Elaborating Reasons
Personal Issues (Pre-amble)
I'm 30 now, closing in onto the 31, and at this point I have to think back. I remember when I was 20, closing in onto the 21, I was convinced that what I would dedicate myself to doing within that time would determine my persona for the rest of my life. It was like I had a choice. It was not like I ... uh ... I rather embraced it as an insurance. There was no hesitation in deciding, no doubt in what I wanted, ... but thats beside the point. The point is that I have back then already been deeply immersed into religious studies and considered myself a pro on the subject. At least so when it comes to Christendom.
Now, the issue is that my awareness of Christendom was forged by myself in focus and dedication unto a living God. Thus, correlating to 'THE' living God in reference to Christendom combined with the ... pardon me ... knowledge that Christ is the Son of God does automatically influence the own perspective onto reality in a way that ... sorry ... acknowledges anything that is as inferior to that which is God. It is - now sorry - not 'the believer' who is acting down upon atheists, it is the Christian who is regarding himself inferior to God that is exalting God to the point where any other belief is downright wrong. Thats the premise I wish to be understood! Believers do believe that God is superior - and I have watched struggles online about how - ... We believe that God is superior, period. What this God is, what He does, who He is, that may at first be entirely subjective and irrelevant. But if someone were to just downright ignore the sole idea of the concept, I'm to be getting enraged and sorry - perhaps even violently so! A topic that did as of recent really boil my temper is the issue of free will. I experience it as a shackle on my freedom as living individual that my free will is put into question. What would be the exit? The solution? How to proof that beyond all the scientific nonsense my will is still free? During discussions I've been involved in it came to surface that the Shaolin Monks are supreme example of what 'will' is. Or Yoga. Conscious breathing. How is conscious breathing possible without a free will in control? If these lines of arguments won't suffice - if someone still were to doubt it - as to introduce the concept of the individuals who would think themselves smarter than God - what does the discussion boil down to? That I break social rules to proof that I am capable of acting freely! And what would that say? Within my narrow-minded interest in that subject: Brutality!
That is the sleeping beast those ignorant fools are playing with. Now, I'm using my free will to control myself. Aside of that am I far away of actually using violence to underline my issues. Emotions however do exist - sorry - and certainly I'm unfree to express all of them in their magnitude - or well, it is just downright outrageous when some - I'd say I'm sorry but I'm not - moronic atheist comes, claims to Know that God does not exist and thinks he now has the right to have all believers removed from the surface. Yea, well. I recently sat in the train-station and they have those news-screens and I've read that some jerk now found an insult in crosses that are decorating ancient forrest passages and that the mayor of respective vicinity now would have to decide about either removing those crosses or not. Are we there yet? That 'freedom of faith' takes us back to the roman persecution? I'm just saying ... there is offensive Djihad, and there is defensive Djihad! OK?! Aside, on that case, there are more than enough forrests and ways that don't have crosses hanging around! Thats what I am upset about - and though my saviour advised us to take such beatings with smile on our face - sortof - stories like these make me wish for things that I don't want to even think about!
Am I not actually quite peacefull? I have many friends - I would say - including Atheists - or more accurately: I have friends where one wouldn't get along with the other, like, Punks and Skins. Maybe at some points its an exageration to talk of friendship, but once someone looks into my eyes with a smile on his face and the interest to communicate withe me I regard it nearly as positive! Naturally when I converse I don't speak as though I were writing one of these -essay-s, while eventually the one or the other wouldn't respect me as they do if I were to impose my oppinion like here within conversation. It is though a pragmatic problem. I can listen to people within a conversation - that's not the case here. Here I express my oppinion without feedback. I don't think that I'm smarter - I just know what I know. So, if you're not reading this to learn of what I deem real - then bye bye!
