Sunday, September 20, 2009

Surfing the Evolutionary Waves of Cosmic Energy

This is a continuation of yesterday's post. One year later, it has finally been spell-checked and fortified with fresh new unassailable (but not unassholeable -- just watch) truths.

Becoming is the mode of activity of the uncreated God. --Hermes

In the bosom of Time, God-without-beginning becomes what He has never been in all eternity. --Angelus Silesius

We've posted on the subject of the needlessly ambivalent relationship between evolution and Christianity on a number of occasions. Again, it poses no problem for (small o) orthodox Christians, for whom it is mostly a big "whatever." However, a question nevertheless remains, which is to say, how does it all fit together and work out in practice, not just theory? In other words, what is the relationship between the theology and the science?

Many scientists and religious believers (including countless scientific believers) know that there can be no real conflict between religion and science. But this is like saying there can be no conflict between mind and matter. True enough, but we'd still like to know how it all works.

As I mentioned somewhere in my book, I had no interest in using science to try to prove the existence of God, at least after some initial research that settled the issue to my satisfaction. Rather, since I already knew that God existed, I wanted to understand what the universe had to be like, given God's existence. Much more interesting question. This approach only makes sense, because God is obviously not limited or constrained by science, but science is quite obviously constrained by God.

In ether worlds, nothing can happen in the word of science that is inconsistent with the existence of God. To cite one prominent example that comes to us via quantum physics, if this were a Newtonian universe of logical atomism -- i.e., a cosmos of completely disconnected parts -- that ontology would be radically inconsistent with the existence of the immanent God. To put it another way, the infinite sea of quantum potential is a kind of exteriorized mirror image of God's interior.

Yesterday I linked to this article, noting that the Vatican maintains that the theory of evolution is fully compatible with the Bible: "In 1950, Pope Pius XII described evolution as a valid scientific approach to the development of humans, a view that was reiterated by Pope John Paul II in 1996."

The article continues: "Creationism is the belief that God created the world and all life in six days as described in the Bible. The Catholic Church does not read the Genesis account of creation literally, saying it is an allegory for the way God created the world. The Catholic Church teaches 'theistic evolution,' a stand that accepts evolution as a scientific theory and sees no reason why God could not have used a natural evolutionary process in the forming of the human species. It objects to using evolution as the basis for an atheist philosophy that denies God's existence or any divine role in creation. It also objects to using Genesis as a scientific text."

Now, I realize that I have some so-called "fundamentalist" readers who read the Bible literally, and I have no intention of alienating or getting into an argument with them, any more than I will argue with our Darwinian fundamentalist trolls. It goes without saying that the religious fundamentalist is infinitely closer to ultimate truth than the Darwinian fundamentalist, in that at least the religious fundamentalist does not absurdly and beclowningly deny the Absolute. But I think you have to concede that no one reads the Bible literally, unless you really believe that Christ is a door or that Peter is a rock.

Where the metaphysical Darwinist absurdly denies the Absolute, the religious fundamentalist either denies or devalues the relative. This topic is covered in detail in chapter two of Perry's On Awakening & Remembering: To Know is to Be, entitled The Twin Pitfalls of Fanaticism and Relativism, and perhaps we'll get into that later. The point is, what we call "fundamentalism" is a modern and even postmodern deviation from integral truth. In fact, I believe it can be seen as a kind of irrational overreaction to the demonic relativism of postmodernism, into an inverted mirror image of irrational "absolutism." But genuine absolutism always makes room for the relative, since it is the prolongation of the vertical into the horizontal -- which is precisely why religion is such a gas, and why we have so much more fun down here than the pagans.

As Chesterton noted, one reason to become Christian is that it represents a superior philosophy, not just theology. Therefore, there shouldn't be anything in it that doesn't make an appeal to our intellect; or, to put it another way, our intellect (and remember, this refers to the higher mind, not the ego) should be able to find its rest in Christian theology.

