Re: Scientifically sound Bible...
Last things first! Let's try this one in reverse!
Sometimes I get the feeling that you are here to preach, rather than debate this subject.
Actually, I would not place myself in either of these two extreme postions (and yes, they are extremes). I'd prefer the middle ground between the two, and the word I like best rhymes with one of yours but is quite different: teach. And what many people do not understand about teaching is that learning is built-in.
However, in my opinion I've sufficiently refuted your application of the uncertainty principle earlier in this thread. I've even brought forward some comments on your application of the 2nd law of thermodynamics, which you have conveniently put aside.
Perhaps you'll have to remind me, as I do not recall not addressing anything you put forth. But then would you like for me to review all the pieces of evidence I have presented which you have seen fit to put aside?
So, if you will only accept a mathematical refutation, I think it's better to just drop the subject and agree to disagree.
Doing this would only bring a stop to the teaching and the learning. We both have a lot to learn, Roel. And while you might not believe it, this very discussion on this very forum is part of a larger movement in beliefs occurring on our planet. We were always meant to have this discussion and perform these acts of learning and teaching. We have done it in past time cycles, and will do it in future time cycles.
Much of the material I have presented, which represents several of the infinite means to approach and understanding of God (Creator, Creation, Life, etc. call it what you will), are not my own, original material. These materials come from many great men, both living and deceased. Some of them scientists and some of them spiritualists. All of them had (having) the impact that they were destined to bring to humanity.
There is a book I would recommend you pick up and read, Roel. That is if you actually ARE interested in approaching an understanding of what God is, and how man-made religions have instilled false beliefs about what God is and wants. I know OvrLrd presented one book to you long ago in this thread, and you rejected it because it was "difficult" to understand. I assure you that the book I am going to recommend is much more easy to understand. While you may not believe some (or perhaps all) of what it states, I think you are mature enough to at least have a read and see if you "get the message". Are you game?
The book is one of the latest by Neale Donald Walsch, entitled
The New Revelations. It is the latest in his "Conversations With God" series, but you do not need to read any of the previous volumes in order to understand (or enjoy) this one. I would even be willing to purchase the book online and have it shipped to you, if you choose to read it. I assume there is a version in Dutch, but if not your command of English is certainly excellent. Just let me know if you are willing.
Even though I'm almost certain that you are abusively applying science
I know you would like to think so, as I am sure it brings some level of comfort to you. But I tell you that I have abused no science. In fact, there are scientists who have already demonstrated the power of many of the things I have spoken of (improvements in physical systems through use of closed-loop control, non-linear maths, and information). And science continues to uncover these "new facts" that confirm what has been told in mystical texts for a great many generations.
I've explained before that I cannot share everything I know, as much of it is protected either by corporate proprietary compacts or government security laws. However, I can assure you that more than one project has successfully demonstrated the principles of some of the science I have presented....and much more. It will be revealed to the general population eventually, and you will know it when you see it, and I believe you will recognize it as what I have been talking about.
While I cannot provide certain specifics, I have presented to you the general outline of what these specifics are based upon: The Tree Of Life. One such scientific example of this which you have yet to refute in any manner is that of the Matrix of Massive SpaceTime. In no way have I abused the fact that all scientists and engineers are taught: The fundamental units of physical reality are three in number: Mass, Space, and Time. Far from abusing this scientific fact, I have done what all great scientists have done in the past who have evolved our scientific thought: I have taken a known fact and expanded upon it. In this case, I have simply stated that Mass and Time are not scalars, as we have been taught, but rather are also orthonormal triplex entities, just as we know Space is.
This is but one example that I have presented which points to the Tree Of Life as its underlying, structural principal. Another one I have pointed to is the human body itself. These, and other examples of the physicalization of the Tree Of Life can be used to help us understand exactly what the Tree Of Life is. Perhaps some other, more descriptive words might help. Instead of "Tree Of Life" let us call it "Structure of Creation", because that is exactly what it is. In systems engineering we would call it a block diagram that shows the elements of a system and how they interact in order to achieve some given purpose. And contrary to any debunking that anyone claims to have presented against the Tree Of Life, the fact is slowly becoming apparant that the Tree Of Life structure is reflected in our DNA. It is one of the basic, systemic building blocks of Creation. A complex, integrated entity that is capable of processing information.
Let me close this post with a question to you, Roel. I'd like a straight answer if you could, please. Do you agree that the aims of the disciplines of Science and Spirituality are the same, in that they both seek understanding of our universe and our places in it?
RMT
