The Quantum Mechanics of Salvation (Saved by the 5th Dimension)

reply to post by ahnggk


That's a good description. Consider this: The fruit of knowledge is technology based on transmutation of the elements. Man took God's perfect creation for his own use apart from remembering the main law. The will to give and receive must be observed. Mankind became a thief with the will only to take from God. God would have given it to us as a gift and allowed us to create over time. Instead, we rushed in our pride. Humpty Dumpty was the Egg (DNA / TREE OF LIFE) that sat on the wall of this choice to see past the veil. He had a fall. All the kings horses (Tools) and all the kings men (Astrologers, scientists, alchemists, mathematicians) could not put Him back together again. If he had waited, he would have hatched to his intended potential. God can put us back, but not the kings men. It must be with God. Christ is the redeemer for this purpose.

Why the 1000 year reign of Christ? Man will nearly destroy the Earth. God stops it and man sees the error. Christ becomes Lord and we express our true nature by hatching in 1000 years, as intended. We rushed and it took 6000 years to see the error.

Revelation 13

18 This calls for wisdom. Let the person who has insight calculate the number of the beast, for it is the number of a man.[e - or of mankind] That number is 666.

Carbon, the mark of mankind and of the beast's technology, has 6 protons, 6 electrons and 6 neutrons. His mark is selfishness.

Man is the beast. The mark of all of us is either our willingness to love God and repent or our expression of this verse:


2 Timothy 3:2-4

“For men will be lovers of themselves, lovers of money, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents (6), unthankful, unholy, unloving, unforgiving, slanderers, without self-control (6), brutal, despisers of good, traitors, headstrong, haughty, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God” (6).

18 identifiers in 3 sets of 6.

All of us are condemned, but Christ is our savior if we take the name. The name is the character. The character is love, the will to give and receive, but not to take.

How do we overcome? With the word. We must preserve the breath that we use for the word. 777 is nitrogen and God's heptadic mark on scripture. 888 is Oxygen and Christ's mark in Greek Gematria. The very breath we are given is what we give with the Word.

The word is used to allow our consciousness to collapse the wave of the 5th dimension. Apart from it, we don't know we can. It's programming by the key of truth. If we find it, we find salvation from the error and from this place.

Originally posted by EnochWasRight


"An axiom is a premise or starting point of reasoning. As classically conceived, an axiom is a premise so evident as to be accepted as true without controversy. An axiom is defined as a mathematical statement that is accepted as being true without a mathematical proof." WIKIPEDIA

Yes? That's what I said. And you have already said/agreed yourself that Axioms are evident.
You cannot dispute axioms, otherwise they wouldn't be axioms.
Or what did you intend to say with this?

The Axiom is what science is founded on

Yes, as it is a foundation that cannot be disputed as we both agree. Otherwise we would have a problem.

..., just as religion.

No. I'm not aware of an axiom, set of axioms or anything based on axioms that would prove the existence of God.

The difference between science and religion is the same as with a woman and a man.

The difference between a woman and a man is the set of active chromosomes which lead to our physical differences, from which the rest that defines what is typically "womanly" or "manly" will follow.

The difference between science and religion is that people all around the world, despite their background or religion, can both contribute to science and accept it, where as in religion, even though the religious people have accepted God, "feel it" and are "in the same boat", can't agree about what it really is and/or what is wrong or right. Not even in the same country. People on this forum alone seem to all have their completely own views. One would think that such a strong feeling within oneself, the enlightenment, would make these people atleast agree with each-other. But they do not - in contrary to science.

That, is the difference.

The man refuses to acknowledge the woman is correct.

Yes, I can relate to such a macho culture in interactions between man & woman. I fail to see what that has to do with science & religion.

Love is were we make progress.

In relationships? In science? Between scientists? Or in loving religion?
But in science, the love for thought experiments, experiments, education and things of that nature is what makes progress. If we try to remain on topic.

The woman already loves the man.

Who is this woman, why is she so submissive, and why are we talking about her?

This is why the woman is right.

.... I just can't comment on this.

Reason lacks perspective from bias.

Aha! You seem to have misunderstood something important.
You should be aware that reason does not belong in science.
Reason is a great tool in order to speculate and to try find solutions, but you cannot dictate how the nature works, as it can be as unreasonable as it wants to be. Quantum mechanics is a good example.
So, the human's ability to reason is what we need to think of new ideas, but "it's reasonable to assume that" does not belong in science as facts. They can be used as "placeholders", but they are not true until verified.

Religion embraces science.

First of all, you being religious should be the first to know that this varies greatly depending on who you ask. Some are not even allowed to use technology which is a must in this day and age to proceed studying many fields. Again, you are talking about specific versions of religion which again demonstrates thiat religion is not based on any axioms, as religion goes any direction the person carrying it wishes.

However, I have no problem regardless of if religion embraces science or not. It does not matter to me, nor does it matter to science.

Science uses religion as its fundamental source as its genesis.