And it should accomplish this not by obliterating, escaping, or compartmentalizing the relative, but illuminating it "from above" in an entirely new way. I can only speak for mysoph, in that this is certainly how it was for me. Again, I was coonvicted by my intellect, not by a crisis, or a need to fit in, or by virtue of being born into a certain predigested worldview. Christianity is simply a much deeper and intellectually satisfying philosophy than any form of materialism, including of course metaphysical Darwinism, which unexplains much more than it can ever explain about man as such.

But for the same reason, I am opposed to anything that would make Christianity look like a foolish or inadequate philosophy. I consider that to be a kind of sin against the Holy Spirit. Anyone who has had to overcome a bad case of Jesus Willies will know exactly what I mean. My inability to embrace Christianity earlier in my life was not only a matter of pride, nor only a result of the ubiquitous distortions and intellectual dishonesty of the radical secularists.

Rather, there was a considerable amount of stupidity -- and therefore spiritual darkness -- in the forms of Christianity to which I was exposed, and which would have required an absence of self-respect on my part in order to embrace. And lack of self-respect is not the same as humility. True, one must enter it as a child. But that is again a very different thing from being childish. Humility is merely objectivity toward the self. Thus, one can both over- and underestimate the human station in general and oneself in particular. Always remember that we are in the image of the Creator. That's saying a lot. It has many more implications than you may realize, for it means that a certain kind of rigorously applied introspection can reveal the nature of God (not in himself, of course, but in reflected or analogous way).

Anyway. Let's get down to details. We begin with the axiom that the world is created. But who created it, and of what is it created? It is (note the present tense) created by a conscious being out of conscious energy, which it must be. Now, we can argue over the nature of this conscious energy, but not with a physicist, because they concede up front that they have no earthly idea what it is. They can believe whatever they want, but it will be a matter of faith. The question is whether the faith is warranted or misplaced. And if you are nothing but a Darwinian replicating machine, it's a pretty safe bet that your faith in yourself is wholly unwarranted.

The cosmos is not necessary, but contingent. It did not have to be, and yet it is. Therefore, its existence is a result of freedom, or a free act. Which, by the way, is where all this glorious freedom comes from, in case you didn't know. But for a Christian, it goes a little deeper than that, because freedom itself is neither here nor there. Rather, as Ware points out, while "God created the universe by an act of free will," "Nothing compelled him to create; he chose to do so. The world was not created unintentionally or out of necessity; it is not an automatic emanation or overflowing from God, but the consequence of a divine choice."

But I don't think that is quite accurate. I would tweak the language just a bit, to say that the world may not have been automatic, but it was nevertheless inevitable, given the divine nature. The divine nature being what it is, it could not help but radiate and communicate the Good, the True, and the Beautiful -- just like a beautiful human soul who radiates truth and decency. As above, so below. The point is, the cosmos is completely unnarcissary, just like the Creator. He's a giver.

Therefore, freedom and creativity inevitably bear upon love. As Ware writes, "In so far as such a question admits of an answer..., God's motive in creation is his love. Rather than say he created the universe out of nothing, we should say that he created it out of his own self, which is love.... Creation is an act not so much of his free will as of his free love."

This is something I attempted to make plainly obscure in the opening and closing and reopening pages of the Coonifesto. As Ware writes, "The circle [get it? Circle?] of divine love has not remained closed. God's love is, in a literal sense, 'ecstatic' -- a love that causes God to go out from himself and create things other than himself." This is the famous love that removes the sin and other scars, speaking Allighierically. It is also of course what Petey means on pages 13-14, where the One "falls in love with the productions of time, hurtling higgledy-piggledy into jivass godlings and samskara monsters (Boo!) all the way down." The point is, this free act of divine love is necessarily going to result in both maya and monsters, more on which later. The monsters can't be helped, for there is no one Good but the One. Yes, goddinpottys are inevitable, and in their own perverse way proclaim the existence of God.

