Posted on 03/06/2014 10:24:04 AM PST by rktman
I am assured of at least one thing: God created the Universe so that IT would eventually manifest Him in The Son, The Word made flesh Who dwelt among us. I shall continue to seek the how of that creation until He lets me know it irks Him for me to do that. So far, He is feeding me clues, presently, daily.
Somehow, dear brother in Christ, I strongly doubt that it irks God that you seek the "how" of His Creation. JMHO.
I owe you a reply to your earlier, detailed post on this subject. I haven't forgotten this. It's just my FIL is critically ill, and is now in palliative care. We may lose him today.
Please pray for my FIL and my family. I will write again as soon as I can.
Thank you so very much for writing, dear MHGinTN!
The dangers of evolutionary thinking (scientism) are captured by GK Chesterton. The problem with modernity, said Chesterton, is the program and attitude of scientism, a "serpent...as slippery as an eel," a "demon...as elusive as an elf," an "evil and elusive creature." (The Restitution of Man, Michael D. Aeschliman, p. 43)
Strong words, but entirely applicable given the attitude of intolerance toward special creation that eventually overtakes the minds of many evolutionists. Consider the following:
1.In Kirktonholme primary school, East Kilbride, Scotland, Headteacher Alexandra MacKenzie and her deputy Elizabeth Mockus were redeployed to backroom duties while an investigation was to be carried out. A number of parents had complained about two books which had been handed out to their children during a school assembly. One answered the question ‘How you know God is real?’, and the other was titled ‘Exposing the myth of evolution’.
2.A parent and also a Member of the Scottish Parliament have called for an investigation, after a physics teacher, Leonard Rogers, during a discussion on the big bang with his class at a school in Midlothian, informed them that evolution was not proven. Apparently, he also told the class that he was a Christian with strong creationist beliefs.
3.As a result of the first two news stories, the Scottish Secular Society called for the ban of creationism in science classes in Scottish schools. While they acknowledged that they had no issue with pupils understanding that not everyone accepts evolution, they stated that the only place that creationism had in Scottish schools was “within a discussion context in religious and moral education classes”.
4.Professor Alice Roberts, in an interview with the Times Education Supplement (London), has called for new laws in the UK to extend the ban of teaching creationism beyond state-run schools to all independent schools, which would include privately run Christian schools.10 (The attack on biblical creation in UK schools continues, Phil Robinson, creation.com)
The vicious name-calling, increasing intolerance toward and censorship of special creation and of all who profess and teach it should raise the eyebrows of any rational thinking person. If the evidence for evolution really is so overwhelming why the anger, name-calling, ridicule, scorn, and intolerance? Why can no challenges be discussed?
betty: you are conflating cosmology and Darwinian myth
Spirited: Not at all. The point I've been making over and over is that evolution is the antithesis of special creation. It -IS- an alternative cosmogony. So what is evolution, whether the Enuma Elish, Darwinian, Teilhard's conception, Michael Dowd's, or Hugh Ross's idea? Answer: the universal life force (aka, the Force, Zoe, Kundalini, serpent power, seething energy of Lucifer, etc) that can be actualized within man because man is "one with" the One Substance that mechanically emanates everything in existence like waves form across an ocean.
The universal life force connects everything with the One Substance. Orwell's Big Brother had actualized the universal force, hence he had power over matter and claimed that reality existed within his skull.
Now when Hugh Ross claims that God is the director of evolution, in his arrogant presumption he has taken it upon himself to make God the director, for example, of Greek hylozoism (hyle=nature/cosmos, zoe=universal life force)or of the serpent power of Kundalini or of the serpent power of the Egyptian Orphites (snake worshippers). At the very least this is blasphemy.
betty: you are imputing much nastiness to Hugh Ross — arrogance, malfeasance, the inversion/falsification of actual Reality. Why???
Spirited: Dr. Jonathan Sarfati is a Messianic Jew; a chess-master with a PhD in chemistry. In his younger years he professed no religious beliefs but today he writes for Creation Ministries International, a Christian Apologetics ministry. His book, "Refuting Compromise: A Biblical and Scientific Refutation of 'Progressive Creationism' (Billions of Years) as Popularized by Astronomer Hugh Ross" clearly and unconditionally demonstrates the serious biblical and scientific problems in the teachings of Hugh Ross, the Big Bang and the canon of supporting theories attendant upon it.
