WHO'S WATCHING THE WATCHER

whether a particle exists at a certain point in space and time is a probablity, unless you confirm it's existance by observing it and in doing so change it's observable properties.

So on that basis if we could observe deity, it would no longer be a deity.

There are two stories here. Each coming from opposite directions; one theological the other scientific. I'll avoid both for now and provide an allegory.

Ever create model parts then hold them together to make it whole and see what it is like? The creator usually sits there holding it together and looking at it from different angles viewing as a whole. After sometime the creator will let go and the creation falls apart. The creator was only bound to his creation for the time he was holding it together but he was not bound to the creation as each part is bound to its place within creation. This creator could easliy use clothes pins, glue, or rubber bands to hold the creation together freeing himself from it.

In a similiar manner the creator of the this universe makes claims that he holds it together and that he made it from nothing. In fact, he tells us he spoke it into existence. He does not tell us how he binds it together just that he does. He also tells us that when he lets this binding grip go the universe will fall apart. In this, he is active in putting this place together but not necessarily bounded by it as he is extra-spatial and extra-temporal.

If you understand the notion the our reality may be the outcome of a computer program then obviously God could make code in which he puts a little bit himself into and invades the universe. The genetically coded Christ/human having his image is then bound to the universe and its rules (even ones we do not know of or understand) of which the creator developed in the beginning.

Theologically, one point of Christ was that he was human and suffered like each of us. Then ultimately suffered for all of mankind paying for the sinful man's deviatant ways. I realize this and this is why I am a Christian and jesus Christ is my Lord and savior.

[i]We are are discussing the limits of the physical universe of which may very well be a subset of the Theological universe. Logic and science only apply to the physical. When the Physical ends so does logic and science.[/i]

Hinduism has a concept of Brahman that which is beyond the senses of humans. It is supposed to be Supreme, incomprehensible, omnipresent, original, first, eternal and absolute. It is considered that humans with ordinary sense can not describe or understand "it" with even with a small success.

But there are two aspects of it though - Attributeless and one with Attributes (the good ones). It just gets little interesting... so to speak.

What holds the physical universe together?

Depends on your approach. In science we observe a nuclear force that appears to be the glue that holds it all together. From a Christian viewpoint, Christ is the glue as stated in Hebrews and in the Book Revelation that grip is let go and the physical universe explodes somewhat like a atomic explosion.

I do not understand the reference to Hinduism. The senses of human's are based wave mechanics or the same mathematics as information theory that is to remark Fourier Series analysis. It seems that human reality is limited and closely tied to the most basic state of the universe - waveforms. Even the cones in one's eye as they detect a photon of light at the same speed as the smallest unit of time before space-time dissolves. Therefore, human empirically percievable reality only exists to the extent space-time is present.

serve in terms of describing theological issues , I completely agree.

I however operate on logic, I see no need for theology.

The basic ethical framework in a society is what makes it a society. How could you have a surviving society without something as basic as respect for the sanctity of life. How could you have a religion that stood the test of time without that principle ethic.

Christians are a subset of society, respect for the sanctity of life is a principle we share, if we didn't neither you nor I could be part of the same society.

I mean if I don't respect your life why on earth would you respect mine and vice versa.

Judges are corrupt, Politicians accept bribes, and Corporate Officers embezzle money. None of these things are right or just. The Body of Christ is composed of the true Church and the Christiandom. There are people who think they are Christians but are not. They have strange theologies and put on a good show but in thier heart they are not Christian.

Leaders in Christianity always comes from people that are not rich or in prestigious positions. Paul was in chains being transported to his trial as a prisoner when he rose up to the occassion and saved the ship he was on. Christ never went to the elite, he went to the unclean and unknown.

The bottom line is that real Christians are not always outwardly known except maybe by thier character.

The point of this posting was not so much to promote Christianity as it was to promote the view that science is limited. However, people want to talk about Christianity and religion often more than they do science. Unfortunately, most people know little about either.

science is my religion :D

Well we have intellectual limits
We have technological limits
We have resource limits.
We have limits in our current methodologies.

Science is basically asking questions, proposing solutions and then proving them by applying the conclusions in the real world.

