« Faith -- the embrace of mystery | Main | Science is divine if nature is God's creation »

June 29, 2009

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Unfortunately Brian, you allowed your irritation to cloud your ability to read my posts. I grant there is much supporting evidence for Big Bang theory, and I acknowledge that science does appear to be on the right track, it has an excellent correlation between theory and practice. But is this reason for blind belief that you appear to revere for science?
Science is the study of the observable, we observe the physical, and with sensory extensions and power of deduction, science has probed the far reaches of time and space. But -- continued in next post

Brian has stated that my comments are skeptical and science bashing, ( although in same sentence he explains that science grows through skeptical enquiry - make up your mind Brian, is skepticism valued by science or not? ) Cosmological inflation is similar to saying God made the universe. Science can offer no explanation for the current state of the Universe without introducing a magical new concept, it just expanded at hithertoo unknown speeds) and calling the effect 'inflation'. Nothing wrong with that of course, positing a theory is NOT stating a belief, even though Brian cannot discern the difference. - more in next post

but, if we are prepared to accept science at face value, and make it our religion, the Big Bang theory is no more than an attempt to understand an infinitely small moment of time in the history of the Universe, almost insignificantly small, for our Science God tells us that matter and energy are convertible (e=mc^2) and that matter / energy cannot be created nor destroyed. The universe therefore had no creation, it is just matter and energy that has always existed, and always will, in various forms. In response to the question "what is outside of the universe, science has an equally illuminating answer - outside of this universe is -- next post

another universe, in fact, there are infinitely more universes, which explains Rees's Just Six numbers, this universe is no miracle in being just perfect for human existence, it should be no surprise that we exist only in that universe where chance has provided just the right conditions, it had to happen on one of an infinity of different universes. As I say, this is as easy to believe in as the concept of God,
I struggle to come to terms with why Brian would write an entire post to bash the ideas I have presented, when he has written that my ideas are so weak, they are not even worthy of a reply?

It seems an odd contradiction to claim my posts are not worthy of taking the time to reply to, yet then take the time to write an entire new post about me.
I have suggested that the human consciousness if far more capable than matter would be able to support, and by example, I offer Cantors transfinite numbers, (anyone want an in depth discussion on the transfinites, just write to me at [email protected]).
I have suggested that consciousness experiences the present, memory the past, and thought, the future, and then asked to define these terms, past, present and future ---

But Brian considers such questions as 'what is the duration of the present?' as being pseudo science, and therefore worthy only of being ignored.

But, more than anything else, Brian runs this blog in true traditional scientific manner, black ball those who dare speak against it, even if only in the true spirit of enquiry. Science history is full of the Brian types, those who dared speak out against current state of scientific belief, and so threaten the peaceful equilibrium of comfortable knowledge, are hounded and then excommunicated.

I shall return to being a quiet observer, keeping my thoughts to myself, and in so doing, not disturbing Brians illusions of science and the his feeling that his followers are peaceful and content hanging on to his words of wisdom, well behaved children clutching at his skirt tails. Its not easy to voice ideas contrary to popular belief, especially when the wrong place to bring such ideas forth has been selected - my mistake - sorry guys


Phil

Oh, and just in case anyone thinks that I do not agree with anything Brian writes ---
I do agree that there is value in simply admitting "I dont know"
But I also feel this is but the first step of:
1) I dont know
2) I want to know
3) lets undertake unbiassed enquiry
Brian and I agree with step 1) but I do not agree with his version of step 2) - put down those who dare question, who dare to investigate any gaps in the gospel of science and even think about other ideas.

Phil, you need to chill. But thanks, you've made my blog post point beautifully. You've failed to address the substance of what I wrote about (which wasn't directed only at you, but also at everyone who thinks like you), instead focusing on feeling aggrieved and making up an illusory "black balling."

You're most welcome to continue to comment. All I asked is that you bring better arguments to this churchless blog. I'm not interested in this being a forum for repetitive statements of religiosity, no matter how sincere.

I've been there and done that, as have most of the other visitors to this blog. What I'm/we're interested in is intelligent and respectful discussion of interesting issues. It's too bad that you feel the need to persist in preaching rather than discussing.

I read your string of comments, but I don't really understand what you're trying to say. Perhaps you could answer a few simple questions with a yes or no:

(1) Do you consider that the universe came into being through a "big bang" some 14 billion years ago, as is the scientific consensus?

(2) Do you have any demonstrable evidence that consciousness is non-physical?

(3) Do you belong to any organized religious, spiritual, or mystical group?

Follow up if "yes" to (3): what is the name of that group?

Phil, I have another gripe about your unwillingness to discuss facts. Your description of the big bang inflation theory as "magic" is ludicrous. You didn't even look at the link I included in this post on inflation, did you?

If you had, you would have come to a fairly old (2002) but seemingly inclusive discussion of inflation theory and why it makes such good sense. When you say, "Cosmological inflation is similar to saying God made the universe," clearly you have no idea what you're talking about. Again, thanks for being such a good example of how religiosity makes someone incapable of looking at facts rationally.

Here's a couple of paragraphs from the inflation essay for your edification:
----------------
"It is nothing short of remarkable that from our vantage point, sitting at one point in space and at one time in cosmic history, we have been able to discover as much as we have about the history of our universe.

While there is a great deal we do not understand about the very early times after the moment we call the big bang, the last twenty years have seen an explosion of progress in both our theories and our observations. As we improve in both of these arenas our understanding will undoubtedly change.

Will the theory of inflation survive those changes? I believe it's too early to answer that question with any confidence. As a model it has great appeal for a number of reasons. In particular, it explains a lot of features of the universe in a simple way with relatively few assumptions, and it seems to arise naturally in the context of our current theories of physics.

In other words it seems highly likely that inflation would have occurred in the early universe, and if it did it would give rise to a universe much like the one we see. Moreover no other known theory can explain these features.

Andrei Linde, one of the leading experts in inflation, once told me "Inflation hasn't won the race, but so far it's the only horse." My personal suspicion is that if in a hundred years the theory of inflation isn't part of our understanding of the early universe then it will have to have been replaced by something very similar to it.

In the meanwhile we can look forward to a lot of good tests of early universe physics in the next couple of decades. High sensitivity probes of the microwave background, searches for waves of gravity surviving from the early universe, and many other experiments are going to give us excellent tests, not only of inflation, but of our understanding of the universe in general."
----------------
I used to think quite similarly to you. This is why I feel I have such a good insight into your psyche. Just as I gained a lot from having people question my unquestioned beliefs, this helps explain why I'm being rather hard on you.

You're intelligent. You're a sincere seeker of truth. However, I can tell that your truth-seeking horizon has become narrowed through your devotion to a particular way of looking at reality. If you can open your inner eye more widely, I think you'll enjoy the fresh perspective.

Of course, this is your choice, not mine.

There are 3.22 millions of Indians in USA (1.5% of population). YET,* *
38% of doctors in USA are Indians.* *
12% scientists in USA are Indians.
36% of NASA scientists are Indians.* *
34% of Microsoft employees are Indians.* *
28% of IBM employees are Indians.* *
17% of INTEL scientists are Indians.
13% of XEROX employees are! Indians. *


Some of the following facts may be known to you. These facts were recently
published in a German magazine, which deals with WORLD HISTORY FACTS ABOUT
INDIA.
1. India never invaded any country in her last 1000 years of history. 2.
India invented the Number system. Zero was invented by Aryabhatta. 3. The
world's first University was established in Takshila in 700BC. More than
10,500 students from all over the world studied more than 60 subjects. The
University of Nalanda built in the 4 th century BC was one of the greatest
achievements of ancient India in the field of education.
4. According to the Forbes magazine, Sanskrit is the most suitable
language for computer software.

5. Ayurveda is the earliest school of medicine known to humans.
6. Although western media portray modern images of India as poverty
striken and underdeveloped through political corruption, India was once
the richest empire on earth.

7. The art of navigation was born in the river Sindh 5000 years ago. The
very word "Navigation" is derived from the Sanskrit word NAVGATIH. 8. The
value of pi was first calculated by Budhayana, and he explained the
concept of what is now k! nown as the Pythagorean Theorem. British
scholars have last year (1999) officially published that Budhayan's works
dates to the 6 th Century which is long before the European
mathematicians.

9. Algebra, trigonometry and calculus came from India . Quadratic
equations were by Sridharacharya in the 11 th Century; the largest numbers
the Greeks and the Romans used were 106 whereas Indians used numbers as
big as 10 53. 10. According to the Gemmological Institute of America, up
until 1896, India was the only source of diamonds to the world.

11. USA based IEEE has proved what has been a century-old suspicion
amongst academics that the pioneer of wireless communication was Professor
Jagdeesh Bose and not Marconi.
12. The earliest reservoir and dam for irrigation was built in Saurashtra.

13. Chess was invented in India ..* *
14. Sushruta is the father of surgery. 2600 years ago he and health
scientists of his time conducted surgeries like cesareans, cataract,
fractures and urinary stones. Usage of anaesthesia was well known in
ancient India .
15. When many cultures in the world were only nomadic forest dwellers over
5000 years ago, Indians established Harappan culture in Sindhu Valley (
Indus Valley Civilisation) .
16. The place value system, the decimal system was developed in India in
100 BC. *

*
Quotes about India ..* *
We owe a lot to the Indians, who taught us how to count, without which no
worthwhile scientific discovery could have been made.
Albert Einstein.*

*


India is the cradle of the human race, the birthplace of human speech, the
mother of history, the grandmother of legend and the great grand mother of
tradition.
Mark Twain.*
*
If there is one place on the face of earth where all dreams of living men
have found a home from the very earliest days when man began the dream of
existence, it is India ..
French scholar Romain Rolland.* *

India conquered and dominated China culturally for 20 centuries without
ever having to send a single soldier across her border.
Hu Shih* *
(former Chinese ambassador to USA )* *


ALL OF THE ABOVE IS JUST THE TIP OF THE ICEBERG, THE LIST COULD BE
ENDLESS. BUT, if we don't see even a glimpse of that great India in the
India that we see today, it clearly means that we are not working up to
our potential; and that if we do, we could once again be an evershining
and inspiring country setting a bright path for rest of the world to
follow.

