Physics and Theology-- and your thoughts

[Abba]

No. I am not qualified to define “the spiritual,” although I recognize its existence, and have engaged it in an occasional healing work. It is clear to me that some people have an intimate connection with this side of reality, and it is for them to define it.

Now this is what I call a beautiful break through. I think the wall of the dome you have built around yourself to protect yourself is cracking and a filter of light is shining through. Woah! ‘intimate’… Yes, you are correct.

Never mind calling me a ‘religionist’ or a ‘Bible…something or the other’. Remember, I can quote the Bible in any forum here. That said, please do me the favor of reading this SLOWL*Y…

1 CORITHIANS 2

[1] And I, brethren, when I came to you, came not in loftiness of speech or of wisdom, declaring unto you the testimony of Christ. [2] For I judged not myself to know anything among you, but Jesus Christ, and him crucified. [3] And I was with you in weakness, and in fear, and in much trembling. [4] And my speech and my preaching was not in the persuasive words of human wisdom, but in shewing of the Spirit and power; [5] That your faith might not stand on the wisdom of men, but on the power of God.

[6] Howbeit we speak wisdom among the perfect: yet not the wisdom of this world, neither of the princes of this world that come to nought; [7] But we speak the wisdom of God in a mystery, a wisdom which is hidden, which God ordained before the world, unto our glory: [8] Which none of the princes of this world knew; for if they had known it, they would never have crucified the Lord of glory. [9] But, as it is written: That eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither hath it entered into the heart of man, what things God hath prepared for them that love him. [10] But to us God hath revealed them, by this Spirit. For the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God.

[11] For what man knoweth the things of a man, but the spirit of a man that is in him? So the things also that are of God no man knoweth, but the Spirit of God. [12] Now we have received not the spirit of this world, but the Spirit that is of God; that we may know the things that are given us from God. [13] Which things also we speak, not in the learned words of human wisdom; but in the doctrine of the Spirit, comparing spiritual things with spiritual. [14] But the sensual man perceiveth not these things that are of the Spirit of God; for it is foolishness to him, and he cannot understand, because it is spiritually examined. [15] But the spiritual man judgeth all things; and he himself is judged of no man.

[14] The sensual man: The sensual man is either he who is taken up with sensual pleasures, with carnal and worldly affections; or he who measureth divine mysteries by natural reason, sense, and human wisdom only. Now such a man has little or no notion of the things of God. Whereas the spiritual man is he who, in the mysteries of religion, takes not human sense for his guide: but submits his judgment to the decisions of the church, which he is commanded to hear and obey. For Christ hath promised to remain to the end of the world with his church, and to direct her in all things by the Spirit of truth.

[16] For who hath known the mind of the Lord, that we may instruct him? But we have the mind of Christ.

Thank you,

Abba

 

[greylorn]

Greylorn,

You can criticize and degrade others but let it not occur to anyone whomsoever to do the same with you, is that how it works? Why don’t you put aside that concoction of parsnip wine for a while, take a nice cold shower, go for a nice walk and say a nice little prayer. I suggest one to the Holy Spirit:

Come Holy Spirit
Come Holy Spirit, fill the hearts of your faithful and kindle in them the fire of your love. Send forth your Spirit and they shall be created. And You shall renew the face of the earth.

then, email your draft to Alberti_Devoveo. It’s a great opportunity to have him ‘tinker’ with the math. Let him take a look at it, Greylorn, he may make some helpful suggestions. Put your armor of pride on the side for a while and relax and stop building that wall. It looks as though it is already 10 feet thick - you may suffocate. You are not going to live forever and Devoveo may help you save some time.

Interesting, almost personal comment. I’m curious about where it comes from but do not expect to know. I will take you at face value.

Criticism is fine with me. It is essential to any learning process that I or anyone else undergoes, and I’ve been getting it my entire life— beginning with parents, teachers, childhood friends and classmates, even the occasional street thug and policeman-- moving upward to university professors, astronomers, engineers and the occasional physicist (work associates), plus a number of ordinary fools who show up in life to remind us not to get too comfortable here. Add to this three wives and some offspring, all females, and therefore impossible to please (with one interesting exception— the one offspring who actually paid attention to what I taught, and is now rich).

Where did you find me? Right here on CAF seeking more criticism.

You’ll note that human conversation is rather complex, and that criticisms, which are loaded communications to begin with, invariably disclose elements of the criticizer’s attitude. Mine certainly do, as do A.D.'S.

I did not undertake my particular calling, the reconciliation of science and theology, with any expectations other than those of having a foreshortened, troublesome, and isolated life. You think a ten foot wall is bad news? What’s behind it is worse. It is difficult to spend a lifetime developing ideas which 97% of the population will find disagreeable without becoming disagreeable in the process. I simply adapt to my chosen profession.

