Glenn Lyvers

I suspect that most scientists would not trust empirical evidence if they met God and spoke with Him. Maybe the next day they would scratch their heads but as the days marched on, they would eventually conclude it did not happen as they perceived it because they cannot "prove it." I think many aspects of the God question comes down to what one considers proof. What constitutes proof? Imagine if you walked home from the store and found a grape on the ground. Nobody is looking and it looks tasty, so you eat it. Then you meet a bunch of scientists and you tell them, I found a grape and I ate it. They say to you, prove your claim or shut the hell up and be thought a liar. What can one do? How can one prove it to such men? Imagine hundreds of people who witness some miracle and pass the story to the next person until it eventually makes it way into written letters and books. It is found in numerous archeological digs for many many centuries. One man reads them, compares so many letters by so many authors and concludes, surely this must have happened. Another man overhears him and says that's not enough proof to constitute what "I" think of as proof. So prove your claims or shut the hell up and be thought a liar. What can one do? How can one prove it to such men? The amount of proof all people need cannot ever be satisfied. There will always be another man who will say, but that's not what "I" think of as proof.

For some reason the page was blank... I saw nothing.

I know there was a refrigerator which worked on sound waves. Most likely this technology. That might help you search.

All this talk about nothing is meaningless.

Assuming that mankind would or "should" do anything would seem to make a comparison to religion. After all, without religion, what is "good" or "decent" is only defined by what any group of people subjectively label as "good" - Hitler thought what he was doing was "good" and the rest of the world judged differently based on the ideas of "virtue" and "good and evil". What is "good or evil" if not the invention of religion? One can define how people "aught" to live based on what is beneficial or desired by others, but when a set of actions is inherently "good" then it definitely muddies the waters of anyone who wants to argue there is no God and that anything is inherently good or evil.

I agree with you that many theologians fail to teach a balanced approach to issues. I simply hoped to point out the religious support for the point of the thread, in order to contrast science and religion on this point which might have some common ground. Also, a certain amount of scrutiny needs to be given to religious texts, of course. They have survived for thousands of years, and as you rightly point out, this is due in part because, even from the very start, religion is both moral instruction and big business. Certain scriptures, like forcing tithing and commanding that people put no other interests before "God" (Don't lose sight of the topic please) are obviously suspect because they are so self-serving to the churches. I'll digress only a little more to state that you are correct that many things in doctrine are designed to serve the desires of the churches, particularly to force donations and the recruitment of more contributors. Theologians certainly fail to address this elephant in the room. I hoped to speak directly to the topic of the thread, and not to proselytize. To have a fair approach to open dialog here, one cannot assume that every reference to doctrine is an agenda. I think if you re-read my post with fresh eyes, you will see it was on topic and that I did not intend to proselytize. Peace, Glenn

Warning... God Speak Ahead!!! (On the topic of "what is prayer") Speaking hypothetically for a brief reply.... Prayer, for people of faith, is indeed a time to send messages to the creator they believe in. However, let's stop and think about what it means to assume one could ask God to work in his/her life. If one prays for God to change the world as it is, and grant them some type of special help or guidance, then one's belief that he does act also means that one believes: 1) The time line is not set. There is no future, because if there were, any change would destroy mans freewill or the autonomy of men as "God's creation". 2) That God in imperfect. This is because, a perfect creator would create a perfect world. One cannot change a perfect world, without making it imperfect. Therefore, for God to change it in any way, means he created it imperfectly, and is thus an Imperfect God. 3) That God does not already act in the best interests of mankind. To assume one can "change God's mind" through prayer, or otherwise cause God to act, is to declare that one does not have faith that God is acting properly already. 4) It also suggests that one is capable of understanding God, and that one believes the plan God has for him/her is somehow flawed. I could go on... but religious "prayer", as a tool to seek help and support etc... also carries with it numerous contradictions for people of faith. Prayer can be many things to many people, but for believers, it is fraught with discontents.

This is supported by scripture, but I'm sure you knew that. Most theologians believe and teach that the command "Thou shalt have no other God's before me" (See Exodus 20:3 (Deuteronomy 5:7, Judges 6:10, Hosea 13:4) is not a profession that other Gods do indeed exist, but rather what you said, that what people focus on is their "God". There are many other passages that speak to this but I don't want to say too much about that because showing examples of scripture might be misunderstood to be proselytizing or digressing from your point. Suffice to say, your point is well taken and I think that, while scientists and theologians may read it differently, many of them can agree on this idea. Peace

YouTube - Family Guy - Cosmos For Rednecks http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4TthHltjrvA

That's cool Sanctus, I knew what you meant.

If it is shown that it kills fish, then those washing machines should be banned. I hope that's not true. Thanks for the info, ... very interesting.

Yeah I heard about this guy. It turns out he used sterling silver to create his own collodial silver at home. The side effect of using impure silver is that the suspension liquid has larger particles, which end up in the skin. I recently met several people who have taken collodial silver for over 20 years, and they are not altered in their appearance. The guy in your video is a strange example for sure - and he is still taking it, though I hear he learned how to make it properly. Can you imagine being blue? That has to be a hard situation at times.

People say this (collodial silver) is not harmful, and indeed it kills both bacteria and virus type infections better than antibiotics etc. What's the truth of this?

