One day I hope you will reread what you posted here. It is illuminating.
One day I hope YOU will reread what I posted here, dear Q (again, peace to you!)... because my hope is that it IS illuminating... and so you will be enlightened.
I will confess that you do get my pants in a bunch -
First, you didn't need to confess: it's quite obvious your chonies got all bunched, perhaps painfully so. Second, why YOU got 'em all in a bunch... is solely on you. I didn't bunch them. I don't control your drawers, sir. Doesn't appear that you control them, either, though...
you did post this to provoke (just like someone saying 'I'm not being critical but...')
No, seriously, I did not. I saw an article that I thought was not only interesting... but would be of interest here, given what we sometimes discuss, here. I pondered the title many times... so as NOT to be provoking. On previous occasions I have asked as to what is "truth"... whether that is what it ACTUALLY is... or what we believe it to be, based on what we "know" at a given time. Funny... you didn't answer that question... and, yes, I did ask it again, here.
My post wasn't about science or Einstein; it was about what is the TRUTH.
and I'm happy to rise to your bait because it gives me an opportunity to express a stand for reason , logic and clarity of thought.
You rose to whatever it is you rose to (your own "bait", because I certainly didn't cast any)... because you couldn't help yourself. Don't try to blame my attempt to understand why people adamantly say something is "truth"... when perhaps it is not... on your lack of self-control. You neither needed to open the thread, nor comment. I said it was NOT my intention to debate, discuss, etc., but only to understand this thing about calling things "truth."
Science is such a wonderful tool to help us progress, it offers genuine hope to problems of the human condition, it offers a way to move beyond redundant memes such as god, guilt and unworthiness,
Science is absolutely wonderful... and you've never heard me maligning its accomplishments. To the contrary, I have the utmost respect for science. It is not science that I have an issue with, not at all. And, again, if you read what I posted, you would know that. Rather, like many others (religionists??), you conclude what you THINK I believe... based on YOUR limited perceptions. And for all that science has done, while it may move some beyond faith in God... it hasn't made any more of a dent in guilty and unworthiness and religion has. True, religion propounds both WAY more... but if you think the atheist who survived the plane crash while his seatmate didn't doesn't ask "Why him and not me?"... and then spends many more years, if not the rest of life pondering that question... you are seriously fooling yourself. Even if the answer lies in odds rather than divine intervention... the question still arises... and the guilt/unworthiness still occurs. Come off it, Q.
it is broad enough to admit all mankind but sharp enough to reject the fanciful, it is more awe inspiring than any magic methods made up by anyone and it is more liberating than human sacrifice.
To your way of thinking, perhaps. But I know some religionists who would say the exact same thing. While I do give more credence to science, I don't give full credence to either camp.
It is the future and it will shine its light of understanding on all corners of human endeavour banishing all ghosts, goblins and gods.
Perhaps... perhaps not. That has nothing to do with my question... re what is "truth", and whether it exists even though we (and science) don't know of it... or does it just "come into existence"... when we come to know of it. That you've taken the offense you have at my question sounds NO difference to ME... than if I were to question the WTBTS GB ("How DARE you question these! Don't you know they represent the FDS and thus speak for God and stand in the place of Christ!? You ignorant low-life! Don't you DARE ask a question... especially if we've already said what is "truth"! WE know... YOU don't!"). Tell me, please, based on your response to what I tried to ask here... what the heck is the difference in HOW the two present their sides... when those sides are questioned?
If and when it discovers life that is more technologically advanced than ours it will not discover Mithras or Ra or any god in any human book but what it could discover would humble us in ways we have not potentially considered
You don't know WHAT or WHO it will discover, dear Q. And for you say what it WON'T is, in my mind, no different than those who say what they WILL find... yet, don't have a clue. I do agree with you that it won't be Mithras (because that is simply a code for occurrences in the stars that ancient astrologists had to use to keep from being persecuted by religionists who considered their work "sacriligious")... or Ra (because that was just one god among many of the other false gods created by the Egyptians to try and raise themselves up over their enemies and others). But to say science won't discover ANY god is, IMHO, a bit premature on your part. Quite a bit, actually.