Here is another subtle point that I attempted to make clear in the book. The events described in my huge mythunderstanding are not of the past -- which can only be located in the horizontal -- but in the present, or the vertical now, in which the divine energies perpetually flow into Creation (failure to heed this distinction is, I believe, a central fallacy of religious and scientistic fundamentalists, who both deny the ceaseless vertical activity of the atemporal now). Thus, as Ware points out,

"Creation is continual. If we are to be accurate when speaking of creation, we should use not the past tense but the continuous present. We should say, not 'God made the world, and me in it,' but 'God is making the world, and me in it, here and now, at this moment and always.' Creation is not an event in the past, but is a relationship to the present."

Which is why you are called (i.e., it is your summa voc-ation) to live your life with love and creativity, or even "creative love," which is again to be a proper mirror and image of the Creator. Or, to quote Augustine, "Creation precisely affirms a principle of origin, but not necessarily a principle of duration.... God is before the world of duration, yet the word 'before' does not mean a priority of time, but of eternity...."

Again: God's creative activity is in the present, as the roaring torrent of eternity perpetually pours into the little channel of time. This is what Toots Mondello meant when he made the cryptic and easily misunderstood comment that the life of the Raccoon involves "channel surfing." Or at least that's how we interpret it today. In fact, I'm surfing that eternal wave right now, as it channels into cyberspace.

Man was introduced last among existent things, as a natural bond between the extremes of the whole through his own parts, and bringing into unity in his own person those things which by nature are far distinct from each other. Drawing all things out of their former division and bringing them united to God..., he finally reaches the goal of the sublime ascent... --Maximus the Confessor

Surf's Up
Aboard a tidal wave
Come about hard and join
The young and often spring you gave
I heard the word
Wonderful thing
A children's song...
--Brian the Surfer

41 Comments:

Blogger julie said...

"I wanted to understand what the universe had to be like, given God's existence. Much more interesting question."

Yes, that's how I wound up here, too. Having finally decided a few years ago that god can't not be, I realized that the most important thing one could do with one's life is discover the ramifications of that truth and act accordingly.

Anyway, back to reading...

9/20/2009 08:40:00 AM  
Blogger julie said...

Having finished, what more could I possibly add?

This is why I'm still here every day.

9/20/2009 08:54:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Not looking at me
nor looking at you;
eyes to the heavens,
glad that what I know
you know, too.

9/20/2009 09:23:00 AM  
Blogger Ricky Raccoon said...

One of your most important posts, Bob.
And somehow you managed to make it one of the most beautiful too.
Or could not help yourself. Which I think is sort of like a blessing on it.

9/20/2009 10:04:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"It goes without saying that the religious fundamentalist is infinitely closer to ultimate truth than the Darwinian fundamentalist, in that at least the religious fundamentalist does not absurdly and beclowningly deny the Absolute."

Somehow they're closer to the ultimate truth when they can't even accept the truths right in front of them? I think you give them too much credit over "darwinists." Somebody who accepts modern evolution isn't really a Darwinist either, that's just a label(and an incorrect one at that).

But ultimately what you're saying is they know an ultimate truth, but do they really know it? Or do they just believe it, without actually thinking about it? I think those who just believe could ultimately be deceived into believing a false ultimate truth, and in that sense they're further off than the 'darwinists.'

You can be wrong rejecting an ultimate truth, but you can't be more wrong than accepting a false ultimate truth.

9/20/2009 10:35:00 AM  
Blogger debass said...

The Beach Boys-another too often tragic fate of creative genius.

9/20/2009 10:40:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

In that sense, 'darwinists' just deny what they don't know, which is only taking it as far as your own limitations. The fundamentalist Christians take it a step further by claiming knowledge of something they clearly don't know. They've overstepped their own limitations, and they put themselves even further from the 'ultimate' truth than the the atheist.

9/20/2009 10:40:00 AM  
Anonymous Petey said...

Only from the standpoint of time.

9/20/2009 10:42:00 AM  
Anonymous Petey said...

In other words, the fundamentalist nevertheless remembers the "one thing needful," especially from the perspective of eternity.

