MACROSS

http://christianity.miningco.com/library/weekly/aa071497.htm

Feb 5, 1998

Scott C.

I acknowledge all the questions about life that Keith has stated, but I have some lower level questions that relate to "why are we here?. I think about God and the plans he has for us and the rest of the universe and whoever else may be out there. As a person who would like to know the mind of God but realize I can't, the question that I have at the top of my list is; "why did he put all those stars, galaxies, nebulae, and planets within our view?. It would have been easy for him to just block it out with a dark lane of dust around our solar system. Or maybe he could have just created beings incapable of seeing things in space. What does he want us to know about the universe that he would have given us the visible universe to see and the tools, eyes, intelligence, and curiosity, to see it? This is a question that I think gets to the basis of why men invented science. Is everything there simply to give us something to do while on this planet? Or are we supposed to pursue knowledge in order to someday leap into the stars and do....something? I like Macross's approach. I don't think science will prove to be the only means by which we find out all that is knowable. There is too much that science can never answer, "like where do babies come from?". My one year old daughter came into this existence via biological means. But there is something more there in her personality and soul that has nothing to do with genes and cell division. I've heard the argument that personality is a combination of mom and dad's personality passed on through DNA. I'll grant science a partial ok on that one. But let's take it back in time, where did I get my personality and soul, and where did my parents get theirs, etc... At some point it must be conceded that human awareness in the form of personality, soul, or whatever people want to call it must have existed prior to our physical bodies in a realm we have not been able to detect. I like to refer to is as "from outside the cone", as in the theoretical light cone used to describe space and time after the big bang. Mark Twain wrote a very thought provoking short story called "The Mysterious Stranger". It's unlike anything else he wrote. It seems like he must have been let onto a big secret to be able to write it. I would recommend it for anyone interested in the goings on of this web site. Without ruining the story for anyone, I'll just tell you the ending really makes you think about individual perceptions of reality. This whole argument reminds me of the microcosm of the human condition; when we aren't finding enemies to kill what is there to do?. What would we do if we didn't have a war to fight? The last few years of relative peace in the world, at least from an American standpoint, have left us nit-picking about nothing...kind of like a Sienfield episode. What we need is a good war...maybe an alien invasion...to give us something to do. Personally I'd be happy pondering the meaning of life and looking through my telescope. Thanks for reading this if you got this far.

Daniel

Macross, why do you refuse to defeat my arguments? Why do you maintain a closed mind to logic?
Nothing that you stated defeats my points. Your ideas stand without reason... and DONT go quoting fiction to provide truth. Use the ideas, not the statements.

SOMEONE ANSWER WHAT I HAVE WRITTEN!.... DID ANYONE READ IT?

Feb 5, 1998

Daniel

Scott, natural selection deems it necessary for us to function on the level we do.
All living creatures have.... you know what? forget it, no one's listening anyway.

Feb 5, 1998

When you say that we need to be open-minded, you are saying that we need to put science away (while searching for the truth). Science is the product of the brain, the most powerful and mysterious machine of all (the brain is). We find the truth using our brains, using what we believe. I don't see how we can put away science and still be able to really search for the truth. I'm not sure what to say right now, so I'll stop right now.

Hi Andrew,

I meant, you can't prove God's existence directly by scientific experiments for sure, but you can experience God's realistic by your scientific researches to see God's creatures.

I understand what you meant because you want to have the objective thinkings and assume the truth is unknown at first, so then you can use all different ways to search it, but the truth is not in the aspect of science which was made up by human beings in their finite physical environment, so that the truth can never be searched directly by any scientific methods.

I only can experience the truth realistically but can never understand it by all logical thinkings (I mean "not all", I still can use some kinds of logics to understand it), because at least you know we, as the human beings, are so finite, no matter in both of our intelligence and scientific advance.

See, how can our extreme limited intelligence understand, think of and even imagine much about the unlimited, infinite, eternal, perfect intelligent being who is the creator of this universe (who is in so-called unlimited dimensional space, actually if we say God is in unlimited dimensional space, we still limit him in space and time, but I can't even imagine how he is perfectly superior to the unlimited dimensional space, so I just say he is like that, but he must be extremely different and superior to everyone of us who can imagine, so then we can called him, "God")?

So, which one can make more sense? There is no perfect in this universe and everything including the whole universe and ourselves are just caused by chance. Do you know the probability that could cause us and everything including the whole universe? I forgot the exact number which was calculated by some other scientists, but I think it is approximately "1/astronomical number" which is calculated by using all things in the universe including the universe itself and all orders among each thing in the universe.

Or you think everything including us and the whole universe were designed and created by the unlimited, infinite, eternal, perfect intelligent being who is the creator of this universe when you see all creatures around you and all stars, galaxies, clusters, asteroids and so on in the sky outside your windows that they and we all have our purposes to live and our precious values.

