I don't think he did any. But he did interface with others who did test his ideas. He supported his ideas with mathematics. He was theoretical physicist of the first order.
The video that I am posting gives reasons why I have known for a very long time, why Christians, especially Christians, have undying hatred of Freemasonry. What this man speaks of, explains EXACTLY what is in Mugadas Qur'an and why Light and Darkness are so frequently mentioned in said book. I have found what this man speaks on a long time gone and coming: Light and Darkness have absolutely NOTHING to do with a person's physiological and biological make-up, but Light and Darkness (Nuri wa Nari) is about intelligence and ignorance. This is why there are the times of Salat from dawn to night, symbolizing the phases of knowledge, wisdom and comprehension. I care not what others say about Masons, I know of what they teach and am not threatened by their wisdom.
I usually let people express themselves, about who or what they 'hate!' I also do not see any homogeneity of emotion, from any particular worldview towards another, that is not indoctrinated by dogmatists trying to smear the opposition. I self identify as a Christian, but also a human, and a philosopher. Few of those perspectives have a 'hate!' option in them, but i feel no need to exercise them.. at least not toward freemasonry. I consider progressive ideology to be a deadly poison for humanity, and at enmity toward the American Experiment. And, i consider many anti-christian cults and worldviews to also be at odds with the principles of freedom, human equality, and self rule. So i can and do, 'hate' the ideology that is at the root of the anti-christian, anti-American, and anti-human ideals that infest the public discourse, but i do not hate their followers, i see them as deceived or unwitting dupes of Indoctrination, without the perspective of freedom, history, and truth to awaken them.
Humm, let’s put it this way Today, science can explain more than it could yesterday And yesterday, science could explain more than it could the day before yesterday And on the day before yesterday, science could explain more than it could the previous day There seems to be a trend that leads us to observe that science always knows less in the past an more in the future. And so... if there is something (call it x) science cannot explain today.... our conjecture is that science MAY be able to explain (x) in the future. If science cannot explain (x) tomorrow, maybe they can explain (x) the day after tomorrow, or in ten, or 50: or a thousand years. Or maybe science will never be able to explain “some” things... like what happened before the Big Bang Otoh, admitting that some things appear unknowable does not undermine science, nor does that admission reinforce a faith based understanding of what we all agree seems unknowable. There is only a misguided satisfaction emerging from confidence based on zero evidence (faith). OF COURSE we WANT to know ALL the answers. So there is great comfort from attaching faith based certainty to every uncomfortable unknown. And I have no objection to the comfort that come from faith based elimination of life’s uncomfortable uncertainties. But what I do object to is applying faith based certainties to uncomfortable things that we THINK WE DO KNOW. There was a time when we did not understand things like lightening, or floods, or droughts, or famine, or plagues, etc. etc. etc. And when these things were unknowns... we comforted ourselves by attaching faith based. “Explanations” to these unknown phenomena. Lightning is caused by god... “ because what else could it be? But now we know that lightening has nothing to do with god... and any faith based explanation of lightning seems unnecessary.... or even ridiculous. And it does not matter that our forebears were convinced that lightening was from the hand of god. We are not betraying god or our ancestors faith when we have confidence in a scientific explanation of lightening Likewise it seems perplexing to me that anyone would insist that we must adhere to a faith based insistence that the earth is 6000 years old, or that the sun is the center of the universe. There WAS a time when these were questions that were resolved by faith. We needed faith to answer these uncomfortable unknowns. But, at least some of us no longer need faith to tell us how old the earth is, or what is the cause of lightning, or why there are plagues. Faith based explanations can be useful, they can be comforting. But I do not think that we need to tie ourselves to faith based explanations even after they have lost their usefulness in removing the discomfort of life’s unknowns. I do not know the “meaning of life” Many people are uncomfortable that THEY do not know the meaning of Life And so they relieve their discomfort with a faith based explanation of the meaning of life And that is fine. It makes their lives expediently more comfortable So.... fine. If you need religion to have a comfortable life... it is fine But PLEASE, do not tell the rest of us that we all have to reject science because science undermines the faith that you need to be comfortable with life’s uncertainties. I am reasonably happy accepting the fact that I have no clue