In the course of arguing and conversing with hundreds of individuals on my chosen topic, I’ve learned to distinguish the well intentioned from those who are often referred to by analogies with the posteriors of popular farm animals, critters which I personally appreciate. I have often been sucked into conversations, even friendship-level relationships with such individuals before coming to appreciate how well the aforementioned analogies apply.

My ideas are readily available for anyone who cares to examine and comment on them, right here on CAF in bits and pieces. They are also now publicly available.

RE: Your advice. Replace “Spirit” with “Intelligence” in your prayer and I could say, Of course. That’s my job.

The parsnip wine was a long ago family thing. These days I just buy my booze, which is an excellent painkiller. Walking used to be nice since I live among some mountains, but I’ve had to shoot a couple of rattlesnakes along the way on my most recent trips. My hearing is nearly shot, thanks to a dear ex-wife who hollered in one ear, and the best way to spot a rattlesnake is with one’s ears. Since my eyesight is headed into the toilet as well, hiking in rattlesnake country (with a crutch that I have to use on my shooting side) is just another challenge that I do not want. (And no, they do not taste like chicken at all. They taste like rattlesnake.)

 

[greylorn]

Now this is what I call a beautiful break through. I think the wall of the dome you have built around yourself to protect yourself is cracking and a filter of light is shining through. Woah! ‘intimate’… Yes, you are correct.

Never mind calling me a ‘religionist’ or a ‘Bible…something or the other’. Remember, I can quote the Bible in any forum here. That said, please do me the favor of reading this SLOWL*Y…

1 CORITHIANS 2

[1] And I, brethren, when I came to you, came not in loftiness of speech or of wisdom, declaring unto you the testimony of Christ. [2] For I judged not myself to know anything among you, but Jesus Christ, and him crucified. [3] And I was with you in weakness, and in fear, and in much trembling. [4] And my speech and my preaching was not in the persuasive words of human wisdom, but in shewing of the Spirit and power; [5] That your faith might not stand on the wisdom of men, but on the power of God.

[6] Howbeit we speak wisdom among the perfect: yet not the wisdom of this world, neither of the princes of this world that come to nought; [7] But we speak the wisdom of God in a mystery, a wisdom which is hidden, which God ordained before the world, unto our glory: [8] Which none of the princes of this world knew; for if they had known it, they would never have crucified the Lord of glory. [9] But, as it is written: That eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither hath it entered into the heart of man, what things God hath prepared for them that love him. [10] But to us God hath revealed them, by this Spirit. For the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God.

[11] For what man knoweth the things of a man, but the spirit of a man that is in him? So the things also that are of God no man knoweth, but the Spirit of God. [12] Now we have received not the spirit of this world, but the Spirit that is of God; that we may know the things that are given us from God. [13] Which things also we speak, not in the learned words of human wisdom; but in the doctrine of the Spirit, comparing spiritual things with spiritual. [14] But the sensual man perceiveth not these things that are of the Spirit of God; for it is foolishness to him, and he cannot understand, because it is spiritually examined. [15] But the spiritual man judgeth all things; and he himself is judged of no man.

[14] The sensual man: The sensual man is either he who is taken up with sensual pleasures, with carnal and worldly affections; or he who measureth divine mysteries by natural reason, sense, and human wisdom only. Now such a man has little or no notion of the things of God. Whereas the spiritual man is he who, in the mysteries of religion, takes not human sense for his guide: but submits his judgment to the decisions of the church, which he is commanded to hear and obey. For Christ hath promised to remain to the end of the world with his church, and to direct her in all things by the Spirit of truth.

[16] For who hath known the mind of the Lord, that we may instruct him? But we have the mind of Christ.

Thank you,

Abba

Curious that you would label something I’ve known for a long time as a “breakthrough.”

I am careful to peruse every comment to which I reply, after first simply reading it. There is a difference between “slowly” and intelligently. For example, try to speak or think real slowly. You will find your brain rambling, taking its own conventional trains of thought.

I greatly dislike Paul, and regard him as the first great enemy of Christianity, a perverter of Christ’s words and usurper of Christ’s intentions. He is, moreover, an enemy of intelligent thought.

In the sections you proffered, Paul puts down the “sensual” man who goes about life attending to his own needs and those of his wife and children (the physiological needs inherent in his and theirs God-created bodies, including the useful desire to procreate) and lauds the pinheads who let some organization do whatever passes for thinking, in their behalf.

Christ, however, respects the body’s needs and always encourages independent thought and enterprise. Christ was a genuine capitalist.

So, no thank you for the Paulist teachings. Christ, I agree with. Christ appealed to the human mind, the thoughtful component squirreled away within some of us. Paul is just another power hungry socialist manipulator of the human brain.

Christ and Paul are like Reagan and Obama— one appealing to the best within us, the other appealing to the worst.

Realizing that simply murdering individual Christians would not eradicate Christ’s excellent teachings, Paul made up a good conversion story and set about poisoning Christianity from within. Based upon observations of similar styles, corruption of core ideas from within, Obama may be his current incarnation.