Give you one example, a watch (or a Swatch if you like) which you found in the desert, you can choose to ignore that it is made by anyone, because there is no evidence that you didn't see anyone made it and even you don't see anyone in the desert except you only see the sand and feel the wind. So, you then make a conclusion: this Swatch was made by chance when the storm occurred in the desert that the storm also brought all elements and materials which are fitted and enough to make a watch, then by chance, all these elements and materials came together by the storm that caused this swatch and its design by chance, etc.

Or you think the swatch and its design was created by someone else.

Which one do you think it can make more sense?

I really have a lot of things and examples to say, such as DNA, the extremely low probability that each of us was born from the human beings by chance rather than by other mammals, the problems which using Carbon 14 for Archeology in evolution and so on but it's hard for me to explain them in English. It's better for me to explain all things in my first language or face to face.

I want to share some parts of my essays which were written a long time ago when I was studying in Philosophy. For the essays are too long, so I just chose some parts which are related to space and time:

-------------------------

George Berkeley is an idealist or an immaterialist who refutes John Locke's ideas of primary and secondary qualities convincingly. Locke divides objects into two qualities -- primary and secondary. He defines primary qualities are "really real" properties of physical objects as solidity, extension, figure, mobility, shape, size, bulk and texture, which are all mathematical structures. And he claims our ideas of the objects as secondary qualities such as colour, sound, taste, odour and temperature. Locke accounts that the primary qualities are mind independent which exist in reality without our perception and the secondary qualities are mind dependent which only exist when there is a perceiver. But Berkeley objects the way Locke characterizes the distinction between primary and secondary qualities. He states that, "an idea can be like nothing but an idea", which every object we can perceive is all mind dependent whatever they are primary qualities or secondary qualities of the objects. He accounts that nothing in the world exists without our perception which is no real thing at all.

Locke states, "sense constantly finds in every particle of matter which has bulk enough to be perceived, and the mind finds in separable from every particle of matter though less than to make itself singly be perceived by our senses." He accounts that even though we sometimes cannot see something but it does not mean that something does not exist. A particle of an object can be as small as we cannot see it until it combines other particles of the same object or other objects, so that we can perceive it. Locke means that there must be something exist but it might be broken into very small pieces which we then cannot perceive it because all we can perceive are only the secondary qualities. For example, we can take a grain of wheat and break it again and again until it becomes very little parts which we can no longer see them, but they still retain the same qualities as before, while this grain of wheat have not yet divided into parts such as their solidity, extension, figure and mobility which are defined as primary qualities and they are all mathematical structures. In other words, no matter how little the parts of the grain of wheat become when they are imperceptible, they must still occupy some portions of space which show there must be some real things exist. Therefore, John Locke concludes that there is a distinction of two qualities of the objects; one is primary qualities such as solidity, extension, figure, mobility, shape, size, bulk and texture which really exist in reality and are mind independent, and another one is secondary qualities such as colour, sound, taste, odour and temperature which only exist when there is a perceiver and are mind dependent which are created by God through perception of human's mind.

Berkeley accounts that both primary and secondary qualities are mind independent and only exist with our perception which is called, "esse est percipi", which means, to be or to be exist must to be perceived. He takes an example, we know that when we see the shape from one end to another end of the object is the exactly as the same as the color which is in the same starting point and ending point as the shape of that object is. Let's say a paper, we can see the same size of both its color and its surface where its colour starts from the same edge as its shape does and ends to the same edge as its shape does. This proves that the shape is no superior to the colour. Another example, suppose you could see the objects are in a room when the light is on, but after the light is off you can no longer see any objects at all. This tells us, whenever the colours exist, the objects exist; but whenever the colours disappear, the objects also disappear. These observations show no distinctions of both primary and secondary qualities of the objects that they only exist obviously with our perception. There is a good example to explain the unstable primary qualities that proves these qualities are changeable in some different circumstances. According to Newton's Second Law of Motion: "the less body accelerates under the action of a given force, the more massive the object is" and this provides us with a measure of the magnitude of its mass, Berkeley reveals that the magnitude of an object can be changed while it is moving which is caused by a given force and how much its bulk is depends on how much the given force caused it and how fast the acceleration is. This proves the untrustworthiness of primary qualities because they all can be altered in some different circumstances.

Another example to object Locke's "picture" theory of resemblance is that a picture of a tree may be a "good likeness" even though the tree is large, rough and three-dimensional, whereas the picture is small, smooth and flat; Berkeley states two arguments to refute this theory, first is that pictures and depicted objects at least have in common which they are spatially extended things even they are different in dimensionality that ideas and objects could not be alike; second is that a picture can be a good likeness of something such as a tree in suitable viewing circumstances which seeing the picture involves an experience quite similar to that involved in seeing a tree, but one can actually see a tree independently of seeing a picture of it and compare the two experiences which Locke does not account the possibility of our experiencing the objects independently of experiencing ideas and comparing the two cases. Therefore, John Locke's theory of resemblance is meaningless as he claims that our ideas of primary qualities resemble those qualities, and George Berkeley's account of primary and secondary qualities is convincing.