whether there was a Big Bang, I have no clue WHY there was a Big Bang, I have no clue what (if anything) came before the Big Bang. If that all make others uncomfortable... and y’all Need faith to relieve your discomfort... ok, that’s fine. Your faith gets you through life’s uncertainties. But that faith does not need to be applied to discredit science... just because today’s science conflicts with yesterday’s faith based answers to life’s uncertainties No, science also cannot answer the questions “what is the purpose of lightning? What is the purpose of the sun? What is the purpose of the flu, or the sun, or the stars, or mosquitoes?” Perhaps your faith answers these questions for you. I am happy enough without needing to know the “purpose” of everything Science does not even consider the question of purpose. Therefore science cannot say there is a purpose, or that there is not a purpose. IMO your view that there SHOULD be an answer to questions about “purpose” reflects your discomfort with the lack of absolute meaning to life. BUT, IMO, demanding that there must a meaning to life is akin to demanding that life “should” be fair. and IMO neither is there an answer from faith... other than distraction. You are uncomfortable with uncertainty... so you adopt a faith..., which eliminates uncomfortable uncertainties... which by definition makes you more comfortable. I guess it would be wrong of me (and science) to insist that you remain uncomfortable. Otoh, I also think it is very wrong if you insist that I must adopt your faith in order to facilitate your faith based means of coping with the discomfort of life’s uncertainties
What if an atheist believes in a pseudo-scientific reason for souls, like a disembodied energy field? No god is required. Yes, it is still a belief, but it is not a religion. Not all atheists are logical or follow the scientific method, they just don't believe in a god or gods for whatever their reason.
Actually I do recognize that nobody will care about you and me 100 years after our death. If you were capable of understanding what I wrote you could figure that out. But having your imaginary afterlife isn't going to change that fact despite what you seem to think. And I am sorry for you that you think of death as a relief from pain and suffering. IF you really believe that why not commit suicide and get the relief faster and if there is a heaven why are you wasting time suffering here? And if you actually are educated why would you ever think the sum total of a human being is biological since nature and nurture create the neural connections that make up a personality. Most of us can learn, can change can develop and do all sorts of things that surpass pure biology. Now if you want to claim our sum total is physical than I would agree since there is nor ever has been any evidence of a soul as claimed to be something that survives death. Now if you want to claim the souls as the totsl of the biological and the experiential then I buy the concept of a soul. Also note that 100 years from now the art I have made will still survive and probably be cherished even though I may be forgotten. The things I did in my corporate life will all be gone as probably will be the corporations I worked for.
Key word "believes". They can dress it up however they like, but it's a spiritual belief which can no more be proved than the existence of God. In short, such an "atheist" is just arguing their religious beliefs against others.
Great! Then you are on your way. Congrats. The fact you laced your post with insults is indicative of someone who is unsure of their own position. The fact remains that if we are nothing but physical, then we are, indeed, just ambulatory meat computers with biological programming. Dress it up with whatever words you like, but that's the alternative. Either we are more than the physical or we aren't. ROFLMAO. Seriously? If it gives you comfort, by all means, keep believing that to be true. You are obviously afraid of death and think your "art" will help you live forever. Sorry dude, but the odds are it will all end up at garage sales, used for target practice or just dumped.
Good points, well written. Thanks. Hard to believe but when the lightning rod was invented it was considered sacrilegious to many Christians because God brought the lightning, and it had a purpose. The bible could say that God struck someone with lightning (it doesn't) or that God destroyed the Jewish nation, or God caused a drought. But it is understood that God employs natural processes - thus it "wasn't God" who destroyed the Jews but the Romans, and it "wasn't God" who created life, He "commanded the seas to bring forth life." The bible isn't into explaining all the natural world as God directed effects. As Galileo put it "The bible tells us how to go to heaven, it doesn't tell us how the heavens go." People have employed the "God driver" to explain the world, but that doesn't come from the bible.
So here we go again. Unless you consider not believing in unicorns or not believing in big foot, religions, then you are just being hypocritical. If you do believe those are religions, then could you back me up when I try to start the Church of Not Believing in Fairies so that I can get a big tax write off?
