Fwd: Atropos...

-----Original Message-----
From: b <rrdd3939@aol.com>
To: rrdd3939 <rrdd3939@aol.com>
Sent: Tue, Dec 18, 2012 9:18 pm
Subject: Atropos...

 

"Antropos" followed by NEW NEW Version of "Preface/Epilog"

A Message from Urania: "My astronomy posts follow the philosophical

discussion of God/Mind-Body Problem/Religious and scientific floors.

Please check out my stuff...

 

Wait! Here's one for the road...

                                          ATROPOS

                                  by Citizen Journalist

The legend of Galileo...He was in the Cathedral of Pisa (the

cathedral's famous tower is nearby) and a candle in a

lamp hanging from the ceiling had just been lit. He watched it

swing. He timed it by measuring his pulse. He realized that

initially it had made a long arc. The arc got shorter and shorter.

Low and behold: It took the same length of time to make a full

swing back and forth for the long arc as it had for the short arc.

He discovered the principle of the pendulum in the 17th century.

Mechanical clocks had been around since the 13th century.

His discovery immediately resulted in the creation of more accurate

clocks --- such is genius.

    It became known as Galileo's lamp and is pointed out by tour

guides. There is one small problem: this particular lamp wasn't

installed until after Galileo's death.

   CJ: "I see by the old clock on the wall that my time is up."

 

 

 

 

NEW NEW below...

                                 
(New EXPANDED Version: Now with a SHOCKING Ending!!!)

                            Preface/Epilog: Save the Phenomena

                         by Richard DePerio and Citizen Journalist

                           Expanded by Richard DePersio

  (You can read from "Is There a God/Urania Presents/Plato's Man-

    in-the-Cave Series to Here or Opt to Read from Here to There)

Strange Bedfellows: RD is his own species of deist (same genus)

and a proud member of "Alliance Defending Freedom" which fights to

protect Amendment One in the Bill of Rights to the U.S. Constitution.

        At the very instant of the BIG Bang, God determined the laws of

physics with their constants. Billions of years later, primitive DNA

evolved which was able to replicate. It was in a state of limbo between

 being living and non-living like a virus is. It couldn't make the leap to

becoming a living cell. God had to intervene. Billions of years after

that He would enable prosimians, monkeys, apes, whales, dolphins

and porpoises to enjoy a modicum of self-awareness (consciousness)

and a level of comprehension of the immediate past and the

immediate future. Quite naturally, the most advanced ape - you -

would evolve the most advanced brain different in degree but not kind

from the other primates. This brain had a mind. Mind (soul?) exists in

the microtubules of nerve cells. The advanced brain and the mind

would quite understandably evolve to possess free will.

       You might describe Him as largely a do-nothing God who rarely

gets involved unless absolutely necessary. He started the cosmos

and enjoys watching his creation unfold. Why interfere? Perhaps,

for the most part, He can't do so -  being constrained by his own laws.

       Far-fetched? Please keep reading...
       You let go of an object and it falls. Billions of humans and

hominids have done it for millions of years. You can't let go of an

object and watch it rise? Can you? Are you a scientific realist guy/girl

or a save the phenomena guy/girl?

       The Ancients Greeks weren't attempting to describe absolute

reality, which is known only to the gods, but, attempting to construct

models which could successfully predict phenomena such as

eclipses. Our friend Plato feels that philosophers can glimpse reality

the best but not perfectly because we are encased in imperfect

bodies.

       Plato, and his student Aristotle, spoke of invisible crystalline

spheres within spheres to explain the universe. Geoge Abell in

"Exploration of the Universe" (1969; Holt, Rinchart, Winston, Inc.)

states: the spheres "were intended as mere mathematical 

representation of the motions of the planets. It was a scheme that

'saved the phenomena' better than the one before it, and in this

sense was successful...a scheme that would describe the

phenomena and would predict events...The epicycles of Ptolemy

(CJ: "on or not on spheres"), developed later, may similarly be

regarded as mathematical representations not intended to

describe reality."