Manish, for now I'll leave your comment up. But it doesn't have anything to do with this post and is another indication of your preachiness. Who doesn't respect India? I have no idea who you're talking to in this uninteresting comment.

What I think is that religion doesn't have to have anything to do with whether there is a supernatural realm to life and really neither does science. Religion is about mankind not necessarily any god-- be there one or many. The big bang doesn't prove or disprove god's existence. For that matter we don't know that this universe is the only one. We could be a cosmic accident, there could be a god somewhere else, and we were never planned at all. We really do not know and science will never be able to do more than figure out whatever is physically possible. It can do computer modeling, figure the odds of this or that, but what happened in the past, even when it's duplicated today, still remains a mystery. When they create life today, they are using something to make it happen. Somewhere along the line that was not the case.

Scientifically nothing ever comes from nothing hence all scientific theories about the beginning of the universe have it erupting from chemicals that had to exist before it could become anything. The fact that something had to exist first is the mystery and although science can do a lot to answer questions about how life works, it cannot answer the ultimate one (at least not yet) but my feeling is that no 'religion' ever has either. Both are man's attempt to understand existence.

Because religion accepts a kind of patriarchy or (more rarely) matriarchy at various times, it has a hard time evolving when new information comes along-- hence those who still want to think the earth is a few thousand years old and dinosaurs were either here with man or their bones were put here by Satan.

Some religions encourage starting as a child, staying a child and being praised for that. It's the only place in human life that I can think that is what is encouraged. It is also the only place where we are told to believe something with no actual proof. Anywhere else that would be thought to be madness, but in religion it's praised. So is it sometimes praised to do things that harm your own body but supposedly for the greater religious good. Although always within the rules of that particular religion.

The more you study various religions and see how they spring up from different regions of the world with different concepts of god and religious practices, the more you wonder about the whole process in man's mind. What made us have these needs? But that's a mystery also...

Manish,
Get your facts straight; 38% of U.S. Doctors could NOT possibly be from India.According to a study published in October in The New England Journal of Medicine, 25 percent of all doctors in the United States are foreign medical school graduates. A large majority - 60 percent - come from the developing world. So that means only about 25% of U.S. doctors are from ALL Third World Nations, not just India! I personally would never go to a physician trained in a third-world medical school.
I just wonder how many of your other statistics are inaccurate.

Dear phil Risby,

Although I do not wish to be piling up on you, I still wonder just what "concept of God" you seem to be refering to (either as your own, or what you might be attributing to others). I still don't know what you mean by your use of this term.

Robert Paul Howard

Manish & DJ,

Please discuss your statistics and preference for doctors somewhere else. You are disturbing the flow of an interesting discussion. Thank you.

xyz,
And your comment did'nt interrupt the flow of the topic either?-hee hee. I don't care if Brian wants to delete my post for being off topic; I just wanted to correct an inaccurate fact.

I just listened to an interesting science vs. religion discussion that was on a British Christian radio talk show.

PZ Myers, who I mention in this post, does a good job showing the primacy of science. If you listen to the first few minutes, you'll get a good feel for his position (the discussion is pretty long). See:
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2009/06/unbelievable_1.php

Phil,

You are way out to lunch and you are becoming more of a jerk by the day.

Most of your comments are a wandering, confused, patchwork of specualtions that have nothing to do with reality.

I mistakenly thought you to be an intelligent rational guy, but now I see that you are far more of a fringe-science and pseudo-science flake than I ever suspected.

Moreover, you have a very annoying and pigish habit of posting a string of too many separate comments, which effectively leaves no space on the comment menu/index for anyone else.

There is no reason for you to post so many multiple comments. You can write one long comment to whomever it is that you are addressing.

As I explained to someone else here recently, the problem you are having is all due to TypePad simply TIMING OUT after awhile, and NOT because it does not allow posting of lengthy comments. Either compose your comments elsewhere (like Notepad, or WordPad, etc) and the Copy & Paste them into the box just before you send them.... OR just write them in the TypePad box, then Copy it, then Refresh your browser, and then Paste it back into TypePad box, and then click "Post".

Please STOP posting so many multiple comments. There is no need to do that, and it is rude to others.

Anyhow, what IS your problem dude? Your supposed science is far from factual, your comments are all over the place, it is often rather difficult to discern what it is that you are actually trying to say, and with your lousy condescending attitude towards Brian (who btw has been more than patient with you) you are making a real ass of your self here.

You are also not making any good arguments for your position (whatever that is). And you refuse to answer any of my questions or Roger's questions or anyone else for that matter. Your style is evasive, and your assertions lack scientific fact and substance. Please try to post something more accurate and substantial and less confused, or shut-up.

Here's my reaction to some of your more recent statements:

You said (enclosed in quotations):

"Brian runs this blog in true traditional scientific manner, black ball those who dare speak against it, even if only in the true spirit of enquiry."

-- That's utter BS. If you have something to say, then SAY IT. But most of your comments are a confused mess.

"I shall return to [...] not disturbing Brians illusions of science and the his feeling that his followers are peaceful and content hanging on to his words of wisdom, well behaved children clutching at his skirt tails."

-- Thats even more bogus BS, and it is rude and disrespectful and insulting to everyone who posts comments here. Which just goes to show exactly where you are at. I resent your comment, as I am not a "follower" of anyone. So fuck you asshole.

"Its not easy to voice ideas contrary to popular belief"

-- What ideas have you voiced? Its hard to tell what you are actually trying to say, much less in any coherent fashion.

"Brian [...] I do not agree with his [...] put down those who dare question, who dare to investigate any gaps in the gospel of science and even think about other ideas."

-- That is NOT true at all. You are a liar and you also are a distorter of facts to suit your own BS. Why don't you just come out and SAY whatever it is that you are trying so confusedly to say? Be clear and concise, and don't ramble or speculate. And please, this time put it all in ONE post... not a dozen different fragmented posts.


tAo
I would love not to post multiple comments, but unfortunately, TypePad will not allow me to post comments longer than the visible window. I have explained this problem in previous posts, sorry you find this so offensive.

As per Brian, yes of course I read your inflation link, its a laymans explanation, not a scientific paper. If you wish to hold discussion on inflation, you should read and understand the work of A R Liddle, X Wang, N Turok et al.

Brian
I mistakenly entered this blog with one belief, that you and the commenters had genuine spirit of enquiry. I have been dubbed a science basher, curious as I am a research scientist by profession (high energy plasma physics) and hold several patents. You, and your followers have completely missed the fundamentals of just about every one of my posts.

Phil, you still haven't answered the questions I asked above. Please do so. Your answers should easily fit on one comment screen. They are:

(1) Do you consider that the universe came into being through a "big bang" some 14 billion years ago, as is the scientific consensus?

(2) Do you have any demonstrable evidence that consciousness is non-physical?

(3) Do you belong to any organized religious, spiritual, or mystical group?

Follow up if "yes" to (3): what is the name of that group?

Phil,

I seriously doubt that TypePad works differently for you than myself or others.

I explained what I know to be the problem (namely, that TypePad times out if you take a long time to write your comment) from my own experince, and how to resolve orget around that problem.

The only thing I can possibly think of is perhaps if you are using an odd OS or Internet Browser. But I have used Windows Explorer, Mozilla, Linux, and Mac with no problems.

It seems to me that you have written longer comments in the past without any difficulty, so why all the sudden now?

So, I have to wonder... have you actually even tried my suggestion? Just try writing a long comment in the TypePad box... or better yet just write a short test comment and let it sit there for a half an hour before posting it. You will no doubt find that TypePad will 'time out' after a half-hour, and when you go try to "Post", you will get that little message that says it "cannot accept the data" (or something to that effect).

Also, as another possible test, just try writing a long comment in a separate NotePad and then paste it into the TypePad box... and see if it will enter into the box.

Also, would you please answer these few questions for me:

1.) Please tell me what OS you are using, and what kind of Browser?

2.) Do you see or have an Up & Down scroll bar in the right side of the Typepad "Post a Comment" box? (you have to write something into the box for it to appear)

3.) Have you ever entered a "TypeKey or TypePad account"? You do NOT need to make an "account" just to Post a comment. (You also do NOT need to enter an e-mail address or a Web Site URL)

4.) Have you tried changing your name/id slightly. Such as "Phil R." or "P. Risby" etc etc. Anything that will break the pattern.

5.) Would you please explain, step-by-step, what actually happens when you try to write a long comment? Please describe exactly and in detail what you do, and what the TypePad does or does not do.

I suspect that there is a simple explanation and solution for this. I doubt that TypePad is actually doing what you assume it is, but I'd be interested in finding out.

I do find your reaction (sarcasm) on this matter a bit odd. You are trying to act as if I am extremely annoyed. NO. I am simply trying to help you resolve this problem, and also let you know that your posting of so many multiple comments, fills up the comment index. So I would ask you to please be more open-minded and just try the simple suggestions that I offered, and answer those questions. Thanks.

Phil, even though tAo (properly) told you that your multiple short comments are clogging up the recent comment list, you just posted four more comments -- none of which made much sense. So I've deleted them, because you're abusing the kindness of this blog. And, me.

I've posted a lot of your comments myself, after you emailed them to me, because you've been having problems posting them yourself. Others, such as tAo, have given you advice about how to deal with the problem, which, since it seems to be limited to you, must be self-caused.

If you want to post occasional comments that are related to a post topic, great. But I think you've become obsessed with making some point -- which isn't at all clear to me. As tAo suggested, you should be more frank and upfront about what your agenda is in commenting here.

A required first step to get back into my blogging good graces is to answer the questions that have twice been asked of you:

(1) Do you consider that the universe came into being through a "big bang" some 14 billion years ago, as is the scientific consensus?