-------------------------

Spinoza's monism affects our understanding of the bounds of selfhood. If we are finite and dependent modes within the totality of all being, our minds do not have any scope for autonomous selfhood. A true understanding of our place in the whole of nature, including an understanding of our causal dependence, and our status as modes of substance, would reveal that our individuality is an illusion. The boundaries of self do not dissolve upon realizing the truth of Spinoza's monism, because he manages to preserve a vaguely recognizable sense of individuality.

As Spinoza said that, we are all the modes of the ultimate being in the universe and all our minds and physical bodies are dependent, contingent and the effect of the cause of this infinite being who is the uncaused cause. Therefore, we have no actual free will for autonomous selfhood because our dependence and contingence to the absolute being caused the limitation of our understanding of the bounds of selfhood. However, we have no true understanding of the nature around us and even no true understanding of our individuality. In other words, all we can perceive, including ourselves in the universe, is illusion that means we cannot perceive the actual, objective reality of the whole nature. Let's take a good example, all you can see and sense the pen which is in front of you now are yellow in color, round in shape, hard on structure, no odor, and all we know it can be used for is to write lines in color of blue, but as Spinoza points out that all these perceptions we have on this pen is illusion. The actual color, sound, odor, structure, texture, weight, quality, quantity, what and what else it is used for and so on are actually not what we perceive or much more than what we can perceive. And this objective reality is only be perceived by the ultimate being. Let's take another example about the limitation of our understanding of the bounds of selfhood because of no free will, the limitation of mankind, as the finite being, cannot really have free will because he/she can still be limited by only choosing one way to decide whatever he/she can do or go, and can never turn back to the beginning to take other choices again or take other choices immediately while he/she does not satisfy the decision he/she made in the limitation of time, physical body, physical environment, etc. For example, we can only choose to take a trip to another country during the certain period of time. Say if we decided to travel a country and we are on the way to go there, we cannot go back home immediately because we are riding on the airplane or even we have just arrived there and decide to go back home immediately but we are still losing the certain period of time to do what we want to do at home within this period of time. For we do not have the time machine that we can do anything we want again and again, we can never get rid of the limitation of time and space.

The writer of this essay agrees with part of Spinoza's monism that we are all the modes of the ultimate being in the universe and all our minds and physical bodies are dependent, contingent and the effects of the cause of this infinite being who is the uncaused cause. Therefore, we have no true understanding of the nature around us and even no true understanding of our individuality. But the writer does not agree with Spinoza that our minds do not have any scope for autonomous selfhood if we are finite and dependent modes within the totality of all being. Yes, it is true that we are finite and dependent in the nature which we call it, the "universe" but it is no purpose of living if all we can perceive in the universe and even what we can perceive ourselves is just illusion. If what Spinoza said is all true, the writer must be depressed and does not want to live at all in this meaningless, illusive world because we cannot perceive the reality of the world where we live in that everything in the so-called human nature is a joke to us as the blinded, deaf-mute, smell-less, senseless creature even we all have eyes, ears, noses and skin. Therefore, the writer would define that all we can perceive in the universe including ourselves are not the actual, objective reality and much less perception than what the infinite being perceives but what we can perceive is not illusion because our perception and the range of our perception were created and designed by the ultimate being. The writer can only agree that we can only perceive a part of the whole real nature which is still a part of the actual reality but have limitation, and also the writer states that the reality only exists in the perception of any being, that means, there is nothing existed without our perception. And our perception, again, was created and designed by the absolute being, so our perception is extremely important and meaning to us which is not illusion at all because our perception to the universe is directly from what the infinite being wants us to know about. Unfortunately, the writer does not agree that our minds do not have any scope for autonomous selfhood if we are finite and dependent modes within the totality of all being, the writer bring out the three arguments to determine the vaguely recognizable sense of individuality in Spinoza's monism: first, the term, "free will", is only the term with spiritual meaning, that means, free will only happens in human mind, not in physical body; second, "free will" is a term which is called and used by mankind in human nature, so free will means "free choice of man" which happens within the bounds of selfhood, in other words, it only works in the nature, not in the supernature, which is not outside the bounds of nature, free will is only true for human being; third, "free will" is the term which means only happens in the moment of taking a choice, for example, we are obvious and absolute free to choose what we want in the moment of deciding to take a trip, to eat, to love or to hate somebody, to lie, to smoke, to kill somebody, to do good or bad things, to live or to commit suicide and so on, and that moment has no limitation for mankind at all within the bounds of human nature.

