Is God inexperienced?

Greetings AW:

Just to clarify, are you saying that God is an actual entity that can be contacted, and I assume communicated with?

[quote: Those of us who take origin in time can not do that yet.]

A:
Yes, there is this personal side to him that makes him contactible even in time, just as those who are personal and designed to grow without time, may also contact that personal side of him.

This is the reason two terms are used to refer to God, and both are true at the same time:

God is the personable and contactible side of reality;

Deity emrbaces not just God's personality, but also the non-personal aspects of him. When I refer to non-personal, I am referring to the material universe. Deity controls the material and the personal, but God loves the personal as a person himself. I find it very convenient when talking about the nature of God, to use these terms when it helps define who does what.

AW:
What about during astral projection, where our consciousness is used to control the astral body, in the astral dimension; A dimension that has no time, and transcends the physical.

A:
If I may, let me define some things about astral projection that will help the answer to be better understood.

There are three kinds of time senses we have:
1) Intellectual time (literal time of minutes and seconds)
2) Spiritual time (the sense of duration not tied to minutes and seconds. It is the sense of time one gets when with someone you enjoy so much you forget how much time has passed)
3) Personality time (the sense of presence and its lasting feeling)

Astral projection involves spiritual time senses because the person who is able to do it, detaches the astral form, which usually is not the aura and its associated radiation, but in fact is the soul which has matured sufficiently to have its own consciousness when it is accompanied by spiritual guardians or teachers or guides.

The soul is a combination of two energies, the material energies of yourself and the spiritual energies of the co-parent to the soul - the indwelling spirit within your mind circuits. When projected, the soul is able to retain memory and experience if aspects of the personal self accompany it and the indwelling spirit rehearses the memory to retain it. You can not do this by yourself in spite of what seems to be a singular experience. Always must there accompany you someone in spirit to make it work.

Because you are using your own form (astral) and because it is composed of the material and spiritual energies, its sense of time is spiritual but the duration of the projection is calculated be the intellect of your material mind. If the memory of the projection is placed in the near-term memory of mind, you will recall the beginning and the end but have no real sense of the duration in between. The intellect knows it begins and ends, but the spiritual aspect feels timeless even though it can not operate in a timeless sense. It is just the difference in sensing between the two senses of time.

The soul (astral body), once it takes form, grows too. At some point it is mature enough to receive an education about your next step in the ascension career. Such an education begins on earth, but you are not conscious of it until you leave the body behind and clothe the soul in a new form that has all the bells and whitsles you wished for while living on this planet.

I hope this helps to answer your questions.

Ron

Originally posted by ivanglam
In terms of Matter in Space and time, matter is not infinate. It is quantative and measureable. The same goes for Time. Time is measureable. Matter in time is measurable. If all of these things are measurable, then infinity is not possible.

You can measure some matter, and some spacetime. What has never been done is to measure all matter or all spacetime. There's no law against measuring finite subsets of infinite sets. The number line is infinite, yet we have no problem using finite aspects of it. Try again.

Originally posted by Aronolac
There was a condition in the universe when time did not exist, and that conditions even exists today.

I assume you're referring to the speed of light? Notice that light propogates through spacetime. Note also that if you could travel at lightspeed, you would never notice any nonexistence of time. In neither reference frame does time fail to exist.

If it were possible to accelerate a tuna sandwich to lightspeed for 100 years and then stop it, it would still be edible, and I suspect that's the phenomenon your referring to? There is no reason to even suspect such a phenomenon is independent of spacetime.

Spamandham -

You say:
If it were possible to accelerate a tuna sandwich to lightspeed for 100 years and then stop it, it would still be edible, and I suspect that's the phenomenon your referring to? There is no reason to even suspect such a phenomenon is independent of spacetime.

A:
If the sandwich were released in the time-space sectors of the universe, what you say is likely to be true.

But I am not talking about the time-space portions of the universe when I say there is a zone of infinity at the core of the universe than never, and never will, have time.

Two things have to be understood why this is so:

1) The purpose of the universe is creative and not material projections of quantifiable bits and pieces of the universe.