10 years ... well. Since at least 6 years I've barely touched my Bible or anything religious - I considered myself done and through with those topics. I actually wrote this because I remember 2 friends of mine (one of which is dead, and ...) - each of them once sat in my room and talked to me like I was a Prophet. Or well, to get the right idea: Everyone who ever talked to/with me about religion at all, ever, family, friends and strangers, excluding a few exceptions (I'd be surprised if I could count up to 5), gave me contra. I was used to the situation that whenever the word 'God' dropped - I'd be into a struggle to defend the sole idea of an existing God. Like a fold of starving Predators on the defenseless and cornered prey, so it goes, where naturally I'm the prey. Thus these two friends, these two moments, were like - almost if not entirely unreal to me. But they sat down and asked me a question - straight up - that concerned them - or told me of their deepest concerns as though I'd be the only one who would care to listen. It was however not so that I could provide any proper help. The one was wondering - that I remember quite clearly - about the passage (I wasn't aware of its existence, but later I stumbled upon it) which he understood so that he who doubts wouldn't receive anything, in light on the explenation that he himself has an issue with this because he wanted to believe - but can't as much as he wished. Naturally I expressed my cluelessness about this question and went on with expressing my personal oppinion that formed at that time. (These situations, by the way, are exclusively different to 'invasive questions' in the likes of 'invisible traps' like, ... well ... tests.) What matters to me right now is how I look -meanwhile- at that situation, myself, in reflection on what I was, am, and the becomming of what I am. Well, in terms of my ambition. It wasn't ever my ambition to be a guide like that! Just so, you know! I'm more of a scientist than a counsilor. I can only give you my oppinion in regards of what I would do or think - while - at last I would say that I have a different tolerance in terms of consequences. I do what I do in persuasion of a goal and do not care about consequences that arise therefrom. I'm a hardcore believer - if God wanted me to I'd jump down a cliff ... just so you know!
So I'm contemplating ... and I'm realizing that the pragmatic advise that I could give by now demands me to speak of my wisdom rather than the scripture. What I mean by that is that it is closer to me ... in sight on that elaborated context ... to pronounce of my given knowledge about God how that is to be understood because as God educates me by educating my Heart I can barely speak of literal knowledge about the same matter. So I though guess I'd be telling you now what I back then told him ... in about ... which originates from the simple understanding that God is merciful and thus this passage is barely to be understood as a 'hardcore demand'. It is though logical that he who doubts - which is doubt on a specific conscious level, as the context added next would elaborate - is incapable of doing that 'step of faith' unless he sheds his doubt. Its like having doubt in a ship. Some wouldn't enter a plane because they doubt it would safely arrive.
I express this within my fortitude - yet I'm afraid of the time when people would begin to refer to my writings within arguments. I'm a very sensitive and sensible person - something I regard to benefit my scientific efforts - thus I'm quite literally, rather than just barely, dependent on external acknowledgement. I express what I express within the hope that I haven't done some mistake. If I receive contra my first reaction would be to wonder 'if' I had done any mistake. A funny side-effect is that sometimes it gets obvious that this contra is more than BS (nonsense) - because while I reflect upon the possible errors the scope of what the individuals issues might be narrows down - and some issues that are entirely beside the point, well, they eager me to step into the argument alongside discarding my efforts to reflect on some possible mistake of mine.
I guess though that 'scientist' isn't the most appropriate term. Eventually 'Engineer'/'Technician' would be more appropriate. I learn of science to understand the way things work - thus I'm interested in science. I do also have a fundamentally pragmatic mind. This I can explain in terms of Tai Chi. Tai Chi at first is an Art linked to Philosophical Sciences and does at certain points dip into the topic of Qi (Life-energy [rock smashing]). So, seeing that it is possible adds to my Understanding that it is possible - end of the line. I however do also know that it is physically IMpossible - or so - the idea that someone can burst with his hand through 10 blocks of concrete with an egg in the hand that remains unbroken (both, hand and egg) - that guy would either have to be Hulk Hogan times 100 - so, 100 meters tall and so - or ... a hoax. Someone might do the math, comparing the solidity of bones with the solidity of concrete to get a simple physical answer. Scars on my skin do in adjacency proof to me that my skin can matter of fact be penetrated by blades, and I also do know that it is rather easy than difficult to do so. Yet shaolin monks ... well ... the most amazing thing is that "Laying down on the sharp edge of swords with blocks of concrete on top of the monk being smashed by a hammer" trick (or well, maybe the 'drill to the temple' trick is ... ). Technically - so my conclusion - I should be capable of the same. Now did I not begin to practice Tai Chi in order to learn that - and the movie with Keanu Reeves ("Neo"), by the way - its just floating around in the room - would rather make me not practice it at all (sorry, but ... there are implications ...). It bothered me, next to health and stress related reasons, though that the entire concept of Qi that fascinated me so much was yet entirely stranger to me. Well, aside of pseudo Kung Fu and various hints of some force that would eventually impact my body quite impactful though I just accidentally bumped my hand at my chest or something, or internal imbalances after too abruptly canceling a motion that can't be explained by simple physical imbalance. Thus the goal to cultivate my Qi to a personally satisfying degree became a target. (Qi is great because - sorry - pseudo 'not-pseudo' scientists are entirely left stranded at this topic!). It so became evident to me that the Chinese Philosophy is a matter-of-fact science that deals with physics that hasn't yet been encountered by the other matter-of-fact sciences - on a scholar level.