I'm not sure yet, what your reply is intended to answer from my post. How does your hypothesis of how God manifests himself apply to the questions about 3rd and 4th dimensional space? I want to understand your point, but I am not quite there. Thanks, Glenn

Of course its all speculation. The idea that a time traveler would destroy his future, and appear to exist from no where (no past or future) as you put it is basically correct - but not exactly. His future would exist in the second time line he created. His "original self" as his past self would remain in the original time line where he came from, and the rest of the world would remain unchanged from his original time. This is because eternally, his jumping to another time line would have always happened. (His present moment would be privileged wherever he appeared on the respective lines) As a traveler, he would manifest himself on the separate time line in the third dimension as a three dimensional slice of his fourth dimensional (temporal) self. He would simply be spreading his slices between separate time lines. You can think of a time line as a world. It is a world where he exists, with all the contingent creation of the old. This split would not affect the world he came from, and his future in the new world would be set, unless he jumps again. You are right, that he would not have a past set in the new world (second time line) but it does not mean he would not have a past at all, or that it would create a paradox or causal loop. Additionally, he could not jump to and stay in a time line which is not new. So once he left this world, he could not return (hypothetically) because his future would not exist in that time. I know Wikipedia is lousy as a reference but you might read this short page. It explains the alternate universe hypothesis and other relevant points. I don't think it s accurate throughout but those points might be easier to understand from that post than my clumsy text on a BB. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temporal_mechanics So basically, I hope that makes sense and clears up any lingering questions about why we don't see time travelers popping in and out of our time line. Our lack of evidence in this time line does not in any way demonstrate that it is not possible, or otherwise actively happening in other time lines. Glenn

On of the general guesses about this phenomena (not seeing tourists around) is that, because this timeline is set, it is unchangeable. For example, you could not go back in time and kill your great great grandfather, because to do so would create an absurdity (paradox). Along that same thought, if you eat a bagel today, you can't go back to yesterday and eat that same bagel, because it already happened later. The events of the timeline are set in place. Therefore, if you do go back in time, and make a change, you alter the timeline and you would create a split in the timeline, thus you would exist in a new (separate) timeline. Thus, the people in this timeline would never encounter the people in the separate timeline. I hope that helps you understand the common answer to your question (hypothetically). It does cause problems, as in the great great grandfather example, and the possibility to create causal loops. Welcome to metaphysics.

Speaking from a metaphysical hypothetical. Let's assume that all time exists (generally referred to as the B series of time - temporal time). So the Past, Present and Future all exist right now. In fact, it is not even technically proper to refer to time in tenses, because all time exists simultaneously under this time theory. So we can only refer to time as a measurement (year/date/etc) or as events are relevant to each other. (This happened earlier than that.) OK, so if the B series of time exists, is it true that you still have freewill (Autonomy)? If tomorrow already exists, and what I am going to do is already set, and nothing I can do could possibly change it, then do I really have a legitimate choice?

My achievements are nothing compared to the state of nothingness I can achieve. But rather than brag, sometimes it's better to say nothing. YouTube - Extreme ComedY: SAY NOTHING http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wsEygXqaQXs

There is only speculation that time is a dimension at all. And if is it, does time incrementally unfold like a spiral into our universe, or is it we who are actually passing through the dimension of time, which already exists in the past, present and future. If time is a dimension, there is no evidence that it would be the 4th. It might be that the 4th is spacial, and the 5th it time. Or it could be that spacial dimensions are infinite, therefore time would not be the same type of dimension, it might be some type of universal which cuts through all spacial dimensions. ... Considering time as a dimension is common, but don't get hung up on the idea that it is necessarily the 4th, or 100th. I hope that helps get the brain whirling around more.

It really is a fascinating idea. For those who do not know the flatland story premise, (this is a dumbed down version) Imagine a world which exists in only 2 dimensions. Where there is no up or down. The creatures which live in this dimension can only move forward, backward, right and left. Due to the world they live in, they could not see what was above them, because for them, there is no above or below at all. Now imagine a creature from the third dimension (you) looking down and seeing this world, existing on a table top of sorts. It is flat, and you can see everything from above, undetected by the creatures that live there. You can even see inside of their bodies, houses, ... everything. You can enter that plane, but only by piercing it, and when you do, you too only have 2 dimensions within that plane. Therefore, you would appear only as a slice of yourself. YouTube - Carl Sagan's "Cosmos" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KIadtFJYWhw Now consider that you are a square creature in that 2d world, and you hear a voice which seems to come from everywhere, even from within your own form. You have no concept of up or down, so you cannot see the being which is speaking to you, and which seems to be able to appear and disappear at will. This being seems to have special information or insight about your world, which you do not possess. What would you think of such a creature? Now in 2D creatures have 4 primary directions (forward, backward, left, right) and in the 3rd dimension 2 more are added, up and down. In the 4th dimension of space, 2 more are added, anna and catta. Imagine that a being spoke to you, in a voice that seemed to come from everywhere, even from within your body. You have no concept of anna or catta, or sense to perceive that direction, therefore you cannot imagine where it might be coming from. What would you think? By moving anna or catta, this 4th dimentional being could appear before you in 3 dimensions, and then disappear at will. You learn from the voice that this being has special insight about your world, maybe even the future... would that not be considered by many to be a God?

Apathy is the suppression of the emotional response to a situation. Things like mercy, guilt, compassion and concern are suppressed. Disinterestedness, on the other hand, is a disconnection from the state of affairs. It is not a suppression of associated emotion, it is the lack of emotion due to non-interest. They are causally different, and because the tenant of the underlying state of affairs is different they can be appealed to differently. For example, someone who is apathetic would be appealed to by stressing the importance of the emotional response to a state they already understand. A disinterested person is appealed to by stressing the reasons for interest in the issue at hand.

Delicious! Nothing goes better with nothing like a big cup of anti-something.

Freeztar... Of course you are right. However, in this particular case, Hudson is referring to spacial dimension. I'm sure you have read Flatland. He references this. I can write a little bit about it is you are unfamiliar. Glenn

Excellent video. Very informative and logical. Thanks for sharing.