2) Time and space are endowments-- gifts if you will-- to segments of the universe. These conditions never had to exist to have life, but if the universe wishes experience to occur, then they had to find a way to allow sequential events to play out so beings like ourselves could play a part in them, manipulate them, change them. In the core universe there is neither time or space because there is no need for experience in infinity. There it is already known what experience produces in any conceivable event.

The universe has design and it works with laws the we can observe and calculate in its material manifestation.

It also has laws about how mind works. It has laws as to the workings and behavior of spirit. Science CAN learn these other laws, but first it has to be able to figure out a way to observe the systems that produce mind and spirit and in what way these systems behave as a totality first and second, observe and describe the parts later.

You can not quantify an idea, but you can observe and describe the mechanism through which ideas are produced.

You can not quantify love, but you can observe an describe what produces attraction.

All of this is to say, that love and ideas and even pre-matter, are not part of the physical universe as we know it, and if there were not areas in the universe such as the central zone of infinity, no higher concepts could exist other than the ability to measure the observable physical universe in time.

Love in its purist form, and ideas in their purest form, and matter in its purest form only exist in infinity. In fact, in infinity they are of one reality. But in time, we experience a dilution of these ideals, because time breaks everything down into little segments and pellets of experience. We are not designed to take on the purest love because it is of such tremendous power that our physical forms could not hold it. And so it is with the ideals of many of the things we grasp only fleetingly in time.

The over riding law of the universe is that it is creative and that it has a destiny, a purpose. Its secondary manifestations such as time and space obey this first mandate to carry out the creative intentions of God. time and space are the conditions of the basic platform the universe serves as to house and develop beings like we humans who have almost no powers of our own. We are far from powerless, but in comparison to the Creator, we are puny indeed.

Your sandwich could travel 70 trillion parsecs, and if God so willed that it arrive fresh for the first hungry human to find it, it would be delicious and as fresh as the day it was made. God neither needs time or space, but we do, and we tend to think only in its terms because we are so conditioned by it. God is not conditioned by anything except his choices to restrict his actions so that we humans may learn by our own choices.

And finally this:

Because the original Creator, the I AM, is infinite, should he go for a walk in time and space, his very presence would convert it, instantly, to his reality of unqualified infinity. That would destroy every living creature that depends on time and space to grow. So he does not go for those walks by himself and sends less than infinite Deities to work in those areas designated to receive time and space. The original Creator lives and works with his coordinates in the zone of infinity in the central core universe because that ultimately, is home.

Ron

Originally posted by Aronolac
But I am not talking about the time-space portions of the universe when I say there is a zone of infinity at the core of the universe than never, and never will, have time.

You're welcome to provide evidence for your claims, but as it stands, I have no reason to even suspect what you're saying is true.

Originally posted by Aronolac
1) The purpose of the universe is creative and not material projections of quantifiable bits and pieces of the universe.

I see no reason to even suspect the universe has a purpose.

Originally posted by Aronolac
You can not quantify an idea, but you can observe and describe the mechanism through which ideas are produced.

You can not quantify love, but you can observe an describe what produces attraction.

Qualia are not proof of metaphysics. While it's true that we don't understand qualia, that isn't the same as being beyond comprehension. Gaps in knowledge do not prove magic.

Originally posted by spamandham

Originally posted by ivanglam
In terms of Matter in Space and time, matter is not infinate. It is quantative and measureable. The same goes for Time. Time is measureable. Matter in time is measurable. If all of these things are measurable, then infinity is not possible.

You can measure some matter, and some spacetime. What has never been done is to measure all matter or all spacetime. There's no law against measuring finite subsets of infinite sets. The number line is infinite, yet we have no problem using finite aspects of it. Try again.

Big Bang

Originally posted by ivanglam
Big Bang

1. There was "nothing".

2. "Bang".

3. There was everything.

Now I understand your confusion. (1) and (3) are false premises.

Originally posted by spamandham

Originally posted by ivanglam
Big Bang

1. There was "nothing".

2. "Bang".

3. There was everything.

Now I understand your confusion. (1) and (3) are false premises.