The writer likes to share with the readers an interesting result of a scientific experiment which is similar to what the writer has stated in this essay: Suppose there are at least twenty dimensions of space in this universe, and the human beings are living in the world of three-dimension in this world that we can perceive the length, width and height of any object. But as an insect, an ant, is only living in two-dimension that it can only perceive everything in length and width, so the human beings can see things more than the ants can see. Thus, the human beings can make jokes to this kind of insects. We can put something in front of an ant to let the ant see it and take it back for a moment and what they perceive and think is an unusual, strange, mysterious, unbelievable event happened to it and disappeared immediately afterward. Therefore, the ants can never understand the causes of many things happen around them which are actually, only made by our actions of making jokes to them because what they can perceive are less than what we can perceive, even we can do much more things than the ants, it is because we are living in a different dimension of space. What the writer is trying to say is that everything only exists with our perception which is all mind dependent, no matter what qualities of the objects because they are all created by the ultimate being. In other words, the ultimate being created all sensible objects for us that made us to perceive what the ultimate being wanted us to perceive and the ultimate being gave us the ways and the quantities of perception since the beginning of the universe and the human nature. The ultimate being has his own will to make the world apparent to us that both the world and our perception were created by his will. This scientific experiment gives the writer a vision to understand the truth of the different perceptions of the different beings and the possibilities of other beings exist who are living in different dimensions that we cannot perceive them because the ultimate being has his own will to create the reality of finite perception which we believe in and so-called three-dimensional space in scientific term. So, the ultimate being seems like he had created different perceptions or so-called different dimensions for different beings, just like human beings and other living things like the ants, and some other beings which we can never perceive unless the ultimate being gives us or allows those beings to give us more or different perceptions to perceive them which we called them "supernature" because they are not within the bounds of human nature.

------------------------------

"Imagination is important than knowledge" Albert Einstein

MACROSS

MACROSS LAST FOR DANIEL

Daniel,

Last thing I say to you and actually I had already told you. You are defeating yourself by only thinking in finite human reasoning, logic, science, philosophy and so on, I had already told you that no reason can prove God's existence unless you experience him yourself realistically.

We are just talking in the different fields and views, we won't have any results or conclusions if we are talking this in this way. But I had already said that, as many people are like you, who don't believe in God because no one provides them any evidence or they can't find any evidence and even if one day someone can prove his existence. This is human sinful nature.

You are just one of the angry teenagers who is so pride and like to debate aggressively with the adults, just like these days, in order to be proud of yourself. I was just like you when I was a teenager who thought my thinkings are greater than many adults and often debated with them. You just haven't met or realized any frustrations and contradictions of and besides your thinkings and knowledge yet. Please calm down, you are not God, you can't make up any reason yourself to prove something beyond human nature. As a kid, please humble yourself to listen and learn what others say to you besides what you know, if not, you are just restricted in this level and gain no more knowledge and experience until you die. Remember, no matter you will win or not in your future debates with the others (but make sure the fundamental thing that you and the others are talking in the same topics, otherwise, no result at all, like now) doesn't mean you and anything in and of you are better than them, everyone has his/her precious value.

You will be more humble and I hope you will when you grow up. Otherwise, You will defeat yourself for sure by gaining no happy at all in your whole life. There are so much more abundant things besides all you think which are waiting for you to seek and to seek them in so many other ways which you don't know yet, don't waste your time to think things restricted in the loop of these things. It depends on how much you are willing to learn. If you haven't started to listen and to learn them, you will gain nothing in your whole life.

MACROSS

Daniel

Macross, I agree with Albert that imagination is more important than knowledge. It is, after all the basis upon all which we learn. I have read from Locke and Berkley, you didn't have to tell me all of what they have written. I can however continue to refute you by saying that I have shown that it is not necessary for humans (or aliens) to be considered finite, and I do not think that you consider this to be the case either. If you believe in god you believe in souls and consider humans infinite. I believe this as well but would use Einstein's thoughts against you (as I have before) in saying that all beings contain energy which cannot be created or destroyed and therefore the very thing that allows us to be alive (not god) cannot be created or destroyed. The "essence" (to use terminology you are familiar with) of our being cannot be eliminated and therefore we cannot be finite. We could well be capable of replacing your god. You have yet to address this and your last statement shows me that you are not able to refute this with logic, as you have relied on existing thoughts to support yourself in this debate all throughout. There are thinkers and there are followers Macross, which one are you being? (and don't even try to turn that against me... I THINK)

Oh! and by the way, Thank You, for at least trying to argue my points, now do so in a complete manner (a consideration I have shown you).

Do not think that I do not enjoy this debate, it is the very reason for which I write to this page, I simply got annoyed with you because it appeared as though you were not about to even try to justify yourself.

Feb 5, 1998

Keith

Macross, was that you? You aren't sounding like your old self. I only had time to skim the entry. Everyone, please be patient with me. I am thrilled with what is happening here but I'll need a little time to add the HTML for your entries. THANK YOU ALL!!!!!!!! Don't be frustrated Daniel, I'm listening but I have to admit that this is beginning to blow past me. I'll try to keep up.

Feb 5, 1998

This is almost live. It's too bad we can't find a chat room. I'd get fired if I did that. Enjoy your lunch everyone.

Feb 5, 1998

Daniel

Indeed it has been fun to be able to see so many entries in such a short time. It is almost live. I haven't ever seen this page do that before, of course it may just have been that I wasn't looking. And thanks, I did enjoy my lunch.