IMO to get your head screwed back on and straight, study Christ’s teachings (Matthew, Mark, Luke), skip John, forget Paul. And to really appreciate Christ, go back to the early translations, before “son of man” got morphed into “Son of God.”

Just my opinions, mind you.

 

[greylorn]

Actually, no; inflation was invented to make the Lambda CDM work to fit the data.

The first form of inflation theory showed up about 12-14 years ago when a pair of theorists (forgot their names) set about to put BBT into mathematical form. To do so they needed to fudge the speed of light. This mathematical kludge morphed into the goofy inflation theory that cosmologists have come to know and love today.

At least, that is my best understanding of it. I could be totally wrong.

 

[Qoeleth]

Suppose that Augustine was born about thirty years ago to a physics professor father and mathematician mother, and that Aquinas was born about the same time to a philosopher and a psychologist, both men raised as atheists, well educated, and comfortably accepting the disbeliefs of their university peers.

Then suppose that each man has a transcendental experience (e.g: an excess of nitrous oxide in the dentist’s chair, a dose of LSD, an out-of-body experience on the surgeon’s table, or a near-death experience) that forces him to rethink his atheism and come up with something better.

Next suppose that they happen to meet one another, become friends, and share their experiences. Upon undertaking a mutual project, the discovery of a theology that explains their experiences, what might they come up with?

Of course devout religionists will reply that they would study various religious systems and adopt yours. because it alone represents God-given truth. So you guys do not need to post a reply.

I propose that they would begin by setting a standard for their theology, such as…

• Perfectly consistent with known principles of physics.
• Absolutely logical in all respects, containing neither internal contradictions nor contradictions between theory and perceived reality,
• Makes perfect motivational sense, answering the question of why God created man, with such simple clarity that the answer, once discovered, becomes obvious and sensible to everyone with an open mind.
• Of course it must also explain human consciousness.

Finally, suppose that they invited you to contribute ideas. What would you propose? What new and different ideas would *you *invite them to consider?

If that was the case, and neither had any religious context, the best approach would seem to be to have a kind of non-dogmatic awareness of the transcendent. If they had access to religious and philosophical literature and traditions, I would suppose adopting all of them as a range of possible systems of symbolism and vocabulary, with the awaress that non was a truth in itself, but only a set of images through which to approach truth. Then they could get some great music, and maybe continue with the LSD (I am joking about the last part!). But why worry about logic and internal consistency. The whole experience of the transcendent invites placing these things in epoche.

You are assuming religions work by forumlating doctrines. I think doctrine comes along only at a relatively late stage of religious development- first there is experience, then myth, then ritual, then ethics, then art. I would suggest doctrine should be adopted only insofar as was necessary to refute error (which, in fact, is what Christianity did)

 

[Alberti_Devoveo]

The first form of inflation theory showed up about 12-14 years ago when a pair of theorists (forgot their names) set about to put BBT into mathematical form. To do so they needed to fudge the speed of light. This mathematical kludge morphed into the goofy inflation theory that cosmologists have come to know and love today.

At least, that is my best understanding of it. I could be totally wrong.

For someone who has claimed ownership of a BS in physics and a job that is (was?) in astronomy, I do not at all understand how you could not know the history of the above. It confounds me that you can seem so intelligent, yet be so utterly simple.

– The big bang theory was derived from Einstein’s field equations (i.e., mathematical form) back in 1931 by Abbe Georges Lemaitre. Though, if I am not mistaken, Friedman has been sometimes credited with discovering it a decade earlier. I have never seen anything in any of my cosmology texts (Weinberg, Stewart, Wald, and Narlikar, to name a few of the authors) suggesting that the speed of light was fudged to ‘fix’ anything.

– Inflation theory showed up in the 1980’s to solve the flatness and horizon problems with Lambda Cold Dark Matter cosmology–the flatness problem is the geometry used in GR suggests a curved space-time but everything we see is not curved, the horizon problem is the issue that the universe is statistically homogeneous and isotropic and should not be due to communication issues (objects separated by distances greater than ct cannot communicate, so space should not be homogeneous and isotropic)–I have mentioned it before, but Fulvio Melia’s recent model, the R[sub]h[/sub]=ct Universe, eliminates the need for inflation, you should investigate this model.
The theory states that there was a more-rapid expansion between 10[sup]-35[/sup] seconds and 10[sup]-32[/sup] seconds after the big bang due to negative pressure vacuum energy density–of course this vacuum energy density is a kludge that needs some work, but that is an entirely separate issue.

I know Wikipedia is not the best source of information out there, but it states,

The Big Bang is a well-tested scientific theory which is widely accepted within the scientific community because it is the most accurate and comprehensive explanation for the full range of phenomena astronomers observe. Since its conception, abundant evidence has arisen to further validate the model.

It then gives a link to a UCLA website giving more information on the evidence. Someone has to be incredibly obtuse to ignore and/or refute the big bang theory as a piece of scientific work.