You can enter the Kingdom of God right now.

[_huckelberry]

just to inject a little trouble,
from article about Einstein and Mozart,

"Einstein once said that while Beethoven created his music, Mozart's "was so pure that it seemed to have been ever-present in the universe, waiting to be discovered by the master." Einstein believed much the same of physics, that beyond observations and theory lay the music of the spheres — which, he wrote, revealed a "pre-established harmony" exhibiting stunning symmetries. The laws of nature, such as those of relativity theory, were waiting to be plucked out of the cosmos by someone with a sympathetic ear.

Thus it was less laborious calculation, but "pure thought" to which Einstein attributed his theories."

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/31/science/31essa.html

" Scientists often describe general relativity as the most beautiful theory ever formulated. Einstein himself always emphasized the theory's beauty. "Hardly anyone who has truly understood it will be able to escape the charm of this theory," he once said.

The theory is essentially one man's view of how the universe ought to be. And amazingly, the universe turned out to be pretty much as Einstein imagined. Its daunting mathematics revealed spectacular and unexpected phenomena like black holes."

----------------
I suppose in considering this someone might forget that Einstein was considering known problems in physics which were based upon real observations. Music of the spheres correlated with physics.

[_Franktalk]

just to inject a little trouble,
from article about Einstein and Mozart,

No trouble at all. We may disagree about the source of the information waiting to be plucked out. But it seems I have to agree that the information is indeed waiting to be found.

[_jo1952]

just to inject a little trouble,
from article about Einstein and Mozart,

"Einstein once said that while Beethoven created his music, Mozart's "was so pure that it seemed to have been ever-present in the universe, waiting to be discovered by the master." Einstein believed much the same of physics, that beyond observations and theory lay the music of the spheres — which, he wrote, revealed a "pre-established harmony" exhibiting stunning symmetries. The laws of nature, such as those of relativity theory, were waiting to be plucked out of the cosmos by someone with a sympathetic ear.

Thus it was less laborious calculation, but "pure thought" to which Einstein attributed his theories."

Hi Huckleberry,

That's very interesting. According to my new belief that our advanced self is remotely viewing what our avatar is doing inside of mortality, questions and theories such as this are easily answered. Our mortal brain is like the hard drive of an extremely advanced computer. The energy which starts it up is like a USB device which contains everything our advanced brain has experienced (the religious call this connection or energy, "spirit"). The "veil" is a limit placed upon the human brain to prevent us from accessing everything that is on the USB device. Sometimes, though, there is an anomaly with the mortal brain. This causes the ability of the mortal who has the anomaly to access more of what is available on the USB device. As such, the "prodigy", appears to have some very special "gift". Within my new paradigm, all that is happening is really just access to which was previously experienced...just not in the avatar we are currently experiencing mortality. It certainly provides a plausible answer (since no other answer is able to explain it) as to how it is possible for a prodigy to "come up" with their incredible "talents". With the perfect technology possessed by our advanced self, that advanced self is able to perfectly record everything ever experienced. Mozart was thus able to perfectly remember every note. It sounded like it was supposed to have been written that way because that IS how it was originally written. He merely tapped into his own advanced self's memory.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/31/science/31essa.html

" Scientists often describe general relativity as the most beautiful theory ever formulated. Einstein himself always emphasized the theory's beauty. "Hardly anyone who has truly understood it will be able to escape the charm of this theory," he once said.

The theory is essentially one man's view of how the universe ought to be. And amazingly, the universe turned out to be pretty much as Einstein imagined. Its daunting mathematics revealed spectacular and unexpected phenomena like black holes."

----------------
I suppose in considering this someone might forget that Einstein was considering known problems in physics which were based upon real observations. Music of the spheres correlated with physics.

Studies have been conducted which indicate that "time" is not what it appears to be to us in this world. I believe that outside of mortality time isn't even a factor of how our advanced self (our second estate self) experiences existence. Even further outside of our advanced self, our first estate self probably has yet another explanation of "time". I think something similar is happening with our ideas and concepts of "music". In other words, the way we perceive music here is not the way it is perceived by our second estate self. Anyway, I love to study Einstein....he was brilliant. Again, according to my new paradigm, the "time" was at hand inside of this mortal world's progression which allowed the avatar we call Einstein to access more of his advanced self's memory...or, as the religious would describe, he was able to communicate with "God". If he hadn't spent as much time contemplating the world, he would never have been able to "receive" the thoughts being sent to him which already existed in the mind of his advanced self ("God"). His searching for answers...which he did while in the mindset that he didn't already know the answers....allowed the advanced self to use the rules of the game set up for the mortal avatar in which the advanced self can send information to its own avatar. Einstein, by inadvertently playing according to those rules, was able to tap into his own self.

