Re: Could the 'missing dimensions' be quarks?

Posted by rtharbaugh on September 11, 2003 at 13:36:00:

In Reply to: Re: Could the 'missing dimensions' be quarks? posted by rtharbaugh on September 11, 2003 at 12:46:36:

Hi again, rickww and all.

Maybe a provisional definition of god (no cap this time) would be that god is that which contains all of our universes, and something more which none of us can have any idea of what it is. However this is no real improvement on the unspeakable name, and it takes up more room on the page. But it does point up the contradiction of trying to define the undefinable.

Godel's ideas seem to come in here. I don't have any direct quotes in front of me, but the general idea, as I have it, is that no internally consistant system can prove itself. Proof of the validity of a system always resides outside the system. God, the proof of everything, not only contains everything, is present in everything, but is more than everything.

In other words, it is always possible to build an internally consistant system that contradicts the terms of any existing internally consistant system. This in my mind is why two internally consistant religions, both professing to believe in, follow, and worship a divine entity based on love, wisdom, and mercy, can ruthlessly try to eliminate each other, slaughtering each other's adherents and anyone else who happens to get in the way, in the name of their divinity! This is why we have to forgive each other. We have to absorb the hurt, even the killing, and not seek revenge. This is not to say we cannot seek justice, but it is not justice to deny anyone elses right to continue to exist. I would suggest that only in the extreme case of immediate and personal attack are we justified in using deadly force against another person, and then violence is not an act to be honored as heroic, but one to be atoned for as a shameful regression into lower states of consciousness.

I see in the news that the Dalai Lama has visited the white house. I hope his holy harmony can help some of those violent men to see the folly of trying to make the world safer by building more bombs and guns. Or of trying to free the world by imposing stricter laws. Or of trying to bring about truth and justice and harmony by hiding your acts.

God is within us, yet the most horrible acts imaginable are undertaken by people who claim to be following the inner urgings of their god. Are these people all hypocrites, who just use the god-system to gain personal power and advantage?

For this reason, I would like to suggest that we not use the name of God in vain, that is, to use God as a justification for our violent acts. It was not helpful to the Son of Sam (was he thinking of Uncle Sam?) to say that God told him to do it. Why should it be helpful to Osama or to John and George and Dick et al to say that they are urging violence on their followers as a way to look at themselves in the mirror and feel at peace with God? This is self worship of the most dangerous variety. Maybe they should consider that until they are at peace with all people, they cannot claim the right to feel at peace with God.

Well, it is 11 September and there is a lotof sermonizing going on in the world today. This is a physics forum, and I for one, will try to forgo any further discussion, here, of the unspeakable.

Thanks, in harmony and praise, for Being Here.

Richard T. Harbaugh

(Report this post to the moderator)

Follow Ups: (Reload page to see most recent)

Post a Followup

Name    :     (Save your login cookie)
Password  :     (Delete your login cookie)
Subject : 

Comments:

(The following are optional.)
Link URL   : 
Link Title : 
Image URL  :