religious science

[waechter418]

Occidental science has become the successor of Christian religion, by taking over its genesis with a god called “Big Bang” who creates an autonomous existence in form of matter which he hurls through a linear time/space to disappear in a black hole or nothingness.
A rather short sighted update, considering that the Christian priests (to whom all existence was a bleak hole) left at the end of it at least a space (like heaven & hell) for the emotions of god´s victims (be it because of Christian pity, or because of their need for more room to elevate themselves).
Yet, the priests of science apparently speculate with emotions too, as they nurture (despite their hole- & other finals) the hope for an everlasting life (a contradiction they cover up with DNA- and time/space-twists) and lure with wonders (phenomena that are not experienced by the psyche-soma relativity) and mysterious rites & symbols, claiming, in good old priestly fashion, that their schemes are universal laws and orders, which of course only the priests understand.
For skeptics, they liken them to those of the market-economics (which everyone believes to understand) thus keeping – if their schemes should fail - the opportunity open, to make a career in the temples of god Mammon (money), who is renown to offer meaning and purpose to unsuccessful priests as well.

[Immanuel Can]

Occidental science has become the successor of Christian religion, by taking over its genesis with a god called “Big Bang” who creates an autonomous existence in form of matter which he hurls through a linear time/space to disappear in a black hole or nothingness.

Can you clarify your critique?

Do you mean that linear time and "big bang" cosmology are simply not true and not scientifically established, or that they're true and scientific but are serving a religious function as well?

It makes a difference which of the two you are claiming. If you're claiming the former, then the right response comes from the scientists, who can say what evidence they hold to be relevant to establishing linear time and big bang cosmology. If you're saying the latter, then the right response comes from the sociologists of religion, who will not be contesting the facts of linear time and big bang cosmology, but might pass judgment on whether or not, as a sociological-empirical matter, some kind of Scientism has take over a symbolic or religious social function.

Which conversation do you intend to have?

[waechter418]

Occidental science has become the successor of Christian religion, by taking over its genesis with a god called “Big Bang” who creates an autonomous existence in form of matter which he hurls through a linear time/space to disappear in a black hole or nothingness.

Can you clarify your critique?

Do you mean that linear time and "big bang" cosmology are simply not true and not scientifically established, or that they're true and scientific but are serving a religious function as well?

It makes a difference which of the two you are claiming. If you're claiming the former, then the right response comes from the scientists, who can say what evidence they hold to be relevant to establishing linear time and big bang cosmology. If you're saying the latter, then the right response comes from the sociologists of religion, who will not be contesting the facts of linear time and big bang cosmology, but might pass judgment on whether or not, as a sociological-empirical matter, some kind of Scientism has take over a symbolic or religious social function.

Which conversation do you intend to have?

Shall we meet at high noon in front of the saloon ?

[Immanuel Can]

Shall we meet at high noon in front of the saloon ?

Um...

Not quite an answer...can I pose the question again?

Can you clarify your critique?

Do you mean that linear time and "big bang" cosmology are simply not true and not scientifically established, or that they're true and scientific but are serving a religious function as well?

[waechter418]

Shall we meet at high noon in front of the saloon ?

Um...

Not quite an answer...can I pose the question again?

Can you clarify your critique?

Do you mean that linear time and "big bang" cosmology are simply not true and not scientifically established, or that they're true and scientific but are serving a religious function as well?

....to be and not to be - is the answer.

[Immanuel Can]

....to be and not to be - is the answer.

I see. You didn't mean anything at all, I guess.

[Michael MD]

This is an important issue. Concensus mainstream physics and its Big Bang theory, "Dark Energy," and so on, are in error, and it is a serious issue.

The accelerated outward movement of celestial bodies at the farthest-out limits of our Universe is NOT due to "dark energy." It is due to the pull of an ever-closer approach of another universe. This would be due to an earlier creation of, and emplacement of, a certain number of universes, emplaced in such a way that when one of them (like ours at present) becomes "tired," inasmuch as its internal energies got depleted, and outside energies "took over," in a relative sense, a comparatively-sized celestial formation (another universe), has become attracted to it. (In this connection, it's worth noting that galaxies have been observed colliding with each other.)

