suggest that an enormous speed of @ 9x10 to the 16th meters per second is needed to convert mass energy to light energy or visa-vie. Has anyone read anything on this matter? The equation in question is E=MC2...