This is as false as it can be. Could you please explain how you came up with that conclusion?
Science does not care about religion as long as it's not a part of it.
Example, someone states that there is an earth-quake every time God sneezes. Clearly, there is no evidence of this, nor is there a way to verify this. Then we find out that the continental plates are moving and causes these shakes. The apparent question then might be "why do they move?", the easy explanation someone comes up with is that God obviously uses Earth as a "stress-ball", so, by gently squeezing on earth, it moves the plates around. Again, since we can't even know that God exists, we look elsewhere.

The Holy Spirit is what science denies.

Wrong. Science cannot deny things it can't verify. As long as it cannot be looked at, it's not interesting. It's quite logical. Otherwise it would only be pure speculation, like religion.

Also, don't confuse scientists with science.
There are scientists that believe in God, and those who do not, and everything in between.
It is only logical that a lot of scientists are not religious, as they are used to confirm things only when they can be confirmed.

Personally, I don't deny God. For the same reason that I nor science can say whether Jenna Jameson is God or not.

She is the mother in the Trinity.

It is fascinating that the holy spirit is even put into a family-tree. What about its' mother & father?
But I would, for starters, be satisfied if you proved the existence of the holy spirit. It would make the rest a bit easier.

Originally posted by EnochWasRight
reply to post by ahnggk

 

That's a good description. Consider this: The fruit of knowledge is technology based on transmutation of the elements. Man took God's perfect creation for his own use apart from remembering the main law. The will to give and receive must be observed. Mankind became a thief with the will only to take from God. God would have given it to us as a gift and allowed us to create over time.

The gift might only be given to those who would hate it because of their love for God, they won't accept anything that would compromise their relationship to God or it reminds them of their corrupt ways.

You made it seem complex. The Holy Spirit has guided me to these truths in a lot simpler ways.

You only need to get the Holy Spirit into you as a guide to seek the truth from every sources of information - to do that, you must follow the teachings of Jesus in the literal context.

If you want to get right down to it. Hate/forsake the world and the things in it, possessions, career, ambitions, worldly relationships, hobbies, repent of your wicked ways, and follow Jesus.

God is just, righteous, and merciful. The world system is the opposite of all these that's why if you're 'in this world' the love of God is not in you. You have to choose which side you're going to be.

reply to post by Consequence

No. I'm not aware of an axiom, set of axioms or anything based on axioms that would prove the existence of God.

Axioms have no proofs. That's what I said (you said / she said) earlier. No proof, simply evident. God is evident in all things above and below. Read the quote below from this thread: LINK but posted below: Even the 6 days of creation are evident from the axioms of science. Religion needs science to see it clearly. Science needs religion to tell us why.

Religion is organized giving. A person can give and receive apart from going to church, but fellowship is part of love. Science is necessary for the extrovert to validate his inner nature. The introvert needs religion to validate what he fears on the outside. The universe is geared toward two becoming one. Religion is the female and Science is the male. Read the article linked in my signature on why science and religion are at odds. It may make more sense why one needs the other. They are the same faith, approaching at opposite ends of the inverse square.

Science examines the spread of light and traces it back toward the source by measurement. Religion catches the light on a screen, knowing the source by relationship. One is concrete and the other abstract. Language is the same. Hebrew is concrete and Greek is abstract. There are 22 letters in the Hebrew and 24 in Greek. That's 46. There are 46 chromosomes that are comprised of 22 pairs and 2 sex chromosomes. They come together in sets and the two become one. The mind is put together in the process in such a way to reflect the same pairing of concrete and abstract, evidenced by the two sides of the brain. A person is further mirrored by this reasoning into soul and spirit. The two must come together and agree for dissonance to be resolved. Science and Religion are simply comparisons by lesser and greater cases. What is true for the lesser case is true for the greater. As above, so below. We are a reflection of the macrocosm by the reflection of our microcosm. What is true for us is true above in the cosmos. Science can help us understand the parallel. Religion tells us why.

Also, consider what Augustin said in City of God:

"And yet the validity of logical sequences is not a thing devised by men, but is observed and noted by them that they may be able to learn and teach it; for it exists eternally in the reason of things, and has its origin with God. For as the man who narrates the order of events does not himself create that order; and as he who describes the situations of places, or the natures of animals, or roots, or minerals, does not describe arrangements of man; and as he who points out the stars and their movements does not point out anything that he himself or any other man has ordained;—in the same way, he who says, “When the consequent is false, the antecedent must also be false,” says what is most true; but he does not himself make it so, he only points out that it is so."

reply to post by ahnggk

If you want to get right down to it. Hate/forsake the world and the things in it, possessions, career, ambitions, worldly relationships, hobbies, repent of your wicked ways, and follow Jesus.

Some conclusions we come to in this life are paradox. Paradox can be resolved. Your statement above holds a paradox. God intended the "World" to be enjoyed and admired. We are to love God's work. The "World" mentioned in your comparison is not wicked unless we are on the wrong side of God's will. This is the lesson to be learned from Abraham. Before he was Abraham, he was Abram. The H in his name is the Hebrew Hey. It means, "Behold a great work." It is the proto-Canaanite letter that is the pictograph of a man with his arms outstretched. See Ancient Hebrew.org.