Over and over again, Sarfati shows that Ross subtly wrests the plain meaning and intent of the early Church Fathers so as to make what they actually said agreeable with what Ross wants his followers to accept. Throughout his book, though Sarfati is gracious toward Ross, he nevertheless unflinchingly reveals the abundance of inconsistencies, illogic, wresting of truth, and other problems with Ross's teachings.
Darwin's theory is certainly a Satanic doctrine. But so are all evolutionary programs.
I join in earnest, urgent prayer for your FIL!
If your supposition is correct that God created Time first, then Time "dragged" space along with it, then the way you work out the consequences is impressive, extremely well done.
But I guess I'm fairly well wedded to Einstein's "unification" of space and time, along with his stipulation that the speed of light is a universal constant (or became such at some point in the evolution of His Creation?).
You reverse Newton's presupposition of Absolute Space: That is, first God created space, and then He made things to fill it over Time.
I don't think Newton's view is correct (because of my acceptance of Einstein's unification).
One thing I do think is needful is your concept of "volumetric time," which, to me, posits additional temporal dimension(s) beyond the familiar three-space/one-time construct that can be directly verified by observation and experience.
P. S. Wesson seems to be addressing this in his article, "Quantum-Mechanical Consequences of Five-Dimensional Relativity". In his Abstract, Wesson writes:
I outline a model where a massive particle in 4D spacetime follows a null or photon-like path in 5D canonical space. This leads to wave-particle duality, quantization and a Heisenberg-like uncertainty relation, along with other effects which show that it is possible to unify general relativity and quantum mechanics in 5D."I gather Wesson's project here is quite modest as compared with yours. But the point is he needs to add a fifth, timelike dimension in order to solve certain elusive puzzles about the nature of our Universe.
Time in the 4D construct is irreversible, linear, serial, moving past to present to future. All causation on this model can only be local causation. It looks to me that the additional temporal dimension you propose in your model of volumetric time is essential to the understanding of non-local causation.
I have no clue how many dimensions there actually are. I've seen proposals (e.g., from the Russian mathematician P. D. Ouspensky) of as many as seven. But Nachmonides may well be right there are ten.
What troubles me (somehow) is the idea of God adding dimensions as the Universe unfolds, in mid-course, so to speak.
Of course, if God wants to work that way, who am I to complain? My point is, this appears to be inconsistent with Jeremiah 31:33: As Buggman recently pointed out, "God [in] several places in His Word points to the constant laws of nature as being proof of His justice and steadfastness to Israel." (Which is also an argument in favor of the constancy of C.) But then, Jeremiah says, "after those days." I guess I have a bit more studying to do, to discover the significance of that statement: I am not well schooled in Old Testament texts. (Buggman, can you help me here?)
Anyhoot, I applaud your outstanding effort here, dear brother in Christ. Yet clearly, I do not yet understand it. If you can help me with that, I'd be grateful.
In His love and peace.
p.s.: Sorry to be so long getting back to you. My FIL passed away last Saturday, and I've been mostly preoccupied with family matters since then.
Using the axiom(s) that without space things do not exist and without time events do not occur, I would offer that a photon has aspects of space, time, and energy, but it crosses the Universe always in the present of its emission. When a photon arrives at a sensor it has no inertia, so it has no inertial mass. Something makes the photon different in spatial or temporal characteristics from other things that exist. I am convinced from the work of Haisch, et al that the something is the temporal aspect ... the time of a photon is planar time, not linear time. But then I’m also convinced that it is the temporal nature (linear time bound to the zero points) of the zero point field that gives masses their inertial mass and causes gravity, so you might want to just ignore what I write, for another fifty years to pass before utilizing these realities.
Well I hope I don't have to wait that long, for I don't expect I'd still be here fifty years hence!
Thank you, dear brother in Christ, for your further illumination of these issues.
Indeed — but it seems a rather "kludgy" way of doing things — the sort of thing I'd expect of man, but not of God. I rather imagine His work would be simple, elegant, parsimonious, and beautiful. I also wonder why He would do things in Time like putting in additional dimensions, when He Himself is Timeless. An infinite, timeless Mind, it seems to me, could "get stuff done right upfront and all of a piece," so to speak. In short, I find it difficult to grasp the idea of a LOGOS that "evolves."