- but it won't involve quaint mortifying apple stories and humanoids with wings.
Again, I agree... but apparently you think I believe in such stories. No apples... or humanoids with wings... ANYWHERE in my understanding. Of course, again, you would know that... if you actually read what I post.
These beings - if they exist and are contactable - would have powers that could seem godlike but they won't answer prayers or invisibly watch peoples' responses to door to door preaching.
I disagree with the first (depending on who is praying, TO whom, and THROUGH whom)... but agree as to the latter (the WTBTS false teaching that such "reactions" give indication of what's in the heart... is total bull-pucky. Someone could react "favorably" at the door... while literally holding someone hostage... if not a dead body... in a back room. I don't know why you're pulling out all of this melarkey on me, other than, again, you haven't read a word I've posted... over the past, say, 10 years.
The very likely explanation for the abnormal experimental data is a measuring / technical or calculation error.
Ummmmm... that was the 2007 experiment. But let's, for the sake of discussion (sigh!), say it's NOT a measuring/technical or calculation error... but actually valid. Then what? Oh, wait... based on what you're saying here... there can BE no "then what", right? Because it is an absolutely immovable situation: what we know now IS the truth... and that's that. Right?
It is certainly not any god made up by human consciousness -
Well, of course not! If it IS God (and no one has said THAT!)... He would be real... not made up. By anything. Including human consciousness. Seriously...
that would not just overturn physics that would mean that there is no repeatable physics just arbitrary physical relationships that generally follow a local pattern for some unknown reason until magic being x decides to do something different.
Not necessarily. That suggests no order or purpose, which I disagree with. Perhaps it would overturn physics, yes... AS WE KNOW IT. But doesn't what we know often GET overturned... when something we currently know "opens" the way for us to know something MORE? I mean, did we ALWAYS know the laws of physics? Did we ALWAYS know the speed of light... or "E=mc2"? No, we didn't. And coming to know those things only led us to know more. Why can't this potentially knew thing... do the same... perhaps making physics (as we know them)... "yesterday's news"?
How wonderfully exciting it will be however, if those results are correct and our understanding of the limiting speed of light are challenged, how thrilling. How nothing to do with religion.
And no one said it had anything TO do with religion. To the contrary, actually. Even more, if it leads us to understand not only the creation of the universe... but the Creator Himself (or whatever)... religion will not only be unnecessary... but exposed for the fraudulent guise that it is. What in the WORLD is wrong with THAT?
You misunderstand me, dear Q... and that's sad because that doesn't have to be. I am not a religionist or a proponent of religion, not at ALL. I have stated numerous times that I have respect for science... and certainly would take it over religion (actually, I do!). I still don't get, however... how those who put their faith in science can say that "such and so is the TRUTH"... when the FULL THING... HAS NOT BEEN PROVEN. And don't give me that, "Well, it appears... from the evidence that..."... because the evidence has holes in it. We may not know all the holes... or that there are even holes... but until we can say for CERTAIN (and, according to what you and others here say, we can almost NEVER say that)... I am not sure how we can go about saying "It's the truth"... and then, "No, THIS is the truth..." and then "Wait, no THIS is the truth..."
Whether you wish to admit it or not, if the experiment proves true as to what the scientists involve BELIEVE... then Einstein was wrong: there IS something faster than the speed of light. Which means that the statement "There is NOTHING faster than the speed of light" is UNTRUE. Yet, we accept it as truth... because it is our CURRENT understanding. For [some of] you to now say, "Well, we NEVER said there was NOT anything faster," is... to ME... not much different than WTBTS double-speak, IMHO. It says the same to me: "The 'truth' is what we SAY it is... at a given time... regardless of what actually IS true... but unknown to us."
Okay, stick a fork in me... and, again, peace to you!
YOUR servant and a slave of Christ,