Once Abram became Abraham, God told him the great work would be the gift of a son. Abraham loved his son more than anything in the world. To him, he was the object of his love. God asked Abraham to kill his son. What kind of dissonance do you think Abraham felt? What do we learn from this? Faith requires us to give up what we love, only for God to give it back to us by proper context. The world is not what God tells us to give up. He asks us to give it to him first, only to then see and receive it by the context of truth. The same is true for the fruit of knowledge (Science). The science is not evil. Our approach to science is to blame.

Science took the spirit out of light. Light is not a duality. It's a trinity of Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Science says it is only particle and wave. The wave is the Word. The Holy Spirit is the Great I AM (Consciousness). Our bodies are particle and wave that are animated with consciousness (Spirit). God can be seen by diving deep and opening wide, but not for those who deny the spirit. Faith is required to collapse the wave of what is possible.

My complicated explanation is not necessary for you, but many on this board need this to see what has been hidden from them. Axioms are based on what is evident and not on what is proven. True for science and true for religion. The two must become one, as with all opposites.

Originally posted by EnochWasRightGod intended the "World" to be enjoyed and admired. We are to love God's work. The "World" mentioned in your comparison is not wicked unless we are on the wrong side of God's will. This is the lesson to be learned from Abraham. Before he was Abraham, he was Abram. The H in his name is the Hebrew Hey. It means, "Behold a great work." It is the proto-Canaanite letter that is the pictograph of a man with his arms outstretched.

The 'world' I mentioned are all things man-made (industrialization, city building, agriculture, economy, houses, cars, hobbies, recreation, careers, entertainment, etc) which is in the same context Jesus is referring to in his warnings.

Jesus said nothing good about it and not to be enjoyed. In fact, it is to be hated and abandoned. It is the system that has ravaged most of God's handiwork and is causing misery and oppression to a lot of people (billions), and trillions more to animals and plants.

Jesus did not even encouraged anyone to be part of this 'world' even for his sake and the poor. The amount of money you can give doesn't matter to him, it's irrelevant, but how much of yourself you are giving is infinitely more important. "Those who lose their life for my sake will keep it"

Also to clear myself, I don't trust the Bible to be the infallible word of Truth in it's entirety. There is truth in it, but not all. There's multiple Gods in the Bible who are different from each other. I only trust the one Jesus calls Father.

The Holy Spirit (Spirit of Truth) is the guide to the truth, not the Bible, not your pastor. Although the Gospel of Jesus served as the key in the Bible in unlocking the truth. Our responsibility as Christians should be to plant a seed of truth in others which will grow in them through the Holy Spirit. We are all brothers and sisters in our faith and Jesus is our leader. This is what Jesus teaches from the Bible.

Has the promise come yet? Do you still sin? Yes, we all do. If we say we have no sin, we lie. The promise mentioned in the last verse below is not here yet. Jesus is the promised one and His work is ongoing with us until the final judgment by God. Well done will come after we have a fighting chance in a world that is free from evil. Not here yet. Much to go.

Nothing you are saying is in error, yet it lacks the timetable. Apart from a Holy Spirit, we cannot do this and will not do this. The Angel of Darkness is not bound yet. The next event releases the Sons of Light to live in a world free from error for 1000 years. This is coming at the end of the age. It requires Christ, not mankind, to accomplish this. We are reflecting Christ in the world by giving and receiving. Taking makes us a thief. You are contending that the thief can save himself. It's not our work. Our work is to love and do good deeds by giving to others.

Jesus speaks of the ideal to fulfill the law. The sermon on the mount is what it takes to do what HE did. Not what we can do. We CANNOT do this. He showed a bar that was high according to his task. We bear his cup with HIM. He is the one that does the part of salvation FOR us. The world you are envisioning is coming. Technology will be a fruit that gives. It will be reborn. It will be done right. We will live as God intends for 1000 years and we will have a Holy Spirit that HE provides. We do not possess this yet. It's coming. The Blood of Christ ensures that as He is, so SHALL we be. Not yet.

Before this becomes fact, it's faith. First law, then faith, then Fact and Salvation.

Never forget, we are still children.

Galatians 3

23 Before the coming of this faith, we were held in custody under the law, locked up until the faith that was to come would be revealed. 24 So the law was our guardian until Christ came that we might be justified by faith. 25 Now that this faith has come, we are no longer under a guardian.

26 So in Christ Jesus you are all children of God through faith, 27 for all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. 28 There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. 29 If you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise.

Originally posted by ahnggk

Originally posted by EnochWasRightGod intended the "World" to be enjoyed and admired. We are to love God's work. The "World" mentioned in your comparison is not wicked unless we are on the wrong side of God's will. This is the lesson to be learned from Abraham. Before he was Abraham, he was Abram. The H in his name is the Hebrew Hey. It means, "Behold a great work." It is the proto-Canaanite letter that is the pictograph of a man with his arms outstretched.

The 'world' I mentioned are all things man-made (industrialization, city building, agriculture, economy, houses, cars, hobbies, recreation, careers, entertainment, etc) which is in the same context Jesus is referring to in his warnings.

Jesus said nothing good about it and not to be enjoyed. In fact, it is to be hated and abandoned. It is the system that has ravaged most of God's handiwork and is causing misery and oppression to a lot of people (billions), and trillions more to animals and plants.

