omul va supravietui, mai mult, va invinge
19 Iulie 2013
de Edmond Constantinescu
Filed under Dialogos
Tagged with Daniel Clinciu, English, Religion, Science
correction – electrons don’t have quarks, they have what are hypothetical particles referred to as leptoquarks
Very good idea to have a converstation in english. I will probably show it to some of my friends.
really? Would you be so kind as to correct the correction?
Discutia a fost interesanta ca de obicei, dar in ce priveste subiectul trinitatii, sunt de aceiasi parere cu polihronu „Marea problema a acestui gen de “demonstratie stiintifica” este ca nu e nici stiintifica, nici nu demonstreaza nimic.” Chiar daca (fortand nota) zicem ca modelul ternar in natura este un fel de trademark al lui D-zeu, asta tot nu demonstreaza trinitatea. Cu ceva timp in urma am avut o list cu fenomene naturale care au legatura cu numarul 7 (componentele luminii, notele muzicale, etc), si cu asta putem demonstra ca D-zeu are cele 7 duhuri din Apocalipsa?
Sunt surprins ca Edi recunoaste ca Biblia de fapt nu sustine trinitatea, posibilitate pe care am „descoperit-o” doar foarte recent citindul pe Brinsmead. Ca Duhul poate fi o forta impersonala sau chiar o atitudine („nu stiti de ce duh suntati calauziti”, „cine n-are duhul lui Hristos nu este al lui”) este destul de evident din Biblie, iar insistenta lui Isus de a-si spune „fiul omului” demarca o aversiune pentru divinizarea lui. Iar daca jertfa lui Isus, dupa cum a prezentat Edi in emisiuni recente (cea ce sustine si Brinsmead), nu este o plata infinita pentru o ofensa adusa unui D-zeu infinit, care putea fi achitata doar de o alta persoana egala cu D-zeu, atunci teologia noastra nu mai are nevoie ca Isus sa fie o persoana a trinitatii supranaturala.
Edi, ai spus ca poti demonstra ca D-zeu este „beyond good and evil” si ca nu-i pasa de noi. As fi curios de aceasta demonstratie, pentru ca daca acest D-zeu la care te referi tu este acelasi cu Tatal de care spune Isus, atunci esti intr-o contradictie directa cu Isus. Sunt de acord cu polihronu ca universul este cu totul indiferent fata de noi, dar asta este cu totul altceva de a spune ca D-zeu este indiferent fata de noi.
eu am spus de vreo doua ori in emisiune ca nu este o demonstratie stiintifica nici nu afecteaza stiinta intr-un mod sau altul ce am discutat aici si Edi are dreptate, inafara de o idee provocativa, nu e prea mult altceva. dar fiindca oamenilor de obicei le plac ‘patterns’ e interesant sa gasim tot felul de ‘paterns’ in natura bineinteles cu ajutorul stiintei. stiinta ne descopera tot felul de ‘patterns’ care bineinteles, nu sunt ‘stiintifice’ dar mie mi se pare interesant cum totul este cladit pe o succesiune de lucruri triune. am spus ca asta nu inseamna neaaparat D-zeu e triun (nu avem idee). ai dreptate, Biblia nu prea e clara in privinta asta (D-zeu a venit la Avraam ca 3 indivizi, nu stim exact cine sunt; si la botezul lui Isus se pare ca erau iar trei). dar plecand pe mai multe directii si speculatii (doar atat avem) putem avea o discutie pe tema asta chiar daca eu nu am dreptate, si asa am si afirmat. Edi a vrut sa vada ce parere am eu. parerea mea nu vine din teologie ci din ce am observat eu.
