The challenge of finding peace in Lourdes

SIMSI wrote:

See also Einstein ... Science without religion is lame .... ... ... ...

What Einstein meant by "religion", and what you understand religion to be,
are two extremely different things ...

What did he say about religion ... ???

"My religion consists of a humble admiration of the illimitable superior spirit who reveals
himself in the slight details we are able to perceive with our frail and feeble mind".

"I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists,
not in a God who concerns himself with fates and actions of human beings."

"It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being
systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this
but have expressed it clearly."

As far as science is concerned ... rather be quiet ...
don't showcase your ignorance so loud man ...

"

Quote :

My religion consists of a humble admiration of the illimitable superior spirit who reveals
himself in the slight details we are able to perceive with our frail and feeble mind".

.. absolutely ...

Quote :

"I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists,

.... Hellooooooooooooo , ...

Quote :

not in a God who concerns himself with fates and actions of human beings."

a little confuct , if you will but still he blieves in God ...

Quote :

As far as science is concerned ... rather be quiet ...
don't showcase your ignorance so loud man ...

... As far as God and Spiriruality and His personal relationship towards each and every one of us is concerned ... I have this to say :

Science without God is lame..... and that is how I and billions others understand Einstein.

No one who truly calls himself a scientist and who knows God can EVER deny His personal relationship with His Creation ...and if that is not a personal relationship ... with us .... then tell me what is ...

You are missing the pot as usual.

---

Just as he dotted the i's and crossed the t's of his scientific beliefs
during the last year or so of his life, so did he recapitulate his
religious convictions. To Dr. Douglas he stated:

Quote :

“If I were not a Jew I
would be a Quaker.”

And in an interview with Professor William
Hermanns, he said:

Quote :

“I cannot accept any concept of God based on the
fear of life or the fear of death or blind faith.

..... YAY YAY , Einstein and I and billions of us agree !!!!!!!!!

Quote :

I cannot prove to you
that there is no personal God,

Yep !!!!! Yep ... !!!

Quote :

but if I were to speak of him I would be
a liar.”

He simply says he , Einstein , did not have a personal relationship with God ...

"As to what one could believe in, the answer was simple enough.

Quote :

“I
believe in the brotherhood of man and the uniqueness of the individual.
But if you ask me to prove what I believe, I can't.

....

And

Quote :

You know them to be
true but you could spend a whole lifetime without being able to prove
them. The mind can proceed only so far upon what it knows and can
prove.

Quote :

There comes a point where the mind takes a higher plane of
knowledge,

Quote :

but can never prove how it got there.

Quote :

All great discoveries
have involved such a leap.

And there you have it:

Quote :

All great discoveries
have involved such a leap.

....

Quote :

and the uniqueness of the individual.

...... And then came DNA ...

Do you realize that in every analysis of DNA there is a common denominator?

Do the maths , proff. , do the maths ...

[quote]
You will hardly find one among the profounder sort of
scientific minds without a peculiar religious feeling of his own. But
it is different from the religion of the naive man.[quote]

Quote :

or the latter God is a being from whose care one hopes to benefit
and whose punishment one fears; a sublimation of a feeling similar to
that of a child for its father, a being to whom one stands to some
extent in a personal relation, however deeply it may be tinged with awe.

BUT :


[quote]
But the scientist is possessed by the sense of universal
causation. The future, to him, is every whit as necessary and
determined as the past. There is nothing divine about morality, it is a
purely human affair.

Quote :

His religious feeling takes the form of a
rapturous amazement at the harmony of natural law, which reveals an
intelligence of such superiority that, compared with it, all the
systematic thinking and acting of human beings is an utterly
insignificant reflection.

Quote :

This feeling is the guiding principle of his life and work, in so
far as he succeeds in keeping himself from the shackles of selfish
desire. It is beyond question closely akin to that which has possessed
the religious geniuses of all ages.

Quote :

There is nothing divine about morality, it is a
purely human affair.

... free will ... if you will

SIMSI wrote:

Quote :

The "body", "mind" and "soul" are one according to you ... ???