I'm sorry, but how do you KNOW they are false premises? By all means state your opinion, but unless you were around at the formation of the universe - you KNOW nothing about it. Know you believe, don't believe you know.

This is the kind of disagreements that lead no where.

There are no proofs for the big bang as there are no proofs for a lot of the theories science states.

At root of the problem is that our culture has become materialistic and many, not all, who are in the sciences adopt that view through which to work. It leads to statements about the universe that do not include all of its makeup.

Even though the respondents above may see science as the source for the whole explanation of the nature of the universe, it would be very helpful to also keep in the back of the head that the universe is based on creative purposes. That opens the door to the possibility that some Original Cause much more sophisticated than an explosion set the universe into motion.

While the universe may be based on creative purposes, that does not mean it is not in part a material and mechanistic system of reaction and counter-action. Our science is immature and is guessing at the original mechanism that set the material universe into action. Things like the string theory offer greater insight than does the big bang idea, and in all of this, it would be very helpful to allow that there are things about the universe that are quite mysterious and without formula.

One does not have to approach the universe from a religious point of view either to understand that light and gravity behave oddly under given circumstances, and that these two phenomena are not absolute or at the base of the formation of the universe either.

It takes philosophy along with science and religion to begin to see what our environment is made of, and our consciousness should be a big hint that matter does not dominate. The choice of the scientist or student to believe or not believe is also a miracle of decision, and no rock or moon however great its size, can do that. All that is asked for now is that in some part of yourselves do allow there are other possibilities beyond the 100% material explanation for the cosmos.

Ron

Originally posted by Simon_the_byron
I'm sorry, but how do you KNOW they are false premises?

Any set of premises that lead to contradiction are known to be false. It really isn't that hard.

Originally posted by Aronolac
There are no proofs for the big bang as there are no proofs for a lot of the theories science states.

There is no proof of anything actual. There is only evidence. In that regard, there is evidence for the big bang. What there isn't evidence of, is that "before the big bang" has any meaning.

Originally posted by Aronolac
At root of the problem is that our culture has become materialistic and many, not all, who are in the sciences adopt that view through which to work. It leads to statements about the universe that do not include all of its makeup.

Mythical thinking is what leads to statements that can not be verified.

Science can accept whatever it discovers. If we determine that there is more than what we can observe (and we have good reason to suspect that is the case), science will not dogmatically refuse to accept it. We will try tirelessly to understand. What we won't do is allow baseless speculation to take the place of actual understanding.

Originally posted by Aronolac
it would be very helpful to also keep in the back of the head that the universe is based on creative purposes.

There is no reason to even suspect this might be true.

Originally posted by Aronolac
It takes philosophy along with science and religion to begin to see what our environment is made of, and our consciousness should be a big hint that matter does not dominate.

Our lack of understanding of consciousness is not as deep as you might think. But even if we had no understanding of it at all, it is no more evidence of something beyond the natural than gravity is, which we also don't really understand. Philosophy is about attempting to understand through reason, not wild eyed speculation.

Spamandham: Any set of premises that lead to contradiction are known to be false. It really isn't that hard.

Not quite true, my friend.

A simple premise we know the answer to, by experience, can be successfully tested.

Example: Fire is cold.

We know from experience that the premise is wrong about the nature of fire.

How about this premise though?

Example: The boy is really tall.

To prove the premise that indeed the boy is really tall you first have to tell me how he is tall in reference to what?

tall when comparing him to ants?
tall when comparing to his classmates?
tall comparing him to midgets?
tall comparing him to other tall people?

Well, you see it is almost endless. Therefore, when I listen to someone who says, "The boy is really tall," I have to make an assumption about the statement from my experience about tall people and weed out what you PROBABLY do NOT mean. If I somehow get the weeding out wrong, that is where we get into an argument.

Let us look at the statement that the universe started with a Big Bang. Science made a premise here. It has assumptions in it.


Science assumes by looking at other big bangs in its telescopes, that nature starts everything off pretty much the same way. That is an assumption.

Science assumes in this theory that there is NO other mechanism around to produce the motion of galaxies or heat residues. That is an assumption.