Jesus did not even encouraged anyone to be part of this 'world' even for his sake and the poor. The amount of money you can give doesn't matter to him, it's irrelevant, but how much of yourself you are giving is infinitely more important. "Those who lose their life for my sake will keep it"

Also to clear myself, I don't trust the Bible to be the infallible word of Truth in it's entirety. There is truth in it, but not all. There's multiple Gods in the Bible who are different from each other. I only trust the one Jesus calls Father.

The Holy Spirit (Spirit of Truth) is the guide to the truth, not the Bible, not your pastor. Although the Gospel of Jesus served as the key in the Bible in unlocking the truth. Our responsibility as Christians should be to plant a seed of truth in others which will grow in them through the Holy Spirit. We are all brothers and sisters in our faith and Jesus is our leader. This is what Jesus teaches from the Bible.

Originally posted by EnochWasRight
Jesus speaks of the ideal to fulfill the law. The sermon on the mount is what it takes to do what HE did. Not what we can do. We CANNOT do this. He showed a bar that was high according to his task. We bear his cup with HIM. He is the one that does the part of salvation FOR us. The world you are envisioning is coming. Technology will be a fruit that gives.

Yes we can. His disciples did even after Jesus left. They weren't super-spiritual men.

What makes them different from modern Christians, they were able to part themselves from all their material possession and worldly connections except for the clothes they are wearing.

Our needs are only clothing and food.

Our possessions are the biggest obstacle to following Jesus and entering Kingdom of Heaven (Matthew 19:16-29). The richer you are, the more difficult it is to part with possessions. Being rich is a relative term and is relative to the poorest of the poor. If you can eat 3 meals a day, have a roof over your head, and a set of 4 wheels, you are rich.

It's a big problem because the inventions of fallen angels and men are mankind's greatest addiction. we can't part with the works of men because we have grown so much dependent and addicted to them.

'Heavenly Technology' if it is the truth, is not a subject of importance. They are at best just tools. They are infinitely unimportant compared to justice, righteousness, and mercy that God wants to see in all of us. A tool is only as good as its operator.

Originally posted by EnochWasRight
reply to post by Consequence

 

Axioms have no proofs. That's what I said (you said / she said) earlier. No proof, simply evident. God is evident in all things above and below.

My apologies, I interpreted what you said earlier that you had a problem science or axioms because of the nature of axioms. It seems now like you have no problem with this. That's good.

Read the quote below:

Fine, but turned out not to contain anything that would point towards "God is evident in all things above an below."

Religion is organized giving. A person can give and receive apart from going to church, but fellowship is part of love.

That is fine. But it adds no value to this conversation. Religion is also a belief, and there are many Religions. Apparently even between you and the other guy in this thread, even if you are reading the same book. That's more relevant in the discussion, as we're talking about the accuracy in Science compared to Religious statements by you. Religious people do not seem to be able to agree on how things are even between themselves. This is quite important to consider in the matter.

Science is necessary for the extrovert to validate his inner nature.

The stereotypical scientist is considered introvert. There's some truth to that as it requires a lot of time and obsession to get anywhere, the introvert seem to have a bit of a "thing" for this.
This does not mean much though, there's obviously all kinds of scientists. I just wanted to point out that you seemed to be philosophical about this but in reality, I cannot agree with your statement.

The introvert needs religion to validate what he fears on the outside.

I am introvert, and so are many of my peers (see above). I know of very few of those who are religious.
So, no again. I guess.

The universe is geared toward two becoming one. Religion is the female and Science is the male.

Science has no genitals, is no animal nor human. As far as I know, neither is Religion.
If we want to be philosophical about it, we could say Science and Religion are some sort of Animals, or Colors, or Flowers. But.. let's not as it adds no value.

Read the article linked in my signature on why science and religion are at odds. It may make more sense why one needs the other. They are the same faith, approaching at opposite ends of the inverse square.

If you are using metaphors like above instead of talking about the matter at hand, I'll regretfully pass on that. Sorry.

There are 22 letters in the Hebrew and 24 in Greek. That's 46. There are 46 chromosomes that are comprised of 22 pairs and 2 sex chromosomes.

Really? What you are saying is that the man made language of Hebrew that was used during the writing down of the OT and the man made language of Greek that was used during the NT, separately from each other, had gone through numerous different alphabets and jointly stopping at 22 and 24 letters respectively, so that they together would be 46, so that we a couple of thousands years later would realize that the sum of the letters of those two languages and exactly those two languages would match the number of chromosome-pairs. Really?

You do also know that if we take the holy number 7 and use it at follows:
7 for all the Godly
7 for all the God made (matter)
We create the universe 7*7 (7^2) = 49
We remove the Father, Son and Holy Spirit 49-3 = 46.
We are left with the chromosomes of the human being, representing the world that we are able to perceive with these. Nothing more, nothing less.

Sadly, the above example is nonsense, as I just made it up to make a point. Point obviously being - you can tell any story you want with numbers, because the numbers don't matter, your story does. And the story is made up.

What's even more sad is that my example feels less far-fetched than yours. And it took a minute to come up with.

Even the 6 days of creation are evident from the axioms of science. Religion needs science to see it clearly. Science needs religion to tell us why.