So science itself does not have limits, it's open ended, there is no final answer.

If there are intellectual, technological, resource and methodologies limits, it only means science has its limits too.

If Science is about asking questions, and there is a limit on intellectual abilities, don't you think there will be a limit to the questions? If it is about proposing solutions and proving them, if there are technological, resource and methodological limits, does'nt it mean there are limits to proposals and proofs, as well?

There's no intrinsic limit in it. There are no limits to the questions we can ask, our ability to answer them and apply the answer is another matter.

Theology does have a limit, you either argue on the basis there is a god or there isn't. You have to choose one answer or the other in order to proceed. Seeing as there is no inherent logic in which one you choose, you have to be careful what questions you choose to ask or you invalidate the start you took on faith.

That's why a lot of theological debates go circular. So to be quite honest do some things on the edge of our science.

The universe came from a big bang, what made it go bang, a vacuum fluctuation in the super universe, where did that one come from?

Theoretically a scientist through a process of logic should be able to discard this idea
when a better one comes along.

I've never heard of anyone who has a faith being convinced that they were wrong to hold it through logical reasoning.

One may be able to ask a large number of questions and seem to seek innumnerable avenues of investigation in scientific endeavors but the same hold true of theology. While the three principle points of faith in Christian theology are: God exists, the Bible is his infallible word, and Christ is who he said he is. That is faith and people seek a practical application of that through religion.

Theology, on the otherhand, is a disciplined study that is structured closely to science. Even though theology can draw upon mathematical equations and abstract reasoning, Theology looks to hermenuetics, archeology, language of that era, and a variety of other centers on knowledge to discern what is being communicated.

Your circular argument occurs because the reasoner is unable to apply lateral logic or reasoning. I suppose that not knowing of lateral reasoning could be a limitation to one's logic process and even extend to their understanding of reality.

Through the process of vertical reasoning in the early 1900's astronomers were looking for a massive planet X that caused the elliptical orbit of the planets. However, Einstien discovered space-time, a four dimensional universe, that when conformally mapped into 3 space perfectly explained the elliptical orbits. We are now considering a 10 dimensional universe with a 11th dimension that is a mathematical error. Your big bang is now being described as a mini-slap that reorders space-time in the Brane World model of the universe.

I wonder where logic will take us next? Humans are so blind to the world around them that they paint pretty pictures they prefer instead.

On your other point, there are numerous people who leave one faith for another. Mark A. Gabriel wrote a book called, "Islam and Terrorism". Read how he a Sunni Wahabbist, the most radicalized Muslim, left and came to Christianity. To me, it was a reasoned decision.

In this posting I was hoping to stir several thoughts. One was that our universe and subsequently its science is limited. The second notion I was hoping to raise was that we could very well be the outcome of information; including all our emotions, senses, and even physical being. Third thing I was seeking was who are we as an individual and as a people?

Perhaps there can be some renewed discussion from this posting.

Questions arise out of earlier answers. Hence questions are closely tied to what we know. Since nobody can say for sure how much there is to learn in the universe nobody can say how much we know. It is possible that we have learnt either 98% or 2% of what is to be learnt. Hence I would not say there are no limits to the questions. There is just an uncertainity.

Don't you think a methodology is limited to the tools and techniques that it uses?

Theology is for theists.
As someone who doesn't subscribe (aetheists do) looking at it from the outside I see all arguments based on an accepted belief.

Admittedly science can work like that as well, perhaps there's a discipline of pure Theology but it's been bastardised into justifying opne belief or another.

Sorry I wasn't clear about the switching faith bit. I was more aiming at dropping faith as opposed to switching flavours.

To me a switch from christian to islam , islam to bhuddist or bhuddist to aetheist is a minor change in the way a belief is presented. The illogic that underpins them all is the same.

That's not an attack, I just don't believe in any of them.

The tools used are products of our current knowledge.

A computer can add up faster than most, and it's less likely not to transpose a digit or two or temporarily forget that 5 x 3 = 15. It can't come up with new maths though. So our tool's limits are our limits.

Another example was when chaos theory was born. They used computers to draw pictures of fractals and attractors etc, but it was the humans who recognised the patterns.