I've just finished watching (OK...watched about half of then turned off in disgust) a NOVA special called "Intelligent Design on Trial". Disgust, because for an 'educational' program, it was pretty telling that halfway through a dissection of the theory, they had yet to detail what it was. Although they had made it plenty clear it was an outrage, and evil, and all that stuff.
Anyone familiar with my stances on manosphere issues will tell you, I quite often mix and match different 'disciplines' to suit the reality I prefer. And while I am not a religious man by any stretch, I do believe there is a God, and moreover, I see no exclusivity to either 'Darwinism' or Religion.
I will digress here a little bit to explain the 'God' thing, by going into Documentary Physics (my favourite pastime, Michio Kaku is a modern day hero) a bit. Astrophysics, to begin with. Everyone knows about the Big Bang and all that Jazz, and Galaxies, and the Universe goes on 'forever' (even though we can't comprehend it). What people usually don't know, is that until Edwin Hubble discovered Galaxies in the 1920's, we thought the Milky Way was all there was.
Another thing a lot of people don't know, is that we - relatively recently - discovered that the mass of everything visible...all the physical stuff we know about - isn't enough to account for it's behaviour, if the Theory of Gravity is correct (and it is, by the way). This is accounted for by theorizing 'Dark Matter' - mass we cannot see. How much of the Universe is Dark Matter? Around 84% of it. On a related note, 'Dark Energy' (guess what this is needed for to balance our equations) accounts for about 73% of the Universe's total energy output.
Which means, on practical terms, that the vast majority of even the known Universe is completely beyond our understanding at this point, if not forever, and we can only measure it's weak interaction with our own Universe.
And it gets weirder when you start to drill down. The word 'Atom' is Greek for 'indivisible', but as any schoolkid knows, that's not true. What fewer people know, though, is that those Neutrons and Electrons and Protons are all made up of subatomic particles like Quarks and Gluons, which are themselves made up of still smaller 'strings'. What a lot of people also don't know is that the vast, VAST majority of the space an atom occupies contains nothing...the model of 'planets in orbit' people usually think of when picturing atoms carries to scale as well...think how few and far between planets are, and you'll get an idea.
The composition of the 'strings' that make up the electrons and Protons n such? Information. Not even that really, more like a vibration of probabilities that behave according to laws we can actually write down equations for. But as for actual, physical stuff? Nah. None of that to be found.
Except we know that's crap, we see physical stuff all around us, it has to start happening somewhere....right? But where? This is a fundamental question that philosophers and physics guys are currently wrestling with.
But we have established that the Universe is, at it's heart, little more than information...er, probabilities....that really only decide themselves when someone cares to check. This means that real, physical objects utterly cease to exist, and yes, this applies to whole buildings, miles of countryside, mountains, you name it. If there's no one there to hear, then there IS no tree to fall.
There is even experimental evidence that matter can be in two places at once. As in, it's a known fact.
So, we have a giant universe, most of which we can't detect except through how it affects those things we can detect, which even in the case of things we can detect is mostly consisting of empty space, with tiny particles again mostly consisting of empty space embedded in it we call atoms that are really strings that are really just information....er, probabilities.
Speaking of probabilities, what are the probabilities, do you think, that the balance of the physical forces would be so precise as to allow us to exist? The snarky philosopher might say "100%", because we do, but it's a compelling question. Just how finely balanced are these measurements?
If you took the force of Gravity, for example, and made a measuring stick with a tick mark every inch long enough to stretch from one end of the Milky Way to the other, the "window" that had to be hit...the margin for error....was about four inches. Out of however ungodly huge number of inches there would be.
And the same can be said for the other three forces. And all four of those insanely unlikely probabilities had to all hit in the same casino, at the same time. Sure, the nature of infinity being what it is, probability says it's bound to happen.
Except there's this little problem of explaining that there is indeed a 'before', before the Big Bang. I wish physicists good luck on it, but this remains fundamentally unsolvable. So 'multiverse' is another way of saying "I don't know how we hit the astronomically unlikely odds, but we did". Yes, the math says this could be the case, but the math also suggests we are two dimensional beings, projected onto the outer 'skin' of the universe, that we are all essentially holograms.
I take all of this to mean the Truth is likely to be pretty fuckin weird.
But consider. All of the known Universe, everything you see locally and astronomically, all of it behaves according to laws laid down at the instant of the Big Bang. Fractals, another recent discovery, have not only allowed way better computer graphics, they have shown the mathematical way to modelling life forms. The shape of a leaf, or a conch shell, can be expressed as a math problem (shudder...thanks, I'll use my eyes), and show that life, today, obeys math homework assigned 13.7 Billion years ago.
