Originally Posted By: exnihilo
Revigking_

Your request for clarification of my comments means you must have peered a litle deep into the content. I appreciate that.

Truth is elusive no matter the track followed, and science and religion are at a standstill in their engagement with each other. If there is any final truth in what both are pursuing than by necessity it must be an absolute truth. Time will prove one or the other is right, thus one must already possess absolutes. Both sides argue aritrariness in the other which gets nowhere. The uncertainty both sides experience and attribute to the other can be resolved at a coomon understanding.

Sir, nature is beguiling but it is benevolent. It is coaxing both sides on a particular path whether they know it not, and one or the other is going to have to acquiesce to the other. There is a lot of uncertainty in theoretical physics and the main reason is it is not even known what energy is. It is known to exist by its manifestation but it is reduced to fewer and fewer parts until there are only a few parts, and there may be just one part. Science is approaching the point of encountering that part and it isn't anything like the parts they have managed to construct and label thus far. I am prepared to say there is indeed only one part and it is responsible for everything we experience, and it can be proven with the tools of science, namely math. But that does not mean there is no God that engenders a religious pursuit purposefully, because science is going to discover, and what they are going to confirm, is that energy is an "essence" of something. At that point science will have to acknowledge that existence is greater than ourselves and not the sterile construction that has been manufactured. I suggest science is going to find themselves, genericlly speaking, exactly where religion is. That is the common meeting ground.

This is a little different rendering of what I have said. I hope it helps you out. There is so much more to it, I wish this forum could handle it.



Ex, my (delayed) reply is almost rendered moot by your most recent post, but I'll include it here below anyway:
===

I very much like the way you put this quoted above. I'd suggest a different take on some of your assumptions.

You say, "...science and religion are at a standstill in their engagement with each other," but I think both science and religion continue progressing--both individually--and within their relationship with each other. Heck, even the Pope acknowledges evolution theory as a valid way of understanding the creativity of Creation.

When you say, "I suggest science is going to find themselves, genericlly speaking, exactly where religion is," it sounds as if you place religion in an fixed, unyielding place; somewhere science must "find."

Earlier you said, "Time will prove one or the other is right, thus one must already possess absolutes."
I like to suggest the possibility that both are right and that the absolutes are the same for each; it's just that we don't fully understand either yet--it's hard to see from different perspectives that the absolutes are the same.
===

...and please don't confuse science (the evolutionary, newtonian, atomic, QED, relativistic, thermodynamic, or whatever sort of model/system) with reality--science is only a tool to model reality; and similarly don't confuse religion (the various mainstream, or whatever sort of system) with reality--religion only reflects reality. As with science, religion seeks to provide a way for us to better see, understand, and model the higher dimensionality that manifests as reality; but neither should be confused with the actual reality of the Creation.

...or words to that effect. I might need to restate that last paragraph; not sure if it conveys my intent--so I'll stop--but I like your last post.
Yes, space is the key we don't understand; ...and what about spin too!
_________________________
Pyrolysis creates reduced carbon! ...Time for the next step in our evolutionary symbiosis with fire.