To add weight to that - so I assume - God took my interest in practicing Tai Chi, where as of recent I got back to it. So since yesterday I take my way through the park and execute the forms I know at least trice before I go home. The change of well-being, from just those two days of practicing not even an hour, is quite astonishing! (Where note: A beginner might have a slower start because he's at first restricted to a lesser bandwidth of motions and an entirely un-evolved knowledge of interacting with the own Qi. Although personally, starting the first hour of practicing it, I've been entirely convinced of it being good). The question arises: What do I expect from practicing Tai Chi? How does the repitition of some Forms help me achieve anything? Well, that is ... perhaps legitimately askd for, but often such questions bear the heavy tone of severe doubtfulness and carry the expression that what is being questioned is nonsense. I might try to elaborate - and my counterpart would continue to doubt - and it gets clear: There is nothing pragmatic about it! A logical asumption would be that I beat him up with my Qi powers - another one would be he tries to practice Tai Chi if he really bothers to know! Otherwise, a simple defensive stance: STFU (shut the [bad word] up)!
Because my Pragmatism is one of my personally valued virtues, I might continue to describe myself like a boobie trap. The statement that Pragmatism and Faith are incombinable would be a trigger. You Understand? If that is 'too naughty' to you, because I here so claim "once more" (actually, all in all - thats what you get from reading my stuff) that God does exist! That on an ireversive matter of fact basis. Exclaiming God from existence is to exclaim my practical experiences from existence. God to me is a power I can count on, a power that however isn't my personal bitch! At least as of yet I haven't come to the point where I may execute miracles - except for that 'the Seal of the One' thing - but I'm certain there were people "knowledgable" enough to encounter that there must be some "logical" explenation. There however also does the problem with Miracles reside! As civilization that is left to exist within this physical world we are also to some extent dependent on understanding how it works. Miracles don't really do us any favours! Instead of then so wasting time on trying to measure the validity of such miracles we should just accept what is at Hand - and God is closer than anything ever! If you are however not willing to even just consider the idea of a living God and twist that around to be my problem - then maybe Violence IS the best way to go! Woops! Yea, that said, I'd also throw Nukes at ISIS - so you know! To say: I do not defend or advertise them and I yet have a certain sympathy for their cause. Maybe its even a necessary influence! So in example of Nebuchadnezzar who conquered Jerusalem 500 bc who was "given the power" on behalf of God - I do believe that the greater influences on this planet all have their purpose. It is however to me not as black and white as lets say that the US is good! It is more like that IS might be a logical consequence of western iniquities that is given the necessary power to counter that. Therefore I don't want to get involved into any of that! At the given point in time I however have the greatest Sympathy for Russia. I thereby do not - I admit and wish to emphasize - think about the people in that case! I think about political interests and because I do not Understand the EU as a totally good power either I do not wish to see it succeed in commencing within its what I see as 'naughty expansion'. But neither do I wish to glorify Russia - thus - [play Canadian National Anthem] - I stick to my oppinion that politics is the bottomless pit described in the Revelation!
The Inspired Big Bang
In contrast to being fundamentally pragmatic there is the concept of inspiration. During some time where I smoked that awefully strong Cannabis that got sold around here (its strong enough to be worried about some other drug being mixed into it) it happened that I layed down to sleep and I quite literally experienced a big bang in my mind. Its hard to explain, but to get started, think about strong emotions. Once really upset or really angry some sort of "menthal kinetics" are going on. So, imagine that the strength of those emotions is concentrated onto a single point in your mind and bursts apart. The thing to keep in mind is that our Universe can at first be described as Energy. The formula: E=mc[square] describes that mass and energy are the same thing, just, two different forms of 'one' thing. So theoretically all mass can be converted into energy - or all energy into mass. These menthal kinetics are ... [drum roll please] ... Energy!