Science assumes that matter comes together or disperses only in certain ways either through heat, cold ,pressure, gravity, and so on. Nonetheless, that is an assumption about how matter is transformed and moved.

I won't go on with the other assumptions in the theory, but all these assumptions start to take a toll on the theory, and everytime you use an assumption, science reduces the probability of having it right by some percentage.

But what discovery could be made to give science more options to base a better theory upon? We can name a few:

What would it do to the big bang theory if it were discovered that there is something called space respiration? - - Actual motion of space, NOT IN space, but OF space, and that the uniform expansion and then contraction occurs in space cycles?

or

What would it do to the big bang theory if we learned that our telescopes are looking across horizontal/dimensional space plates containing galaxies that roate around a central core in opposite directions?

or

What would happen to the calculations about gravity dependability if we learn that there is yet another force that acts upon gravity we have not taken into account? Suppose we learn that gravity bulges sometimes because of the presence of anti-gravity, a real force and not just the absence of gravity?

No premise is any better than the information we base it upon, and if science does not know enough information, or gets wrong information, it almost always guesses wrong. Belief in science is necessary to reduce ignorance, but such a belief is not to be used to deny there are much better explanations to our material origins than the sometimes laughable theories we get from scientific research.

This is why it is important to ask the right questions about a premise before buying it, because the one stating it may only have 2 facts supporting his conclusions while there are 100 out there that prove him wrong. He will only show you the two or five facts he's found so far to prove him right, and not the 99 others that will send him back to the drawing board.

There is a place in the universe where matter does not obey the laws of time space. And everytime one removes the context of time and/or space, then every time will matter do something else not observed here. Not all universes are dual in construction.

WE make mighty big statements about the universe from a tiny dot of a planet in an outpost so far distant from the center of all things, we hardly have had the time to observe the possibilities space offers us. Our sciences have 3 small centuries to apply its methods; we are not even completely out of the age of superstition in our conscious evolution. Humility should be the watchword and it would be the wise attitude to take of any would-be scientist or religionist at this stage to allow us to absorb the real truth if it is to be known.

Ron

Originally posted by Aronolac
Fire is cold.
The boy is really tall.

These are qualitative statements, not contradictions. They may or may not oppose common sense, but they are still logically consistent. An example of a contradiction is "there was a time when time did not exist".

Originally posted by Aronolac
Science assumes by looking at other big bangs in its telescopes, that nature starts everything off pretty much the same way.

Other big bangs!??

Originally posted by Aronolac
Science assumes ...

Science makes many assumptions, but they are not extracted from aether, they are inferred from observation. They are also not held as sacred. These assumptions can be proven wrong if they are wrong, and often are. The very nature of science is to attempt to disprove the assumptions.

Originally posted by Aronolac
What would it do to the big bang theory if it were discovered that there is something called space respiration? - - Actual motion of space, NOT IN space, but OF space, and that the uniform expansion and then contraction occurs in space cycles?

It would change the theory of course, same goes for the other what-ifs.

Originally posted by Aronolac
No premise is any better than the information we base it upon,

...but those based on something are at least better than those based on nothing at all.

Originally posted by Aronolac
Belief in science is necessary to reduce ignorance, but such a belief is not to be used to deny there are much better explanations to our material origins than the sometimes laughable theories we get from scientific research.

Are you actually suggesting that statements such as "god did it by magic" are less laughable or better explanations?

Originally posted by Aronolac
Humility should be the watchword and it would be the wise attitude to take of any would-be scientist or religionist at this stage to allow us to absorb the real truth if it is to be known.

Do you consider it humility to make claims about the nature of reality that you can't possibly know? Or, is it a greater act of humility to observe and see where those observations lead, even if they lead to recognition of your own mortality?

Hello Spamandham,

SaH
These are qualitative statements, not contradictions. They may or may not oppose common sense, but they are still logically consistent. An example of a contradiction is "there was a time when time did not exist".

A:
They are logically consistent only if one has past experience with the qualities involved. My argument is that science does not have experience with the qualities involved in the universe. So its statements are mostly by chance are correct until there is experience with the quality.