(2) Do you have any demonstrable evidence that consciousness is non-physical?

(3) Do you belong to any organized religious, spiritual, or mystical group?

Follow up if "yes" to (3): what is the name of that group?

Answer those questions, briefly, and I'll feel better about knowing where "you're coming from" (as we used to say in the '60s).

Phil,

I have a few things to say to you that I am picking up from the tone of your comments lately. And because of that, I am starting to wonder what your underlying agenda here really is.

There are several things whichg don't jive. Such as the fact that you don't answer certain particular questions, like most of the ones Brian asked you, some that I have asked you, etc. Why do you evade these questions? It creates doubt and suspicion when people act that way.

So if you don't mind, please hang in here for a while longer, and so that we all might come to some more clarity and better understanding.

Your last comment to Brian stated:

"My last post to this list
Brian - [...] you are fortunate to have found a true calling, like other cults you have managed to develop an entourage of faithful followers who appear to support your world view and adore the religion / RSSB bashing sessions as much as bashing those who dare to post comments that do not fit with your own cosy world view."

-- I have to strongly disagree with that. First of all, the people here are NOT "an entourage of faithful followers who appear to support your [Brian's] world view and adore the religion / RSSB bashing sessions". That is a total distortion of reality. I for one (and I am sure others agree with me) am NOT among any such "entourage of faithful followers". I am an independent thinker. This here is NOT a "cult". Actually it (and myself) is very much anti-cult. So I take offense at your attempted distortion of facts. Its also appears that you are uncomfortable with having Santmat and RS challenged or criticised. Hence your nonsense attempt to turn that around by calling lone independent critics a "cult". Frankly, thats utter bullshit, and you know it.

"Any hope that I may have harbored that intelligent debate may be found has vanished, I leave and will not return - Phil"

-- This reeks of a coward's evasive response. You talk about "intelligent debate" but you won't even answer the simplest questions (such as the ones Brian asked you like: are you associated with any spiritual path? etc etc.) If you go running off now, we can and we will only have to assume that you are a fraud and your real agenda was never "intelligent debate" at all. I have seen your type before. So it would behoove you to remain here until this issue is resolved. If you are on the up-and-up, then you will have no problem engaging in reasonable discussion or sharing of info.

So I will ask you:

What, if any, kind of spiritual or mystical path are you involved in?

Why do you have a problem with people who do not believe in God, or who are agnostic and embrace mystery, or who doubt so-called "masters", or who criticise religious dogma and cults?

If you leave now, then I can only conclude that you were nothing more than a troll and an energy rip-off.

So how do you wish to be perceived Phil? The chance is all yours. I'd like to hear what you have to say about these issues (and not just about scientific theories).

Brian,

Very nice discussional exchange. [Posted by: Brian | June 30, 2009 at 12:40 PM]

I hate (meaning I love) to admit that I was routing for the Christian. Having disliked religion for so many years - I've never done that before.

Anyway, I'm trying to build an argument for this blog topic. As a layman, it is difficult for me to address is adequately and with any speed.

Respects,

If there is genuine interest to debate, and desire to explore, I am of course pleased to participate. I would like to know how to proceed in terms of the method of posting? This text box is most limiting when I cannot exceed the visible space, if I wish to post, so do I continue to e-mail to Brian, (or some other volunteer) to make the posts for me. I am currently on another computer in another location, and I have just tested the system, I am still limited by the visible box surrounds. If Brian is OK with me sending my comments to him, I will gladly address each of the questions so far posed to me
Phil

I have seen comments that are several feet in length. Maybe, if one types in their name and e-mail address below, first, this issue may go away.

Phil, almost certainly you're doing something wrong, because it's hard to believe that this problem follows you from computer to computer. I think you need to look at how you're trying to leave comments carefully, and discover what you need to do differently.

Similarly, I'd encourage you to re-read the content of your comments along the responses from me and others. A careful detached reading might reveal to you that you haven't been participating in an open, frank, responsive comment conversation.

As has been pointed out to you, you evade questions, deflect criticisms of your positions, and go off on tangents rather than discussing some subject directly. I'm still waiting for the answers to my three questions, for example.

Another example: on the inflation front, you ignored the evidence I presented that the big bang theory isn't dependent on inflation theory. That's one reason I asked you to say whether you consider the big bang theory to be true, because you went off on a rather strange, incomprehensible comment series that, I gather, was supposed to show that you know more about the weaknesses in inflation theory than physicists do.

Which wasn't the point. Of me or anyone else. My point was that abundant evidence for the big bang theory exists, and it is consensus science at this point, regardless of the state of inflation theory. Yet you didn't address this.

I think you need to sit back, consider your motives for commenting on this blog, and decide whether you are out to preach or to discuss. If you have your religious mind made up, why are you here?

Phil, another idea on the commenting problem front: check out this "Get Satisfaction" thread.
http://getsatisfaction.com/sixapart/topics/typepad_bug_comments_captcha_test_not_working

TypePad has a forum where people (mostly subscribers, but users might be able to participate also) ask questions about blogging problems. This thread addresses a commenting problem that popped up for someone a while back.

The TypePad employee says the blog visitor with the problem should contact TypePad, since she wasn't able to make the problem occur. Since your problem seems specific to you, this is something you could do -- contact TypePad via Get Satisfaction and get some advice.

Another idea: ask a friend to leave a comment on this blog via their computer. Watch and see what happens. Maybe you'd learn something. Also, have you tried using a different user name? It could be that you got logged in somehow under your name, even on a different web site, and that log in is messing you up somehow. Unlikely, but possible.

The big bang is a (i.e. one) scientific theory of the evolution of the cosmos.

60 years ago there were two main theories, but the Big Bang was proven to be most accurate based on the growing body of evidence accumulated. Its supported by at least 3 independent measurement techniques including the famous accidential Penzias and Wilson microwave measurements.

The expansion aspect is not so much speculation and is pretty much central to the Big Bang theory.

There are aspects of speculation though, which indicate the limits of present science. Mainly regarding what happened in those immediate moments after the bang, i.e. the so-called planck magnitudes, where general relativity breaks down.

Another interesting area of speculation is dark matter, since it is a phenomenon that cannot be observed directly (no dark matter particle has been found).

Other big areas where there is still speculation include:
- unfied field theory
- quantum gravity and the search for the 'god' particle
- and how biological life itself first came into existence.

Phil,

You asked: "I would like to know how to proceed in terms of the method of posting?"

-- I have explained rwo different options that should solve the problem. But actuallyt, I don't think there is any problem. I think you are simply not following the correct procedure, both when you try to write, as well as when you go to post what you wrote. I asked you if you had tried any of the options that I suggested. Again, you still have not answered. I also asked you to describe step-by-step what YOU do when you go to write and post... but you won't anser that either. Because you will not anser even a simple question when people try to help you, I can only conclude that the problem is all in YOUR head and in how you are (not) dealing with this.

Most proble3ms of this nature can be easily solved or corrected if you simply proceed on step at a time. But apparently you won't even do that. You whole trip is beginning to seem as if you are doing this as a distraction to this blog, and an evasive ploy.

A.) You refuse to answer the simplest question.

B.) You refuse (apparently) to try any suggestions.

C.) You say that the TypePad text box confines you to a very limited space, but you won't describe exactly how that is.

D.) You say that you have the same problem on other separate computers.

E.) But when asked to describe (in detail) how you are going about this, you won't answer.

F.) You say you can't write more than the visible space available within the small text box... but are you aware that that box expands as you go along, as you write more?

G.) And finally, you just keep repeating the same vague story, but you won't say exactly how you are proceeding.

All of the above tells me that the problem is not in the functioning of Typepad, but in how YOU are not using it correctly.

There is something wrong with this (your) picture. It is starting to sound as if you are doing whatever you can to disrupt this blog. If thats not so, then why won't you just take this one problem (the supposed TypePad problem) and simply describe what it is that you are doing? There is a simple solution here, but it seems that you are not interested in resolving this. It seems as if you want to create an imaginary distraction/diversion. I say this only because you repeatedly refuse to respond to any of the help offered by myself and Brian, and you also won't cooperate and simply describe exactly how you are going about the writing and posting of your comments.

This has become rather ridiculous, and so I am forced to think that that is just a game that you are playing with Brian and this blog.

I mean... I asked you several direct questions (about your computer OS and browser etc etc) but like Brian's other questions (the big-bang, spiritual path, etc) you refuse to answer.

Therefore, I seriously do not think that there is anything wrong with TypePad. The problem is all in YOU. Its either that you are not using or dealing with Typepad correctly, or you are doing this all on purpose to cause disruption. I am sorry if that's not really the case, but your odd lack of responsiveness seems to indicate otherwise.

You said: "This text box is most limiting when I cannot exceed the visible space, if I wish to post"

-- Explain exactly what you mean here.

"I am currently on another computer in another location, and I have just tested the system, I am still limited by the visible box surrounds."

-- That clearly and overwhelmingly indicates that it is YOU who are the one who not doing something right. Just take it step-by-step... or try the other options that I suggested (such as writing your comment in a NotePad andthen pasting it into the text box, etc). Also, please indicate what type of OS & browser you are using (on each computer)... even though it shouldn't matter.

If the problem was anything to do with TypePad, then everyone would be having this problem. But no one else does, so that says that the problem is entirely in YOU Phil.

So why don't you just start anew... by answering a few questions, and trying a few suggestions.


tAo

lol, not sure Phil is trying to be obstinant, perhaps a few techical problems?


Phil

The concept of 'time' appears to be central to your theory of consciousnes (which you acknowledge as speculation), and you appear to suggest that time is perhaps generally understood incorrectly through the expansionary aspect of the Big Bang, which you feel is not fundamentally proven.

I think we need to be careful how we define time. Also, we need to be clear on what exactly does the theory of expansion (or lack thereof) have to do with your concept of time and consciousness? This is probably what is irritating the others.

