H: Sorry if I struck a nerve. These conversations truly are enjoyable for me. Unfortunately I don't have many nerves to strike anymore, and I don't know if thats good or bad or neither or both or if good and bad truly exist outside of ones specific culture. They seem to be subjective terms. At any rate, don't get upset by anything I say. Its just one young mans thoughts flowing freely in what seems to be a forum full of enlightened people with differing views, all with one thing in common. The desire to discuss, think, and learn. Greg: There is no need to apologize, I also enjoy the discussion and it is also what I was aiming for, though since you felt it necessary to explain your post rather then respond to mine, perhaps it is I who should apologize. SIR, I am sorry. :o) Now to the discussion. :o) As to How the Universe Knew in the very first second that the Law of Gravity was the first thing it needed, my only explanation is God, because mere chance could not foresee the thought that would permit for the optimum, expansive potential so as to permit the utmost Creation of Life while still containing that expansion. It is only my opinion, but with all the math whizzes in here, perhaps someone will try to calculate the odds that chance could pick the correct Law of Physics to begin with, so all the others could build upon it. What would be the result if any other Law of Physics had been first? Secondly, As to opposites, being one and the same. David offers the view of hot and cold both being temperature, as opposites, being one and the same. That sir, is rationalizing. Knowing the point of view that one wishes to approve of and developing an argument to approve of it. Hot and Cold both being temperature does not explain how they might be one and the same. Putting your hand in a bath of liquid nitrogen and tapping it lightly on a hard surface does not provide the same result as putting your hand into a bath of liquid steel! They are quite different. However, if you consider COLOR sir, you will see what is meant by opposites, being one and the same. If I ask you what color an object IS, you will respond with the color you see. But that color is the one color the object IS NOT. The object reflects the color you see, while it absorbs every other color. So the object IS every other color but the one you see, which is the color the Same object IS NOT. Opposites, One and the Same, for what you see the object IS, is what the Same object IS NOT. Spectral analysis works the same way. A spectrogram provides a line at every frequency, yet when a line IS NOT, that Same line represents a particular element that IS. Color was not understood this way in 450 B.C. Spectral Analysis was not understood in 450 B.C. Yet the Tao was written this way in 450 B.C., Taoism IS a religion, and God would have known about the Nature of Color and I believe The Spectrum is His Covenant of Universal Truth. I do not rationalize to arrive at this view, I appreciate facts and relate to them as such. The Rainbow is mentioned in the Bible as God's Covenant. The Rainbow is an example of the Light of the Spectrum. Spectral Analysis provides an unerring view of the elemental make-up of any incandesent light source, anywhere, throughout the Universe. Science does not view spectral analysis in terms of probabilities, it views it with certainty. God's Covenant! The other allegorical interpretations ARE simply my interpretation, but I do not rationalize to arrive at them. I perceive relationships that are fact. Stories scientifically known to be untrue, yet which allegorically describe scientific fact unavailable to the people who wrote those stories at the time they were written. With the view of The Spectrum relating to God's Covenant in the Rainbow and the Tao's opposites, being one and the same, I believe my observations of the allegorical nature of these stories and scientific fact to be valid indications of God's True Presence. I do not flavor these interpretations with views of my own, I describe the known scientific facts, and draw relationships to the stories already written in ways previously unperceived. No More. Everyone is of course free to appreciate it or not as they choose, it is not the scientific method, but it is logically, I believe, a strong indication of that which is beyond the ability of science to prove. At least, I hope our discussions may be a joy to us both and offer us both something to think about. Thank-You.

• Knowledge - H - May 5, 1999 - 01:50 UTC
  • Re: Knowledge - Greg_Armel/">Greg Armel - May 5, 1999 - 06:22 UTC