... yes , it is ... I shall elaborate on that later ... Actually this is part of my thesis .. so, actually not to be discussed as of now. Ideas can still be used /"stolen" before it is copyrighted

Sims, one simply can NOT, copyright / Patent / steal, an idea or concept or theory. It does for all intent and purpose NOT Exist...It's made of NOTHING!!!!
How do explain that???? hehehehehe.... Can NOTHING be used???? hahahaha!
This is sooooo amusing.....and you know what they say....Small things amuse small minds.......GO Einstein....GO Quantum Physics!!
Bwaaaahaaahaaa!

Do you realize that in every analysis of DNA there is a common denominator?

Actually there are probably several thousand or so common denominators....



Why then is it so difficult to believe in the theory of Evolution???

Belief in a theory.....Hmmmmm and science is not a religion???? Ja whatever.....lol

SIMSI wrote:

hiya , all ... interesting debate on 1+1+1= 1 ... but so simple ... certainly all will agree that even us (we) also consist of 1) a body 2) a mind and 3) a soul ? ... Yet, we are one person /dog /cat/ ... for those who believe that there is an animal kingdom as well ...

And , great , that it brings us to NOTHING which can be (something ) (like the atom which is actually nothing ) but can be something in its destructiveness ( which brings us back to nothing) ...

Well that's the whole point is it not???? What is nothing????

Heres an interesting book by Brian Greene, the title is The Fabric of the Cosmos, about R100.00

Largely covered in the book are Einsteins' theories of relativity etc.
A fairly acurate overview can be read here.....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Fabric_of_the_Cosmos

also By Brian Greene, The Elegant Universe,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Elegant_Universe

Both books have a glossary so you wont get lost with unfamiliar terminology.

Interesting stuff....A must read, if for no other reason than to get another perspective. It's well written and you will not need a great understanding of Quantum Physics for it to make sense...It may just blow your mind.....

and this one is just for laughs....as true as some parts are......hehehehe!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nothing

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h0kQ4HidFv4&feature=related

Things to do when you're bored....

bored?...you need a mind to be bored....my mind blew away loooooooooong time ago.....I DO know where it is though, will fetch it when needed....

More on Einstein....lol...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kxkH8UVJCm4&feature=user

Drew *slaps* himself....

as long as its only a slap, Drew...not self-mutilating sh*t, ok....

"If you can not bring/get it into the laboratory to investigate, it is not science, it is philosophy."

Huh???? they never said that...they never even implied it......

They said.....Is it there in the laboratory, can you find its evidence?....

And......If you cant test it in the way that we test normal theories, it's not science, its philosophy.

That's the same as saying, if it exists outside of a lab it's NOT science.....nonsense...

You go listen again....the evidence of this theory and fingerprints are in the stars.......Not in a lab.....

The whole Universe is a lab......Religion is a science......

When did they ever get the trinity concoction into a laboratory to do reproducable experiments on ... ???

They didn't....it's a theory........a story......a parodox.

Drewberryboy wrote:

When did they ever get the trinity concoction into a laboratory to do reproducable experiments on ... ???

They didn't....it's a theory........a story......a parodox.

It's my personal belief....

Or...Maybe I am wrong or have the wrong perspective.

Science can only prove theories by reaching similar results in tests....Be they in a lab or not.
It is the consistency of the results that determine the approxomate accuracy,.....APPROXOMATE ACCURACY!
It is a common scientific fact, that no two test results are ever the same.

Now if you assume this simple view, God the father would represent the Biological origin, the genitor, or The Universe....
God the Son, would represent the offspring. (Son of man)
And God the Holy Spirit would represent the unseen Spirit....or call it whatever you like......The Life Force....
The e in energy if you want.

The consistency in this is exteem...... Now, tell me this hasn't been proven?

Now with that in mind...How do you honestly expect to be able to repeat the test of restarting the Universe?????? Ridiculous!

Science is in itself by nature flawed.

And IF you could would the result be the same?

So I say to you Warre.....When did they ever get the theory of the big bang into a laboratory to do reproducable experiments on ... ???

Think about it.......lol

Now getting back to this comment...

If you cant test it in the way that we test normal theories, it's not science, its philosophy.

What do you suppose the big bang theory is??? Science, or philosophy, or Religion? Hmmmm?

Religion is a Science......Sorry! hehehe