The link you provided goes to a trailer of a movie (which happens not to be a documentary either).
Are you basing your "facts" on a Movie? You do realize that actors pretending to be scientists are not scientists, regardless of them taking up "facts" in the movie. You are allowed to alter these to match your purpose. That's the beauty of fiction. In fact, that's exactly what they do. They are altering both science and the bible to make things "seem" to go together. Just like any clever author.
And I don't doubt a second that people behind the script are scientists, by the way. And they probably are.
But that doesn't change anything either.

continues.....

Originally posted by EnochWasRight

Science needs religion to tell us why.

Incorrect. Science is not dependent on "why".
Some people turn to religion when things don't seem to make any sense, though.

The mind is put together in the process in such a way to reflect the same pairing of concrete and abstract, evidenced by the two sides of the brain.

Sorry, there is no connection between chromosomes being pairs and the brain being partially split. It had made more sense with "two feet to travel what God has created", it had at least sounded more convincing.
Furthermore, I'm sorry to say that the "left and right side of the brain"-business is rather dated and we know today it doesn't really even work like that. This is what happens when Scientific concepts are taken and built upon by pure speculation. You will get it wrong.

A person is further mirrored by this reasoning into soul and spirit.

There is no evidence of any "soul" outside the consciousness that is merely organic and within the brain.

The two must come together and agree for dissonance to be resolved.

These two non-evident things, and according to you?

Also, consider what Augustin said in City of God:

"And yet the validity of logical sequences is not a thing devised by men, but is observed and noted by them that they may be able to learn and teach it; for it exists eternally in the reason of things, and has its origin with God. For as the man who narrates the order of events does not himself create that order; and as he who describes the situations of places, or the natures of animals, or roots, or minerals, does not describe arrangements of man; and as he who points out the stars and their movements does not point out anything that he himself or any other man has ordained;—in the same way, he who says, “When the consequent is false, the antecedent must also be false,” says what is most true; but he does not himself make it so, he only points out that it is so."

Thank you for this quote! Apart from the pure non-evident claim of origin, it clearly describes science.
Science does not dictate anything. It doesn't judge. It doesn't guess. It observes and learns.
If all observation and learning is erased. You are left with the basic axioms to again build from.


Finally, I find it rather bothersome that you do not answer to many of my objections, but move on to other things, or answer by text that has little or nothing to do with my objection.

The most important part I'd like you to answer on, if you don't answer to my objections is that you have previously said that both science and religion is founded on axioms.
Could you please elaborate on the religion part and explain how axioms lead to the evident being of God?

But I'd rather like you to counter-object my objections. At least we'd stay on topic.

Originally posted by Consequence
...we're talking about the accuracy in Science compared to Religious statements by you. Religious people do not seem to be able to agree on how things are even between themselves.

...it adds no value to this conversation.

Neither does the massive fraud that is masquerading as "Science".

Science is one huge mind control OP with a stealth agenda. The true agenda behind Science is covering up the truth about God and the REAL history of the Earth.

"The model of human prehistory built-up by scholars over the past two centuries is sadly and completely wrong, and a deliberate tool of disinformation and mind control. ...they demonstrate a systematic destruction of proofs that show another reality than that the official story. Falsifications and even destruction of such proofs has been common for more than two hundred years." LINK

“the biggest cover-up in the history of mankind is the history of mankind itself”

reply to post by Consequence

The most important part I'd like you to answer on, if you don't answer to my objections is that you have previously said that both science and religion is founded on axioms.
Could you please elaborate on the religion part and explain how axioms lead to the evident being of God?

Sure. An axiom is a belief based on what is evident from what can be observed. From the standpoint of the Bible, we are speaking of a view that predates science by millennial. For the Bible to be true, any aspect that is related to the Creation of the quantum mechanical universe must dictate the laws of physics, the property of light and the mechanics of wave function as seen by the curvature of time and space.

The differences between Euclidean and Non-Euclidean geometry are axioms that demonstrate a great deal of dissonance between other areas of mathematics. Philosophy is needed to grasp the implications of knowledge from one dimension to the other. Mathematics is shown to be lacking as an axiomatic standard because every proof in one dimension has an exception in the dimension above. Straight lines are observed, but curved space is reality. The shortest distance between two points is a straight line, but only by context.

From a Bible standpoint, the Word of God has continued to demonstrate that our own misconceptions and changing axioms of science demonstrate that science is coming closer to what is recorded in scripture, not the other way around. One is ever-changing and the other is the same yesterday, today and tomorrow.

For instance, when did we discover that reality was made up of light quanta projected by dimension in the form of Time, Space, Matter and Energy? Within the last 100 years. Einstein noticed this. The Bible:

Genesis 1:1

In the Beginning (Time), God created the heavens (Space) and the earth (Matter). Let there be light (Energy).

When did science notice that our universe is parallel to another?

As stated by Paul Dirac's relativistic quantum mechanical wave equation, our universe is parallel to another universe in opposite. Our matter is anti-matter to this mirrored universe. The event horizon between these two universes represents the projection point of both.

The Bible was there 2000 years ago.

Matthew 18:18
"I tell you the truth, whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.