Almost like it was part of an extremely anal retentive plan....like all the other math problems so far outlined. It is then hardly surprising that, as Darwin noticed, there are similarities between life forms, indeed it's quite likely that Darwin had the mechanism pretty much down.
But to my mind, this doesn't preclude the existence of a God at all. It merely describes, as with the Astrophysical journey, the Biological plan's path. And here again, science does not contradict the existence of God, or a spiritual realm for that matter. The human brain is such a complex mass of 'wires', that if you laid it out end to end it would go to the moon, and back, and then around the Earth....six times. That's one, single human brain.
And they are physically altered by thoughts...which should, I suppose, be obvious. Einstein, for example, had a little 'loop' on the part of his brain controlling his left hand. This happens with intense musical training, that sort of thing. People who don't play music, don't get this loop.
So, this incredibly complex organ can be shaped by the thoughts of its...er...self, physically...so what? Especially when you consider this amazing organ is composed of cells, which are actually atoms, which are subatomic particles, which are ultimately information...er...probabilities.
That can (theoretically) be mapped out with a math problem at the local University. Now THAT is some careful planning...hey? Especially since you had 13.7 Billion years to get a calculation wrong. Omnipotent...it means something.
The problem seems to be more a human-centric bias than a religious one. We just can't seem to get the image of the bearded dude on the gold throne out of our heads. Which is funny because God simultaneously made us 'in his image', and is 'everywhere at once' (talk about quantum relocation). I think the answer is that a few of the people writing down 'God's Word', or translating them hundreds of years later, or copying them for distribution, just might have taken a few liberties. I'll concede maybe it was to make things 'clearer', as opposed to an agenda, but I would still be shocked if it didn't happen (*cough*Niscea*cough).
We also, apparently, don't like the idea of not being created special to rule the universe. Out of all the Religious concepts I know of, that one right there takes the prize of 'most likely to have been inserted by a translator/church official' easily. We humans are merely the latest plateau in primate development. Deal with it...we are PART of God's plan, not the end result. I suppose if that makes you cry, you might want to revisit those 'seven deady sins' and look for one that fits...
This is when astrophysics, meets quantum physics, meets biology, meets theology. And where I start sounding weird (shut up peanut gallery).
I personally think the majority of 'Dark Matter' is what we would refer to as 'the Spirit World', and consists of the 'souls' of the dead in our plane of existence. I think a death there equates to a birth here, and vice versa.
In the Big Bang, Antimatter was created in nearly identical proportions to matter, and the small imbalance is what made up the known universe. I think a percentage of that Dark Matter...the percentage it 'outweighs' our own in fact...is the 'Mass of God'. Same thing with Dark Energy.
As to the form of God, no, I don't think 'He' is a dude on a throne any more than anything else. I think 'He' takes the Uncertainty Principle to a whole new level, and literally is everything and nothing, all at once and never. As for the 'God is everywhere' bit, keep in mind that Dark Matter surrounds every last atom in the known Universe, and the gravitational pull from Dark Matter (and Dark Energy...kind of) is necessary for anything to have formed at all. It is quite literally, everywhere.
When you hear explanations like "God is Love", I think you are hearing something closer to the truth. I think God is, in a way, literally a set of rules...those being necessary rules like Gravity and Electromagnetism as well as moral and behavioural rules. I believe we literally 'live within' God, and therefore the rules that govern our Universe and the rules that govern His 'Biology', are one and the same.
The obvious implication is that I am dancing close to the edge of 'Atheism with a nod to God' here, but this is not so. I believe that everything that is, has, or will happen is determined by a set of rules so exacting as to boggle the mind, and that literally every outcome of every decision of every being in the Universe is, if not pre determined, then calculable.
Morally speaking, I believe the 'rules' are set up to naturally favour certain behaviours and moral choices, and that Evil is given license to foment entropy, thus randomness, into the plan (within the bounds of the physical Universe, of course).
Is there a physical being? Of course there is. But just think how little of a physical being that encompasses the entire Universe it would take to completely overwhelm, or even eradicate, reality itself in such a tiny corner as the Milky Way. It wouldn't even equate to picking a scab.
Conversely, how much emotion, how much compassion, or intelligence, would a being the size and age of, say, the Sun have? How much beyond our comprehension is that, really?
Anyway, the point is, none of science precludes the existence of God...or even for that matter the possibility that God personifies here regularly as a white bearded dude on a gold throne, or even that God knew 13.7 billion years ago that if he nudged the Laws this way this much, Frank Peterson would meet the girl of his dreams in Manhatten on July 14th, 2006 AD (and get the clap).