9/20/2009 10:52:00 AM  
Blogger julie said...

The fundamentalist Christians take it a step further by claiming knowledge of something they clearly don't know.

Knowledge is as knowledge does.

Those who know the Word and follow it to the best of their abilities are light years ahead of those who deny the Word on the grounds that it hasn't sufficiently proved itself to them, and can't be dissected under a microscope or a telescope.

A teloscope is helpful, but of course you have to first power it on...

9/20/2009 10:56:00 AM  
Anonymous visest said...

And what of YOU Anon?
Does what you just rationalized somehow make you feel better about your own convictions?

9/20/2009 10:57:00 AM  
Blogger julie said...

Ricky's place - just go read it.

9/20/2009 11:03:00 AM  
Blogger julie said...

"Creation is continual. If we are to be accurate when speaking of creation, we should use not the past tense but the continuous present. We should say, not 'God made the world, and me in it,' but 'God is making the world, and me in it, here and now, at this moment and always.' Creation is not an event in the past, but is a relationship to the present."

I had a dream the other night, about a tiny cluster of cells, curved in a shape almost like a little boat. As I watched, a fluttering motion began in its center...

9/20/2009 12:50:00 PM  
Blogger Van said...

"But I think you have to concede that no one reads the Bible literally, unless you really believe that Christ is a door or that Peter is a rock."

LLC (Long low chuckle).

Oh my... I look at my notepad, and the quotes I've pulled from the post... are only about 2 sentences shy of the entire post. I should probably just say "Yep" and leave it at that.

However, being afflicted with long-winded-itis... that isn't an option. Okay, I'll pick one quote.

(blink)

Nope, can't do that either, same reason. Two? Nope. Ok, three... seems appropriate.

"The point is, what we call "fundamentalism" is a modern and even postmodern deviation from integral truth. In fact, I believe it can be seen as a kind of irrational overreaction to the demonic relativism of postmodernism, into an inverted mirror image of irrational "absolutism." "

Yep, and even of pre-post modernism... as I think is reflected in the 'Great Awakening' that swept England and the Colonies during the 1700's... not understanding in detail, but a reacting in general, to the 'philosophies' that modernism was asserting HAD to be accepted in place of their own personal experience of life. Lacking a detailed understanding of what their own understanding meant, a reaction to any understanding that opposed theirs, was probably ineveateapple.

"The cosmos is not necessary, but contingent. It did not have to be, and yet it is. Therefore, its existence is a result of freedom, or a free act. Which, by the way, is where all this darn freedom comes from, in case you didn't know."

Excellent! In more ways of One!

"The divine nature being what it is, it could not help but radiate and communicate the Good, the True, and the Beautiful -- just like a beautiful human soul who radiates truth and decency. As above, so below. The point is, the cosmos is completely unnarcissary, just like the Creator. He's a giver... The events described in my huge mythunderstanding are not of the past -- which can only be located in the horizontal -- but in the present, or the vertical now, in which the divine energies perpetually flow into Creation (failure to heed this distinction is, I believe, a central fallacy of religious and scientistic fundamentalists, who both deny the ceaseless vertical activity of the atemporal now). "

Not a lot to add to that, except that it seems to be absolutely the primary message and value to a person of Religion... it seems... self evident... even though it is evidently rarely noted... maybe it requires self awareness to be self evident....

(Ok, technically that's four quotes (alright, 5), please refer to earlier stated reason for explanation)

9/20/2009 01:10:00 PM  
Blogger Van said...

Julie said "I had a dream the other night, about a tiny cluster of cells, curved in a shape almost like a little boat. As I watched, a fluttering motion began in its center..."

Hmm... got one of those 'ept' test kits handy?

Just sayin'

9/20/2009 01:16:00 PM  
Blogger Anonymous_1 said...

"In {ether worlds} [Should this be "other words"?], nothing can happen in the word of science that is inconsistent with the existence of God."

As you mentioned earlier, this presupposes the existence of God. It is a logical conclusion, to an a priori assumption, but it doesn't prove your original premise.