How do we bind here? Why is is bound in Heaven? It's called collapsing wave function and it is how we pull indeterminate probable outcomes from the fifth dimension into the fourth to make a choice. What happens here happens there to our soul. How does this image suggested by Dirac work?

1 Corinthians 15:

50 I declare to you, brothers, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God, nor does the perishable inherit the imperishable.

First thing to notice is that flesh (matter) cannot exist on the other side of the image. Why? Dirac pointed out that we are matter and the event horizon is anti-matter.

Second, when you look in a mirror, do you see yourself? No, you see the image you project. Where are you now?

1:27 So God created mankind in his own image, in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them.

God created an image of Heaven in Time, Space, Matter and Energy. He said that the Trinity is Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Light is Particle, Wave and Consciousness. You are matter, both particle and wave, and consciousness. The Trinity of God is God's image here. Are you the image? Nope. The real you is on the other side and everything you bind here is bound in heaven. Loose it here and it is loosed in heaven. That's where you are now.

What was the first image God created?

1 Colossians 1:

15 The Son is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. 16 For in him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things have been created through him and for him. 17 He is before all things, and in him all things hold together.

Why does the Son bind everything together? I'll answer this two ways. First, the hidden secret of why DNA is information and Christ is the Wave of light and also the WORD that is DNA as a reflection of the INFORMATION in LIGHT. Light is Particle, Information (Wave/Word) and Consciousness. Second, I will show you science saying that ENERGY is information. Do you know what the true definition of Emotion is? Energy in Motion.

Before you question the facts and axioms in science, see that God was there first. Word created everything and the latest in cutting edge axioms says the SAME thing. Who was there first?

John 1

1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was with God in the beginning. 3 Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. 4 In him was life, and that life was the light of all mankind. 5 The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome[a] it.

reply to post by Consequence

Originally posted by EnochWasRight

Science needs religion to tell us why.


Incorrect. Science is not dependent on "why".
Some people turn to religion when things don't seem to make any sense, though.

Science takes great delight in answering why. GOOGLE SEARCH What are they actually doing? To answer why, they are really filling in the excluded middle of a paradox. Simply saying why something happens, before we knew why, merely states a law that applies to cause and effect. Law is what is observed and law is what is explained by the Bible. Both law and the governing agent behind law is intelligence and Nous. Light is not simply particle and wave. If it were, the fifth dimensional probability space could not be collapsed. Collapsing wave function happens as a dependent system of observer and the changed states of matter. Take out the observer and you have matter with no choice.

When Science shows the regulating force in nature, the governing aspect answer the final conclusion of how, then design is what we are left with. Nothing rises above its source. Man is higher by nature than all of the resources required by evolution. If the sun and moon could be shown to be alive, then we would have a case for mankind being less than their source. Rivers flow away from the larger body of water and then divide to rise. The pattern is shown in nature.

Originally posted by EnochWasRight
reply to post by Consequence

 

Sure. An axiom is a belief based on what is evident from what can be observed. From the standpoint of the Bible, we are speaking of a view that predates science by millennial.

Didn't we agree that axioms are evident? That they just are? There isn't much to believe, is there?
God, on the other hand, must be believed in "to be true".
It is natural that Religion came before "science". It is part of human nature to find answers. That combined with living in a dangerous world (predators & hostile tribes), when scary things like earth-quakes, lightning, the "blessing" of rain and the warmth of the sun doesn't make it hard to believe that man becomes grateful of these powers and wishes not to upset them.
Second, it takes intellect, information, observations and TIME to do science. Back in the day, you also had more important things to do than spend your time on science.

So, it's not strange that Religion preceded Science. And Religion is still founded on belief, not axioms.

For the Bible to be true, any aspect that is related to the Creation of the quantum mechanical universe must dictate the laws of physics, the property of light and the mechanics of wave function as seen by the curvature of time and space.

Your word, not mine. I wouldn't mind if God told me that the Bible is true but that the content is a bit iffy, but that it doesn't matter because all I need to do is to accept what it says and live by it to be saved. To me, that'd still make the bible "true".

The differences between Euclidean and Non-Euclidean geometry are axioms that demonstrate a great deal of dissonance between other areas of mathematics.

What? Could you give me an example or two on what the dissonance/problem is?
You do realize that geometry is used to describe....geometry. And these two describe relationships between different kinds of geometrical shapes?
These mathematical ideas were accepted first after the postulates were proven to be sound logic. In other words, based on earlier mathematics.

Philosophy is needed to grasp the implications of knowledge from one dimension to the other.

No it's not.

Mathematics is shown to be lacking as an axiomatic standard because every proof in one dimension has an exception in the dimension above.

That is not correct. I assume that you're not lying, so please provide an example. I feel that perhaps you are suggesting something else altogether?

Straight lines are observed, but curved space is reality.

Wrong. Straight lines can appear to be curved. Even light.

The shortest distance between two points is a straight line, but only by context.

You do realize that you just made a statement out of context?

From a Bible standpoint, the Word of God has continued to demonstrate that our own misconceptions and changing axioms of science demonstrate that science is coming closer to what is recorded in scripture, not the other way around. One is ever-changing and the other is the same yesterday, today and tomorrow.