There is another problem. We only have time language to describe timelessness. Our language is self contradictory because we do not have the opposite term that refers to timeless experience except for the word eternity, but that presupposes one was finite first before they became eternal.

SaH:
Other big bangs!??

A:
A comparison. Science sees solar systems and they compare it to the atom; science sees the results of stars and even solar systems colliding and compares it to the same forces that spewed out the universe in a big explosion.


SaH:
Science makes many assumptions, but they are not extracted from aether, they are inferred from observation. They are also not held as sacred. These assumptions can be proven wrong if they are wrong, and often are. The very nature of science is to attempt to disprove the assumptions

A:
Only God is sacred and so even the religionist does not mistake God’s work as God himself. Science infers facts as the religionist does and both are about past experience with other observations, spiritual or material. That one can quantify the force of an explosion does not mean that the religionist can not quantify his experience with, for example, presence - also a force. The calculations can be made for both phenomena; one is through the system of mathematics and the other through the calculation of the feel of the pull of personality gravity - an actual sense that calculates degree.

All you need recall for this demonstration is to remember those individuals who, when around you, you would call striking and could command the room. What should we infer from this phenomenon? That it is not valid evidence of things that go to the origin of the universe?

Science is not the only human activity that may discover new facts, and we need only remind ourselves that much of what science accomplishes today would appear to be magical to the nineteenth century religionist. Likewise, does science view as magical the experience of religionists only because science is still in the nineteenth century about the origins of the universe. It is positively embarrassing to thinking people that to link the universe origin of intelligent life to the idea of its spontaneous generation out of an explosion will satisfy very many.


Religion has used magic and superstition, but science, because the scientist can not separate himself from his own evolution entirely, has also used it. The pot and the kettle both have the black smudges of error in this regard.



SaH:
Do you consider it humility to make claims about the nature of reality that you can't possibly know?


A:
How do you know that someone does NOT know it? What may be a quandary to one may be, by experience, an understandable fact to another. It seems to me that fairness dictates that genuine experience has to be respected when it is not obvious in these situations about what links the scientist to the religionist. While both are different sides of the same coin, the connections between science and religion are not exclusive at all, but coordinated through the experiential mind, the common denominator of spirit and religion.


No one is ever going to say that one should exist at the expense of the other. That is futile thinking. No one can calculate God for no one knows what infinity is like– that is the work of the philosophers to infer such from the experience of the religionists. But it is because of this unlimited capacity of God to keep the universe going that science will never quite reach the end of its discoveries just as one new number can be added to the last number to uncover the limitless panorama operating even in the material universe.


SaH:
Or, is it a greater act of humility to observe and see where those observations lead, even if they lead to recognition of your own mortality?


A:
One’s own mortality in the physical sciences is an end unto itself. If you believe this, then you are taking the philosophy of science to its bitter end.

However, should the scientist transcend his own methods to qualify facts by daring to hope that he may qualify the fact of his death, not as a finality, but as THE transcendent moment in a transference of his consciousness to be able to observe again, then you are fact to face with an honest moment when they discover they are not just a scientist, but also a philosopher, and a religionist.

How one can experience awe in the presence of the majesty of the physical universe and still not glimmer a single thought about his part in the grand cosmos, is not beyond most people to think just that way. It is humbling, and the humbling feeling needs to be sometime remembered when there is the temptation to only see the splendor of the universe in terms of an accident consequent upon a theoretical explosion.

Thank you for taking me to task.

Ron

Originally posted by Aronolac
Hello Spamandham,

Hello Ron!

Originally posted by Aronolac
They are logically consistent only if one has past experience with the qualities involved.

What you are referring to is nomological consistency. Nomological consistency requires both logical consistency and observational consistency. Anything that is not logically consistent is automatically also not nomologically consistent even if it can not be disproven through observation. So, assuming "cold" means what it typically does in ordinary language, "fire is cold" would not be nomologically consistent, but it would be logically consistent. However, "there was a time before time" is not logically consistent, and so it is automatically also not nomologically consistent.

