BJwojnowski

This does not answer your question but I would just like to share with you that I also recieved a B.S. in environmental engineering and science and am like you interested in theoretical physics. Maybe we can move forward together.

Thank you for clearly stating what I was trying to say.

they will not occur again in the same material plane. When event A happens 13 years later event B will occur four years after that. event A will occur again twenty six years from the origen and B will occur again in thirtyfour years. If time is linear the difference between the reoccurences will only get larger and larger of course assuming that there is only one frame of reference and the same clock timing both events.

I do not justify my belief in a god or gods. belief by its nature is something you choose to or not to do. There is much beyond me the peon. It would be irrational to say or think that there is not something or someone out there greater than me. I have very little control on this outside world. I think your question would be better stated as "Please define God?"

I like the "tone" of this topic. All through grade school and high school I was "indoctrinated" with the scientific method. After college, to this day, I no longer remember what the five or six "steps" of the "scientific" method are. I "believe" the first step is "observe". I am "sure" that if I go on google and search it out I can once again become "familiar" with it. Another interesting development after becoming college "educated", with head trauma resulting in an involuntary, partial, left frontal lobotomy preceding it, is where I enjoyed doing euclidean geometric "proofs" I could no longer even know where to begin as a post graduate. Recently, realizing the importance of words, I tried to "remember" what the word was for what "proofs" are "based" on and could not. Doing a perfunctory search I came across the word: postulate---"something we hold true with no proof but being "believed" with no basis as being proved. Now someone becoming an expert in other "fields" the closest words I could come up with was "premise", "tenet". Doing a computer search or looking at the "trusted, and true" thesaurus I probably would be able to come up with more "words". To lighten the mood: if a word is not in the dictionary how do we know it is not a word?

Some Books I have found to be helpful: Sermon on the Mount by Emmet Fox, The best loved poetry to be read again and again compiled by Mary Sanford Laurence, The immortal game by David Shenk, The Twelve Steps and the Twelve Traditions, Alcoholics Anonymous, Varieties of Religious Experience by William James, Elements of Style by Strunk and White, and How to Use Computers to Improve Your Chess by Christian Kongsted.

A good book that touches on similar topics with practical application is Sermon on the Mount by Emmet Fox. On page 188 of this book while dissecting the prayer, "The Our Father" it addresses the issue of Stockholm Syndrome which is referred to in the religious thread of this same web site. The book was published in 1934. Though the technology available to the public has exponentially expanded the basic problems of living in society and even in family remain the same. The book, Sermon on the Mount, gave me practical relief in a time of high emotional stress. The problem is finding a niche where I can once again read it and apply its principles.

This is quite interesting and profound. I have noticed that there is a survey on religion. The reason I mention this last sentence is that most of the eminent scientists of the twentieth century were religiously oriented. I myself have found the Bible addressing some of these issues metaphorically. For instance Ecclesiastes 3:15 "whatever is has already been, whatever will be has been before, and the Lord will call the past to account." This gives a very mechanistic explanation to events as they occur with the only caveat on what level of understanding one wants to understand the word "Lord". I also enjoy chess and there on an array of sixty four squares struggles over who will win give at least a little semblance of two players making informed decisions exercising their "free will" to hopefully dominate over the others.

There is a definite significant difference between psychiatry and psychology. Most of the above post eludes to psychiatry not psychology.

Siddhartha Gautama Buddha is credited with saying "the only way to fight hate is with love." It is a thin line between hate and love. In order to love others I first need to love myself. If we first can identify in ourselves the emotion of hate I believe the trick is how to change this "negative" emotion into a "positive" one. There are many forms of hate and it does help to identify even its most subtle manifestations.

What about the definition of love by St. Paul in 1 Corinthians 13:4-7 "Love is patient. Love is kind. It is not envious; It is not boastful; it is not proud; It is not rude; it is not self-seeking. Love does not delight in evil but rejoices in the truth. It always protects, trusts, hopes, perseveres."? Or William Blake's view of it in his poem "The clod and the pebble: Love seeketh not itself to please, nor for itself have any care, but for another gives its sense of ease, and builds a heaven in hells despair. So sang a clod of clay, trodden under cattles feet; but a pebble of the brook, warble out these metres mete. Love seeks only itself to please, To bind another in its delight, joy in another's loss of ease, and builds a hell in heaven's despite. ?? or by George Gordon, Lord Byron in "Friendship is love without his wings" Why should my anxious breast repine, because my youth has fled, days of delight may still be mine, affection is not dead. In tracing back the years of youth, one firm record, one lasting truth, celestial consolation brings, Bear it ye breezes to the seat, where first my heart responsive beat, friendship is love without his wings. ???