Feb 5, 1998

MACROSS'S REALLY LAST ONE

Daniel,

You argued with each one of us that you seemed tried to shut our mouths and didn't let us to speak or to express our own thoughts. To you, is it so happy to defeat someone's argument? Is it all in your whole life? Why I need to defeat your argument? Why so important that I need to defeat your argument? As I said, we are talking in different topics and I had explain them to you roughly. Don't need to answer these, I have my own answers, I don't want to waste my important time to play around on internet with the kid like you who seems have so much time. All I am just still talking because I just want to clarify myself and don't want anyone misunderstand me because of my bad English, that's all. And also, I was talking about Idealism and Metaphysics and you were just arguing about language. Don't you still recognize that now? Now it seems your turn to ruin the atmosphere of this page which Keith doesn't want. I respect all of you and I hope you too. I never like to defeat anyone's argument because there is no meaning at all and it is not my purpose to contribute on this page, I just like to let them know some other things if they don't know them besides their own. If you like me to defeat your argument, I am rather to say you win and I lose, happy now kid?

MACROSS

Feb 5, 1998

Daniel

So now you're the big one huh? And I am the little immature kid who won't give up. (sigh)... I am not trying to upset anyone with my statements. The whole purpose for me to write on this page is to discuss with others my opinions about religion and the movie Conatact. Macross, I respect you, you have shown me that indeed you know much, but that does not in any way mean that I agree with you. The reason that it is so important for me that you defeat my argument is that I am confident that I have presented my case in a logical way, that if looked at in the appropriate light, can cause one to come to the same conclusion as myself. I have spent much of my life arguing with people much less educated than yourself Macross, and I would consider them more difficult to argue with because despite all that we have read, and all of the conclusions that we have drawn or have been drawn for us, there are those who would refute this simply because they FEEL like disagreeing. I thought you to be one of those people. Now I see that you simply are not, but that your opinions are different. THAT is why I wanted you to try to defeat what I have said,
1: to see if what I said is truly as solid as I believe it to be and
2: to find out what kind of person you are

I find it highly valuable to get to know the people who live on this little rock with me. We are a remarkable species, capable of much thought and understanding. I refuse to consider us the most perfect specemine, and refuse to consider us mindless ants. The truth of the matter is that I have enjoyed our little debate, and have learned a bit about myself and others in the process.

I am a kid, as you have referred to me. I am 17 and a freshman in college. When I was referring to having read from Locke, I meant that I read about it this morning, and attended a lecture on it at around noon. I enjoy the challenge of debating my beliefs with those around me. It is a test that I consider to be like working out in a gym. The more that I use my brain, the more powerful I become.

The big issue that got me started with you Macross is that I do not consider myself to be a closed-minded person (yes there are some who do). I think of myself as being rather open-minded, and have tried to see your point of view, and the points of view of others throughout my life. It angered me that because you saw me disagreeing with you, you considered me closed-minded on the subject. This I suppose is a third reason why I wanted you to refute my position on the subject. I wanted to see if you were open-minded enough to do so. And apparently you are. I congratulate you on an interesting argument. And hope that you do not intend to discontinue our discussion, (although if you do, I think Keith would have be able to take a breather).

You see, I find it easy to forget about the world in which we live, and the universe in which we spin and float. In doing so it is also easy to forget about the nature of science, and how it affects everything we do, and is the reasoning behind all that exists. Science is our understanding of the universe and the nature of science is the reality in which we live. If one forgets this it is easy to believe that science and nature are mystical "spiritual" things which "we cannot have created" and so must have been a higher power. As I have stated before I think of ourselves and the sentient beings around us as more than the little ants we appear to be. Science, more specifically natural selection has allowed us to be such.

BUT MACROSS, my time is a very valuable thing to me. Although I haven't spent five minutes preparing this little statement. That five minutes could have perhaps been spent doing something else. I value my discussions on this page though, and it is very convenient for me to have them, as I end up on the computer doing one thing or another anyway.

So when, and if you read this, I want you to remember that, whether or not you had time to do so, you failed to refute the logic of a 17 year old kid, and that all of your schooling and thoughts were never once able to convince me that I had made a mistake in my debate. And I did keep an open mind on the subject. (please take this in the nicest way possible) So if this truly is your last entry Macross, take care, and "god bless." ;-)

FOR KEITH ONLY

Keith,

I am not actually as rough as you thought, I am actually a person with manner. Believe it or not. I was just annoyed by expressing it in my awful second language that people actually said things against the truth which they don't know and think they are searching the truth in the correct ways. To me, Daniel is really close minded and even didn't understand each thing I said and argued back in different topics. For example, he is still talking about logic but I had already emphasized that the truth I revealed to you guys cannot be proved by any kinds of human thoughts; and he is still misunderstanding that I am debating with him so he is still trying to argue with me; and also he still doesn't understand any concepts of Christianity and is still trying to argue concepts of human finity; etc.. I don't want to say anything on your page anymore unless Daniel understands a bit about what I said and stops his useless attacks, and then I will feel more worthy to enlighten all of you. MACROSS

Feb 5, 1998

Keith

Don't drag me into this one. Daniel has been fishing for a "debate" and you bit the hook. Any (respectful) entry is welcome. Macross, you've said a lot and I agree with much of what you have said. Your essay was excellent. This page runneth over. Say it, or don't say it, it's up to you.