"To cite one prominent example that comes to us via quantum physics, if this were a Newtonian universe of logical atomism -- i.e., a cosmos of completely disconnected parts -- that ontology would be radically inconsistent with the existence of the immanent God. To put it another way, the infinite sea of quantum potential is a kind of exteriorized mirror image of God's interior."

I don't understand any of this. This is my field though, or rather, was my field, until I retired from The Ivory Tower. What do you mean, for a Classical deterministic Newtonian Universe, when you say "a cosmos of completely disconnected parts"?

9/20/2009 02:51:00 PM  
Blogger Gagdad Bob said...

Hmm, not sure where to even begin. You might try Whitehead's Adventures of Ideas and Science and the Modern World, and take it from there.

9/20/2009 03:03:00 PM  
Blogger Gagdad Bob said...

An excellent book of more recent vintage is The Restitution of Metaphysics by Errol Harris.

9/20/2009 03:06:00 PM  
Blogger Gagdad Bob said...

Now I can't recall whether Modes of Thought might be a better place to begin with Whitehead....

9/20/2009 03:13:00 PM  
Blogger Anonymous_1 said...

Thanks for the references. I'm familiar with Whitehead, but only as the co-author of Principia. I've never read any of his essays/books dealing with metaphysics.

I suppose my dilemma is with the "disconnected parts" phrase, in paragraph I quoted earlier. In a Classical Newtonian Universe, isolated objects are still "connected", they are connected, or interact, through fields which can be represented as externally applied forces. I probably don't understand the context that defines your use of the word "disconnected".

9/20/2009 04:15:00 PM  
Blogger Gagdad Bob said...

Basically, we're talking about the distinction between a metaphysic of logical atomism vs. one of field relations. My understanding is that in classical physics, the world consists of independent bodies moving about in an absolute space, which serves as a kind of receptacle or stage on which the motions take place.

But in modern physics, it is my understanding that things are not so much in space as of space, and that space, time, matter, energy, and velocity are all inseparable. Virtually all of the great physicists of the 20th century talk about the radical interconnectedness of reality, the ultimate expression of which is in the phenomenon of nonlocality. In my opinion, nonlocality is simply an ineluctable expression of the interior wholeness of the cosmos, a wholeness that is expressed at every level of reality, e.g., biological wholeness, psychological wholeness, and spiritual wholeness. Nonlocality is the key to understanding the mysteries of life and mind, not to mention mystical union.

However, please again note that I do not arrive at metaphysics via physics. Rather, I begin at the other end, with metaphysical truths that "cannot be." That being the case, then the universe must be an interconnected field of energy. It couldn't be otherwise, or else we could not exist, let alone know truth.

I hesitate to disclose any of this to an actual physicist, for whom this is probably all pretty repulsive.

9/20/2009 05:03:00 PM  
Anonymous Job said...

I once saw a PBS show about geologists studying the land from Wyoming to Portland and they reasoned that the peculiar geology of the area, like the Grand Canyon, had to be formed over 10's of thousands of millenia. But one geologist, thought that there was a better explanation. He posited that instead of billions of years, that the glaciers had formed an ice damn on the major rivers in the area and that after the water (as deep as the ocean in some places) pressure on the ice dam had increased so much that the force of the water started burrowing out the base of the ice dam, until a cataclysmic rupture occurred and the water swept across the country from Wyoming to the Pacific, forming all the geological formations that science had attributed to billions of years of erosion. They recreated the event on a much smaller scale, using a small scale pool used by shipbuilders to determine hull designs. The results showed that all the geology that had been attributed to those billions of years happened in five minutes at some time in the past, not the billions of years. My point is this: God is GOD. He can do anything, with anything, at anytime, in any way he so desires. It is foolish to limit God (or I would be Anonymous) because it would be a joke for me, the pimple on the pimples ass, to even try. So I don't know how HE did it, NOR does it MATTER. People like godinpotty use these matters to try and deny or limit God. Even if
Fundamentalists put their fingers in their ears and yell Na-na-na when people talk to them, they are still light-years ahead of Anonymous, because the only thing that makes us "Just" in God's eyes, is faith. (Unless of course you want the revised liberal edition - King Obama Edition - of the Bible which says that progressives can rule in Gods place - all praise "dearest leader".)