So, what happened was that a few explosions in my mind made me aware of something uncanny going on up there. Then it happened that something that looked like two hands manifested a "bunch" (like a ball of clay [an asymetric one!]) of energy from the substance of my mind. That looked like as if those two hands did put 'power' into my mind which manifested therein and there-after however existed within a given imbalance. So this clay ball began to vibrate - or pulse - like - in the frequency of one Hydron (0.7 seconds). Like a dip into water causes a distortion, this induction of energy existed within a distortion that however was restricted to that clay-ball. No Energy could escape from it. Scientifically I would pronounce: The distorted mass seeks its own equilibrium. So, water is soft, it yields to influences, thus a stone thrown into it makes it swing back. Because water is however yet a compound-mass it drags its surrounding with it, and after the stone did pass the perimeter the water seeks back to its natural stasis wherein the given motion continues to occur until it is compensated by the given laws of nature. [Here you should take note of my approach on the matter. I say: 'the given Laws of Nature' - thus I withdraw myself from saying anything about laws regarding Energy and Motion or where and how they slowly seem to fade away. I don't bother to describe a model that is to make it mathematically comprehensive - which is lateron an issue]. While this mass of clay so pulsed, it also became stronger with each pulse, thus, I was already expecting another explosion to occur. Being desturbed I somehow wanted to suppress it but it went on untouched - thus I braced myself for what was about to follow. As the pulsing was about to reach its critical point it became apparent how this pulse did get stronger every cycle. The induced energy existed in conflict to an 'anti-energy', so that while both sought their own equilibrium they destorted the respective opposite. In a final sentence: These two energies cannot neutralize each other but yet do interact. From here on out the story is one of 'purpose driven definition' - or - 'the Formulation of Natural Laws'. The idea is that at first there was only the 'arch energy' (the energy that got induced). It would find an equilibrium within the clay - so that after the distortion reached its first climax, each continous pulse would be weaker than the prior. But the second pulse already went stronger - that is the 'premise' or 'design'. This 'design' is basically the 'subjugated energy' - like the induction of a second type of energy - that is to cause the 'desired' effect. These two would infinitely destort each other because there is no law other than that. However it at some point 'did' explode. This explosion spawned particles - or rather fireballs - whereby some part remained at the center, maybe slightly shifted off course. Those fireballs that emerged as beams did after having exceeded a given limit turn back to the center. Here then gravity appeared as by the desire to achieve that effect - things cooked up, within the ball of fire some 'solid' became to grow that then broke apart within a second big explosion that then vanished into the matter from which our galaxies are being made. If you imagined the clay ball to be in the size of a soccer ball, a galaxy would be in the size of in about a dime. But because the size of the event wasn't constant - I guess it doesn't matter!
What mattered most to me - as some voice also pointed out that it was important that there grew a solid 'wall' within that big burning fire-ball of lava-ish plasmatic substance - is that during the 'accumulation stage' wherein the solid wall appeared, quantum states have been defined in order to which the first 'actual particles' have become.
Relativity
This inspired big bang at least allows me to elaborate or formulate a cognitive foundation to the philosophy regarding physics. What I mean is that there seems to be this problem of understanding reality when relying on math. So, to the point, Kepler and Newton are two individuals that attempted to mathematically describe the motion of stellar objects. Then came Einstein and the less educated Journalists would explain that Newton is invalid now. Thus the upswing within the public main-stream of common sense that everything is relative and our world more abstract than we assumed. A more elaborative comparison is to replace the name of Newton by the name of Euclid - the ideological founder of classic geometry. In 'Euclidic Space' - so we say - two lines that run parallel to each other are always and forever parallel to each other. In 'Einsteins Space' that isn't true anymore. Yet Einsteins 'breakthrough' didn't happen because he just did as I did - so, theorizing - but he also came up with the math. Here we return to Newton. Newton also had math and by Newton it became possible to predict when which planet would be where. However, one ... moon or something ... didn't "obey". It wasn't possible to calculate its movement on basis of Newtons formulas. It was Einstein who then prooved (a part of) his math by being capable of properly predicting its movement.
To come back to Kepler, there is also that which is 'rotational momentum' - on planets. We might know it from spinning around ourselves with arms spread out, standing or sitting on an office chair, and spinning faster when pulling our hands back to our body. The cause is that our hands when spread travel a certain distance per time - and when pulled in the same distance travelled results in a faster spin. Thats the observation. Thus it is pointless to argue about sense or nonsense and we can right away skip to say that rotational momentum is a thing. It is then though logical, although beside the point, because the movement of the mass of my hands is a fact and while simply pulling them in there is no force but their attachment to my body that would hinder them to keep up that speed. The same happens when information technologically describing an orbit where a point is given a mass and an initial momentum. The momentum is a "local and dynamic constant" of the point that is used to update its position per frame. When then adding a second point and using Newtons gravitational formula to update the Momentum of point one via simple addition leads to the effect that point one begins to orbit point 2. The closer point 1 gets to point 2, the stronger the movement. At some point this movement is so strong that as point 2 would "try to suck in" point 1, it does add to its momentum which is however not directed towards point 2 so that point 1 again gains distance. By gaining distance the gravitational pull becomes weaker, but yet exists, so that point 1 looses its momentum. While it however still moves - it takes a curve around. This is now described information technologically to say that all that happens happens as coded. The code is the law. What Kepler described is the same thing - that so as the planet is closer to the sun it moves faster. He however uses a different method. Instead of using mass and gravity he described it geometrically. The triangle drawn between two positions of the planet and the sun - the distance between the two points is a given time interval - does always cover the same areal-volume. So, as the planet is closer to the sun it has to travel further to cover the same area than as if it were further away.