Feb 5, 1998

Marvin

Has anyone taken notes of the scenes of the movie. There are over 35 separate scenes. Do you know a web site that has this information.

Thank You Marvin

Feb 6, 1998

Christian Johnson

OK, OK, I can't stand it anymore, I have to get my two cents in. A lot has been said and I'm afraid that in the interest of space on this board I'll have to let much go unanswered.

Unfortunately, I believe this debate (mostly between Daniel and Macross) may have reached an impasse. It is quite clear that Macross has strong Christian beliefs. All that he can do is to keep telling us to be open minded, and (presumably) just believe what he is telling us. Again and again, he has told us that we cannot use our "finite minds" to comprehend the true nature of the universe. In other words "Quit trying to think for yourself and just believe what I tell you!"

Who was it that said something like - "An open mind is a good thing, so long as it isn't SO open that your brains fall out"?

I am reminded of an analogy that Carl Sagan included in one of his recent books "The Demon Haunted World". It went something like the following:

Suppose I tell you that there is a fire breathing dragon in my garage. You consider yourself to be an open minded person, so you decide to investigate. When you arrive you find that you can't see any dragon in the garage. "It's invisible", I tell you. You then decide to lay flour on the floor hoping to catch it's tracks. None appear. "It floats in the air", I tell you. You decide to spray a cloud of paint in the air to make the dragon visible. Nothing appears. "It exists on a different spatial plane", I tell you. Again and again you try to detect this dragon, but no evidence is acquired and you are not convinced it is true. So, I call you close minded, tell you the dragon is beyond your comprehension and tell you your sin has blinded you. But no matter what I tell you (or call you), you still won't believe me. Any sane person would want proof to substantiate such an outrageous claim. How much more outrageous is the claim made by Christians, or most other religions for that matter.

Now, I already know what kind of response I will get for that last statement. "Just look at yourself! Look at the universe, surely God has created all this!". Natural selection sufficiently describes the complexity we see in living organisms and cosmologists can adequately describe the evolution of the universe. The only role I personally can find for God as creator may be as the "initial Cause" of the universe. But who is to say that this "initial cause" is the God of the Bible? Maybe this cause was just a preceding universe. Any creative force may be referred to as "God". This term does not have to refer an omniscient, loving yet vengeful old man with a long white beard.

As a side note, I visited the "Y files" site that Macross posted and found that it is mostly devoted to "Creation Science" (an oxymoron?). It is particularly interesting to me since I once subscribed to these same Christian science views (as presented by "Hugh Ross" and others). So I speak with some knowledge when I say that "Creation Science" is actually "Creation PSEUDO-Science", but maybe we can get into that later!

Scientists are people. They have hope, dreams, fears and some even have faith (as some say Ellie did in Contact). This does not mean however that the PRACTICE of science includes faith. The scientific method works best when the practitioner has no bias, that is why I am suspicious of the "findings" of creation scientists.

Also, I can't restrain myself from saying that based upon Macross' recounting of Paileys' old "watch in the desert" analogy, it is now quite obvious that he is not familiar with how natural selection works (thus helping to prove the point I made in my Jan 20th entry in which I actually brought up this very same example).

I feel that science is the best method for finding "ultimate truth". The scientific method has done more for our knowledge of the universe than any religion ever has. Where religion and faith have failed, the scientific method has stepped in and given us real answers. Because of the scientific method, you have: effective medicine, abundant food, the technology you are using right now, and a more accurate view of the mechanics of life, the earth, the weather, stars, galaxies, and the universe as a whole.

Unlike the vague "prophecies" of some religions, the scientific method gives mankind the tools to make extraordinarily accurate predictions of events yet to happen. Astronomers can accurately predict exactly when a comet will return to a near earth orbit, geologists can predict where earthquakes are likely to happen, and so on. These scientific predictions and their fulfillment would have no doubt astonished the inhabitants of the dark ages (they probably would have burnt the scientist at the stake for witchcraft).

With these successes in mind, I feel justified in placing my bet on science for finding the "ultimate truth".

Scott C.