But then again, I must not expect God to "measure up" to "my" criteria.
Thank you so very much for writing, dearest sister in Christ! And for your kind words of support.
The expressions of dimension space (the length, width, height expressions were brought into being in succession, not all at the same moment of Creation. The Universe IS expanding and new planets and stars are still being formed. Tomorrow is not yet, and yet yesterday has been, from the perspective of today. We humans and in fact all the living things of our 4D Universe are arranged to assimilate data/information of events that are past. EXCEPT the photon relates to things that are in its future, and the photon crosses the Uinverse always in the present of its emission.
Time as we sense it is directional. Time as the photon senses it is what? ... Think about it. Time as the Angels sense it is what? And finally, from God The Creator's perspective time is what ... depends on which of the three natures of The One you consider, for Jesus is now One Who has taken flesh and dwelt among us who perceive time as present, processing information from past events, imagining time as flowing into future.
The zero point field is real. It acts upon mass to create the thing called inertia and thus gravity, also. Haisch, Rueda & Puthoff have shown if mathematically. But there is an error in the reasoning, since the ONLY time component they consider is linear time. Using the constant "c" plugs a limit intot he calculations where time is a factor, always calculating as time linear. Yet the photon senses the Universe as time planar. ... And I'm convinced there are real beings and things which sense time volumetric.
That makes sense.
Time as we sense it is directional. Time as the photon senses it is what?
If photons "move" on a null path, it would seem photons wouldn't "sense" any elapsation of time.
The zero point field is real. It acts upon mass to create the thing called inertia and thus gravity, also.
How would you define the zero point field? Is this the same thing as has been called the universal vacuum field?
Great points in your last, dear brother in Christ. Please keep me pinged to your future postings.
In the end, it was his fully conscious decision: No healthcare proxy needed to be invoked. He was tired of fighting, and just wanted to move on. (Like my own Dad, who passed away at age 92 last year about this time. May God ever bless and rest him!)
At his request, the doctors withdrew all life support systems, put him on a morphine drip, and withdrew his oxygen supply. He died peacefully and painlessly, with his family gathered around him, fifteen minutes later.
He will be terribly missed. But life goes on — for him, and for us.
In the words of a very great Saint: "It is in dying, that we are born again to eternal life."
Thank you so much, dearest sister in Christ, for your very kind words of sympathy.
But yet, eliminating (or adding) dimensions - and/or our ability to perceive them - are within His power. And I can't help but wonder if dimensionality has anything to do with this prophecy:
It is so hard to let them go, but it is comforting when they make the decision themselves.
I look forward to meeting him down the road.
Freepmail
"And the heaven departed as a scroll when it is rolled together; and every mountain and island were moved out of their places. - Revelation 6:14"
Sounds almost like the view one (or a camera) would have when accelerating rapidly away from a familiar starting point...
I wonder how one could tell the difference, when shown such a dynamic scene -- especially if one were totally unfamiliar with rapid movement.
~~~~~~~~~
No big principle being expounded here -- just a rogue quantum of visualized curiosity... '-)
Indeed, that sense of rapid acceleration is what happens when observing a hyper-cube when it actually is a reorientation of the dimensions, e.g. hypercubes rotating.
I run a (relatively) antiquated version of OSX, in order to use the outdated and "orphan" "Canvas X", my graphics "workhorse" software.
Unfortunately, I don't have a programming language and compiler that runs on this OS, or I'd be tempted to write software like those animations. There are few things more fun -- or higher senses of achievement -- than learning a new programing language, then conceiving of something like those rotating hypercubes, and coding the whole thing up from scratch...
OTOH, with all my other projects, I couldn't afford the time, anyway. At the rate I'm progressing on it at present, my "Genesis: a Scientist Looks At the First Four Verses" graphics project may consume my entire 77th year... '-)
ACD Systems stopped developing Canvas for the Mac in 2005. Now, they are supposedly coming out with a new beta version of Canvas for the Mac sometime this year -- and I'm on their "beta test list". I can only hope...
And I know just what you mean about both the urge to take on a project like that and the joy when it's complete. Hopefully, that beta Canvas will be available to you soon ... just in case.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.