Specifically, you seem to define time from a human persepective in terms of past, present and future. More specifically, from consciousness perspective where consciousness is the boundary you call the present.

You ask does consciousness have a duration? i.e. finitely measurable, seconds.

Yes, why not? Surely our consciousness does have a finite duration, which will in fact be dictated by the limits/sensitivity of our human senses and brain (processing). We dont see the magician swap the object, only when a high speed camera takes a shot does it enter our consciousness.

You use the boundary metaphor of two colours, but these are human perceptions of wavelengths. There are colours we cannot see, the duration of the boundary is established by our retina that is conscious of red and yellow, but not infrared.

It appears your problem lies in scale or metrics of time.

You appear to believe that the past (memory) and future (thought) are explainable by matter (different areas of brain), but you seem to be speculating that consciousness lies elsewhere?

I would argue there is no zero time from a consciousness viewpoint, instead our consciousness is determined by our senses that have specifically limits or time durations that allow us to percieve a version of the present. Our consciousness is therefore only evidence of us perceiving for fixed duration, not zero time, and as such makes no other-dimension appears to exist, or at least not one that accounts for some seperate conscioisness entity.

General discussions of time relating to the theory of universe expansion is pretty tricky stuff. Down at the space-time level, i am not sure ppl have nailed down the expansionary rate and whether this is constant or accelerating or whether there is been a change in this dynamic as the universe has unfolded from the bang.

I will drop you an email, since almost certainly you wish to clarify some things.

sorry, clarify things that i may have misunderstood.

Religious organisations sometimes refer to scientific discoveries/observations to support their religious contentions.

Eg. 'My religion says there are other dimensions. Even scientists who study quantum theory suggest there are other dimensions.'

Science, as far as I am aware, does not and has never referred to religious theories to support or bolster scientific contentions.

Religion seeks the approval of science, but science does not seek the approval of religion.


Well, if a person self-labeled a Scientist violates the Scientific Method, and publishes some really bad scientific data, then bashing that particular scientist is kinda Kool. Science in general, doesn't need to be bashed.

With that said, I have known many scientist that properly follow the Scientific method, generate properly prepared published scientific papers, and go to church ever Sunday.

Well Brian,

At the risk of being known as an Insipid Troll I'll beat this dead horse a few more times. I tried to address each point you list but it was too long. As a simplification, it appears you are claiming science is somehow superior to religion in that it can prove things religion cannot and that the logic that many people use when arguing against the validity of science is irrational. For the sake of brevity, I'll address this generalized simplification.

I agree that the logic you present in the 6 examples is irrational but I think this doesn't explain why people so often resort to these sort of irrational statements. I'll focus more on more the reason people (many irrational) would bash science.

For example, when you say "Science is a belief system, just as religions are. False." For most people who are not in the mainstream of science and do not know all the facts and theories of science: science IS a belief system not based on facts. By saying "False," you have artificially illegitimated that individual's understanding. It may not be a belief system which scientists would hold in trust as a sacred knowledge of scientific facts and theories but IT IS A BELIEF SYSTEM for most of us who simply parrot the latest popular science journal, book, or newspaper headline but do not conduct and participate in the process of science.

Because very few laypersons are primary sources of scientific knowledge, it is just as irrational for a common layperson to trust the science of research centres as it is to trust in the God of their local church. A layperson who consults the "holy books" of each body of thought is most often confounded by the arguments of either Science or Religion. Both God and Science have their priests: both of which would deny the value of the individual's experience for the sake of the syndicate of the institutionally proclaimed "Truth" bearers. I do admit that the stories of science are more convincing than those of religion but then I'm biased by my educational background which is steeped in the study of applied science. I would probably be seeing fairies in the forest or images of Christ in my toast if I was brought up to believe such stories were true. A person needs no more to live a good life than their own personal experiences which make it a good life. Science, no science; religion, no religion: it doesn't matter.

Science and religion are certainly different in how they self-proclaim to serve the individual for the individual's greater good. Science does use collections of objective facts which are widely dispersed and generally inaccessible or impenetrable as to their significance to most people. We, who are not as literate in the ways of science or are outcast as not being in the mainstream, are asked to trust the priests of science to read the Cray-z theories modeled around their self-proclaimed Oracle database of facts which they themselves have proclaimed as truth but which confound us children of lesser gods. These white robed priests of science condescend to tell us and how we don't understand the way the universe works and that they know the true reality prophesized by their facts and figures. Religion also their own facts in the form of primary authoritative references and archeological digs to say that there is a day of reckoning which they condescend to convey to we poor uninitiated sinners in the mysteries of life. Anyone can look up their crazy facts for themselves and confirm that these oracles did indeed say those things. Both sides paint a nice story of doom and gloom for profit. For most of us uninitiated into the secrets of theory and theology, we are left to believe the priests, the shaman, the prophet of each field of study based upon second hand stories.

Science minimizes and marginalizes the personal experience to the benefit of an objective exclusionary syndical meritocracy with which they tell dazzling stories of mystery and aw to the public and plead for more funding. Scientific work certainly has cohesive logical descriptive patterns (some beautiful) with occasionally relevant consequences but for most people - science is irrelevant beyond a cool story or an interesting pretty picture. The truths of science are subject to change by definition of what science is. And, since science produces as many (perhaps more) harmful as beneficial results, the shifting sands of truth that science holds out for us lowly laypeople to believe, is hardly something we can trust with our public funds any more than our local religious pastor who asks us to fund a new crystal palace addition to the church because God said we should.

I think this is why many people may be put off when science is touted as being superior to religion or their own spiritual experiences. Certainly, science can defend under its own terms of acceptable defense its set of factualized theories but it is a fundamental belief held by both science and religion that they hold some aspect of truth for which others should pay. They both marginalize the experience of the individual. If I see a UFO but there is no scientific evidence to show that UFOs exist, science passes me off as a crackpot and says show me the evidence and religion says it must be false (and may burn or shoot me) because it doesn't fit within the standard religious experience. People picked up stones that fell from the sky claiming they fell from the heavens but the rational people thought they were fairy tales. The person who dug it out of the ground knew better. So, direct personal experience is the primary source we should all consult while doing science or religion, not some mumbo jumbo set of sooth sayers who look into their Cray-z oracles or books of revelation to predict the weather for this coming week or the latest data for the second coming of Christ and the end of the world. Okay, so it might be a good idea to take an umbrella along or stock up with a few extra cans of soup in the pantry, just in case the scientist/priest is correct. After all, the end of the world as we know it IS coming- for all of us.

In Conclusion:

I like the prophets of science but I think that what is important is the personal experience which is of most value for the individual and not the belief in a clergy of scientists or scientific theologians who wish to inflict their theoretical interpretation of facts on an unwitting public (for better or worse). I would choose science as a nice secondary reference who defines the objective world but I would choose a trusted shaman as a nice secondary reference who points to the subjective world. In either case, the individual is the primary observer of all subjects of observation.

Perhaps, rather than solely indoctrinating "our" youth into remote and abstract standards of institutionalized science and religious relics, they should be taught how to better experience the world and think in a fresh way for themselves and live their life for themselves in immediate immanence, drawing from the knowledge of science and religion as secondary sources to their own primary self? This may be along the lines of a Socratic tradition. The self experience (subjective and objective) and reasoned understanding will go a lot further than strictly placing our trust in the hands of someone else. Good teachers will allow this development naturally: the tao; or in Joseph Campbell's popular phrase "follow your bliss." Your bliss being your greatest truth, your greatest beauty, your greatest peace of mind. Maybe this would be a better approach to developing wisdom as a collective whole rather than simply instilling brute force memorization of facts and references from either the scientific or the religious traditions. A truly philosophical approach in living a life unencumbered by truth-mongers.


Yours Truely, Insipid Troll (IT) aka Jayme :)

Brian,

The last post was fast when I excluded this appendix. With this appendix, it choked. There must be something about size limitations.

I've included a transcript of T. McKenna regarding the value of science. I enjoy his stories.

[Terence McKenna P7 Under The Teaching Tree - YouTube (5:39 thru 9:46)]
"Our entire picture of the so called distant universe is built up by the science of radio teloscopy, the use of radio telescopes to study deep space. This science has been in existence since about 1950. If you were to take all the radio signals that have been analyzed by radio astronomy since 1950 and characterized them as energy, it would be the amount of energy that is released by a cigarette ash falling a distance of 2 feet. So, this is the thinness of the data out of which we have created these incredibly grandiose conceptions of what is happening. Science is just whistling past the graveyard. Don't forget that the telescope is about 500 years old, this year. So to believe that the story science tells us is true, when we can't understand the mathematics, we cannot build the instruments ourselves, we cannot analyze the data. I mean, we are under the thumb of a priesthood more domineering, more removed from the ordinary concerns of ordinary people than any priesthood of any religion in the past ever was. I think we should hold all that in abeyance. I'm not saying it's not true, I'm saying it's not possible to tell whether it's true or not. ... what's real is what I call the felt presence of immediate experience. That's what's real. What you think, what you feel, what you see - NOW - is what's real. Even your own memories are so shifting and elusive and subject to psychological transformation based on your own inner and unconscious dynamics and kinks that, to believe what somebody else is telling you about the temperature of Betelgeuse, or something like that, or the charge of the top quark means you've moved off into some kind of Private Idaho. Crazy people rave about stuff like this. But I think people who are rooted in a good philosophical method will not give much credence to anything out of reach of their good right arm ... I didn't present you with a set of tensor equations or a tape of electromagnetic data interpreted through the fiat of a fishy formula. We're talking experience here. And this [psychedelic] experience, if made commiserate with ordinary experience, I think will lead to the conclusion that this is as dead as you will ever be; this is as low as you can go: this is as confined a mode of existence as it is possible to know. It's all up from here folks. It's a kind of Gnostic vision. I see our present circumstance as the low rung of a ladder of transformational distillation." ...