It just means that people don't get to be the center of the Universe. And that there actually may be consequences to your actions, in the Biblical sense.
Anyone familiar with my stances on manosphere issues will tell you, I quite often mix and match different 'disciplines' to suit the reality I prefer. And while I am not a religious man by any stretch, I do believe there is a God, and moreover, I see no exclusivity to either 'Darwinism' or Religion.
I will digress here a little bit to explain the 'God' thing, by going into Documentary Physics (my favourite pastime, Michio Kaku is a modern day hero) a bit. Astrophysics, to begin with. Everyone knows about the Big Bang and all that Jazz, and Galaxies, and the Universe goes on 'forever' (even though we can't comprehend it). What people usually don't know, is that until Edwin Hubble discovered Galaxies in the 1920's, we thought the Milky Way was all there was.
Another thing a lot of people don't know, is that we - relatively recently - discovered that the mass of everything visible...all the physical stuff we know about - isn't enough to account for it's behaviour, if the Theory of Gravity is correct (and it is, by the way). This is accounted for by theorizing 'Dark Matter' - mass we cannot see. How much of the Universe is Dark Matter? Around 84% of it. On a related note, 'Dark Energy' (guess what this is needed for to balance our equations) accounts for about 73% of the Universe's total energy output.
Which means, on practical terms, that the vast majority of even the known Universe is completely beyond our understanding at this point, if not forever, and we can only measure it's weak interaction with our own Universe.
And it gets weirder when you start to drill down. The word 'Atom' is Greek for 'indivisible', but as any schoolkid knows, that's not true. What fewer people know, though, is that those Neutrons and Electrons and Protons are all made up of subatomic particles like Quarks and Gluons, which are themselves made up of still smaller 'strings'. What a lot of people also don't know is that the vast, VAST majority of the space an atom occupies contains nothing...the model of 'planets in orbit' people usually think of when picturing atoms carries to scale as well...think how few and far between planets are, and you'll get an idea.
The composition of the 'strings' that make up the electrons and Protons n such? Information. Not even that really, more like a vibration of probabilities that behave according to laws we can actually write down equations for. But as for actual, physical stuff? Nah. None of that to be found.
Except we know that's crap, we see physical stuff all around us, it has to start happening somewhere....right? But where? This is a fundamental question that philosophers and physics guys are currently wrestling with.
But we have established that the Universe is, at it's heart, little more than information...er, probabilities....that really only decide themselves when someone cares to check. This means that real, physical objects utterly cease to exist, and yes, this applies to whole buildings, miles of countryside, mountains, you name it. If there's no one there to hear, then there IS no tree to fall.
There is even experimental evidence that matter can be in two places at once. As in, it's a known fact.
So, we have a giant universe, most of which we can't detect except through how it affects those things we can detect, which even in the case of things we can detect is mostly consisting of empty space, with tiny particles again mostly consisting of empty space embedded in it we call atoms that are really strings that are really just information....er, probabilities.
Speaking of probabilities, what are the probabilities, do you think, that the balance of the physical forces would be so precise as to allow us to exist? The snarky philosopher might say "100%", because we do, but it's a compelling question. Just how finely balanced are these measurements?
If you took the force of Gravity, for example, and made a measuring stick with a tick mark every inch long enough to stretch from one end of the Milky Way to the other, the "window" that had to be hit...the margin for error....was about four inches. Out of however ungodly huge number of inches there would be.
And the same can be said for the other three forces. And all four of those insanely unlikely probabilities had to all hit in the same casino, at the same time. Sure, the nature of infinity being what it is, probability says it's bound to happen.
Except there's this little problem of explaining that there is indeed a 'before', before the Big Bang. I wish physicists good luck on it, but this remains fundamentally unsolvable. So 'multiverse' is another way of saying "I don't know how we hit the astronomically unlikely odds, but we did". Yes, the math says this could be the case, but the math also suggests we are two dimensional beings, projected onto the outer 'skin' of the universe, that we are all essentially holograms.
I take all of this to mean the Truth is likely to be pretty fuckin weird.
But consider. All of the known Universe, everything you see locally and astronomically, all of it behaves according to laws laid down at the instant of the Big Bang. Fractals, another recent discovery, have not only allowed way better computer graphics, they have shown the mathematical way to modelling life forms. The shape of a leaf, or a conch shell, can be expressed as a math problem (shudder...thanks, I'll use my eyes), and show that life, today, obeys math homework assigned 13.7 Billion years ago.
Almost like it was part of an extremely anal retentive plan....like all the other math problems so far outlined. It is then hardly surprising that, as Darwin noticed, there are similarities between life forms, indeed it's quite likely that Darwin had the mechanism pretty much down.