eu mai plec si de la alt punct de vedere. noi ca oameni punem tot felul de ‘trademarks’ pe orice lucru care-l facem din mai multe motive. daca D-zeu vrea ca noi sa intelegem si sa ‘relate’ cu noi, eu cred ca daca D-zeu o face, o va face intr-un mod prin care noi putem sa intelegem si ‘relate to’. cum i-am spus lui Edi, daca ar face-o intr-un mod pe care noi nu-l antelegem nici acum nici in veacul veacului si nu avem nici un mod ‘to relate to it’, nu cred ca are vre-un folos. eu as mai da ceva timp stiintei si tehnologiei sa vad ce ne-ar mai aduce in urmatorii ani, then i will close this chapter! 🙂
Maybe I misunderstood the article or the article is outdated. In any case, we’re here to help each other and hopefully learn from each other. I do not pretend I know everything and in many areas not as much as many of you! It is why I’m happy to learn from all of you here. So, I post what I read regarding electrons which seems to me that an electron could also be made from first generation leptoquarks decay. But the most interesting aspect of this article is again the triune occurrence , isn’t it? 🙂
„At the present time, we do not have any understanding why nature has three (and seemingly only three) generations of leptons and quarks. We also do not understand why they both come in three generations and it is tempting to ascribe the equality of the number of lepton and quark generations to a new, as yet unknown, higher symmetry. One such higher grouping predicted in many theories is the existence of new massive particles called leptoquarks which, in some sense, are more fundamental. Leptoquarks have the properties of both types of particles and would decay into a lepton and a quark. Three different types of leptoquarks would need to exist, and we label them first, second and third generation leptoquarks. Each generation of leptoquarks is constrained by experimental evidence to decay to only leptons and quarks of its own generation. So first generation leptoquarks decay to up or down quarks and an electron or electron-neutrino.”
As far as I know both I and Edi believe in God (a Creator) which takes the initiative to make Himself known to us by coming down to our level, first time through Jesus Christ and now in nature through science and technology. God could only do so through something we can understand and relate to. It is why I said a few times, it doesn’t mean that God is necessarily Triune (you totally missed the point by the way), it means He will reveal Himself to us through something we are familiar with, since we are familiar with and operate mostly in a tri-dimensionality. God may simply reveal Himself to us in nature to something as simple as a triune design but we don’t limit Him to this. I used it as an example because it is something we can easily see in nature. Can your three strings example work or be part of this? I think so, but you are laughing at it because you are limiting yourself to think that’s the only thing He would use, this triune design. I, on the other side do not limit God to this. There are many other “trademarks” and “signatures” He places on all His creations.
Why would He do so? Simply because this would enable Him to come down to our current level of understanding various things and occurrences. I teach marketing management, branding and technology marketing / management besides biotechnology. What I know from my experience and studies, we place a high emphasis on branding any of our creations, placing trademarks, copyrights and so forth on all of them. I don’t need to give you the reasons why, I’m sure you can figure out for yourself. It’s obvious to me that God would run into the same issue we do with our products because we are prone to think the same way about Him and what He created as we do with our own creations. What’s interesting is that renown contemporary scientists with different backgrounds like Lennox, Collins, Polkinghorne, Schawlow, Barton, Weizsacker, Jaki, Sandage, Townes, Dyson etc. when we look at these different trademarks and signatures in nature we come to the same conclusion. The Creator that resembles those different trademarks and signatures the closest is Jesus and the God of the Bible and not the Hindu gods, Allah, the spaghetti flying monster or any other gods. If you think it’s just coincidence and Jesus never existed, we all respect that but I could say the same, many of us don’t believe you either, especially none of this guys above that got a nobel prize. In my opinion, if anyone investigates such things in detail, there’s more evidence that such things have some purpose and meaning than as you think “mere coincidences”.
„…to make Himself known to us by coming down to our level, first time through Jesus Christ and now in nature through science and technology…”
This is first of all heretical within Christianity, for whom Jesus is the ultimate revelation of God. But I don’t care about that. Couldn’t we say, rather more reasonably and, indeed, scientifically, that it is only man who conceives of a god according to his limited historical knowledge? When virgin births, guiding stars, exorcisms and resurrections were staples of the cultural diet, man came up with Jesus, the son of God, the Jewish messiah turned saviour of the world. Now, that the cultural diet has changed, it is still man who thinks his god up according to science.