Kepler is here the extreme case of 'mathematication'. Or as the inspirational Big Bang describes processes based on "what happens", those 'happenings' need to be comprehensive within a mathematical model in order to be regarded constant. The inspired model describes an initial stage where the desired processes are being 'designed' - math is derived from it, hypothetically, based on which the Second Bang releases the mass where-after all follows the initially produced formulas. To say - with the words of the Keymaker: "One System built on another!". Kepler described the appearances geometrically. Newton found a deeper system. Yet nowadays people say: "Gravity doesn't exist - only a Gravitational effect!". This, in all humility, appears to me as the result of 'over-mathematication'. Resorting to the trope of my violent nature: Does the Punch exist or only the resulting pain?
What appears therein is my own rationale regarding the nature of the Universe, and the 'trend' to simply 'remove' things that 'don't fit' - I mean - what is this all about? Giving you an apostolic answer before I go on: "The Antichristian Agenda - which by the way established itself within the irrationale of the Gospel by imposing itself as the hosts of the word - seeks to surface in an attempt to remove Christendom from the planet. Their problem is that Christ promised that He would be wherever two assemble in His name, thus Christians allow Christ to be amongst us which in turn imposes an opposition to the Antichristians that would rather operate unhindered. At first science was their enemy because it weakened their position, but then it became their friend because they understood that it was a good tool to move people away from God. Since then they strongly support the Atheistic model of science and use every opportunity they can to impose that it became evident that God doesn't exist. This is primarily forced down unto Christianity where Atheists and Fake Christians work together to dismay the Truth as much as possible. A few years ago it was however "posted" in the news as expression of 'the scientists', that the more they understand of reality, the more they have to consider the existence of God. It is thus "incomprehensive" how, without anything really supporting that idea, that turned around into so much 'hate' for Christ. It is though so that the first break-throughs in quantum physics were used to 'push' the idea that our reality is subject to our perception, which yielded the main-stream supersticion that our universe exists due to our observation, thus replacing God by the own ego. As physical break-throughs existed primarily within this very new yet complex science, the average person could not adapt - which is strengthened by Atheistic propaganda and confusing explenations. The average person so switches off and claims to be incapable of understanding the all of it. It has so gotten to the point that again an 'over-mathematication' happened, where now indivdiual aspects of quantum-science are expanded beyond their scope of validity while the average person cannot realize that because the average person has no clue about scopes of validity. Nowadays Christians are once again prey! In scientific discussions we are 'not allowed' (internet) - because as we mention our faith we are insulted to the worse by one atheist following the other in downright disrespecting the idea of God in any way imaginable. At first we only voice our concerns in saying that hey: We still believe! Then we experience the atheistic hostility and eventually sense that it is a war! When we strike back we are insulted again, where it is said - drawing relations to all the wrong that happened in abuse of religion - that we try to impose our belief on others! Yet one has to notice that we don't, for whenever there is a person reasonable enough to live with the fact that some people do believe we are not offended! Thus I would exhort all scientists, educated folks, etc. to see our misery and take stance against this hostile Atheism by - and I've seen it happen - voicing concerns against them. Something like: We did not proof that God does not exist! would be fine! But well, its ... not all that important. I just ... think you will have to make up your own mind about it - and I would appreciate if you 'did' do that, making up your mind, instead of leaving it pending. But, this world isn't about pleasing me, so, give a s.woop!"
To give you an idea: The misconceptions (and I hope that I can get a seal of approval on my statements here) regarding the 'irrationale' within Quantum Physics become falsified when put into the right context. Quantums don't behave unlogical! They behave 'strange'. That is the big weakspot in this exagerated over-mathematication, simply because it is the 'big deal' that is hidden beneath all that nonsensical gibberish. While the news would post it big and broad that experiments have verified the 'Schroedingers Cat' game-of-thought - the actual matter of the fact is that scientists have found a way to separate the properties of a particle from the particle itself. Or while news would flash it up big and wide under some time travel related statement, the matter of the fact - at least so the case I'm refering to (there are two cases I read about) - statement is that scientists found a way to clone particles.