In a previous Thread, I presented a model for how such creational procedures would have occurred. -Electrons were creationally projected from isolated quantum-energy "islands" which had formed, from intense etheric forces, within a preceding etheric macrocosm, and were projected in order to create a new quantum/atomic macrocosm, for better magnetic stability for the quantized entity (ies) Who had arisen and developed from the intense ether forces there, and who wanted to transition to a better macrocosmic energy-setting for its quantization. -This was done by projecting quantum electrons toward a "virgin" ether region, which chain-reactionally set off etheric processes within it, which transitioned smaller energy-units to larger ones, all the way up to quantum units like the protons, neutrons, and atoms we now have.

[Michael MD]

I'd like to add further clarifying thoughts to my last Post. (I'm not trying to pilfer Waechter's Thread, but he raised a serious question about the implications of the current theories about a "Big Bang," and I'd like to add some clarification on the alternative model presented in my last Post, which proposes a creational origin for our present world from an earlier etheric world from which our present quantized world was created.

My model suggests that the preceding etheric world was a macrocosmic setting featuring intense fluxes of ultra-refined etheric forces. Within it, resonations of energic forces would have produced focalized areas where especially-intense energy processes could have occurred.

One possible focal setting could have existed in the formation of primordial materials into an oval, or ovoid, shape. -This has especial significance when one consider the well-known occult theme of "the cosmic egg." Energic radiations, upon reaching such a formation, then could have followed curvational paths, rather than continuing through space. In such a setting, energic resonances of such forces could have resulted in piezoelectrical connecting-and-amplifying patterns, centered around the egg-shaped formation.

Piezoelectricity is not clearly defined by quantum physics at present. It is considered to be an accentuation of electrical forces solely resulting from quantum mechanisms. -The ether model above suggests that piezoelectricity could instead involve yet-to-be-defined etheric forces which underpin the quantum forces we are familiar with. -In the particular example here, piezoelectrical resonative forces could have produced an ovoid focus of self-resonating energy, or "reverberating circuits," as scientists refer to the electrical activity of the brain.

I propose that sapience and consciousness first originated in just this way. It seems the most likely way they could have arisen.

It might be worth noting the strange stories of frogs found living inside roundish rocks, which presumable had formed with the frog inside a clay formation which then hardened into rock, possibly a great number of years earlier. -If such reports are entertained as fact, they would tend to support the idea here that self-sustaining bio-enhancing forces can be attracted to such roundish formations.

[Michael MD]

To add further thoughts to my last Post, about the well-known occult theme of "the cosmic egg," I would submit that it could well be related to the theoretic question of how consciousness and sapience first emerged in an earlier world in which intense, etheric, ultra-rarified, energies were fluxing, and were interacting through processes involving like-to-like, or "entangled", resonance.

I believe this is basically a similar process as is found in Quantum Entanglement, which in my own Ether Model, represents a phenomenon in which radiated packets of etheric energy have the same vibratory pattern in the unerlying ether matrix, and where two closely-related quantum units are separated from each other, and are then found to somehow remain connected, so that changing one of the pair produces a similar change in the separated unit.

In the speculative case in which consciousness somehow emerged in an earlier, highly-etherically-energized, "first world," where intense forces were randomly fluxing, and where related (resonant) forces became focused in a localized region, or "microcosmic neighborhood," there could have existed focal energy-areas in which egg-shaped, or roundish, foci were produced, where fluxing forces followed curvational paths around the foci, made of some sort of primordial material(s). This would have then produced electrical circuits following curved pathways around the central focus. Then, like-to-like resonance of the curving electrical circuits could have resulted in like-to-like "entangled," or reverberating, circuits, similar to the reverberating circuits that scientists describe for the circuitry of the brain.

Such self-recognizing (resonant, reverberating) electrical circuits then could have similarly come together and united, via like-to-like resonance, into a brain-like morphosis, in this primordial setting, producing the first conscious, sapient, Entity.

[Arising_uk]

Or maybe a simpler explanation is that to be a 'conscious sapient entity' you need nothing more than a few like bodies with senses, memory and a language in an external world.

[Arising_uk]

... that their schemes are universal laws and orders, which of course only the priests understand. ...

No idea which subject you are referring to here but 'Science' is pretty much the everyman subject which anyone can partake in if they wish, it just takes some studious application.

[Michael MD]

To appreciate how this Ether Model could apply to "a conscious sapient Entity could arise from a random-forces earlier- world," you might see my Thread "An Ether Model of Everything," further down in the listing of threads.