9/20/2009 05:19:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I wish we could move the subject back to the supposed evils of leftism.

I am a committed leftist. For example, when I go places I purposefully forget items so that I can claim that I "left" them at home.

When driving, I only perform left turns. It makes things more difficult yet makes a statement.

I was born right-handed, yet I taught myself to everything with my left hand. It wasn't easy.

That is how committed I am to the leftist cause.

How about you right wingers? Do you only talk or do you DO anything about it?

9/20/2009 05:28:00 PM  
Blogger julie said...

Hey Van, you mean one of these? No, no plans to pick one up.

9/20/2009 05:41:00 PM  
Blogger Anonymous_1 said...

OK, then this is a difficult topic indeed. Newtonian statics, with non-local action at a distance, and then classical fields, propagating information at c, required for E&M/gravitational dynamics…coupled now with local and non-local characteristics of quantum phenomena. When it comes to conceptual complexity, this is the pinnacle!

I hesitate to disclose any of this to an actual physicist, for whom this is probably all pretty repulsive.

No, not repulsive, merely curious – I’m not dogmatic, just inexperienced when it comes to metaphysics. The scientific method, applied to the physical sciences, is a fairly new technique. Newton’s postulates have only been knocked around for 350 years, while the postulates of QM are less than a century old, and are still being worked out.

9/20/2009 05:50:00 PM  
Blogger Gagdad Bob said...

Job:

Good point. I remember reading a book that came out in the early 1990s -- I think it was called The End of Progress -- that claimed that human progress had essentially come to an end, that there were no big discoveries or huge transformations coming.

Being that we are in the image of the Creator, to say that progress is at an end is analogous to saying that God can no longer create -- which is to say that God is not God. This is why I am not the least bit concerned about "climate change." Even if it weren't a hoax, there are future technologies that we literally cannot imagine.

But only if "progressives" get out of the way. One point Mises makes is that socialist policies literally slow down time and arrest the progress that would have occurred absent the socialist polices. Governments don't account for progress, unfettered human creativity does.

9/20/2009 05:56:00 PM  
Anonymous goddinpotty said...

Job said: People like godinpotty use these matters to try and deny or limit God.

Eh? Examples please.

I don't recall saying one word here against God, only against certain scheisskopfs who claim to speak for him.

9/20/2009 06:07:00 PM  
Blogger Gagdad Bob said...

Anonymous 1:

There are so many awful books on quantum physics -- beginning with the Tao of Physics -- that I no longer pay attention to them. For example, look at the dreadful Deepak's latest tweet:

"All ideas exist as possibility wave in the matrix of collective consciousness. Therefore there are no new ideas."

Such a moron.

I can no longer remember all of the books I have read on the subject, but one of the better ones was The Non-Local Universe. I don't know that it will appeal to a physicist, which is why I would recommend Whitehead, who immediately got the metaphysical implications of quantum physics and ran with it. But he's not always the most clear writer. Someone who came later is Errol Harris, who wrote a number of good books on the subject.

9/20/2009 06:09:00 PM  
Blogger julie said...

...socialist policies literally slow down time and arrest the progress that would have occurred absent the socialist polices.

One of the things that bothers me about omamacare is that if it passes, so much of the medical innovation we've seen recently will likely come to a screeching halt. There just won't be any incentive. All those people who're counting on promising new technologies to improve their quality of life within the next decade or two may find they're stuck with the same problems, given a couple of aspirin, and told that they should just suffer quietly for the common good. Oh, and that it's all the fault of big corporations.

9/20/2009 06:31:00 PM  
Blogger Susannah said...