Originally posted by Aronolac
There is another problem. We only have time language to describe timelessness. Our language is self contradictory because we do not have the opposite term that refers to timeless experience except for the word eternity, but that presupposes one was finite first before they became eternal.

Is this a really problem with language? Our language does not support concepts related to timelessness precisely because such concepts are outside our ability to observe. You can describe it only in terms of what it isn't, or by usage of vague analogies, or possibly you could describe it mathematically. There is no linguistic difference between "timelessness" and "nothingness".

Originally posted by Aronolac
A comparison. Science sees solar systems and they compare it to the atom; science sees the results of stars and even solar systems colliding and compares it to the same forces that spewed out the universe in a big explosion.

This isn't at all where the concept of the big bang comes from. "Big bang" is an unfortunate choice of words, since the actual theory has nothing at all to do with explosions in the normal sense.

Originally posted by Aronolac
Science infers facts as the religionist does and both are about past experience with other observations, spiritual or material.

The religious do not infer facts, they make them up. They look for holes in knowledge and rather than humbly admitting that such holes exist, they fill them in with magic, and then proudly point out that their "explanation" is superior since it has no holes.

Originally posted by Aronolac
All you need recall for this demonstration is to remember those individuals who, when around you, you would call striking and could command the room. What should we infer from this phenomenon? That it is not valid evidence of things that go to the origin of the universe?

Like I said, everything that does not have an immediate simple answer is assumed to be supernatural by those with mystical mindsets. Just because you don't understand something, does not in the least imply that no natural explanation is possible.

Originally posted by Aronolac
Science is not the only human activity that may discover new facts, and we need only remind ourselves that much of what science accomplishes today would appear to be magical to the nineteenth century religionist.

Are you trying to make my point for me? Science has filled in many of the holes that were once "explained" with magic or gods, and as a result, we now understand nature fantastically more than we once did.

Originally posted by Aronolac
It is positively embarrassing to thinking people that to link the universe origin of intelligent life to the idea of its spontaneous generation out of an explosion will satisfy very many.

Oh I see. Anyone who disagrees with you is not "thinking people". You can hardly maintain an open mind when you've already written off opposing positions as mindless. I don't know what you mean by "spontaneous generation" in this context, but if you are referring to the instantaneous formation of life from non-life, I can see why you would find such an idea embarassing. I'm curious who you think is promoting such a concept?

Originally posted by Aronolac
How do you know that someone does NOT know it?

I don't. All I know is that I have yet to see a coherent case made for it, and have thought extensively about these things for years and have not been able to make a coherent case either.

Originally posted by spamandham

Originally posted by Simon_the_byron
I'm sorry, but how do you KNOW they are false premises?

Any set of premises that lead to contradiction are known to be false. It really isn't that hard.

It is only a contradiction based on the words used to describe the situation. There may be no contradiction there at all apart from in a liguistic sense and we don't KNOW either way.

Originally posted by Simon_the_byron
It is only a contradiction based on the words used to describe the situation. There may be no contradiction there at all apart from in a liguistic sense and we don't KNOW either way.

You're welcome to describe it using consistent language if you want. I've never seen it done, but perhaps it's possible. If you can not even describe it in a way that makes sense, you need to start questioning whether or not you actually have a concept, or whether what you have is instead a bunch of loose analogies based on everyday experience, with no insight at all.

Thank you Spam&ham.

I was not aware of the formal name for this type of logic. Thank you for pointing it out.

I would like to spend a little thought on the problem with language, especially its conditioning by time.

Read this language from a text book that is attempting to explain that using time languages to provide eternal concepts automatically introduces contradictions if taken literally. I am not asking you to even attempt to understand what they are trying to teach, but to observe their discomfort with having to introduce the subject knowing distortion results because they have no choice.

P.1157 - §1 It is a truth that the Absolutes are manifestations of the I AM-First Source and Center; it is a fact that these Absolutes never had a beginning but are co-ordinate eternals with the First Source and Center. The relationships of absolutes in eternity cannot always be presented without involving paradoxes in the language of time and in the concept patterns of space. But regardless of any confusion concerning the origin of the Seven Absolutes of Infinity, it is both fact and truth that all reality is predicated upon their eternity existence and infinity relationships.