Macross, I really enjoyed the excerpt from your essay. There is enough food for thought there to keep a person busy for years researching all that was said. I think the truth about our existence includes but is not limited to both your and Daniel's ideas. I don't think anyone can deny the processes of natural selection are working on every living creature, I know I couldn't disprove it. There are, as I'm sure you all know, even cases where humans have created a forced selection in Japan. Fishermen would pull up nets with clams in them. Some clams appeared to have the face of Buddha on their shells, so the fishermen would only keep the clams that didn't have the face and throw back the one's that did. Pretty soon there were almost no faceless clams and an abundance of those with the Buddha face. So, we have proof that nature (we humans are after all a part of nature) can change and create various life forms. That being said, we still have the problem of reality to deal with. I haven't heard in any of the arguments from Daniel or Macross any mention of chance as expressed in studies of quantum mechanics. I want to state right now I'm just a moth fluttering around the glow of quantum physics, but I understand some of the concepts of it. The fact that we have laser technology indicates at least part of quantum theory is correct enough for practical purposes. I also believe quantum theory can help explain what drives evolution by causing random variation...yadda-yadda-yadda... My questions about life are more basic. I look at something and wonder what was the intent of either nature or a supreme being for doing things a certain way, and for my being able to perceive things like I do. Why would the God in the Bible have destroyed the Tower of Babylon yet allow us today to shoot rockets into space? Aren't we doing the same thing? Maybe our intent is different. When we seek knowledge it is different than seeking proof of the existence of God. The movie Contact wasn't about searching for God. It was just about an alien message telling us how we could defeat the constraints of space and time. That technology was given to the aliens by someone else they didn't have knowledge of. The religious part of the movie was just peripheral to the main theme. The question of "who should represent us?" got into religious areas but I didn't see that as central to the plot or theme of the movie. I agree with Macross that he and Daniel are talking about different things. It isn't necessary for one to be wrong and the other correct. It may be Daniel's goal to use his knowledge to defeat unrelated concepts, but that's sort of unproductive. In the scientific community, it seems like this goes on continuously. One scientist will come out with a theory and twenty others will try to blow it out of the water and ruin the reputation of the one who came up with the new theory. Einstein said his biggest mistake was believing in a "cosmological constant". Now it appears that theory is being re-visited because they can't explain the universe without a cosmological constant with our current level of knowledge. In ancient times the use of astronomical tools like Stonehinge for religious purposes was common. It gave the people who knew how to use it power over those who didn't. The priest and the scientist were one in the same. Today it is good we have a separation of religion and science. Just think of all the crap they could have us doing if we thought astronauts were gods and the space shuttle was a chariot from god! There are plenty of frauds today working in the field of the supernatural or paranormal field. However, they serve the purpose of making people prove they are frauds, and in the process we learn some things, such as when the brain is put into certain magnetic fields it causes images to be formed in the brain which the eyes are not seeing. That may someday be a useful tool to restore sight to blind people. It also opens a small crack in the door into knowing about how we perceive things with our brain. I've heard it said that humans only use 10% of our brain functionality. I don't know where that figure came from but I've heard it many times. If so, then why do we have 90% left over to do nothing? These questions lead me back to the intent question. What is the intent of nature or God in having this massive supercomputer in our heads? What is the other 90% supposed to be doing? Maybe those other dimensions Macross is talking about can be perceived with that 90% and it's up to us to learn how to access that space. But if I can't ask that question without being the subject of ridicule, then we will never find out will we? OK, I have to get back to work too. Let me know if anyone reads The Mysterious Stranger.

Keith

It looks like I have a busy weekend ahead of me. I'm happy. I'm not complaining. I'm going to throw my two cents in also and mostly in defense of Macross. I still haven't read everything yet. It takes me a lot longer than Daniel's five minutes to come up with anything intelligible but I'll give it a shot soon. THANKS AGAIN EVERYONE!!!!

Feb 6, 1998

MACROSS

I still don't have enough patient to people who talk about the truth in the wrong ways, so I come back again and state the following simple things again which I had said before many times but you guys couldn't understand the main things I had revealed to you to know the truth:

You guys including Daniel were trying to argue all my sub topics about the truth, but didn't touch anything no matter by logic, philosophy and science about my main theme. Also, Daniel, I didn't see much of your arguments which refuted many of my sub topics, I only see your arguments for one or two of my sub topics, maybe I didn't scan the details of all you said because of my less time. And I want to clarify again here, I haven't tried and am still not trying to have debate with any of you guys. This not my purpose to participate on this page, so I didn't and won't try to debate anything at all. Sorry Daniel, it depresses you but all I have been saying are that I was just sharing with you guys something I know which is different from most of you.

Well, of course, I agree too, for my main theme, no one can prove it including myself. That was my main reason and purpose to let you guys know about it since the first day I participated on this page.

All these subjects as I said, logic, philo, sci, and so on which I have been learning a lot and I also had been trying to disprove the existence of God before I met him.

I tried to make it as simple as possible but seemed no one recognized my main point. Now, I just say it in one sentence:
"We, including myself, can say a lot of things by using all human thoughts, but will never get to know and understand a bit about the truth unless we can experience it individually."

I know, now, you guys will start to argue by all human thoughts but one day if you will experience the truth yourself, then I guarantee you will have nothing to say, none of the human thoughts, etc.