„God could only do so through something we can understand and relate to.”
Isn’t it more reasonable and, indeed, scientific to say that man can only imagine his god according to his conceptual evolution?
„you totally missed the point”
No, I didn’t. I don’t believe there is a god, let alone that he (she?, it?) is triune or not. I only ridiculed your thought experiment.
„He will reveal Himself to us through something we are familiar with”
Or, rather, more logically and economically, we will imagine him (HIM, obviously) according to our cognitive and intellectual features.
„…you are laughing at it because you are limiting yourself to think that’s the only thing He would use, this triune design”
No, I am laughing at the fact that I used to share your perspective and selective reading of reality, subjected as it is to fanciful presuppositions. That we speak of harmony only when we join three sounds together is not at all exceptional or ontologically remarkable. Three is, in this case, the lower limit of complexity necessary to achieve harmonic variation (harmony starts with three superimposed sounds, but it doesn’t stop at that). We, humans, are easily bored. We have just that bad of a history with monogamy too. A threesome, a ménage à trois, a Monica Lewinsky will, most probably, always be with us. BTW, the Ecclesiastes never spoke specifically about marriage when he quoted the proverb about the three strand rope. But pastors all over the world teach that three is more fun than two 😉
„we are prone to think the same way about Him and what He created as we do with our own creations”
Exactly. It is us (some of us) who do the thinking, using analogy without any reasonable ground, to construct castles in the sky. It’s exactly why you keep using „Him” when you refer to God, even though you most surely know nothing about „him”. Is „he” gendered? Does „he” have DNA? How was Jesus conceived? Etc. Why base so much of our thinking and living around an impregnable mystery? No matter how many analogies have ever been proposed, we still know exactly nothing about whatever we call „god”. Why should I care about your version of „him”?
„The Creator that resembles those different trademarks and signatures the closest is Jesus and the God of the Bible and not the Hindu gods, Allah, the spaghetti flying monster or any other gods.”
Now, this is just plain bullshit. At least for the simple fact that there is no such thing as a single understanding of „Jesus and the God of the Bible” (e.g., not all Christians are trinitarian, are they?), if not for the fact that nobody does this kind of shopping around for the best fit for the „god” character. In the end, why would anyone look for „the best fit” of the old gods, when science is enough of a means to know „him”? See why I can’t take you seriously when you pretend you are only „speculating”, not trying to „prove from science” your version of god? How about the possibility that none of the old gods, not even the Jewish one and his Christian brood, have anything to do with what the world supposedly teaches us about „him”?
„If you think it’s just coincidence”
It’s just plain human nature.
„and Jesus never existed”
Jesus most probably existed. There were plenty of Jewish revolutionaries and messiahs in the early days of the Roman Empire. And the culture of the Mediterranean world had shifted enough to make a Jew like Paul realise that a universalist, personal saviour would sell better than the grumpy, exclusivist, bitchy old Yahweh.
„none of this guys above that got a nobel prize”
A second dump. What now, am I supposed to come up with the list of atheist Nobel winners and compare sizes?
There is no coincidence that some Nobel winners were and are Christian.
no, i don’t expect you to come up with a list of any kind.. i’m just plain and simply saying we would all disagree with you as you and others disagree with us! 😉
There are about 10 questions in my comment that are not intended to be rhetorical. How about giving any of them a try?
Te rog autentifică-te folosind una dintre aceste metode pentru a publica un comentariu:
Comentezi folosind contul tău WordPress.com. ( Dezautentificare / Schimbă )
Comentezi folosind contul tău Twitter. ( Dezautentificare / Schimbă )
Comentezi folosind contul tău Facebook. ( Dezautentificare / Schimbă )
Comentezi folosind contul tău Google+. ( Dezautentificare / Schimbă )
Conectare la %s
Notifică-mă despre comentarii noi prin email.
Notifică-mă despre articole noi via email.
Urmărește-ne pe Facebook
Blog la WordPress.com.