      It should be pointed out that circles and spheres were

considered the most perfect geometrical shapes by the Greeks,

therefore, they probably thought that this was likely the way that

the gods were doing it. The Catholic Church would later embrace

it as literally true: Earth-centered with spheres within spheres

orbiting the earth; the celestial sphere consisted of only one

sphere and held the stars while the planets (sun, moon, Mercury,

Venus, Marts, Jupiter and Saturn traveled on spheres within

spheres).

     Scientific realists: electrons, genes, quasars, etc. are real and

 we really understand them. Science depicts reality. It also

applies to things that we cannot see: strings, dark matter, etc.

     We contend that a few scientists began to subscribe to

scientific realism between the Renaissance and the 1920s, it

became a large minority by the '70s and the vast majority since

then. We, therefore, disagree with the following statements:

"Exploration of the Universe": "...Ptolemy made no claim that

his cosmological model described reality. (CJ: "This is true.

Although, he might have thought that it might come close to

realitybut, His primary concern was prediction:"). He intended his

scheme rather as a mathematical representation to predict the

position of the planets at anytime. Modern astronomers do the

same thing with algebraic formulas." (CJ: "Ptolemy employed

geometry as algebra had not yet been invented"). Jagjit Singh

writes in his "Great Ideas and Theories of Modern Cosmology"

(1961; Dover Publications): "In natural science the most 'scientific'

' and 'up-to-date' view is that the laws of the universe are

unknowable and we can only construct more or less 'simple,'

 'economical,' or 'elegant' descriptions of phenomena. What 'really'

 happens around us can never be known. Hence the need for

grasping the 'true' essence of the universe by mystical intuition or

 spiritual second sight. Nor has cosmology been able to ward off

 the infection of God in some cosmological schemes to produce

 the 'miracle' of creation or 'guide' integrated evolution clearly

 shows." Jafjit thinks that religion should justify itself in its own

terms and not seek recourse in science which is a different

kettle of fish.

      While we consider 'scientific creationism' to be utter nonsense,

or, as critics call it 'the God of the Gaps,' we think it reasonable

to invoke God at the time of the singularity.

      We contend that the ancients felt that they may or may not be

depicting reality which they could only glimpse for it existed in

the heavenly realm, but, were successfully 'describing' nature in a

manner that enabled them to predict future events. In contrast,

today's scientists think that they are describing reality for sure and

that mathematics should suffice as proof.

      Our response: We are only 99% certain that the object won't

rise...and less certain of other scientific claims bordering on the

ultra-absurd: quantum physics; strings/branes; multi-verses; dark

matter and energy; Higgs-Bosons. We are fine with classical physics

 and relativity (even though the latter defies common sense, we

were won over by Al's thought experiments (rationalism) and the

abundance of experimental confirmation (empiricism).

Fair and Balanced: We claim that we have expressed positive, as

well, as critical views of God, religion and science in Plato's Man-

in-the-Cave Series. We have embraced ideas and attacked ideas

in both realms equally - we were duelists, so to speak.

FoxNews Alert: "Citizen Journalist released a statuette of Venus and

it rose! He said and we quote: 'You'll just have to take my word for

it. It happened. I swear to Zeus.'"

 

     

Fwd: SOUL MAN (Expanded Version)...

-----Original Message-----
From: b <rrdd3939@aol.com>
To: rrdd3939 <rrdd3939@aol.com>
Sent: Fri, Nov 23, 2012 3:49 am
Subject: Fwd: SOUL MAN (Expanded Version)...

 

(Reading the other installments in the "Plato Man in the Cave" series is

 recommended but not required. Take note of "Plato's Cave to Plato'

Heaven," "Plato's Heaven" and "Return to Plato's Cave" which are highly

 critical of physicist like Michio Kaku whom seem to treat mathematical

 speculation as fact and largely bypassing observational and experimental

evidence. "Outside of Plato's Cave" is appropriate to the season).

(This constitutes a Supplement (isn't it unusual for a  supplement to enjoy

its own name) to Plato's Man in the Cave series/Urania Moons You/God:

A Personal Journey {an article with three names} A supplement comes

after the article proper; if you don't know that you aren't equipped to be

reading material of this nature).