I should transition into the/a Schroedingers Cat headline now, but am yet not through with Relativity. So, I'm getting back to the cat later! Or ...
My problem with Schroedingers Cat and Time Travel is the - you might guess - over-mathematication of the factual concepts. Schroedingers Cat is to me nonsense - which is based on the point that the Cat is already the compound that demands a final state to the mechanism. But that is my logic. We are all individuals and thus we approach a thing with our own given caution. Because I'm no physicist my interest in it is not significant. A physicist on the other hand will take the theory and whatever the end may be start to build the machine. I can say as a bliever that whatever happens happens, while within a properly organized world my skepsis can be taken the way it must: As irrelevant! But so is the oppinion of anyone who isn't a physicist. I would best explain my point in reference to the Theory of Relativity!
I at first would wonder: That "Crumbling of Space" thing, isn't that nonsense because it is just simply gravity? So when relating to it we get the 'Lense effect' thing presented, that so a galaxy can have such a large gravity field that it bends space enough for light to cause a lense effect - destorting what is behind it. But isn't that what we expect gravity to do anyway? In that mindset I would be a strong opponent to Einstein - but he would have taught me better by explaining to me how he came to the conclusion how Light is massless. But then again I can counter that by wondering whether Light could yet have mass - that more than Light Speed is possible - but I lack the knowledge of how accurately the measured Light-speed confirms Einsteins Formulas. If E=mc[square] is on-spot using Light-speed then I have to agree! And there are lots and lots of possibilities - like - if we encounter a particle that seems to be un-affected by gravity we have to wonder. But 'then' wondering makes sense - anything else is just activity, and activity makes the world go round!
So I would support the standing issue that 'the Seal of the One' thing is an observation that shouldn't be ignored just due to confessional sympathies!
To make a point: I personally desire an end to the over-abstraction of our reality to a degree that makes it impossible for us to understand what the hell we say! Nothing we say should ever suggest more than that which is fact! Newton isn't invalid and Gravity does yet still exist! Alright, I'm standing on a very narrow edge with a very vague vision here - so - tolerance is required. But the issue with tolerance is exactly the point here! I can tolerate abstract idea and I can tolerate a person that thinks different to me - that is not the problem! Tolerance should though also imply that we ourselves are tolerant enough to see where we should restrain ourselves. If some person wrote a book (I just read about it) that says: "Why I don't believe in Christ" - OK! Tell me that! But when it gets to the point that this individual shows me that its reason for not believing is simple intolerance then sorry! Am I then wrong in feeling right after all? I would say: Nay! I would feel confirmed - once again! The same happens to me when I read an article that drives a crazily happy smiling face onto all the Atheists (sorry) around the globe - and find that in the end the whole entire thing is just another stepping stone towards a better understanding of our Reality!
Quantum Physics
Do we believe in miracles? What is a miracle? Can a Miracle be a Miracle if it becomes scientifically comprehensive? I mean - when I break a glass or some precious China - it wouldn't be considered a Miracle - would it? Or, more tight to the picture of lets say the fire-columns during Israels exodus, if I fart while sitting in the bath-tub, is there anything miracolous about it?
Quantum Physicists around the world celebrate the fact that Quantums are a thing! Quantums are amazing! They are like - boom! The big bang of possibilities! While digging deeper and deeper we didn't find more and more boring things - well, maybe we did, but then we discovered Quantums. Atoms are relatively boring, well, depending on what the individual enjoys! They are building blocks. Then [moan] protons and electrons are a thing. Well, at least that allows us to now 'explain' electricity! Alright! Then nuclear power, well, yea - OK! The shallow reaction may be due to mixed feelings about it ... but hey, OK, whatever! So, thats then it - our model of what we can do in this world! We have it warm, we have light, we have fuel, we have electricity - and we got a vague idea of the Universe that allows us to marvel at the stars up in the sky. Then Quarks ... well ... something's odd about them! I mean, we thought that Protons, Neutrons and Electrons were simple enough - yet smaller though? Is this a hoax? Then, what the F are gluons? Glue-On? Well, yea! So OK, whatever - ... anyway ... finally arriving in Quantum Mechanics ...