[_SteelHead]

[Guest]

The theories developed through the observation of Science is always shifting.....thus what they believe is the truth of what they are observing today will be adjusted the longer they observe. What they thought was the truth they described through their observation as expressed today, will not agree with the revised truth they conclude tomorrow. I have already considered what science has to teach; and have already abandoned science for the very reason that their theories need to keep shifting. As such, how can I answer a question of yours which I think isn't based on the actuality of what is taking place? In other words, I don't think that your conclusion of what you are seeing is accurate. But you are certainly allowed to believe that it is.

Yes, science is constantly reexamining and testing and refining its theories in the light of ever increasing and more precise evidence in a constant quest to come ever closer to the truth. This is its main purpose and goal! It cannot be overstressed that this is not a fault or weakness of science; it is its greatest virtue and strength! It makes science inherently self-correcting and, like it or not, the most reliable way we can possibly have of ascertaining and improving our understanding of what is real. This is not to deny that science ever makes mistakes, but continuing application of science is really the only way to reliably discover and root out even its own mistakes. I am completely flabbergasted by the absurdity of criticizing and rejecting science precisely for so admirably and consistently accomplishing the very purpose for which it is intended! Our perceptions of what is true are supposed to change as more accurate and complete evidence becomes available! Having to occasionally modify one's convictions whenever warranted by newly available and more complete evidence is a good and desirable outcome--not something to be resented or feared--let alone condemned, as you sometimes seem to be doing.

On the other hand, no approach to truth can possibly be more unreliable than devising and/or clinging to perceptions of reality that even by your own admission have no evidentiary support, or are even flatly contradicted by the best currently available, objective evidence, as you and Franktalk seem to be advocating . The only way that approach is reliable is that it is the surest possible way to create and perpetuate error and avoid ever feeling obligated to acknowledge being mistaken about your deepest convictions, no matter how intrinsically absurd. I am equally gobsmacked by your inability to see just how absurd that approach is, and, IMHO, you both further underscore that absurdity with every post you have made in this and the other related thread. Maybe you should both try to cut your losses by giving up and admitting defeat?

[_Gunnar]

Jo, I know that you probably think I am being overly harsh with my criticism of you and Franktalk, but let me add that the one thing you have said that strikes a positive note with me is the importance of trying to create a heaven on earth by promoting and living the ideal of treating each other with kindness and fairness, and trying to help each other to live happier and more prosperous lives. This is a worthwhile ideal, regardless of what anyone thinks about the relative merits of science and religion as a means to improve the human condition. But this does not justify rejecting the well established findings and accomplishments of science whenever they fail to support what we would rather believe--nor, I might add, whatever positive influences organized religion has occasionally provided.

[_jo1952]

Hi Gunnar,

I have a definition of "Real Truth" which is different from "truth". An example of "truth" is that which needs to be continually re-adjusted...such as that of science. There isn't anything "wrong" with "truth"; it's just unfinished. "Real Truth" is something which doesn't need any adjusting.....it is the all-knowing of all that is knowable. It answers all questions....no more questions need to be asked---other than, perhaps, the details.

Human beings are naturally curious. We are truth seekers. We love seeking for truth. Being naturally curious is a hard thing to try to place within the "truth" of the idea of evolution. It often flabbergasts me that science will not admit defeat of how evolution still has not been able to answer some fantastical questions which result from its very premises. We are supposed to take some incredible leaps of faith in order to keep believing that it is an accurate representation of what is going on. Those leaps are just as---if not more than---incredible than those required by religion. It's not my desire to go over those questions again....I've been discussing them for decades ad nauseam. The leaps of faith can't be diminished under the established criteria of science. As soon as the idea that "some spirit is manifest in the laws of the universe, one that is vastly superior to that of man" is disallowed, then science has no other choice than to only see from a much more narrow window of what it will allow itself to see. This immediately effects the answers. It is her own answers which then need to continually be shifted for the very reason she placed limits on what she would allow herself to see.

My problem is not with science per se. It is the limitations she places upon herself. Those limitations encumber her. It is our ego which causes us not to want to admit that maybe we've been mislead. As long as science will not allow herself to consider the possibility that there IS something greater going on, she will be restrained by her own criteria.

What do YOU think about Einstein's comment? “Everyone who is seriously involved in the pursuit of science becomes convinced that some spirit is manifest in the laws of the universe, one that is vastly superior to that of man,” Einstein wrote.

As a staunch atheist, Darwin had already placed limitations upon his mind because he wouldn't allow for anything greater going on. This constrained possibility. As such, when he was putting together his concept about evolution, every thing he saw was immediately effected. He could ONLY see what he wanted to see through the filtrated lenses of his own pre-limited thinking. Science has been building upon that limited view ever since. Evolution does not allow for "some spirit is manifest in the laws of the universe, one that is vastly superior to that of man,”; though she requires leaps of faith in order to maintain that evolution is accurate.

I appreciate your efforts to try to remain kind, while struggling with what you perceive to be problems with my thinking. While I perceive that science is encumbered by her own law which limits her thinking, I now believe I have a better understanding of why we believe the things we believe---and the impact our beliefs have on how we treat each other. I believe that the Real Truth would help science in her continual search for truth. If we were to decide to believe the Real Truth, it would help us to treat each other better. It would also remove the limits we place upon science. I don't think science will accept it because she would have to admit she has been deceived. Ego won't allow it. It's here right now....it is more complex than I am able to speak with any type of real clarity. It is available for all the world to find; it's up to the world to decide what to do with it. It is always about our free will.