Changing axioms of science? You shouldn't mix axioms with theories.
The people who wrote the scriptures in the bible are not very much unlike yourself. Their own view.
Not only that, the NT was assembled by a group of people who, based on their own personal view, chose which scriptures that would make it into the bible.
Not only that, there has been many disputes on the translations of the bible to other languages, that "key elements" are not "accurate" in *pick your language*.
Not only that, people then interpret this text that has already gone a number of interpretations (and ultimately created by a random person with random views) and start their own version of the Christian church, interpreting things in their own way.
Not only that, people who join that church interpret what is being said in their own way, and in cases, adapt it slightly to what feels "right".

Science is not based on this randomness and personal opinions. Science agrees with itself. In places where it doesn't, it's usually there were work is being done. And even then, all people of the world are welcome to question what we already know.

For instance, when did we discover that reality was made up of light quanta projected by dimension in the form of Time, Space, Matter and Energy?

"Projected by dimension in the form of"

continued:

Genesis 1:1

In the Beginning (Time), God created the heavens (Space) and the earth (Matter). Let there be light (Energy).

Religious people that I've talked to emphasize the importance of trying to read the Bible as literally as possible to avoid making up things that it has not said.
You have gravely ignored the rest of the Genesis to take that sentence out of context.

Let's have a look, shall we?

"In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. 2 Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters."

That would suggest earth surrounded by water and then darkness. But let's keep our options open and say that earth could mean "matter", heavens "space" and no energy.
Unfortunately there cannot be matter without energy. But let's ignore that.

And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light. 4 God saw that the light was good, and he separated the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light “day,” and the darkness he called “night.” And there was evening, and there was morning —the first day.

If you read it without interpreting, he created light, and there was now more than darkness. Therefore there could be "day", "night", "evening" and "morning", thus the first day could come to a close.
According to you however, it is first here "energy" exists. Now, should we just ignore what was said about "day" and "night", "evening" and "morning"? Or does this mean something completely different to God? Like, the existence of energy is "day" and the opposite "night"? That is also scientifically a bad explanation because energy is everywhere, so there really isn't anything to compare with. This would suggest that God is actually talking about....day and night..

And God said, “Let there be a vault between the waters to separate water from water.” 7 So God made the vault and separated the water under the vault from the water above it. And it was so.
[snip] And God said, “Let the water under the sky be gathered to one place, and let dry ground appear.

So the water on earth is now split so that we can have clouds and rain, and dry land. And "seas".
Another indication that we are talking about the creation of planet Earth, not the universe.
Your interpretation is.... I don't know.

Then God said, “Let the land produce vegetation: seed-bearing plants and trees on the land that bear fruit with seed in it, according to their various kinds. ” And it was so.

Not much to say here, vegetation starts to grow on Earth. Suggesting we've been talking about the Earth all along.
Your interpretation is... I don't know.

And God said, “Let there be lights in the vault of the sky to separate the day from the night, and let them serve as signs to mark sacred times, and days and years, 15 and let them be lights in the vault of the sky to give light on the earth.” And it was so. God made two great lights—the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night. He also made the stars.

Now that planet Earth with all land, sky, seas and vegetation was in place, God started to pimp up the surroundings by creating stars and other things for our pleasure. Again suggesting that planet Earth is the central thing in this story, not following the scientific model at all.
Your interpretation... I don't know.

I could go on, but the rest is the creation of Animals and Man. Not mentioning evolution nor that Man "created" Livestock. However, this too is clearly about planet Earth.
Your interpretation... I don't know.

So, it is quite clear that Planet Earth is central in this story, which is why the Church has been angry at the scientists of the time who proposed otherwise, as it was evidently blasphemy.

The funny thing is, I think that the book of Genesis is fantastic. It describes the creation in an incorrect way, although highly fascinating. The people of the time did a great job without the knowledge that we have today.
I guess that's one of the reasons why the book is still read, and why other more obscure religions have died out and/or not spread.

However, the way you "try" to fit the incorrect text into science by misinterpreting the Book of Genesis does more harm than good. I wouldn't blame God if he had been using this description to tell the people of that time how things came to be. It is understandable. It does a pretty good job considering what it is.

It is people like you who created Religion and it is people like you who branch Religion.
Another guy here was certain that Jesus doesn't want us to have children.

If you don't follow the book, this is what happens. You can make anything up.
You said that the Bible has stayed the same all these years. You're clearly trying to change what it means.
Think about it.

With that, I don't want to go into the rest of your points.

Originally posted by Murgatroid
Science is one huge mind control OP with a stealth agenda. The true agenda behind Science is covering up the truth about God and the REAL history of the Earth.

“the biggest cover-up in the history of mankind is the history of mankind itself”

Oh dear..
First of all, we're not denying God. Because that is something we cannot prove. So it is irrelevant for science.
Second, for what purpose would we cover-up "the REAL history of the Earth"?

One more time if it wasn't clear: Science does not deny God, therefore it cannot "cover-up" it either.