To make it simple: How does the Quantum 'know' that it has been measured? Is that a Miracle? But it happens! So, how can it be a Miracle? Aaaah! So, anything that happens cannot be a Miracle - logical solution! To be more scientific though: I understand that a Quantum "knows" that it has been measured because Quantum Mechanics tie into our world on a basis of demand! A Quantum is uncertain, thus allowing it to cover a broader scope of possibilities, until it is demanded to be a finite thing! This demand exists as the Quantum Uncertainty is interrupted through a ... uhm ... Quantum Certainty. This very vague and 'dumbed down' understanding is my 'mathematication', a 'super-level' consciousness to behold the facutal observation within relation to what I see is real. 'In detail' the two properties of a Quantum draw the pragmatic outlines. Or: This basically 'useless' Quantum Uncertainty reveals a mechanism that allows logical play-around in the style of Schroedingers Cat. So there is the particles position and its spin. If the spin is known the position is not and reverse. This is the quantum uncertainty in detail - where the particle in its entirety, as uncertainty, is a 'function'. So the thesis[?] that electrons do not orbit the nucleus, but exist as quantum-uncertainty somewhere around it. So the "Miracle" to me is this that such things do exist and can be yielded for further practical applications. Quantum uncertainty does thus not say that Particles are uncertain, that they behave entirely arbitrary, but follow strict Laws that can be subjected to Logical combinations. In that Quantum Particles are actual physical 'things', on a plane where physical is however not longer a matter of the classic solid object with absolute position and stuff - but more like a theory that does literally function beyond what we can see. Even so that if we could zoom in close enough we wouldn't see it anymore because we'd break the uncertainty! And so people are already hot for the Quantum Computer - a real one!
What I mean is this: I'm a Christian and yet I do not claim these discoveries as intellectual property of Christendom neither do I intend to formulate a weird concept through which Quantum Physics are to exalt me as King of the Universe ... but I do want to express that I am sick of this defensive position! I can barely express my oppinion without being flamed and hated "just cause". So, I took it to myself that the discovery of Eden puts me on par with Characters like ... well ... anyone who would deserve a Name on Wikipedia at least! I can let go of it - but being forced to do so already goes against my rationale since I have to understand 'why'. So, it may be a personal issue between me and whomever I'd have to thank therefore ... ahw, ignore this piece! Its just evident to me that this world isn't governed by, as it claims, science - or well, if science then some weird science of manipulation in terms to which I'd have to say: Morons! I did have a dream about it - yesterday!
A lesson about Hype
So ... after I had endured many hardships I finally arrived at my destination, the Castle wherein the Princess would await me sotospeak. Now, it was all cool and for some reason I however found myself travelling around outside again ... and then there was that guy. He was jealous at me and wanted the princess for himself. That is what I understood to be the reason, the legitimization, for why he should deserve her. The dream ended after the princess had kicked him out, alright, but ... while I so was digesting that dream it came to me that my upsetness was that he claimed her due to his envy. I could boast up in upsetness about how unreasonable that is - and yet it came to me: It wasn't that! It was that I was chosen to endure those hardships and therefore deserved her and not he - and what desturbed me was that it made sense! That I would, emotionally taken, agree to the reasoning! To a point where I can't say anymore that I deserved her! So I rambled on in my mind to find a description of the situation. I don't think my final solution would add any more to the context, but, would any of you endure hardships for someone else to take your reward?
A similar, though it might appear out of context, scenario is known to me from stories of my Gramps. Well, similar in that there was some weird logic going on. The story of course is about Hitler. My Gramps LOVED to talk about the war - and he never got rid of his proud collection of Badges and Medals. Something I will possibly always remember, may he rest in peace, is how enthusiastically he imitated the sounds of the instruments that accompanied their marching. One time however he told - once again - about being in prison (He was at the Russian Front, at least somewhere in that direction) - and usually those were about how little they received to eat. But that time the discussion was revolving around the darker sides of the war, he wasn't just drunk and getting into memories, it was a more serious one - and so he came to tell of Jokes they pulled at Hitler, followed by a silent sigh that carried his mumbling of regret, pointed by the statement that Hitler was a Moron. What I finally needed to make sense of it all - was the Speech of Joseph Goebbles known as 'Reichspalastrede'. It is that famous speech where he yells: "Wollt ihr den Totalen Krieg!" (Do you want the Total War?) - and the German Crowd cheered and yelled. The speech sets off as Goebbles 'informs' the audience that 'the Englishmen claim that ...' - repeatedly. So for instance did the Englishmen apparently claim that the Germans have got tired of the war! That is ... as we might encounter today ... manipulative! If Goebbles had been a peaceful man he might have said this in a calm tone and followed it by something like: "And I say, well, it may be better so!" ... the crowd would react. What however followed was that initially quoted 'famous' sentence (Do you want the total war?) - and that not like a serious question, or anyhow contemplative, it was yelled out loud with the inner fire of a warchief that is hell-bent on leading the entire nation into combat. There-after the trumpets begin to sound, "Ching da rassa, boom da rassa", and Goebbles goes on saying stuff like "Are you willing to give all and everything for the German victory?", things like that the women would have to put their entire efforts into supporting the men ... basically subjecting the entire nation to the hype of the warfactory.