You are speaking in accordance with your own truth. Peace to you, Gunnar.

[_Maksutov]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marsh_Chapel_Experiment

The Marsh Chapel Experiment, also called the "Good Friday Experiment," was a 1962 experiment conducted on Good Friday at Boston University's Marsh Chapel. Walter N. Pahnke, a graduate student in theology at Harvard Divinity School, designed the experiment under the supervision of Timothy Leary and the Harvard Psilocybin Project.[1] Pahnke's experiment investigated whether psilocybin (the active principle in psilocybin mushrooms) would act as a reliable entheogen in religiously predisposed subjects.[2]

Prior to the Good Friday service, graduate degree divinity student volunteers from the Boston area were randomly divided into two groups. In a double-blind experiment, half of the students received psilocybin, while a control group received a large dose of niacin. Niacin produces clear physiological changes and thus was used as an active placebo. In at least some cases, those who received the niacin initially believed they had received the psychoactive drug.[3]:5

However, the feeling of face flushing (turning red, feeling hot and tingly) produced by niacin subsided over the first hour or so. Meanwhile, the effects of the psilocybin intensified over the first few hours. Almost all of the members of the experimental group reported experiencing profound religious experiences, providing empirical support for the notion that psychedelic drugs can facilitate religious experiences. One of the participants in the experiment was religious scholar Huston Smith, who would become an author of several textbooks on comparative religion. He later described his experience as "the most powerful cosmic homecoming I have ever experienced."[4]

In a 25-year follow-up to the experiment, all of the subjects given psilocybin described their experience as having elements of "a genuine mystical nature and characterized it as one of the high points of their spiritual life".[3]:13 Psychedelic researcher Rick Doblin considered Pahnke's original study partially flawed due to incorrect implementation of the double-blind procedure, and several imprecise questions in the mystical experience questionnaire. Nevertheless, Doblin said that Pahnke's study cast "a considerable doubt on the assertion that mystical experiences catalyzed by drugs are in any way inferior to non-drug mystical experiences in both their immediate content and long-term effects".[3]:24 A similar sentiment was expressed by clinical psychologist William A. Richards, who in 2007 stated "[psychedelic] mushroom use may constitute one technology for evoking revelatory experiences that are similar, if not identical, to those that occur through so-called spontaneous alterations of brain chemistry."[5]
Griffiths' study[edit]

In 2002 (published in 2006), a more rigorously controlled version of this experiment was conducted at Johns Hopkins University by Roland R. Griffiths, yielding similar results.[6] In a 14-month follow-up to this study, over half of the participants rated the experience among the top five most meaningful spiritual experiences in their lives, and considered the experience to have increased their personal well-being and life satisfaction.[7]

[Guest]

Jo, you couldn't possibly be more wrong about Charles Darwin. Contrary to what you and other creationists insist on claiming, he did not start out with a predisposition to believe in evolution and common descent of life forms, nor did he ever characterize himself as an atheist, rather than an agnostic. When he embarked on his fateful voyage with the H.M.S Beagle, he was a divinity student on sabbatical with every intention of resuming his divinity studies upon return and taking up a career as a professional, country Vicar in the Church of England. He was greatly surprised and disturbed by the evidence he collected during that epic voyage--so disturbed that it took him nearly 30 years to bring himself to publish the conclusions forced upon him by his honesty and the sheer weight of the enormous body of evidence he had collected.

You greatly and unfairly malign one of the most decent, kindest, most honest and honorable men in the history of science when you claim that he only arrived at his conclusions because he was predisposed to believe them because he was an atheist who hated God. You obviously have a very minimal and distorted understanding of Darwin and what he was about. In addition, your comments about evolution in this forum and the evidence supporting it belie your claim that you have ever extensively studied it and carefully evaluated its implications.

And I still think you have a distorted understanding of what Einstein actually said and thought about God and religion.

I also repeat what I said previously that once one decides that one has achieved "real" or absolute truth that no longer needs any adjusting or reexamination, no matter what new evidence becomes available, one is in danger of stagnating, perpetuating error and becoming intolerant of honest differences of opinion. This is what makes possible such abominations as religious inquisitions, jihads, tyrannies and the holocaust.

In addition, no one is less likely to be in actual possession of "Real Truth" than someone who rejects the necessity and the efficacy of hard, objective (scientific) evidence and dismisses such evidence whenever it conflicts with what they already believe, as you and Franktalk seem to be advocating.

[_Gunnar]

The anti-science arguments and mysticism displayed by some of the participants in this thread bring to mind one of my favorite quotes from Isaac Asimov:

The great advantage of mysticism is that having no logical content to begin with, it cannot be further damaged by any further increase in nonsense, no matter how great."