But to my mind, this doesn't preclude the existence of a God at all. It merely describes, as with the Astrophysical journey, the Biological plan's path. And here again, science does not contradict the existence of God, or a spiritual realm for that matter. The human brain is such a complex mass of 'wires', that if you laid it out end to end it would go to the moon, and back, and then around the Earth....six times. That's one, single human brain.
And they are physically altered by thoughts...which should, I suppose, be obvious. Einstein, for example, had a little 'loop' on the part of his brain controlling his left hand. This happens with intense musical training, that sort of thing. People who don't play music, don't get this loop.
So, this incredibly complex organ can be shaped by the thoughts of its...er...self, physically...so what? Especially when you consider this amazing organ is composed of cells, which are actually atoms, which are subatomic particles, which are ultimately information...er...probabilities.
That can (theoretically) be mapped out with a math problem at the local University. Now THAT is some careful planning...hey? Especially since you had 13.7 Billion years to get a calculation wrong. Omnipotent...it means something.
The problem seems to be more a human-centric bias than a religious one. We just can't seem to get the image of the bearded dude on the gold throne out of our heads. Which is funny because God simultaneously made us 'in his image', and is 'everywhere at once' (talk about quantum relocation). I think the answer is that a few of the people writing down 'God's Word', or translating them hundreds of years later, or copying them for distribution, just might have taken a few liberties. I'll concede maybe it was to make things 'clearer', as opposed to an agenda, but I would still be shocked if it didn't happen (*cough*Niscea*cough).
We also, apparently, don't like the idea of not being created special to rule the universe. Out of all the Religious concepts I know of, that one right there takes the prize of 'most likely to have been inserted by a translator/church official' easily. We humans are merely the latest plateau in primate development. Deal with it...we are PART of God's plan, not the end result. I suppose if that makes you cry, you might want to revisit those 'seven deady sins' and look for one that fits...
This is when astrophysics, meets quantum physics, meets biology, meets theology. And where I start sounding weird (shut up peanut gallery).
I personally think the majority of 'Dark Matter' is what we would refer to as 'the Spirit World', and consists of the 'souls' of the dead in our plane of existence. I think a death there equates to a birth here, and vice versa.
In the Big Bang, Antimatter was created in nearly identical proportions to matter, and the small imbalance is what made up the known universe. I think a percentage of that Dark Matter...the percentage it 'outweighs' our own in fact...is the 'Mass of God'. Same thing with Dark Energy.
As to the form of God, no, I don't think 'He' is a dude on a throne any more than anything else. I think 'He' takes the Uncertainty Principle to a whole new level, and literally is everything and nothing, all at once and never. As for the 'God is everywhere' bit, keep in mind that Dark Matter surrounds every last atom in the known Universe, and the gravitational pull from Dark Matter (and Dark Energy...kind of) is necessary for anything to have formed at all. It is quite literally, everywhere.
When you hear explanations like "God is Love", I think you are hearing something closer to the truth. I think God is, in a way, literally a set of rules...those being necessary rules like Gravity and Electromagnetism as well as moral and behavioural rules. I believe we literally 'live within' God, and therefore the rules that govern our Universe and the rules that govern His 'Biology', are one and the same.
The obvious implication is that I am dancing close to the edge of 'Atheism with a nod to God' here, but this is not so. I believe that everything that is, has, or will happen is determined by a set of rules so exacting as to boggle the mind, and that literally every outcome of every decision of every being in the Universe is, if not pre determined, then calculable.
Morally speaking, I believe the 'rules' are set up to naturally favour certain behaviours and moral choices, and that Evil is given license to foment entropy, thus randomness, into the plan (within the bounds of the physical Universe, of course).
Is there a physical being? Of course there is. But just think how little of a physical being that encompasses the entire Universe it would take to completely overwhelm, or even eradicate, reality itself in such a tiny corner as the Milky Way. It wouldn't even equate to picking a scab.
Conversely, how much emotion, how much compassion, or intelligence, would a being the size and age of, say, the Sun have? How much beyond our comprehension is that, really?
Anyway, the point is, none of science precludes the existence of God...or even for that matter the possibility that God personifies here regularly as a white bearded dude on a gold throne, or even that God knew 13.7 billion years ago that if he nudged the Laws this way this much, Frank Peterson would meet the girl of his dreams in Manhatten on July 14th, 2006 AD (and get the clap).
It just means that people don't get to be the center of the Universe. And that there actually may be consequences to your actions, in the Biblical sense.
Congratulations Admin! Thank you so much for taking the time to share this exciting information.
ReplyDeletehunting texas