What happened before the Big Bang? Could have formed by hyper dimensional membranes colliding. Could be true, don't know, of course. What matters is that ultimately you reach that first point in the process, ie who made these hypothetical membranes and the space they move in? Science explains the iterations, if you like, from one thing to another, ie quark-gluon plasma to dinosaur - but not the first step. BY DEFINITION OF SCIENCE that "first step" cannot be explained. Rain comes from condensation, which is driven by water vapor and the sun, and the sun is driven by hydrogen fusion, which is driven by quantum effects etc. etc. etc .... like turtles all the way down to figuring out what that first turtle stands upon.
So here we go again, if a person believes in the supernatural, are they a believer in fairy tales or not? Are they believing in something that can't be proved by science or not?
If a person says his name is Ralph, does it take faith and/or empirical evidence to believe? 1 John 4:3 "And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world." John 9:39 "And Jesus said, For judgment I am come into this world, that they which see not might see; and that they which see might be made blind." Was He 'lying'? Was He lying or was the writer of 'John 9:39' lying? John 12:46 "I am come a light into the world, that whosoever believeth on me should not abide in darkness." What about this? Seems pretty far fetched, right? Or??? Was the publishing company which published and marketed this version of The Holy Bible, lying? John 12:46 reads, "I have come into the world as a light, so that everyone believing in Me should not abide in darkness," in the BRB version. Did He 'I am come a light', or did He, 'I have come as a light'? Either way, (J)esus is was the one who supposedly said this. Do I need faith to believe He said this or do I need empirical evidence? Then what about towards every other 'history' notation? Did Rome really 'fall' or was it all made up or embellished upon? It takes more 'faith' to believe businesses are upright than it does to believe (J)esus said what He said.
Do you take the Bible literally? Do you think the Bible is the word of Man or the actual words of God?
The bible doesn't leave everything to faith. It gave natural illustrations that everyone can acknowledge. In this case God gave us a picture of His Chosen People and Promised Land - that was the Jewish nation. God brought them out of captivity, and when they rebelled He sent them back into captivity. And the bible states that this nation would end with the Coming of the Messiah because they "knew not the time of their visitation." But the promise was, that when the Gentiles "time is fulfilled" God would bring back the Jews, from nations that were their "graves" and take back Israel a second time, with the sword. That's all history - it's also history written thousands of years prior.
Perhaps but it has a much better chance than anything you will leave. And your use of meat computer just displays your ignorance of biology and the way humans function. Really sad you think of yourself as just a meat computer and then have to make up an imaginary soul to give yourself the illusion of worth. You said it all when you said you would welcome death as a release from pain and suffering and yet you are obviously afraid to kill yourself because you really aren't convinced you have a soul or will have an afterlife. It's like the old joke that everyone wants to go to heaven but nobody wants to die. Oh and I do agree we are nothing but the physical. To believe otherwise with no evidence is just foolish. In the entire history of man there has been absolutly zero evidence of an afterlife or of a soul or of a rebirth.
Literally as in verbatim or literally as in In Truth? Do i believe the Hebrews crossed the Red Sea on dry ground? Well, the ground might have been damp. Do I believe they ate 'manna'? It could have been munnuh. Do I believe that the Name of the son of Mary was (J)esus? It could have been (J)oshua. Do I believe that the diviner at Endor really brought Samuel up from the grave in spirit? Was it really Samuel and not Eli? After all, Eli was Samuel's guardian when Samuel was still young. But I do believe the Hebrews crossed the Red Sea, I believe they ate manna, I believe Mary had a child who was/is The Messiah, I believe that Saul did talk to a certain spirit which was conjured up out of the dead, or so he may have believed. Is this taking The Bible literally?
Atheism has nothing to do whether a belief can or cannot be proved by science. If was nothing to do with whether someone believes in the supernatural or not. It is ONLY about whether they believe in God or not.
Perhaps my art will far outlast yours.....and sell better at the swap meet. LOL The fact remains you are grasping at leaving a legacy. Since you believe we are nothing more than meat computers with a very short shelf life, you are desperate to leave something behind so you cling to your "art". Fine. Your choice. The irony, of course, is that you ridicule others for their "fear of death".
Thank you for confirming it's a belief system. Some people are theists, some are atheists but all believe in the supernatural, afterlife and existence beyond the physical. Their only difference is whether there is a God or gods behind the scenes. Is that what you are saying?