If I am disprove anything which we cannot perceive at all, I am seemed like robot, rather than a human being with all feelings, desires, loves and so on. As I said, there are a lot of things you are so sure you know they exist but can't prove their existence's at all, right? So, there is not reason to ignore anything which you can't perceive would be nothing existed.

In Contact, Ellie cannot prove how realistic she experiences the aliens which every scientist ignore what she experienced is truth and you guys accept it but why not just go one step further to turn your view a little bit about God's existence in the similar situation and so on.

Well, I know you guys will argue for this again, so I will repeat the same thing which you won't say nothing more once you experiences it by yourself. Then I am sure at that time you will come back to this page (well, I hope it is still here) to tell me, "yes, you are right, it is real but I can't prove it!"

I hope you guys may understand a bit of what I said and leave a space for something you don't know which might be beyond everything you can think of. That's all I wish! Now, I stop here as my last message to you guys (I really hope, no matter you guys will say anything next) and am quickly back to work.

MACROSS

Oops! One thing I missed, I am only interested in debating each one of you in all other topics by all our tools, like logic, philo, sci and so on if I have much time but not in this one because I had said many times that the real ultimate truth I know about and had revealed it to you cannot be showed by all these human knowledges. That was why I didn't fullfil you guys by debating directly with your points, but instead, I was telling this different aspect, "personal experience", to you guys. Daniel, it disappoints you again, but we may debate about other things beside the truth in the future if it is worthy for me to debate and I am interested and of course, if I have time. But remember, it doesn't mean who win or who lose by arguing about the truth because you still don't know the truth in logic and in all other ways. Maybe you think the science-fiction-like-belief you revealed in your only debate with no one (because no one was debating with you) is the truth without approval in real science. And the adults you said you had beaten them which might be only what you thought. They might not respond you or said final agree with your arguments, but didn't mean they lost. No one is more powerful or less. AS I said many important things but no one replied these, like everyone has his/her own value, no one is better or not, everyone is precious to the truth, etc. Your unrespectful aggressive debates bothered those adults and you didn't consider their busy works and tried to send email to disturb them that made them not wanted to speak to you or to speak to you nicely anymore. If you don't think so, at least, I am the one is like this.

And Keith, I just put my reply to some of your thoughts from your email into the entry "FOR KEITH ONLY", that Daniel is close minded and so stubborn which you didn't think he is really like that but I just told you I still finally found out, like a crazy man who often misunderstood all some people said, who was keep talking about other things to someone who was actually not talking about the same things as his from the beginning until the end, but I didn't drag you in-between Daniel and I, so don't misunderstand, I know my second language is awful that often made you guys misunderstood. And because of my second language, I need more time to write all these than anyone of you, so please understand. Feeling better now Daniel, I called you, a "man", as you wished! I stop talking now, so don't disturb me by your email and your non-stop useless meaningless unrespectful argues with unrespectful attacks again. My email is mainly used for my work, not for this meaningless debate without talking in same topics (is it your logic is for debating something with the others without establishing it from the fundamental theme by regarding the topic which is the same as the others talk about or not?). As I said, we are not talking the same things, I hope you will understand, I don't want to repeat explaining them to you, think them or not by yourself.

That's it whatever you guys think!

Feb 6, 1998

Daniel

Macross, your personal attacks get you no where, and I only emailed you twice. I shall not do so again, as I understand what it is to be busy. I too am busy. As to your statements. Please re-read my "one debate with no one" apparently you missed a few things (I don't have time to repeat myself, not that any of you want me to). Also, if you don't want to read what I have written, perhaps read what Christian has written. He's got some nice points (right on Christian!)

The human brain uses close to 100 percent, just not more than 10 percent at a time.

Feb 6, 1998

Keith

Macross and Daniel:
My friends (and I really mean that), I have had enough. This has been very interesting. I have learned from both of you, but we are to the point where there doesn't seem to be much value to what you have to say to each other. Please don't misunderstand me here, I am not ungrateful for what you both have done. I don't want to discourage you, or anyone for that matter, from expressing yourselves here, but enough is enough. Live debates have timers and this one has just beeped. I will respond to all of this, but not to carry on the debate. I'll do it to express what I have learned from you and how it fits into my beliefs. Again, say what you want, but there seems to be a lot of "last wording" happening here and I think it is time to move on.

Thank you for all of your efforts on behalf of this page so far. Your entries are excellent. You have created a "page of its own" that I will separate out with a link entitled "The 12 day debate" (I'll take suggestions for a better title).

Please, please don't misunderstand me. You are all the creators of this page and I am at your mercy. It is just that the above exchange is starting to wear on me. If you disagree with this entry email me, I am open...

Feb 9, 1998

Scott C.

Keith, too bad you're so closed minded. Just kidding..... Thanks, it's been fun for me too, even though most of the debate was with Macross and Daniel.

Feb 19, 1998

Keith

OK, here it is.This one took a while to put together. It contains several links to the entries on this site. I talk about absolute truth and religion, free will, personal revelation, and the reason for the universe.