I really liked the post. I draw a distinction between "fundamentalist" and "inerrantist," and place myself in the latter camp (at least in contrast to those fundamentalists who deny that God speaks to us today).

"Unnarcissary"--perfect!

"Christianity is simply a much deeper and intellectually satisfying philosophy than any form of materialism, including of course metaphysical Darwinism, which unexplains much more than it can ever explain about man as such."

That's just how I consider the Christian faith--the best rational explanation for it all.

"Humility is merely objectivity toward the self." Very interesting comment! Hmmm... Yes, I think that is true, because we can't be truly objective about ourselves without being rightly related to our Maker.

"Therefore, freedom and creativity inevitably bear upon love. As Ware writes, 'In so far as such a question admits of an answer..., God's motive in creation is his love. Rather than say he created the universe out of nothing, we should say that he created it out of his own self, which is love.... Creation is an act not so much of his free will as of his free love.

"This is something I attempted to make plainly obscure in the opening and closing and reopening pages of the Coonifesto. As Ware writes, 'The circle [get it? Circle?] of divine love has not remained closed. God's love is, in a literal sense, 'ecstatic' -- a love that causes God to go out from himself and create things other than himself.'"

I loved that bit particularly.

9/20/2009 06:40:00 PM  
Blogger Van said...

aninnymouse said "I taught myself to everything with my left hand. It wasn't easy."

Ah.

Hopefully you still shake hands with your right hand.

9/20/2009 06:51:00 PM  
Blogger Van said...

Julie said "Hey Van, you mean one of these?"

LOL!!!!

9/20/2009 06:53:00 PM  
Blogger Van said...

Gagdad said "Governments don't account for progress, unfettered human creativity does."

YesSireeBob!


wv:diespiq
Oh, wordveri is getting a bit vicious....

9/20/2009 06:57:00 PM  
Anonymous Job said...

Um....

"godinpotty"

Hmmmm...
Nobody that believes in the real God (yeh, the one between your ears that brought you to, and keeps you, at this blog) would be caught "dead" using that sobriquet.

Get it??? Obviously, NOT.

Game, set, match.........to God

9/20/2009 07:02:00 PM  
Anonymous ximeze said...

"However, please again note that I do not arrive at metaphysics via physics. Rather, I begin at the other end, with metaphysical truths that "cannot be.""

ummm, cannot not be?

9/20/2009 08:07:00 PM  
Blogger julie said...

Going back to government involvement stifling creativity, Breitbart's next expose comes out tomorrow...

9/20/2009 08:29:00 PM  
Anonymous ximeze said...

uh-o,
Queeg's meltdown
has made on to youtube


tw:AoS

9/20/2009 08:30:00 PM  
Anonymous goddinpotty said...

Silly me, I thought God was omnipresent. I also thought he was above playing tennis matches with mere individuals (although Death has been known to engage in badminton).

9/20/2009 08:49:00 PM  
Anonymous hoarhey said...

Thanks for a most excellent post Bob.

9/20/2009 10:25:00 PM  
Blogger USS Ben USN (Ret) said...

"But I think you have to concede that no one reads the Bible literally, unless you really believe that Christ is a door or that Peter is a rock."

Precisely, Bob! When speaking of Christian fundamentalists, it's helpful to note there are various degrees.

9/21/2009 05:24:00 AM  
Blogger Anonymous_1 said...

"All ideas exist as possibility wave in the matrix of collective consciousness. Therefore there are no new ideas." - Deepak

That’s a very entertaining quote from Deepak – a mesh of The Matrix sprinkled with Jung. I’ve been known to call Deepak an opportunist on occasion, which is not a harsh condemnation, since I consider myself an element in the set of opportunists, but I may have to up the ante, after reading this quote, to grandiose opportunist.

I can no longer remember all of the books I have read on the subject, but one of the better ones was The Non-Local Universe.

The Menos Kafatos text, The Non-Local Universe, looks very interesting, thanks; and I see that it discusses the important Gisin experiment.

9/21/2009 08:41:00 AM  

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home