Finally... who are the ones who ignore discoveries made by scientists and decide it's not true?
And how do they do that when scientific reports are public and evaluated collectively. No one is excluded from that. You can be a part of that. Why aren't you?
And where is the "Mind-control"? .. What have "they" (whoever they are) done to me?

You said it is natural to find the answers. The one problem you have in saying that the Bible is a reflection of those answers is that the answers were there first, in perfect form.

Originally posted by Consequence

Originally posted by EnochWasRight
reply to post by Consequence

 

Sure. An axiom is a belief based on what is evident from what can be observed. From the standpoint of the Bible, we are speaking of a view that predates science by millennial.

Didn't we agree that axioms are evident? That they just are? There isn't much to believe, is there?
God, on the other hand, must be believed in "to be true".
It is natural that Religion came before "science". It is part of human nature to find answers. That combined with living in a dangerous world (predators & hostile tribes), when scary things like earth-quakes, lightning, the "blessing" of rain and the warmth of the sun doesn't make it hard to believe that man becomes grateful of these powers and wishes not to upset them.
Second, it takes intellect, information, observations and TIME to do science. Back in the day, you also had more important things to do than spend your time on science.

So, it's not strange that Religion preceded Science. And Religion is still founded on belief, not axioms.

For the Bible to be true, any aspect that is related to the Creation of the quantum mechanical universe must dictate the laws of physics, the property of light and the mechanics of wave function as seen by the curvature of time and space.

Your word, not mine. I wouldn't mind if God told me that the Bible is true but that the content is a bit iffy, but that it doesn't matter because all I need to do is to accept what it says and live by it to be saved. To me, that'd still make the bible "true".

The differences between Euclidean and Non-Euclidean geometry are axioms that demonstrate a great deal of dissonance between other areas of mathematics.

What? Could you give me an example or two on what the dissonance/problem is?
You do realize that geometry is used to describe....geometry. And these two describe relationships between different kinds of geometrical shapes?
These mathematical ideas were accepted first after the postulates were proven to be sound logic. In other words, based on earlier mathematics.

Philosophy is needed to grasp the implications of knowledge from one dimension to the other.

No it's not.

Mathematics is shown to be lacking as an axiomatic standard because every proof in one dimension has an exception in the dimension above.

That is not correct. I assume that you're not lying, so please provide an example. I feel that perhaps you are suggesting something else altogether?

Straight lines are observed, but curved space is reality.

Wrong. Straight lines can appear to be curved. Even light.

The shortest distance between two points is a straight line, but only by context.

You do realize that you just made a statement out of context?

From a Bible standpoint, the Word of God has continued to demonstrate that our own misconceptions and changing axioms of science demonstrate that science is coming closer to what is recorded in scripture, not the other way around. One is ever-changing and the other is the same yesterday, today and tomorrow.

Changing axioms of science? You shouldn't mix axioms with theories.
The people who wrote the scriptures in the bible are not very much unlike yourself. Their own view.
Not only that, the NT was assembled by a group of people who, based on their own personal view, chose which scriptures that would make it into the bible.
Not only that, there has been many disputes on the translations of the bible to other languages, that "key elements" are not "accurate" in *pick your language*.
Not only that, people then interpret this text that has already gone a number of interpretations (and ultimately created by a random person with random views) and start their own version of the Christian church, interpreting things in their own way.
Not only that, people who join that church interpret what is being said in their own way, and in cases, adapt it slightly to what feels "right".

Science is not based on this randomness and personal opinions. Science agrees with itself. In places where it doesn't, it's usually there were work is being done. And even then, all people of the world are welcome to question what we already know.

For instance, when did we discover that reality was made up of light quanta projected by dimension in the form of Time, Space, Matter and Energy?

"Projected by dimension in the form of"

Originally posted by EnochWasRight

You said it is natural to find the answers. The one problem you have in saying that the Bible is a reflection of those answers is that the answers were there first, in perfect form.

I have trouble decoding that sentence for some reason.

Do you by "there" mean the Bible?
If yes, are you saying that the bible existed before man wrote it? Laying around on the ground?
Please forgive me if I didn't understand what you said.

Originally posted by Consequence

Originally posted by EnochWasRight

You said it is natural to find the answers. The one problem you have in saying that the Bible is a reflection of those answers is that the answers were there first, in perfect form.

I have trouble decoding that sentence for some reason.

Do you by "there" mean the Bible?
If yes, are you saying that the bible existed before man wrote it? Laying around on the ground?
Please forgive me if I didn't understand what you said.

Before science made great strides. The Bible was there first with the correct answers from God's view, which is not ours. Our view is a straight line of time in a temporal reality. To conceptualize God's view, we need to see beyond the center point of reality. God sees above and below. This is the first day and age that we could see. I just point out that the Bible remains steadfast in it's description. It predates our own.

reply to post by EnochWasRight

You said it is natural to find the answers. The one problem you have in saying that the Bible is a reflection of those answers is that the answers were there first, in perfect form.

Why are you then going to great extent trying to modify the contents of the bible to match up with modern science?
If it's in perfect form, the Genesis talks about the Earth, not the universe.
Just accept the Bible as it is, your attempts are failing and makes the Bible seem bogus.

Yes, the bible was "first", based on what I've written above. Fascinating, but not accurate.