After the war was lost, so the story concludes, the Hype was gone and contemplation entered the hearts. They - or some of them - came to regret, the things that happened - the things that have been moved aside to make space for the hype - came back. Yet, centuries later, my Gramps would still act like a child in a sweet-store when telling those stories about the war. What I mean to see therein is the magnitude of manipulation that had been executed. What I also read therein is the knowledge of a science that is being explored beyond that what is visible to the public eye - and looking for a plausible answer of how that science came together, my sight travels southward, onto the Vatican. They do in about the same thing - as of recent, their failing attempts of introducing the concept of homosexuality into the roman catholic belief. Or same with ISIS - which live of the hype gathered by conspiracy theorists that are baited to push guilt onto the jews and the "civilized world" in general.
Regarding the Vatican, or ISIS (when regarding their propaganda as failure) - well! My concept of not under-estimating "them" is to not regard that failure as failure! Not when it blinds the mind! It gets evident that they must have a certain clue about what they are doing - they know when the hype is right to take another step! Inching forward little by little! Today we laugh about them trying to befriend homosexuals, tomorrow we will accept it and call them the saviours of our world! It doesn't require Apostolic Wisdom to draw a picture of History! At first they persecuted Christians until they noticed that it was more efficient to befriend them. That way they attract those that would otherwise flee into the underground - out of sight! In the same turn they can feed them with that shame of a remainder of the Legacy of the Lord while their agents move around to 'woops' away whatever else is left. By the time people would turn around and look for those things, oh no, gone! Whats left is the New Testament! The rest are called Apokrypha and they are of low reputation which isn't surprising considering that it only takes one moron to write a moronic writing! Then eventually there were enemies, enemies that have been flushed under the banner of the Inquisition - things we would not know about today anymore! Maybe including, thats my prime suggestion anyway, evidence that hints at the lost 300 years (Phantom Time Theorem). Well, as conspiracy theorists P) hint out: That is impossible because one super evil villain on top would have to live like forever to accomplish this ... but ... it becomes possible if there is one super evil villain is on top who has something that grants him some sort of longevity. I support the "Key of Peter" theory. Applying Apostolic Wisdom I'd say that Christ gave the Keys to Peter for Peter to bring them to Rome and to woops let the Emperor think he betrayed Peter to get them - or that Christ woopsed Peter into thinking that Peter could betray him. I would say that it got prophecied and thus is all within green or yellow margins, but, I guess, it makes sense to spoil some twists and turns. Christians are believable when they are emotionally weak, fitting into the entire 'dependent on the Lord' cliche, in which Sense Peter used the Keys to be a proper Christian and to lock it so that it can't be abused for evil things, leaving however conscious gaps amongst which now there is whatever enables the Antichrist to remain alive. Since that would be a dead givaway, the solution is quite ... so I see in minor visions ... fancy. It is not eternal life! It is a mechanism of rebirth. But anyway ...
That we may speak of 'them' is due to the fact that there is what we may call 'evil temptation' - where the Hip Hop and Metal scene are basic cultural pits wherein the idea that submission to evil yields worldly success can grow and be used to find people who would join their thing. All it takes is a douche as douchy as it gets, someone who would be hated for being such a douche but yet living with wealth and (minor/local) fame, someone who just needs to spit a bit of vile ideology in reference to this success, and well, recruitment center complete! So at times it is prime exquisite to be a Christian, simply because they put so much effort and energy into this moronic cause that seeing them fail is just delicious!
Remember - as good advise: What counters Hype is to know better! And to close this with a quote: "We will never be Slaves!" - Garrosh Hellscream [Warlords of Draenor (World of Warcraft) Cinematic Trailer] [...]
[It is yet too early to say anything further!]
Stardate 55290.11079