Posted by Bartholomew the Board (nt) on December 14, 1998 at 12:22:40:
In Reply to: Re: Now we can begin our Journey after Busy is Busy must do. . . . posted by A twit. . . . on December 14, 1998 at 12:10:25:
: Hi Zeus!!
: First, no apology necessary since I can relate to Busy is and demands Busy do-it. I tried to answer each question to the best of my ability without reservations. . . .
: Zeus> : Thank you for reposting. I have been busy, as you might have inferred, and I apologize for the delay. I went back and reviewed the posts from the other board, and i would like to ask you a couple of questions in that vien.
: Zeus> : 1) You referred to Einstien in developing your theory of time. You you mind providing a fuller explanation as to how his theory of relativity supports your theory of time?
: From pure reasoning with beyond a basic knowledge of Relativity, and theory of. Time, is in essence A measurement used by humanity to establish order, not only in daily life where reality exists, but to trace historically the past, which is not real, or impossible to recall from memory without method of evidence (verifiable or not) to impart facts of what occurred then, which is unknown to us in our personal life' experience. Those considerations, are paramount to examine how it is possible for Eternity and Eternal to exist in our perception of inductive reasoning, when we have no verifiable or provable evidence to support Eternal or Eternity exists. Eternal or Eternity is metaphysical only, and to cross the boundary of time without physical experience by observation, is demanding another IT exists, or the premise is not possible to reason if no knowledge of it, is present. Moreover, with no history for us to study or learn from, we have no past within which to dwell; therefore, Eternal and Eternity are INNATE, or they would not exist in with comprehension of A Potential, without time present.
: Zeus> : 2) Considering that Einstein spent the last thirty years of his life defending the existence of God in light of his own theories, how do you now see them as proof?
: Einstein, could reason with numbers or numerical equations; I, cannot, nor do I pretend such grasp of A magical formula is within my reckoning. So I have no fear of proving A Primary theory of self-construction through a reasoning process errant or flawed. By that, Einstein could not reason using his metaphysical perceptions adequately to produce or reason A Primary theory supporting fact GOD IS; instead, his peers rejected his theological views, as conflicting with his’ Theory of Relativity, which is Obviously not true at all from my perspective. I, to Formulate and Establish an argument supporting GOD IS, will inevitably find A CHRONIC Mathematician so induced and endowed who can elicit a Formula from within my metaphysical reasoning process, albeit, not of my ability to accomplish same. Relative—Relativity = All things interact with one another so all things are dependent on other things be they physical; yet Einstein could not induce his reasoning to encomp the “metaphysical” properties of which, Eternal and Eternity exist for they are without substance or “matter.” Thus, application of Physics lacks the A property demanded to prove Quantum Mechanics is any-thing more than A Theory, of which in essence, Einstein abandoned QM after not being able to prove “function” versus “momentum.” Function and momentum are requisite one another to cross the boundary of Relative Time since A property of Eternal-,-Eternity is absent “matter” or “substance” in the metaphysical state of their being; thereof, critical reasoning cannot fathom things without physical properties in the sense, they simply do not exist. Moreover, they are illusions within our reasoning, which can only deal with Eternal—Eternity in the Abstract function of reasoning. When a-thing is Abstract, it is Abstruse; therein, Einstein knew GOD IS without Doubt, but could not reason in his’ Abstract perception adequately to correlate his’ knowledge of QM because of an absent Property demanded to readily cross demarcate of Time in either direction < backward {Reality} > forward momentum of function. The missing Property of Quantum Mechanics is—Exponential.
:
: Zeus> : 3) You mentioned in the other post that through Hubble scientists were able to see other universes. I am well aware that they have seen other galaxies, but not other universes. Would you mind telling me either where you found this, or how you inferred this? As far as I know, other universes are merely theoretical, and perhaps mathematically probable, but not a matter of fact.
: You are correct about Galaxies, and I agree other Universes are speculated about and are theoretic versus existing scientific knowledge. My reference to Hubble now placed as URL . . . http://oposite.stsci.edu/pubinfo/pr/1998/41/index.html . . . so as to enable Scientific Evidence I deem fitting to remove any possible conflicting facts thus established. I should not have used the reference; however, what Hubble found in the Southern Part of our Universe was confounding and confused established scientific theory, “Our Galaxy’ Origins” can be verified by examination through visible exploration of the Southern Part of it. What Hubble did prove, was more galaxies exist in our Universe than previously believed . . . by that, to believe our Universe “unique,” a bit presumptuous by the scientific community. Common sense says, if more Galaxies exist than previously believed, probability is, more than our Universe exists. By that, I opt to accept your definition of “All of Creation” = as our “Universe”; thereof, but One GOD is for our Universe. Then, if Science proves more than one Universe, more than one GOD is; therein, Infinity = Eternal = Eternity.
: I have a feeling a long road is ahead of us,
: A twit. . . .
:
READ THE GREAT BOOKS
TERM PAPERS, RESEARCH PAPERS, ESSAYS
DR. ELLIOT'S NORTH AMERICAN GREAT BOOKS TOUR--COMING TO A BOOK
STORE NEAR YOU
[Shakespeare Forums]
[Bible Forums]