                                 SOUL MAN (Expanded Version)

                   PLATO'S MAN in the CAVE Series: The FINALE'

              A CRITIQUE of the DIRECTION SCIENCE is TAKING

                      by Richard DePersio with Citizen Journalist

         (Special thanks to Urania {for the use of the hall} and Plato)

WHY DOES EVERYONE ELSE SEE A PROBLEM --- WE DON'T!!!

The ancient Greek and Roman philosophers might be described

 as nearly being idealists/immaterialists (although, these

 philosophical terms weren't employed at the time; ethical values and

math properties exist independent of our knowing or experiencing them).

They felt that one can only understand nature by thinking about it and 

through the use of mathematics, especially, geometry.

        For most of the ancients frowned upon observing or experiencing

 or experimenting, especially, the latter for the use of hands in work

was for slaves. Soldiers' use of hands were an exception. A few would

 engage only when they thought absolutely necessary and felt

self-degradation. Plato subscribed to this view. (Ionians being the

 exception. They found value in both). On the other hand, Plato was a

dualist in that he thought in terms of soul-body being of a different nature.

        Descartes, in the 17th Century, that mind was a mental 

substance whose essential nature was thinking and feeling. Everything

else is matter or material substance with physical characteristics like

 size and shape. This is known as dualism. He was a rationalist:

Knowledge acquisition wasn't limited to the senses and one might be

 better off not attempting knowledge acquisition by this fashion. 

(Empiricists think that it is virtually all about senses: observing;

experiencing; experimenting).

       Those in opposition hold that since Descartes made mental

and physical different substances that they can't possibly react to each

 other: a physical effect requires a physical cause.

WHY DOES EVERYONE ELSE SEE A PROBLEM --- WE DON'T!!!

      Matter and the Space-Time Foam (Einstein's gravity: the curvature

of space) interact with each other and STF isn't even a substance!

      Spinoza tried to rectify {CJ: "That which we don't perceive as

a problem."} by suggesting that it is properties not substances.

You're describing different aspects of the same entity: two sides of the

 same coin. He attempts to explain how mind-body (or brain)

interaction can occur. {CJ: "This works for us as well."}

     Those in opposition hold that he has shifted the problem of dualism

 not solved it.

     Empiricists posit that virtually all knowledge is derived from the

senses through observation, experience and experimentation and are,

 by and large, materialists (universe is all matter).

It should be noted that 90% of scientists and philosophers are

 materialists or physicalists.

WHY DOES EVERYONE ELSE SEE A PROBLEM --- WE DON'T!!!

     Why isn't dualism in physics acceptable? A massless particle

light sometimes behaves like a particle and sometimes behaves

like a wave; particles with mass like protons sometimes behave

as particles and sometimes waves. Even opposites exist in

nature: positive and negative charges; matter and antimatter.

 Mind containing info on thoughts, feelings and memories

corresponding to data contained in neurons of the brain.

Info existing at two different locations; mind and brain of two

different substances or two different aspects. Mind or

consciousness, perhaps, existing in the microtubules of

neurons.

       Albert taught us that matter was a concentrated form of

 energy and that matter and energy are two different forms of

 the same thing. And, certainly matter and energy interact with

each other and have no problem doing so. Mind and/or

consciousness and/or spirit and or soul. Why does Albert

have a problem with soul? Please continue reading.

       Speaking of soul: CJ is pretty fly for a white guy!

      Descartes like Plato contended that we were born with

 certain innate ideas: the true meaning of liberty (abstract ideas);

geometry. Descartes felt that the mind was a little god made in

God's image and to think of the mind as a machine was

undignified. Plato felt that innate ideas are in the soul. Could Mind

and soul might be the same thing!). For Plato the soul was

imprisoned in the corrupt body making it difficult to apprehend

innate ideas while for Descartes the world of the senses could

impede one's attempt to connect with innate ideas. Knowledge from

 senses is inferior.

      Empiricists claim that most knowledge should come from

observation, experience and experimentation. Most wouldn't

object to Descartes claiming math and abstract ideas are innate

but Descartes went further by contending that knowledge of

the physical world should be ascertained through pure thought.

      Both sides resurrected the little known ancient Greek idea of the

 atom as the smallest indivisible part of a substance. Most ancient

 thought that everything was made of earth, wind, fire and water.

Atoms had no substance - only shape, spin, motion. Descartes went

 further: color, taste, sound were innate. When we looked at grass,

our mind tells us to see it as green. This too was a road too far for

the empiricists.

      We maintain that knowledge must be secured via thought/

math and observation/experience/experimentation. As physicist

Roger Penrose suggests there might be three realms: math; mental

or mind; physical or material. Just to complicate things further!

WHY DOES EVERYONE ELSE SEE A PROBLEM --- WE DON'T!!!

      We can't be certain that mind and consciousness can exist

separate from but related to brain. We cannot be certain that mind

can be soul/spirit. Although, it might be proven one day.Does this

constitute wild unscientific thinking? One might say that of quantum

physics. It seems to us that most physicists today are thinking in a

fashion like Descartes: minimizing value of observation and

experimentation. Accepting math speculation as fact with little or no

observational/experimental data to support it. Descartes once again

you are front and center.

       Why is it difficult for most scientists to accept mind as separate

 from brain. They except electron being in more than one place at a

time. They accept Higgs-Bosons: ghost-like particles which give

substance to matter. They accept ten spatial dimensions instead of the

 traditional three. It seems to us that mind fits right in there. Is it that

they are married to atheism.

       Disagreeing with Albert...Idealism/realism: minds and ideas is all

 that there is; ethical values and mathematical properties exist 'out

there' independent of our knowing them. there is no substance. On

the issue of math: A rationalist is  with an emphasis on getting knowledge

of abstract ideas, including, math. via thought. Empiricists argue that the

 abstract ideas of math are actually human constructs (tools) and math is

 a matter of convention - it helps create consensus not discover; adds

additional proof but not fact or truth. Descartes was a duelist who 

reasoned God's existence (one might say that he was a deist) while

Spinoza was a dualist and a pantheist. Which brings us to Albert. We are

 going to quote from "Parallel Worlds" by Michio Kaku, even though we

have been critical of Michio: "Einstein once wrote that he believed in

Spinoza's God who reveals Himself in the orderly harmony of what exists

 {CJ: "We can see why the 'Uncertainty Principle' upset him."}, not in a

God who concerns himself with the fates and actions of human beings.

The god of Spinoza and Einstein is the god of harmony, the god of

reason and logic. Einstein writes, "I cannot imagine a god who

rewards and punishes the objects of his creation...Neither can I believe

 that the individual survives the death of the body." {CJ: "We think that

deism is predicated on reason."} Einstein said,"I am convinced that we

can discover by means of purely mathematical construction the concepts

 and the laws...which furnish the key to the understanding of natural

phenomena....pure thought can grasp reality." We contend that since

quantum theory was created in the '20s and even more so since the '80s

 with String Theory, M Theory, Multi-verses that scientists have become

more idealists (or immaterialists). Machio in his own words: "My own

view is that verification of string theory might come entirely from

pure mathematics rather than from experiment." Is the real

universe just in way!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

WE DISCOVERED A CONNECTION UNINTENTIONAL BUT
MEANINGFUL...

Einstein helped develop quantum physics but was most uncomfortable

with it, especially, the Uncertainty Principle: You can know a particles

location or it speed and direction but not both at the time time. Not

long before his death, he grudgingly accepted it but felt that like

Relativity didn't replace Newtonian Physics but made it a subset that

eventually Quantum would become part of something bigger.

       The Cat Paradox...Imagine a cat sealed in a box with a bottle of

poison gas connected to a hammer, which in turn is connected to a

Geiger counter placed near a piece of uranium. The radioactive decay

 of the uranium atom is a quantum event which can't be predicted ahead

 of time. Let's say the there is a 50% chance that the uranium atom will

 decay in the next second. If it does decay, it will set off the Geiger

Counter, which sets off the hammer which breaks the glass, killing the

cat (PETA, its not real but a thought experiment; don't protest at our

comsats). The physicists say that the cat is 50% alive and 50% dead

 until we open the box. Once you open the box the wave function

collapses and you and the cat have definite position and your

observation can be made.

      There are several ways of resolving the cat problem. According to

 Eugene Wigner consciousness determines existence. Wigner's friend:

 In order to determine my state, someone else has to observe me to

 collapse my wave function. It also means that someone has to observe

Wigner's friend, and Wigner's friend's friend, and so on. Is there a

cosmic consciousness that determines the entire sequence of friends by

 observing the whole universe?

      Scientists haven't created life out of non-living matter nor have they

 created consciousness out of life, let alone the higher consciousness of

humans.

      Each one observing the previous observer with the ultimate observer

 in the cat paradox being God.Can there be a universe without observers?

 John Wheeler proposes that the entire universe is dominated by

consciousness and information (mind and math) Consciousness

determines the nature of the universe. "50 Philosophy Ideas You Really

 Need to Know" by Ben Dupre' (Quercus, 2007): "...in Descartes the mind

 is effectively a stage on which ideas are viewed by an inner observer -

 the immaterial soul. the fact that this inner observer, or 'homunculus',

 itself appears to require an observer of its own (and so on to infinity).

We need both approaches to understanding the universe: thought and

observation. The pure forms of ethics and math reside in Plato's Heaven.

They are innate in our mind or soul and can be discovered by rationalism

and empiricism. Sadly, science is over-emphasizing the latter. We are not

a blank slate at birth but this does not mean that we are born with strong

or weak homo or criminal or nasty genes. Quantum may be true but so

is purpose to universe true.

 

 

Fwd: Urania Moons You...

-----Original Message-----
From: b <rrdd3939@aol.com>
To: rrdd3939 <rrdd3939@aol.com>
Sent: Wed, Oct 31, 2012 11:52 pm
Subject: Urania Moons You...

        Alternate Title: Is there a God? A Personal Journey

                             (spanning many years)

A Personal History: Catholic until 18; atheist until 25; pantheist

 until 30. Became a deist at 30 and has just become a contented

 deist who deeply respects the Judeo-Christian Tradition as part

of the Western Tradition.

The Anthropic Principle made famous in '73 can be restated as the

Law of Human Existence. Our existence and that of the universe

itself depends on numerous cosmological constants and

parameters. - whose numerical values must fall within a very

narrow range of values. If even a single variable was off, even

slightly, galaxies and us wouldn't exist. The improbability of

of the universe existing is the Anthropic Principle. The laws of

nature (physics) are so arranged that life and consciousness are

possible.

Take protons which are 1836 times more massive than electrons,

if it were a little bigger or smaller we would not exist.

Amazingly, they are of extremely different mass and, yet, their

charges are equal (but opposite). Planets and you depend on

this balance.

If the BIG Bang or subsequent inflation were minutely faster or

slower there wouldn't be the quantum fluctuations that enabled

matter to congeal - the universe would be a humongous

homogenous cloud or it what have collapsed on itself shortly

after the bang.

Life on earth would not be possible if earth were closer or further

from the sun or if it were too near the core or the edge of our

Galaxy.

Our magnetic field protects us - good thing it isn't stronger or

weaker.

Halloween - do you want scary? Our atmosphere is 21%

oxygen. a few percent less and we wouldn't be able to

breath; a little more and anything ignited would burst into

flame, including, us --- any organic material ignited would

burn out-of-control.

Does this mean that there is a God?

 

    URANIA (English pronunciation: Your-Anus) MOONS YOU*

         aka PLATO's* MAN in the CAVE Series Resumes***

                by Richard DePersio with Citizen Journalist

Is there a God? In the name of full disclosure: CJ is a deist

of the traditional variety**** (Reminder: This comsat was

always about astronomy and philosophy/theology. Herein, we

attempt to combine the two.

 Atlas shrugged. Atlas: "BIG deal, humans named one rocket

after me - albeit an important one -- but it is still one. Originally,

it was an intercontinental ballistic missile. The Redstone

missile was modified for the U.S.'s first manned program in

the '60s. Project Mercury consisted of six one-man missions.

The first two were sub-orbital and employed the Redstone.

Mine was the more powerful intercontinental missile and

modified for the four orbital flights. It was so exciting that I

nearly dropped the earth from my shoulder! A family of launch

 vehicles, the Atlas 5 is still in service. My namesake has sent

 probes to the moon and Mars, and has placed communication

 and military satellites into earth orbit, including,

geosynchronous orbit.

Urania: "As Reagan famously said 'There he goes again.'

Doesn't Hermes have enough room at

www.quasarpolitical.blogspot.com ! Rockets aren't part of

astronomy. Why must he invade my space? Philosophy? I

don't like it but I wouldn't say it to Plato's face.

Lucky Strike!?! (CJ quit smoking cold turkey three years ago).

Earth One was struck by Orpheus: a Mars-sized object. It

struck at just the right angle and speed to create a ring of

debris which would coalesce to form our moon. The ring

formed just outside the Roche Limit; a little closer and

earth's gravity would have prevented it from coalescing -

the material would have spiraled into the earth. Earth's tidal

forces have caused the moon to move outward to its present

 locale.

       Our moon isn't the largest moon but it is the largest

compared to the size of its planet: about 1/4 earth's size. It

is responsible for retaining the earth's inclination of 23

degrees; earth's axis  is tilted. Otherwise, it would gyrate

wildly over hundreds of thousands or millions of years

 from 0 to 90 degrees like Mars. It is doubtful that

hominids or humans could have survived such drastic

climatic changes. More fundamentally, according to

scientists the creation of DNA required hundreds of

millions of years of climatic stability

      Further, it is likely that the moon has been in the right

place at the right time in its orbit to take blows for us

from comets, asteroids and large pieces of asteroids.

There might have been more mass extinctions in the past.

Also, Jupiter is the right size and right distance to have

intercepted comets headed for earth or deflected comets,

prevented our extinction.

     (Did these things occur by pure chance!?!).

Orpheus****: "It is indeed an honor and a pleasure to visit. I

have my lyre. Who's in charge here: Urania, Plato, Rick or

CJ.  I would like permission to sing my praises."

There is also an asteroid Orpheus with a one in 10,ooo

chance of striking earth over the next 100 years and doing

 regional damage.

Orpheus: "Pardon me." Atlas: "I can't deal with it. Do you

know who I am!" Urania: There is a small moon very near

 the  Ring A of Saturn called Atlas and it is said that you

 have the ring on your shoulder. This should serve as some

consolation." Atlas: "I'll muse on it."

(Is this an ADD-ed article!?!)

Most Biblical experts maintained that Jesus was hijacked by

Saint Paul and the Roman Emperor Constantine. Both of

who didn't know Jesus and both of whom call themselves 'The

13th Apostle; both of whom had visions.

       Paul was more educated than the Apostles having come

from a fairly well-to-do Jewish family and enjoying a

successful tent business. His education on the Jewish faith

would have been superior. In all likelihood he would have

been taught Greek philosophy and ancient mythologies,

including, Greek. While the Apostles spoke Hebrew or Arabic,

he would have spoken those languages plus Greek and

Latin.

      Jesus was crucified. The Apostles continued to be

practicing Jews: reciting Jewish prayers, celebrating Jewish

holy days, performing Jewish ceremonies; just like Jesus had.

They were called Ebonites; we might call them Jewish-

Christians. They also taught the teachings of Jesus whom they

thought was the Messiah not the Son of God.

(Remember Christians: Strange Bedfellows - CJ is a member

of the Christian "Alliance Defending Freedom." You need not be

offended. We are a Christian nation with a strong Judeo-

Christian component).

      Paul changed all that: declaring that Jesus was the Son

of God and enabling pagans to become followers of Jesus

without becoming Jews.

      James headed the Ebonites after Jesus' crucifixion.

Protestants consider him to be Jesus' half-brother while

Catholics - Roman and Easter Orthodox - don't. A few of the

Apostles, including, Peter came to agree with Paul but most

didn't.

     By about 300 A.D. there were various Pauline Christian

groups, Ebonite groups and Gnostic (with a Jesus component)

groups.

(More info on early Christianity in other installments of "Plato's

Cave).

     Constantine made Christianity legal and took the largest

Pauline group and ordered the other groups to merge with it.

Those that refused remained underground and vanished

after a few hundred years. He made the new large group the

Roman Catholic Church. He authorized a New Testament

which contains the letters that Paul wrote, Paul's activities,

Paul's interpretation of Jesus' philosophy. As a matter of

fact nearly 2/3 is Paul.

The odds of there having been a BIG Bang our astronomically

small.

Space (time was a spatial dimension, later becoming non-spatial,

consequentially, no beginning of time). Space wasn't empty

but contained dark energy in which

particles and their corresponding anti-particles formed and

within an unbelievably small fraction of a second annihilated

each other. Once in a blue moon somehow some particles

and anti-particles survived until there were enough to create

 a BIG Bang. But there were slightly more particles than

anti-particles, therefore our universe consists of matter and

not anti-matter. Space isn't empty but contains this dark energy.

 It's the nature of things. Physicists claim that they aren't

violating the law of physics that states that you can't get

something from nothing!!!

The Bible is chock full of visions/prophecies and miracles.

Why would God create laws of nature in order to violate

them!?! Wouldn't He create a universe in which He could

operate without violating His own work??? Would he even

interfere at all?

Not too hot, not too cold, just right: Goldilocks.

Idealism or Immaterialism: minds and ideas are all that there

is. Physicalism or Materialism: bodies and matter are all

there is. Just Right/The Middle Ground like our fine-tuned

universe - Dualism: Mental and Physical; Mind and Matter.

The first is silly. The second would be the winner except for

the way it deals with fine-tuning. The last leads to soul/

spirit and body.

Article ADD-ed?

Pandora/Eve and Gilgamesh and Noah and much more (See

other Plato Man in the Cave installments). The Bible is better

when not taken literally but philosophically and as a guide for

good human behavior.

The God of the Old Testaments is petty and cruel while the

 Son doesn't take after the Father and, yet, they are one

and the same: multiple personalities. Cruelty: God acts in

mysterious ways. Evil is evil whether committed by God or

Human. An example: killing babies in flood. How did they

cross God. Drowning is one of the worst ways to die. They

barely enjoyed living and then went to hell! According to

New Testament: Jesus descended into hell to give those

who lived before He came to earth a chance to follow Him.

It means babies were in hell along with the first born sons

of the Egyptians. Catholic Church invented limbo to get

around the problem but Bible doesn't say babies or anyone

who lived prior to the coming of Jesus went to limbo. CC

invented Purgatory. Protestants object to these creations.

       Bible as word of God: flat earth; immobile earth; no

evolution and extinctions; heaven as invisible firmament not

that far above our heads; hell below; belief in ghosts. God

wrote Bible through humans. Religious Person: Humans

misunderstood. Why couldn't God transmit more clearly?

Religious Person: God wanted humans to discover certain

facts on their own. Excuses

      We are a Christian nation. Churches do a better job at

helping the needy than does the government. Churches

generate a sense of community. The Founding Fathers and

Founding Docs were one part Judeo-Christian- and one

part Enlightenment- inspired. When our nation was founded

99% identified themselves as Christian while today it is 70%

B.O. is wrong to state that we are a nation of Christians, Jews,

Muslims, etc, believers and non-believers. He is attacking

our very core: WESTERN CIVILIZATION!!!

CJ: "This one is for Urania: "Urania Upset" (one-level down)

 revisited...We described the theory of star formation. In some

 cases, it is triggered by a supernova explosion. In a majority

of cases, it is triggered by luck. Random motion: eddies and

steams of particle coming from difference directions. Either

way, very small clumps form allowing attraction via electro-

static force.

       We would like to add: density waves. Star formation takes

place in the spiral arms of spiral galaxies. Think of a water

wave. The water moves up and down - horizontally; the energy

promulgates - vertically. A ball would bop up and down. Why?

The water molecules are moving thus. In the case of clouds

of gas and dust the energy in the density wave is presently

where the arm is located causing some interstellar dust and

 gas to form clouds of dust and gas - where new stars are born.

Nowadays, scientists place faith in numbers with little or no 

supporting observational or experimental evidence. Math.

speculation as fact short-circuiting the Scientific Method (See

other Man in Cave articles.

     Relativity and Quantum Physics defy common sense. We put

our money on Jew. Relativity is palatable.

     Then came Inflation in '80 and multi-universes as a derivative

by the '90s. Of course, universe means all. Right, Pan. It appears

as if Antropic caused a crisis in physics and they had to come

up with something no matter how ridiculous! Some physicists

claim that there is only one universe and it is just a fluke that

everything is just right. It happened by chance. Although,

statistically speaking, the chances of our universe existing

is practically zero. Others maintain that there are many, trillions

or an infinite number of universes that a few would get it

right, statistically speaking. Physicists use to see elegance and

beauty in the  simplest explanation. Antropic caused

contortions! Further, time had no beginning and you can't get

something from nothing except short-lived particles and Higgs

-Bosons!

     What follows from Relativity. There was a singularity

containing WHAT? All energy at a point with no length, width

or depth or 4-dimensional space a little larger than a point.

 Time is a spatial dimension until bang. Time as non-spatial 

begins with Big Bang followed by Inflation. Some energy

becomes matter. Permissible: E = MC squared. The laws of

physics, constants and parameters determined at instant of

bang. There is a T = 0. There is only one universe. 3-

dimensional space isn't empty. Dark energy filled it instant of

the bang. Matter and dark matter created at the instant of the

bang. A Conscious Mind or God must have caused bang and

created laws of physics at the time of the bang. Belief in Bible

 is belief based on faith. There is also believe based on Reason.

 There is science today: belief in numbers with particles

 popping in and out of existence; an electron in many places at

 the same time -sometimes in another universe. More than

 three spatial dimensions in order to explain relative weakness

 of gravity compared to the other three fundamental forces.

 We don't have a problem with that. Keep it simple: one

universe and one God or Cosmic Consciousness. (There is

 nothing scientific about scientific creationism).

     God-singularity-Relativity-Quantum Fluctuations (we don't

 have a problem with all of Quantum)Astronomical Evolution-

Geological Evolution-Biological Evolution.

     As Penrose has suggested: Physical/Material World; Math.

World; Mind World. Mind or Consciousness ---- or soul.

     God breaths 'life' into equations. What happened at T = 0

is beyond scientific explanation when singularity banged.

Is this an ADD-ed Article!?!

* Goodbye*Farewell*Amen is CJ the boy who cried wolf? We

said it before but this time it is definite. There will be zero to

three more articles per comsat; we are closing up shop. There

is a remote possibly that articles will appear infrequently in

the new year but without a doubt there will no longer be five to

fifteen articles per month.

**Yes, the honored guest who still won't leave! Brought here via

the Einstein/Rosen Bridge.

***Plato's Man in the Cave Series: one installment is located at

www.quasarpolitical.blogspot.com while the rest are at Urania's

Place. Find installment one and work your way backward - or

not; reading in order isn't absolutely necessary by semi-strongly

recommended.

****Traditional deist defined: There is a 'God' who is logical/

rational/compassionate. We don't believe in the God of the

Bible. At the instant of the BIG Bang, God wrote the laws of

nature (physics). He observes the unfolding universe but

doesn't interfere by punishing people on earth (punishing with a

flood, including, babies, for example); prophecies; miracles.

We are not certain that there is a God and a heaven (if there is

 a heaven, it is here

where we would be punished and rewarded for our lives on

earth). God doesn't answer prayers; He doesn't illogically

violate the laws that He created. He would be too compass-

ionate to create hell. At the instant of the BIG Bang, He

establishes a antrophic universe that will result in life, including,

intelligent life (although, he likely didn't know what kind of

life). He establishes laws that will very likely create life and

 somewhat likely Intelligent life. Intelligent life by its very

nature will have free will.

Less appealing: Buddhists think that your consciousness melds

with a cosmic consciousness wherein your identity is lost while

New Wave thinkers think your individual identity isn't

consumed.

Roger Penrose, physicist, suggests that at some point after the

BIG Bang the cosmos acquired consciousness and somehow

directing the cosmos to create beings possessing conscious-

ness who could appreciate the cosmic consciousness. He further

 posits, consciousness resides in the microtubules (the cell's

skeleton),  At death, consciousness leaves the body

and becomes a part of the cosmic consciousness.

One can accept God and Heaven predicated on reason but

there is no certainty. Plato and Janus heavenward?