Respects,

Jayme, you make some good points. However, I don't feel oppressed or controlled by science in the fashion you describe. And given the widespread science illiteracy in the United States, obviously most people in this country aren't excessively influenced by the "high priests" of science either.

A couple of responses:

The scientific method is founded on "show me," as you note. This leads to a healthy skepticism about unfounded claims. But I've never come across a scientist who denies or denigrates personal experience. After all, all of scientific progress has come about through scientists having personal experiences -- which then are communicated to others through papers, reports, and the like.

Subjectivity is great. So is objectivity. They are two sides of the same coin. One can't exist without the other. (If all there was, was subjectivity, wouldn't this be the sole objective truth?)

Lastly, science is effective. It works. It makes differences in our lives. This is a wonderful aspect of science. A religious belief doesn't have the same quality, because it doesn't have the same strong linkage with the natural world.

"Jesus saves." OK. That's nice. I can't see Jesus, or the saving. But the marvelous Sony camera I got recently...man, it does all kinds of stuff when I press the shutter button, whirring away focusing, adjusting for different light conditions, detecting faces, smiles, and such.

I agree with you that personal experiences are important, and can even possibly reveal objective reality in ways that science can't. However, I also love how science produces real effects in the real world in ways that religiosity and subjectivity don't.

Again, two sides of the same reality coin. Wisdom, I'd suggest, lies in seeing each side for what it is, while also recognizing that we're looking at one coin, not two.

LOL, ya Sony makes great cameras :)

"Lastly, science is effective. It works. It makes differences in our lives. This is a wonderful aspect of science. A religious belief doesn't have the same quality, because it doesn't have the same strong linkage with the natural world."

I definitely agree. One cannot argue that results don't count.

I just started listening to this Manly P. Hall guy. I will leave a selected transcript from one of his talks - When The Invisible Sun Moves Northward Pt. 6 [4:21 to 5:39]

... "We can take a look at science. Here we have probably one of the most valuable instruments the world has ever been given. An instrument bounded and founded in the great triad of mathematics, astronomy, and music. Science which has developed itself in many many ways has given us a great number of very pleasant privileges, and has made life easier for millions of people; and in this respect has gained our confidence. But, we begin to notice something. We notice, that the scientist has not taken the obligations that were given in the ancient mysteries. He has not forsworn fame; he has not declared that he will invent only that which will serve good; he does not permit his secrets to be carried out if he is properly informed - if they will bring damage or injury to any other living thing. So what is happening? We have a scientific world which has given us much to be grateful for, but might sometime give us that which will extinguish all the good that science has ever given. This was the type of thing that was a great concern to the ancients." ...

An interesting fellow I'll have to read more about.

Definitely two sides of the coin.

Respects,

Decided to come back for one last post: Somewhere someone on this list informed me that Big Bang was proven. Some very recent work just released this week, from redshift data (2DF Australia and SDSS New Mexico) provide conclusive empirical evidence that conventional cosmic model (Big Bang) incorporates fundamental errors of similar order to the cosmological treatise by Aristotle "On the Heavens" 350 BC.
I maintain that the religion of this blog is conventional science, willingness to even consider that your religion might be wrong pushes away those who might actually widen your knowledge.

Phil, when the Big Bang is disproven, it will be front page news -- not just some weird fringe science that you dug up on the Internet. I'll continue to stick with what the consensus of reputable scientists recognizes to be true, not your variety of truth.

Stick with your new scientist and hold on to your News of the World beliefs. I was senior research scientist at Ministry of Defense lab in UK back at end of cold war: some of the things we were testing then are far from public: yet that technology would be remarkable even today, and certainly newsworthy. You and I understand why this is still hidden from public knowledge. Great scientists leading the field do not base their research on front page news, they use their intellect and study peer reviewed papers- such papers as I have just read this morning. The comment I made was not my comment, but quoted from Murray Gell-Mann. its his words you consider weird fringe science.
Seems to me your only acceptable source of truth is Brian Hines and his loyal followers.

Phil, you didn't provide a link to this supposedly peer-reviewed paper. So please let us know what reputable journal this paper was in. And share where others can review the findings of this supposedly ground-breaking research.

You have a habit of saying that I, and other science-loving folks, are closed-minded. But then you don't offer convincing facts that we can enter into our minds.

I'd say that minds aren't closed here; you simply don't provide evidence that would lead a reasonable person to change his or her mind about the big bang, or whatever.

Phil,

Who are Brian Hines' "loyal followers"? It seems to me most regulars here have their own individual take on things.

If I'm wrong, all you Brian Hines bootlickers please speak up!

tucson, ME, ME, ME! I love Brian Hines! I always do what he says, and am in constant touch with his every desire and whim from the time I wake up in the morning until I go to sleep at night.

Of course, I'm sort of a special case.

Yeah, and I need some boot-licking done too (not to mention the standard booty-kissing), so when those bootlickers get all done licking Brian's boots, I've got another job lined-up for em.

How dare you question a fraud like Phil Risby, who is an elite disciple of the infamous and hokey Fraudasoami? Have you no shame?

The cult of Fraudasoami relies heavily upon slavadars like Phil to preach the doctrine of Frauda Yoga and Fraudulence in Human Form. Phil is working closely with other slavadars to advance the agenda of Baba Fraudurinder Swing and his mystic Science of the Foul.

Seems to me that Brian has multiple personalities, posting multiple posts using different names
Reminds me of Mr bean posting himself Xmas cards
I am happy to provide links and references to anyone who has an interest, contact me at [email protected] for substance to my comments without the crap that is spewed out on this blog

Thanks to Phil Risby for his devoted seva to the cult of Frauda Soami and its mystical crapola. And his evasiveness coupled with a genuine lack of common sense is so admirable. There is a special and unique place in the Fraudasoami cult that is reserved for such extraordinary marked souls.

Phil, I can assure you that there I have only one persona on this blog: Brian. In fact, I am an unusual occupant of cyberspace, in that I habitually use my real name whenever I post a comment anywhere I go.

Brian.
You put down my comment as being that of a fool when you thought they were my words, but when I reveal that the words were those of a respected and highly educated individual, you then expect me to engage in serious debate?
Your responses have made it clear where you are at, and I cannot consider any comment you make to have more value than the paper it is not written on, for you are clearly unable to value the content of what is written, only poke fun at the writer. As for your strange followers, well, one gets what one deserves!

Phil, you're mistaken. I indicated that I didn't agree with the notion that the big bang theory has been disproven, no matter the source. I pointed out that you hadn't provided a link or reference to the supposed groundbreaking research that you mentioned.

You still haven't shared where this info. can be perused. Sure, in a distant sense I poked fun at you, because you claimed that significant evidence against the big bang theory has been put forward. I said that I'd wait until reputable scientists review the evidence, assuming it exists.

More accuately, though, I disagreed with you. I often say to commenters, "If you're right, show science the evidence, and a Nobel Prize awaits you." That may sound like I'm poking fun, but I'm serious.

If you know the truth about how the universe came into being, wow, that's terrific!! Let's see the evidence. A whole lot of physicists and cosmologists are waiting to be enlightened.

This Risby fellow is obviously a phony. He claims there is evidence, but when Brian askes him where that can be found, he blatantly avoids doing so, and even tries to divert the focus into other trivial nonsense. It is so plain to see that this fellow Risby is a bullshitter.

So Mr Risby, here's your chance... either produce some manner of evidence of your claims, or stop posting evasive BS. You are insulting the intelligence of both Brian as well as the rest of us here. if you wish others to take you seriously, then show some integrity. So far, you haven't. And if you really haven't got any evidence to show, then just admit it and end the charade. You say you have proof, but where is it? On some obscure paper somewhere that is not accesible to others? Get real! If you are going to make a claim, then be prepared to support it with some substantial evidence. Otherwise, don't waste good people's time with a bunch of non-existant bullshit. You are not fooling anyone here. But you are tending to make yourself look like a bit foolish.

It is top secret CIA stuff, but reliable sources close to me, who disclosed this information on condition of annonimity, say that the CIA has conclusively disproven the Big Bang theory in favor of subject-object mutual cancellation which renders the universe simultaneously existent and non-existent in absolute terms. This has not been made public because they don't want to confuse or upset people with the news that they neither are nor are not. For example, basketball fans want to believe Kobe Bryant exists, period. Unless of course they are Cleveland fans.

I definitely do not discount what Phil says but according to Brian's theory of scientific truth (as best as I can understand) the mainstream science is de facto true until changed on the rest of us by those given (or who have taken) authority to change it. Most of us who do not agree with mainstream scientists are, by definition, wrong. We are marginalized by the peer reviewing scientists. So, when the Russian medical doctors tell the farmers that the cancerous sores on their feet are from something other than nuclear radiation leaking from underground nuclear bomb testing, the doctor speaks the truth. When the authoritative power mis-informs or dis-informs us laymen about the toxicity of any chemical compound (e.g. asbestos) based upon contradictory "evidence," this is to be accepted as truth and the public belief that these illnesses are somehow related to the chemical is false. It forces others who don't believe in the mainstream to meet in secret and discuss these fringe topics out of earshot of the mainstream who will cry "HERESY!" and seek to destroy their opposition through science education camps, studies, ridicule, and interactive museums designed to indoctrinate the youth.

Most mainstream science is fairly predictable within a prefabricated theoretical architecture of known principles and experiments. But science on the fringe is where the breakthroughs and new phenomena are discovered or explained. Many professional careers are ended when leaving the mainstream for fringe areas at the end of the world. UFOs, paranormal research, antigravity, perpetual motion, big foot, crop circles, psychedelics, alternative cosmologies, etcetera - are interesting places to kill a career while making a living by selling to a popular fringe audience. Most science tells a good story but mostly science is like any collective belief system bent on self preservation: only, with science, the priests tell a much more potent truth about a consensus reality supported by abstract facts and obscure causal relations. They can explain to you ad nauseum why you are wrong to think what you do.

Although, I would agree that facts must support a theory, most facts are not available to even mainstream scientists. For example, we know that cigarette smoking causes health problems. How long did those who peddled these products have scientific facts about these products before the public was made aware? Just because the public was told that smoking wasn't proven to cause cancer, it didn't make it any less true or real to those who died from cancer. I'm just parroting publicly available sources. I have conducted no research of my own on smoking as a cause of cancer and so I don't know this to be true. But I miraculously give over my thinking to those who think this is true and join in condemning those companies who profit by these products. My point is that, when politically or economically motivated labs produce scientific studies, these may severely skew scientific truth. There are political and economic reasons to keep information out of the public domain. I can't imagine how a conflicting cosmological theory would have political or economic implications but perhaps it has something to do with the implications that come from the theory. For example, the Germans were thought to be working on a fission bomb but there was no proof that a fission bomb could be built. When the theory was matched to the two elements of Uranium and Plutonium, the theory had both political and economic value. If there are similarly significant implications to an alternative theory to the Big Bang then one can imagine these may be of cosmological importance. Perhaps Kobe Bryant really doesn't exist after all. This would be the end of the universe as his fans know it. To say that we have to wait for the "truth" science has to offer before we can call it truth is giving one's own authority away. Any scientist who is pushing a theory is simply making up a good story that seems to fit the facts. It is only true because other scientists who are popular with their peers have agreed it is true and it seems to fit the facts. And sometimes these facts are not so obvious, or true, or complete, when examined in an unbiased light. Percival Lowell saw some wonderful canals on Mars (that weren't there) through his big expensive telescope. How many years before this story finally died? It is still quoted as a fun tail of science lore - worthless as it is in describing objective facts.

From the Wikipedia - "Beginning in the winter of 1893-94, using his wealth and influence, Lowell dedicated himself to the study of astronomy, founding the observatory which bears his name." Littmann, Mark (1985). Planets Beyond: Discovering the Outer Solar System. Courier Dover Publication. p. 62-3. ISBN 0486436020.

Note that "wealth and influence" are often two very important facts of science. Why are so many Nobel Prizes given to the United States? I don't think it's because the US scientists are smarter.

Phil,

It would be good to be able to understand the facts and references you offer but I'm afraid that most of us are not initiated priests into the science of cosmology and cannot authorize it as truth - even if it does disprove the big bang theory, you would be casting pearl before swine.

In this respect it is humbling to realize that my own opinion about cosmology doesn't matter. oink.

Respects,

Jayme, you have a strange conception of the scientific method. So strange, it's hard to reply briefly to you. Maybe I'll dedicate today's blog post to replying to your thoughts here.

As I find with so many science-bashers, your depiction of science and scientists doesn't seem at all realistic. You set up a caricature of science, and then criticize your own notion of it.

Here's a preview of what I'm leaning toward talking about in today's post:

Jayme, I'd be interested in learning how you would react if a door to door salesman came to your house and said, "I'm selling pills that will make you totally healthy and happy, using a heretofore unknown pharmaceutical chemical process. How many would you like? Cost is $50 per pill. You'll need to take one a day for a month to get the effect."

How you answer this hypothetical would tell me a lot about how you actually view the scientific method, compared to how you write about it in a blog comment.

The one thing I have learnt is that whatever attempt make a serious post results in volumes of verbal hatred from one list member or the other. In a comment to a previous post, I provided lengthy list of reputable references, only to be subject of ridicule. This time, I did not provide links (but offered to willingly provide them to anyone who wanted to know even supplying my e-mail address) and, perhaps predictably, responses have been excessively negative and abusive. I have even copied the words of highly credible scientists of main stream (without quote references) and been accused of being full of shit. But, in case there is someone here who is interested in finding out for themselves instead of following in the skirt tails of news reporters, then I welcome your communication, but not on here, this place is glows like rotten wood !

what a clown and a fraud.

Brian,

"Not interested" is my usual answer to the salesman question. There are rare occasions when I might be interested in exploring a new product and if the product seemed to be suitable, I might even pay for the experience to verify for myself the validity of the claim if the potential benefit seemed of interest. This would be more likely to occur if it was recommended by someone I trust (a peer review). If the sample was free, there is a greater chance I'd try it. The price you mention is generally greater than what I would pay for the claimed experience.

Perhaps this will clarify:

I do think the process of science provides a proven feedback method that can help describe the world. What science doesn't do, is make fewer problems. If there is any point to what I've said, it is that science provides no greater path to truth, beauty, and happiness than any system of thought that is self consistent. If one is true to one's self, then science (and even culture) is an un-necessary formality. I do think that truth, happiness, and beauty come from one's self and are not objective manifestations of facts explained by theories. (By "truth," I mean truth as a first person observer as opposed to a truth by consensus.)

Respects,

Jayme said:

"What science doesn't do, is make fewer problems."

-- Is that so? I am sorry but don't think so. I must stroingly disagree. Your thinking on this seems rather blind. Science has made countless "fewer problems". Science has reduced problems and brought about countless solutions, advantages and benefits to our lives... all of which replaced the many "problems" that had existed before science discovered and provided those solutions and benefits. To think otherwise is plain ignorant.

"science provides no greater path to truth, beauty, and happiness than any system of thought that is self consistent."

-- Huh? What do you mean by "self consistent"? Furthermore, science has uncovered and revealed far more real tangible "truth" than any religious beliefs, which has not produced any truth. Try and name one truth that religion and spirituality has revealed. There are none. But there are countless truths that science has discovered.

"If one is true to one's self, then science (and even culture) is an un-necessary formality."

-- No way Jose. Being true to one's self does not eliminate the need for science. You would not have any computer or the internet if it were not for science. You also would not have running water, heaters, lights, refridgerators, buildings, cars, phones, radio, TV, printing and books, machinery, life saving medicines and medical knowledge and skills, chemistry, a vast array of food products... and the list goes on and on. It is incredibly absurd and stupid to think that all you need is your "self", and that elimates any reliance on science or culture.

"I do think that truth, happiness, and beauty come from one's self and are not objective manifestations of facts explained by theories."

-- You are living in a fantasy. Just try being happy without having anything that science has provided. You are so deluding yourself if you think you can or will be happy. Try starving to death with no food, or not having any running water, or having no heat in the winter, no refrigerator, etc. Then see how happy anmd beautiful you are.

"By "truth," I mean truth as a first person observer as opposed to a truth by consensus."

-- But where is this "first person observer" "truth" that you mention? How do you know its "truth" if no one else can verify it? Your assertion of "first person observer" truth is basically ridiculous, as it is entirely limited to your own personal belief.

+Ao = sad, very sad

Jayme, your points are well made and are worthy of further discussion, do not expect unbiased sensible debate on this blog, the likes of +Ao lower the standard to sub gutter !

Phil, I'd like to make a suggestion to you. Again.

Instead of saying something like "sad, very sad," why don't you respond to specific points made by someone like +Ao? He made a lot of sense in his comment. What makes you sad about what he said in the comment above yours?

You're fond of throwing out epithets like "sub gutter" without any argument to back them up. Yet you called for "unbiased sensible debate" on this blog.

Do you see the contradiction?

Dear Phil Risby,

I remind you of my 6/23/09 @ 9:58 PM response to you on Brian's 6/19/09 essay, "Nature is real, religion is illusion." (Some of my ensuing comments to you and to George, thereafter on the same essay, might be of further consequence as well.)

Robert Paul Howard

Ok its unrelated to this post, but I wanted to reply to Manish.
Manish actually you have posted a email hoax thread there...38% of Indian here and 40% there :) This is completely false.

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/World/US/India-rising-in-US-Govt-falls-victim-to-net-hoax/articleshow/2856295.cms

I wont blame you but the funny part is that even a member of lower house of parliament in India used this funny email hoax as stats while the house was in session ...!

In general, Indian have that 'We are so great syndrome' !!


Thank you Phil - It may not appear as such but I don't dislike nor distrust science. As with one's life partner, one becomes familiar with the faults (as well as one's own). It doesn't necessarily make one love their partner less but the shortcomings help embody the character and lend a greater tenderness to the whole story of we.

I respect your perspective +Ao. From all I can tell, you have good logic and I accept that you are probably more knowledgable (wise) than myself. I don't know how I can know this is true, I just seem to know it. I will say as much for Brian as well. I'll respond as best I can. It is much easier to rant than to carefully defend a point but I will try. It will take a little more time.

Hi +Ao:

"What science doesn't do, is make fewer problems."

-- "Is that so? I am sorry but don't think so. I must stroingly disagree. Your thinking on this seems rather blind. Science has made countless "fewer problems". Science has reduced problems and brought about countless solutions, advantages and benefits to our lives... all of which replaced the many "problems" that had existed before science discovered and provided those solutions and benefits. To think otherwise is plain ignorant.

++ While I agree that science certainly solves some problems in some areas of study. It does not reduce the number of problems. We improved the antibiotics to cure infections but newer strains are not so easily killed and there is a constant struggle with the new problems that have arisen as a consequence of solving the original problem. Secondary infections are a serious problem in hospitals. Nutritional and physical health sciences have increased the longevity of many people into old age but consequently there are "new" diseases such as arthritis, osteoporosis, senility, macular degeneration, and many others. Life support in the medical sciences have allowed us to extend the life of human bodies; but this has also been applied to brain dead people at great expense to families while giving them false hope. I don't think this is ignorance of the problems that actually matter to most people. Science promises a future filled with false hope when in fact, everything passes away. Science treats the cosmetics of the material body at the expense of the whole system of the living being (call it spirit or whatever). Science simply hasn't reduced the number of problems and is driven by the increase in the number of problems.

"science provides no greater path to truth, beauty, and happiness than any system of thought that is self consistent."

-- Huh? What do you mean by "self consistent"? Furthermore, science has uncovered and revealed far more real tangible "truth" than any religious beliefs, which has not produced any truth. Try and name one truth that religion and spirituality has revealed. There are none. But there are countless truths that science has discovered.

++ By "self consistent" I mean that there have been many mythologies / cosmologies which people have found sufficient to explain their universe long before there was even an idea of "science." Yes, science has revealed more real tangible "truths" than religious beliefs about the material world but these are primarily through reductionist thinking. There are great voids within the body of materialistic science which are not suited to reason. These experiential truths of the observer are no less real. The material world is the medium of science. It may not have objective truth but it doesn't mean the people are oppressed and unhappy because they don't know the method of science. The religious belief that the holy spirit can cure an ailment is true. The "placebo effect" is not some creation through the scientific process. The religious folks didn't call it by this name.


"If one is true to one's self, then science (and even culture) is an un-necessary formality."

-- No way Jose. Being true to one's self does not eliminate the need for science. You would not have any computer or the internet if it were not for science. You also would not have running water, heaters, lights, refridgerators, buildings, cars, phones, radio, TV, printing and books, machinery, life saving medicines and medical knowledge and skills, chemistry, a vast array of food products... and the list goes on and on. It is incredibly absurd and stupid to think that all you need is your "self", and that elimates any reliance on science or culture.

++ What is meant by this statement is that science is conducted as a state of being not a formalistic decree. One conducts one's self according to one's own experience rather than being swayed by a collective body of someone else's knowledge. In other words, just because it says so in the book do'n't make it so; just because your friend jumps off the cliff do'n't make it right. Not everything works as advertised. The same goes for science and culture. Both of these are secondary sources to the individual primary source. For myself, I check my own experience and if I am uncertain, I check with others. If I have experience but some doubt, I'll check with others but make my own decision. If I know nothing but must decide, I'll refer to a trusted person.

"I do think that truth, happiness, and beauty come from one's self and are not objective manifestations of facts explained by theories."

-- You are living in a fantasy. Just try being happy without having anything that science has provided. You are so deluding yourself if you think you can or will be happy. Try starving to death with no food, or not having any running water, or having no heat in the winter, no refrigerator, etc. Then see how happy anmd beautiful you are.

++ Perhaps it is just a fantasy. Since I am no saint, have not taken psychedelics, nor had near death or out of body experiences; I cannot contend this point with much conviction. My experiences are meager but not inconsistent with what I have read. As such, I do have a simple self comparison that I can apply and consequently expand on my experiences. Due to my general inexperience, I refer to those who have written of such things and are considered authorities. St. John of the Cross was beaten, kicked in the face, stuck in a jail cell in which he could not stand erect and slept in his own fecal matter. Yet he spoke of love. He did not speak much of heat, cold, running water, or having a refrigerator. I don't think Mother Teresa was too concerned about her material comforts either and there are many more. Yes, the fruits of science can provide some comforts, but they don't provide the "great comforter." Not everything I read is consistent with my experience. While it is possible that there is still a great deal of fantasy in my perspective, if the matter is important enough to me, I don't simply take people at their word without verifying it for myself.

"By "truth," I mean truth as a first person observer as opposed to a truth by consensus."

-- But where is this "first person observer" "truth" that you mention? How do you know its "truth" if no one else can verify it? Your assertion of "first person observer" truth is basically ridiculous, as it is entirely limited to your own personal belief.

++ I am the "first person observer" and I am true. What is "truth" by consensus is an engagement in dualism. I am also true by consensus. So, the claim is that the truth of the "first person observer" (the individual) is a greater truth than the objective truth of science since I am true in both subjective and objective realities. Within the realm of concepts, I agree that my subjective reality is absurd. This subjective ridiculousness has to be this way, because concepts are inherently incomplete.

Respects,

Brian; When I have disagreed with a post, I have been accused of not providing references. When I provide a list of references, I have been put down. When I have posted a response that threatens something you and others hold sacred (Big Bang Theory) my comment has been labelled as fringe. When I point out that I did not use my words, but the words of a well respected scientist, I have been asked for references, When I offer references and provide an e-mail, not one person has responded, not one! Clearly no-one on this blog is interested in genuine enquiry and furthering knowledge via debate, and I now realize that I am guilty of misunderstanding the purpose of this blog and apologize for threatening your belief system and causing such disturbance. Anyone who has genuine interest is welcome to contact me, I may even invite you to my participate on my private blog, which is private to keep commenters such as fraud buster et al away

Phil, I disagree with your view of the purpose of this blog. But, hey, you're welcome to your own beliefs. The Internet is a big wide world of competing ideas. It's nice that you've got your own blog, where you share your own perspectives.

It's strange, though, that you say you're so big on free and open discussions, but you won't let people disagree with you on your own blog.

Hmmm... on this blog you've been allowed to say what you want in comments, and then to get feedback from people about what you said. On your blog, you don't allow feedback. Yet I'm the one who is closed-minded and you're the open-minded guy. I don't get it.

Brian, your comments represent an important point I could not hav made better myself: you say: "but you won't let people disagree with you on your own blog."
You make a statement of fact without ever having visited my blog, you assume your assessment is correct yet it could not be further from the truth. Most posters to my blog disagree with me, and I respect and value their comments, and accept all their feedback and comments, I simply filter out those who post without thinking, like you have just demonstrated. I have zero respect for statements such as you have just made, statements made without any basis in fact, just pure irrational unfounded ego. I

Phil, thanks for the clarification. In your earlier comment you said that your blog is private to keep certain commenters away, so I concluded that you didn't allow any comments. A reasonable conclusion, but not correct.

Phil,

I think you are full of crap, as shown repeatedly by your comments. I also think Brian has been more than patient with the sort of game that you play.

For instance, you have said: "I have been accused of not providing references. When I provide a list of references, I have been put down."

-- No, you did NOT provide references. You alluded to some vague references, but you gave no information as to where to locate them. And no one put you down for your theory/claim, only that you did not provide clear evidence to back up your theory/claim.

"When I have posted a response that threatens something you and others hold sacred (Big Bang Theory) my comment has been labelled as fringe."

-- That is absolutely not true. No one here is threatened by your responses. And no one considers the largely accepted theory of the big bang as being "sacred" either. In fact, I myself do not not regard it as the final word. I am open to other possibilites. But it seems that you are not so open.

"When I offer references and provide an e-mail, not one person has responded, not one!"

-- That may be because some people (myself included) are rather cautious about sending guys like you their personal e-mail addresses. And if you really wanted to back up your claim, it is much easier if you would simply provide links. But oddly, you refuse to do that. So that makes you look suspicious and disingenuous.

"Clearly no-one on this blog is interested in genuine enquiry and furthering knowledge via debate"

-- That is absolute total crap. It is simply not the case at all. The problem is that you are playing a game of evasion. If you have the evidence to support your claim, then produce it. Its as simple as that. But you are trying to get other people to go out of their way and jump through your hoops. Its doesn't work that way. If you make a claim, then be prepared to show some evidence in support of that claim. Otherwise, just call it your own personal belief.

"and I now [...] apologize for threatening your belief system and causing such disturbance."

-- Wrong. There is no such "belief system" here. That is just more of the same crap you use to distort the issue. The fact is that there are diverse individuals here who all have varying opinions and different points of view.

"Anyone who has genuine interest is welcome to contact me, I may even invite you to my participate on my private blog, which is private to keep commenters such as fraud buster et al away"

-- I am not interested in your advertisment, and I don't think others are either. If you have something to substantiate your theory & claim, then put it on the table for all to see. Don't play baiting games. And if your blog is "private" and not open to all reasonable comments, then I doubt that anyone here will be interested.

"Brian, You make a statement of fact without ever having visited my blog, you assume your assessment is correct yet it could not be further from the truth."

-- No Phil, Brian was right. YOU yourself said (quote): "my private blog, which is private to keep commenters such as fraud buster et al away"

"I simply filter out those who post without thinking, like you have just demonstrated."

-- That sounds terribly closed-minded and judgemental. To say "those who post without thinking" shows considerable bias and value judgement. People think differently. But you are saying that you will judge who is thinking and who isn't. That's a load of controlling bullshit. People like you are blatant petty tyrants. And thats why your blog reflects that.

"I have zero respect for statements such as you have just made, statements made without any basis in fact, just pure irrational unfounded ego."

-- Wrong. Brian was simply reflecting exactly what YOU YOURSELF had said and indicated. You said: "my private blog, which is private to keep commenters such as fraud buster et al away". Much like Brian, I too concluded (as Brian said): "in your earlier comment you said that your blog is private to keep certain commenters away, so I concluded that you didn't allow any comments". It was YOU who said that Phil. And that really sounds like you do narrowly censor and control commenters and their comments on yoiur blog. Brian was merely reflecting and addressing what YOU YOURSELF had already indicated.

So Phil, again, why don't you cut the crap and the avoidance games, qit beating around the bush, and just present whatever it is that you wish to present in support of your theories and claims. No one here has stopped you, nor is anyone preventing you from doing that.


Brian, Certain commenters is not the same as ALL commenters. One can be a member of a private club, but just because some are not allowed in does not mean that members cannot participate in club activities.

+Ao, apologies for not providing links to the references, I somehow assumed that people to this blog would know how to look up a reference. Perhaps my being full of crap is an advantage, for I can manage to look up references without problem. Have you heard of books, these are paper documents sometimes with lists of references, just as I provided in my comments. I clearly have misjudged this blog'

+Ao, I am grateful for your eloquent explanation: posting a reference without a hyperlink is unacceptable, for it is considered a hoop to jump through, in just the same way as offering links to those interested in further reading is considered an unacceptable hoop for anyone to pass, demonstrating yet again, there is no interest on this blog to investigate and explore, this blog is about a few sitting in judgement of those who dare disturb their sacred belief systems. It must be my own ego, but somehow I am not attracted to typing out my thoughts and compiling a list of references linked to various online papers for you and Brian to judge.

Phil said:

"I somehow assumed that people to this blog would know how to look up a reference."

-- They do, but the burden of proof is upon YOU Phil, not others. Why should we have to go searching all over hell to find your references? It is YOUR job to provide the data that supports YOUR claims.

"I can manage to look up references without problem. Have you heard of books, these are paper documents sometimes with lists of references, just as I provided in my comments."

-- Now you are being really lame. As I already told you above, the burden of proof is all upon YOU Phil, not upon others. Why should anyone have to go searching all over hell to find your supposed references? It is your job to provide the data that supports your claims. Other people here may not have easy access to academic libraries that have specialized scientific "books" and "paper documents" "with lists of references" etc. Also, you are expectiong other people to go on a wild goose chase just to find your references. You are out of touch with reality Phil. If yhou have evidence, and you want others to take it into account, then you need to scan it and put it up on a webpage so that it can be easily accessed. To ask and to expect other people to go searching for some obscure scientific or technical papers is ludicrous. It is entirely up to YOU to provide them or to provide access to them.

"I clearly have misjudged this blog"

-- No, it is not this blog that is the problem... it is YOU who have misjudged what is reasonable to expect other people to do. Again, if you have evidence, then it is YOU who must provide it. Its not anything to do with this blog.

"posting a reference without a hyperlink is unacceptable, for it is considered a hoop to jump through"

-- That is correct.

"offering links to those interested in further reading is considered an unacceptable hoop for anyone to pass"

-- No, that is NOT correct.

"there is no interest on this blog to investigate and explore"

-- That is not correct either.

"this blog is about a few sitting in judgement of those who dare disturb their sacred belief systems."

-- That is totally incorrect. What are these "sacred belief sysyems" that you see? There is no such thing. You are simply projecting your own tendency towards belief systems.

"It must be my own ego, but somehow I am not attracted to typing out my thoughts and compiling a list of references linked to various online papers for you and Brian to judge."

-- It's not for anyone here to "judge". No one is judging in this case except you yourself. This is simply about providing some reasonbable evidence to support YOUR claim. But you don't want to (or perhaps you can't) do that. You are trying to blame us, but yet it is still YOU who refuses to show any evidence.

All I can tell you is that your avoidance game is transparent to me. If you have something to offer, then simply show it, or publish it. Otherwise Phil, please dispense with all this dancing and beating-around-the-bush BS that you are doing. We just ain't all that stupid.


+Ao, you state posting a reference without a link is unacceptable.
So in world of +Ao, books with references in the back are unacceptable.
You say this is not a judgmental blog, yet you state that the burden of proof is upon me, my responsibility to bring proof to the court of +Ao and Brian.
You say it is acceptable to offer links (I would have send actual pdf files if requested) and so this blog is about open enquiry, but I say again, not one single request from this blog has been received. +Ao, think before you type, it may make more sense

No Phil... posting a reference without a link is unacceptable HERE. We are on the internet, not in a library.

Furthermore, there is no such "court of +Ao and Brian". Thats a load of rubbish... it is yet another nonsense ploy you are using to evade the issue.

You say: "not one single request from this blog has been received". No one is going to come to you. You must present whatever it is that you feel that validates your case. We should not have to "request" anything from you.

Get real Phil. Because I am starting to think that you are nothing more than a troll. What ARE you trying to prove here?

Until you present something of real substance, I have nothing more to say to you.

How can anyone hold a developed view of the world if they limit their knowledge acquisition according to the expectation that information is presented to them in some acceptable form.
Even stranger is that such a person could consider themselves to be open to enquiry and be explorers of the world about them. This is like claiming to be an Arctic Adventurer and blurting out facts about the North Pole, while still waiting for someone to bring the North Pole to them.
If it were not so sad, it would be amusing, while I read numerous peer reviewed scientific papers and offer links or copies of those that are relevant to posted topic to those who may be interested, +Ao accuses me of being full of crap because I have only offered and not posted links to the article. How childish to live in a belief world stabilized by requirement of others to prove it is incomplete.

+Ao
You are quite correct - you have nothing of value to say, forgive me for thinking there was rational thought behind your typing - my mistake

There is still doubt among some that Obama is a native born U.S. citizen which is a requirement for holding the office of president.

Obama has produced a Hawaiian document stating that there is a birth certificate on file showing him to have been born in Honolulu, but it is not the actual birth certificate. So, this doubt persists.

It seems to me that it would end the controversy if Obama or the State of Hawaii would simply produce the real birth certificate. Case closed.

Phil, it seems to me you could put an end all this by simply providing the links to the studies instead of being evasive about it, but I don't think you can or you would have done so by now. You have gotten yourself in so deep that you can't admit that there is no such documentation or studies.

I have offered to provide the information to anyone who asks, the links will not be much use as all the journals I use for reference are under subscription and cannot be freely accessed. Most serious scientific work is available via subscription, where individual papers can be around $30 or so, annual subscriptions are in the several hundreds of dollars. To those who have genuine interest, I offered to provide the pdf's for free, some 25 Mb of related work and discussions which I find both relevant to this discussion and of interest as an enquiring mind. Do you have some other suggestion as to how to provide this information?

Personally, I don't care if there was a big bang or not. If you say that your studies are not in a convenient format (like Obama's original birth certificate) then those concerned will just have to accept that and the issue will remain unresolved. No big deal. On to the next thing.

tucsoN.
You, like others on here, seem unable to understand even the most basic of English sentences:- as previously stated, the papers I have referenced (are accessible only from subscription sources ie, only to those who have paid up subscription, (this is another version of private that you may want to learn about) Many if not most newly released peer reviewed scientific papers are published in reputable journals and are available upon subscription. As I subscribe to many such professional organizations, I have access to these papers, which is why I have offered to send the pdf's to anyone who asks. My generous offer to supply these pdf's to anyone who is interested is being misinterpreted as hiding claims of proof, which explains why intelligent debate is not possible on this blog, if you cannot even understand an offer to send papers for you to read, what chance of understanding more complex issues?

Phil, it's summertime. Chill out. You appear to be obsessed with this subject. Keep on doing your research, which you seem to enjoy. If someone wants your PDF files, they'll ask you for them via your kind offer to share them by email. If they're not interested, they won't.


Brian,

Phil's character and activity on this Board was attacked baselessly and repeatedly by the BKT team with elaborated stories and unfounded judgements ...
going as far as "You have gotten yourself in so deep that you can't admit that there is no such documentation or studies."
(Or read whatever else mature writing of Tucson on the topic for that matter)

Instead, he provides the most reasonable explanation of why he took the course of action he did and why these attacks were childish and wrong (it will be clear to anyone who has published or is subscribed (usually through an institution as I am when still professionally active) to peer-reviewed journals and publications will understand why he could not provide a link)

When the kids are caught with their hands in the cookie jar all they find to tell the parents is "chill out dude"
This is some fantastic behavior and rich reactions that we have seen from the BTK -- spontaneity and belief-free postings at its best ... What a joke ...

"I am moron who believes to be authenticly right ... just chill out or lighten up dude" should become the motto of church of the churchless

Phil...Dude,

I acknowledged your situation and my error by stating that "if your studies are not in a convenient format", meaning links that you can put in your comments, "then others will have to accept that", meaning if they don't want to access your PDF files then the issue will remain unresolved for those concerned.

By the way, I hear they are making progress in the search for the God Particle aka the Higgs boson, a sub-atomic particle that allows other particles to have mass and come together as form. They say this would help to explain how the Big Bang became the universe. But as yet it remains an idea, much like the universe is.

phil sez: "blaah blaah blaah blaah"

the elephant sez: "waanh waanh waanh waanh"

Hey Guys & Gals, I just finished reading this Thread about Science, and in spite of my not being a Scientist, I spent months counseling a U.S. Miltary retired Physicist, who is a Harvard Grad. , who became interested in Sant Mat Philosophy, and was intiated by Dr. Ishwar Puri in Jan. 2015. Dr. Ruquist publicly referred to me as his " Mentor" on the Ishwar Puri Group Forum. And I don't know much about Science, but I know enough about Sant Mat Philosophy and Mysticism to have become friends with a few Scientists. After reading this thread, and seeing the usual hounds ganging up on Phil Risby, I think he has been treated like many of us were treated in Lane's snake pit when it was a fight club. Mr. Bean has brought some moderation to the forum since Lane " retired", and it is slowly becoming a Radha Swami Study group under Bean's moderation. But I suggest the " Scientists" here, who have ganged up on the guy, Phil, might ask to join Dr. Richard Ruquist's Ishwar Puri Physicist Group, and attempt to gang up on Richard like you have on Phil, and see who gets Check Mated! 😇😍
Richard Ruquist's Group. A closed Forum for real Scientists.
INTRODUCTORY NOTES
The intention of this group is to explore seeming connections between a 26 dimensional string cosmology http://vixra.org/pdf/0911.0046v1.pdf
and BEYOND LOGIC AND REASON by Dr. Ishwar Puri Ji . http://ishanews.org/…/Beyond_Logic_and_Reason-Ishwar.C.Puri…
as well as a model of the soul based on the T-duality of string physics.A reading of Dr.Puri's book is recommended and it is an easy read. The paper on the 26d cosmology is not an easy read and we will attempt to explain it in plain English right now.

Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.

Working...
Your comment could not be posted. Error type:
Your comment has been saved. Comments are moderated and will not appear until approved by the author. Post another comment

The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.

As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.

Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.

Working...

Post a comment

Comments are moderated, and will not appear until the author has approved them.

Your Information

(Name is required. Email address will not be displayed with the comment.)

Welcome


  • Welcome to the Church of the Churchless. If this is your first visit, click on "About this site--start here" in the Categories section below.
  • HinesSight
    Visit my other weblog, HinesSight, for a broader view of what's happening in the world of your Church unpastor, his wife, and dog.
  • BrianHines.com
    Take a look at my web site, which contains information about a subject of great interest to me: me.
  • Twitter with me
    Join Twitter and follow my tweets about whatever.
  • I Hate Church of the Churchless
    Can't stand this blog? Believe the guy behind it is an idiot? Rant away on our anti-site.