See Paper 105, Page 1157, end of section 3 of The URANTIA Book text book, for complete context.

This is what I mean when I say that theoretical science is TOO LITERAL. The universe is nuanced but the approach of science is gross in its numerical translation that origins can be measured by its effects. We don’t know all the effects to begin with, and we ignore a lot of them in the second place. Science expects a sequence of events, when in fact to understand the universe as a complete model of itself, non-sequential events dominate origins. Theoretical science is actually hampered by insisting on using language that is completely inadequate to the task.

I need only reflect on the kind of answers science gives about something they think started the whole universe off. The numbers and the observations are impressive, but they are all so time constrained that their meanings are lost as to what the observations pertain to.

It is unfortunate that we have not reached the stage in our civilizations where we can admit that our origins, even our solar system origins, are far more complex than what the text books are teaching today. Information is pouring into our little planet about what did happen to bring our solar system into existence, yet science considers it a point of honor to ignore good advice as to where to look for their explanations, and insists on the inadequate explanations for its cause.

Forget the big bang as a subject for the moment. Let us take something easier to conjecture: What caused the appearance of retrograde motion in our solar system? Why are some of the planets tilted at odd angles to the equator of the sun? Science itself is beginning to question this evidence as something more than a partial disruption of our sun during one of its maximum extension phases.

Now if we are just beginning to get the drift that in our own little stellar neighborhood that we have something out of whack, how do you think we can get it right for something that is out of our sight and without any measurements from the center? I could reference a fair number of these problems.

I also am aware that those individuals who work in science and who attempt to explain our origins are usually individually who honestly search for the best answer to explain what they have observed. The trouble with all of us, scientists included, is that we fail to know the importance of some clues, and compound the problem with not enough give and bend in our time presumptions.

Oh, it will eventually work itself out since science will have presented to it the magic you keep thinking God resorts to until they can measure the three dimensions of deux et machina on their doorstep. This time though it is not stage prop, and science and its attitude of what is true and what is not, will have to take a major re-write in what they believe about how we got here.

I am aware that you really can not answer this except to give your view of a future with science and the failure of this little prediction above because science is there to debunk these kinds of things. But in the next ten years you happen to run into something that sounds too good to be true and is incredibly true anyway, look for a smiling Aronolac in your travels. He’ll treat you to all the champagne you wish to have!

Thank you for engaging me on my favorite subject :-)

Ron

Originally posted by Aronolac
Read this language from a text book that is attempting to explain that using time languages to provide eternal concepts automatically introduces contradictions if taken literally...

Ah, Urantia. I guess I should have seen it coming.

The relationships of absolutes in eternity cannot always be presented without involving paradoxes in the language of time and in the concept patterns of space...

Not only can they not always be presented, I have yet to see them presented without paradox. I do not claim my experience is universal, but I do automatically discount anything that can not be described consistently.

Why? Because without consistency, none of us has any idea what is being talked about. "There was a time when time didn't exist" only makes sense if you analyze a portion of the statement at a time, segregating the concepts in your mind.

Originally posted by Aronolac
Science expects a sequence of events, when in fact to understand the universe as a complete model of itself, non-sequential events dominate origins. Theoretical science is actually hampered by insisting on using language that is completely inadequate to the task.

You are free to make up new language. The problem is, you are stuck with your experience to draw from like the rest of us.

Originally posted by Aronolac
What caused the appearance of retrograde motion in our solar system?

God did it by magic? (a more complex answer involves the rotation of the earth, orbits of the planets, etc.)

Originally posted by Aronolac
Why are some of the planets tilted at odd angles to the equator of the sun?

God tilted them by magic?

Originally posted by Aronolac
I could reference a fair number of these problems.

God (or the devil if you prefer) created all these "problems" by magic to cause us to stumble?

Originally posted by Aronolac
But in the next ten years you happen to run into something that sounds too good to be true and is incredibly true anyway, look for a smiling Aronolac in your travels. He’ll treat you to all the champagne you wish to have!

Do I have to wait ten years? My cup is dry right now. :w: