Guest guest Posted March 16, 2006 Report Share Posted March 16, 2006 On Mar 16, 2006, at 8:15 AM, GuruRatings wrote: > Message: 11 > Thu, 16 Mar 2006 16:07:53 -0000 > " praybob " <gnuteller > God's scientist receives supreme award > > P: He failed to see, or say, that the complexity and vastness of the universe, is the best refutation for the existence of an omnipotent creator, because if He were omnipotent what need could be for such delicate, perishable bodies to sustain consciousness? Could not an omnipotent creator have designed a consciousness which didn't need perishable messy bodies? That's where all idealist theories of a universal, eternal Consciousness come crashing down, if that were so, why does it need fleshy bodies? NNB > Richest grant goes to cosmologist who says religion best explains laws > of universe > > MICHAEL VALPY > > From Thursday's Globe and Mail > http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/ > RTGAM.20060316.wxtheory16/BNStory/International/home > > > Cambridge University cosmologist and mathematician John Barrow was > awarded $1.6-million yesterday to do research into whether God is > sitting at the control panel behind the Theory of Everything about the > universe. > > He won the 2006 Templeton Prize for Progress Toward Research or > Discoveries about Spiritual Realities, the world's richest individual > scholarly research grant. Its initiator, mutual-fund investor Sir John > Templeton, specified that it be worth more than the Nobel Prize (which > is worth about $1.5-million) so the media would take it seriously. > > Dr. Barrow, 53, author of 17 books and one play (about infinity), > believes that monotheistic religious thought about God and creation > offers a better explanation than anything else, including most > science, of how the universe works. > > > He is one of the leading proponents of the anthropic principle of the > universe, the dials-set-right idea -- the notion that the universe is, > in Goldilocks's words, " just right " for life on Earth. Because if it > were a little bigger or smaller, a little colder or warmer, a little > younger or older, then life wouldn't exist. > > His ideas and research fit to a T many theologians' underlying notions > of the new cosmology, the idea that, because the universe did not > create itself, it must have a cause separate from itself. Or as one of > them, reading Dr. Barrow's acceptance speech for his award, said > admiringly: " I wish I'd said that. " > > Dr. Barrow is director of Cambridge's Millennium Mathematics Project > and Gresham professor of astronomy at London's Gresham College, the > world's oldest science professorship, founded in 1596. > > He has been a popular writer in Britain since the publication of his > 1986 book, The Anthropic Cosmological Principle, co-authored with > mathematician Frank Tipler, and has lectured on cosmology at the > Venice Film Festival, 10 Downing St., Windsor Castle and the Vatican. > > His most recent book is The Infinite Book: A Short Guide to the > Boundless, Timeless and Endless. His 2002 play, Infinities, was a > smash hit for the two seasons it ran at Milan's La Scala. > > Dr. Barrow said in an interview yesterday he is not sure yet how he > will use the money. He also said he doesn't think the U.S.-based John > Templeton Foundation, which oversees selection of the award's annual > winner, had any particular expectations of what research he would do. > > The essence of his research, as he put it, is the quest for the simple > laws -- " perhaps just one law " -- that lie behind all the complexities > of the universe, " like the laws of nature that are so impressively, > beautifully symmetrical, but can have such highly irregular, > asymmetrical outcomes. " > > What has attracted the Templeton Foundation is his engagement with the > structure of the universe and its laws that make life possible, as > well as the multidisciplinary perspectives he has developed on the > limits of scientific explanation and the mysteries of nothingness and > infinity. > > " Over the past 75 years, " he says, " astronomers have illuminated the > vault of the heavens in a completely unexpected way. " > > They have found, he says, a universe not only bigger than was once > thought, but getting bigger. They have found that life on Earth > comprises complicated atoms of carbon, nitrogen and oxygen whose > nuclei took almost 10 billion years to be formed by " stellar alchemy " > before being blasted through the universe by the explosions of dying > stars. > > " So you begin to understand why it is no surprise that the universe > seems so big and so old. It takes nearly 10 billion years to make the > building blocks of living complexity in the stars and, because the > universe is expanding, it must be at least 10 billion light years in > size. We could not exist in a universe that was significantly smaller. > > " The vastness of the universe is often cited as evidence for the > extreme likelihood of life elsewhere. [but] while there may be life, > even conscious life, elsewhere, sheer size is not compelling. The > universe needs to be billions of light years in size just to support > one lonely outpost of life. " > > Dr. Barrow says that astronomy's revelations -- that a big, old, dark, > cold universe with its planets and stars and galaxies separated by > vast distances is necessary for the creation and existence of > pinpricks of life -- have " transformed the simple- minded, > life-averse, meaningless universe of the skeptical philosophers. > > " It breathes new life into so many religious questions of ultimate > concern and never-ending fascination. Many of the deepest and most > engaging questions that we grapple with still about the nature of the > universe have their origins in our purely religious quest for meaning. > > " We see now how it is possible for a universe that displays unending > complexity and exquisite structure to be governed by a few simple laws > that are symmetrical and intelligible, laws which govern the most > remarkable things in our universe -- populations of elementary > 'particles' that are everywhere perfectly identical. > > " There are some who say that just because we use our minds to > appreciate the order and complexity of the universe around us, there > is nothing more to that order than what is imposed by the human mind. > That is a serious misjudgment. " > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 16, 2006 Report Share Posted March 16, 2006 My Dear Pete, fleshy bodies ripe for experiencing love the various shades of life, ever spiralling lost in high and low ecstasy breathing pleasure pain bliss of This Is as I Am or think I Am not... a choiceless choice made by Who I am.. Ana Ana Nisargadatta , Pete S <pedsie5 wrote: > > > On Mar 16, 2006, at 8:15 AM, GuruRatings wrote: > > > Message: 11 > > Thu, 16 Mar 2006 16:07:53 -0000 > > " praybob " <gnuteller > > God's scientist receives supreme award > > > > > > P: He failed to see, or say, that the complexity > and vastness of the universe, is the best > refutation for the existence of an omnipotent > creator, because if He were omnipotent what > need could be for such delicate, perishable > bodies to sustain consciousness? Could not an > omnipotent creator have designed a consciousness > which didn't need perishable messy bodies? > > That's where all idealist theories of a universal, eternal > Consciousness come crashing down, if that were so, > why does it need fleshy bodies? > > NNB > > > > > Richest grant goes to cosmologist who says religion best explains laws > > of universe > > > > MICHAEL VALPY > > > > From Thursday's Globe and Mail > > http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/ > > RTGAM.20060316.wxtheory16/BNStory/International/home > > > > > > Cambridge University cosmologist and mathematician John Barrow was > > awarded $1.6-million yesterday to do research into whether God is > > sitting at the control panel behind the Theory of Everything about the > > universe. > > > > He won the 2006 Templeton Prize for Progress Toward Research or > > Discoveries about Spiritual Realities, the world's richest individual > > scholarly research grant. Its initiator, mutual-fund investor Sir John > > Templeton, specified that it be worth more than the Nobel Prize (which > > is worth about $1.5-million) so the media would take it seriously. > > > > Dr. Barrow, 53, author of 17 books and one play (about infinity), > > believes that monotheistic religious thought about God and creation > > offers a better explanation than anything else, including most > > science, of how the universe works. > > > > > > He is one of the leading proponents of the anthropic principle of the > > universe, the dials-set-right idea -- the notion that the universe is, > > in Goldilocks's words, " just right " for life on Earth. Because if it > > were a little bigger or smaller, a little colder or warmer, a little > > younger or older, then life wouldn't exist. > > > > His ideas and research fit to a T many theologians' underlying notions > > of the new cosmology, the idea that, because the universe did not > > create itself, it must have a cause separate from itself. Or as one of > > them, reading Dr. Barrow's acceptance speech for his award, said > > admiringly: " I wish I'd said that. " > > > > Dr. Barrow is director of Cambridge's Millennium Mathematics Project > > and Gresham professor of astronomy at London's Gresham College, the > > world's oldest science professorship, founded in 1596. > > > > He has been a popular writer in Britain since the publication of his > > 1986 book, The Anthropic Cosmological Principle, co-authored with > > mathematician Frank Tipler, and has lectured on cosmology at the > > Venice Film Festival, 10 Downing St., Windsor Castle and the Vatican. > > > > His most recent book is The Infinite Book: A Short Guide to the > > Boundless, Timeless and Endless. His 2002 play, Infinities, was a > > smash hit for the two seasons it ran at Milan's La Scala. > > > > Dr. Barrow said in an interview yesterday he is not sure yet how he > > will use the money. He also said he doesn't think the U.S.-based John > > Templeton Foundation, which oversees selection of the award's annual > > winner, had any particular expectations of what research he would do. > > > > The essence of his research, as he put it, is the quest for the simple > > laws -- " perhaps just one law " -- that lie behind all the complexities > > of the universe, " like the laws of nature that are so impressively, > > beautifully symmetrical, but can have such highly irregular, > > asymmetrical outcomes. " > > > > What has attracted the Templeton Foundation is his engagement with the > > structure of the universe and its laws that make life possible, as > > well as the multidisciplinary perspectives he has developed on the > > limits of scientific explanation and the mysteries of nothingness and > > infinity. > > > > " Over the past 75 years, " he says, " astronomers have illuminated the > > vault of the heavens in a completely unexpected way. " > > > > They have found, he says, a universe not only bigger than was once > > thought, but getting bigger. They have found that life on Earth > > comprises complicated atoms of carbon, nitrogen and oxygen whose > > nuclei took almost 10 billion years to be formed by " stellar alchemy " > > before being blasted through the universe by the explosions of dying > > stars. > > > > " So you begin to understand why it is no surprise that the universe > > seems so big and so old. It takes nearly 10 billion years to make the > > building blocks of living complexity in the stars and, because the > > universe is expanding, it must be at least 10 billion light years in > > size. We could not exist in a universe that was significantly smaller. > > > > " The vastness of the universe is often cited as evidence for the > > extreme likelihood of life elsewhere. [but] while there may be life, > > even conscious life, elsewhere, sheer size is not compelling. The > > universe needs to be billions of light years in size just to support > > one lonely outpost of life. " > > > > Dr. Barrow says that astronomy's revelations -- that a big, old, dark, > > cold universe with its planets and stars and galaxies separated by > > vast distances is necessary for the creation and existence of > > pinpricks of life -- have " transformed the simple- minded, > > life-averse, meaningless universe of the skeptical philosophers. > > > > " It breathes new life into so many religious questions of ultimate > > concern and never-ending fascination. Many of the deepest and most > > engaging questions that we grapple with still about the nature of the > > universe have their origins in our purely religious quest for meaning. > > > > " We see now how it is possible for a universe that displays unending > > complexity and exquisite structure to be governed by a few simple laws > > that are symmetrical and intelligible, laws which govern the most > > remarkable things in our universe -- populations of elementary > > 'particles' that are everywhere perfectly identical. > > > > " There are some who say that just because we use our minds to > > appreciate the order and complexity of the universe around us, there > > is nothing more to that order than what is imposed by the human mind. > > That is a serious misjudgment. " > > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 16, 2006 Report Share Posted March 16, 2006 the bodies r only fleshy and messy , if we (u) choose it to be as such! Pete S <pedsie5 wrote: On Mar 16, 2006, at 8:15 AM, GuruRatings wrote: > Message: 11 > Thu, 16 Mar 2006 16:07:53 -0000 > " praybob " <gnuteller > God's scientist receives supreme award > > P: He failed to see, or say, that the complexity and vastness of the universe, is the best refutation for the existence of an omnipotent creator, because if He were omnipotent what need could be for such delicate, perishable bodies to sustain consciousness? Could not an omnipotent creator have designed a consciousness which didn't need perishable messy bodies? That's where all idealist theories of a universal, eternal Consciousness come crashing down, if that were so, why does it need fleshy bodies? NNB > Richest grant goes to cosmologist who says religion best explains laws > of universe > > MICHAEL VALPY > > From Thursday's Globe and Mail > http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/ > RTGAM.20060316.wxtheory16/BNStory/International/home > > > Cambridge University cosmologist and mathematician John Barrow was > awarded $1.6-million yesterday to do research into whether God is > sitting at the control panel behind the Theory of Everything about the > universe. > > He won the 2006 Templeton Prize for Progress Toward Research or > Discoveries about Spiritual Realities, the world's richest individual > scholarly research grant. Its initiator, mutual-fund investor Sir John > Templeton, specified that it be worth more than the Nobel Prize (which > is worth about $1.5-million) so the media would take it seriously. > > Dr. Barrow, 53, author of 17 books and one play (about infinity), > believes that monotheistic religious thought about God and creation > offers a better explanation than anything else, including most > science, of how the universe works. > > > He is one of the leading proponents of the anthropic principle of the > universe, the dials-set-right idea -- the notion that the universe is, > in Goldilocks's words, " just right " for life on Earth. Because if it > were a little bigger or smaller, a little colder or warmer, a little > younger or older, then life wouldn't exist. > > His ideas and research fit to a T many theologians' underlying notions > of the new cosmology, the idea that, because the universe did not > create itself, it must have a cause separate from itself. Or as one of > them, reading Dr. Barrow's acceptance speech for his award, said > admiringly: " I wish I'd said that. " > > Dr. Barrow is director of Cambridge's Millennium Mathematics Project > and Gresham professor of astronomy at London's Gresham College, the > world's oldest science professorship, founded in 1596. > > He has been a popular writer in Britain since the publication of his > 1986 book, The Anthropic Cosmological Principle, co-authored with > mathematician Frank Tipler, and has lectured on cosmology at the > Venice Film Festival, 10 Downing St., Windsor Castle and the Vatican. > > His most recent book is The Infinite Book: A Short Guide to the > Boundless, Timeless and Endless. His 2002 play, Infinities, was a > smash hit for the two seasons it ran at Milan's La Scala. > > Dr. Barrow said in an interview yesterday he is not sure yet how he > will use the money. He also said he doesn't think the U.S.-based John > Templeton Foundation, which oversees selection of the award's annual > winner, had any particular expectations of what research he would do. > > The essence of his research, as he put it, is the quest for the simple > laws -- " perhaps just one law " -- that lie behind all the complexities > of the universe, " like the laws of nature that are so impressively, > beautifully symmetrical, but can have such highly irregular, > asymmetrical outcomes. " > > What has attracted the Templeton Foundation is his engagement with the > structure of the universe and its laws that make life possible, as > well as the multidisciplinary perspectives he has developed on the > limits of scientific explanation and the mysteries of nothingness and > infinity. > > " Over the past 75 years, " he says, " astronomers have illuminated the > vault of the heavens in a completely unexpected way. " > > They have found, he says, a universe not only bigger than was once > thought, but getting bigger. They have found that life on Earth > comprises complicated atoms of carbon, nitrogen and oxygen whose > nuclei took almost 10 billion years to be formed by " stellar alchemy " > before being blasted through the universe by the explosions of dying > stars. > > " So you begin to understand why it is no surprise that the universe > seems so big and so old. It takes nearly 10 billion years to make the > building blocks of living complexity in the stars and, because the > universe is expanding, it must be at least 10 billion light years in > size. We could not exist in a universe that was significantly smaller. > > " The vastness of the universe is often cited as evidence for the > extreme likelihood of life elsewhere. [but] while there may be life, > even conscious life, elsewhere, sheer size is not compelling. The > universe needs to be billions of light years in size just to support > one lonely outpost of life. " > > Dr. Barrow says that astronomy's revelations -- that a big, old, dark, > cold universe with its planets and stars and galaxies separated by > vast distances is necessary for the creation and existence of > pinpricks of life -- have " transformed the simple- minded, > life-averse, meaningless universe of the skeptical philosophers. > > " It breathes new life into so many religious questions of ultimate > concern and never-ending fascination. Many of the deepest and most > engaging questions that we grapple with still about the nature of the > universe have their origins in our purely religious quest for meaning. > > " We see now how it is possible for a universe that displays unending > complexity and exquisite structure to be governed by a few simple laws > that are symmetrical and intelligible, laws which govern the most > remarkable things in our universe -- populations of elementary > 'particles' that are everywhere perfectly identical. > > " There are some who say that just because we use our minds to > appreciate the order and complexity of the universe around us, there > is nothing more to that order than what is imposed by the human mind. > That is a serious misjudgment. " > > > > ** If you do not wish to receive individual emails, to change your subscription, sign in with your ID and go to Edit My Groups: /mygroups?edit=1 Under the Message Delivery option, choose " No Email " for the Nisargadatta group and click on Save Changes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 16, 2006 Report Share Posted March 16, 2006 Aha, and what's your choice ? Werner Nisargadatta , Antwan Penn <esiasemanuel wrote: > > the bodies r only fleshy and messy , if we (u) choose it to be as such! > > Pete S <pedsie5 wrote: > On Mar 16, 2006, at 8:15 AM, GuruRatings wrote: > > > Message: 11 > > Thu, 16 Mar 2006 16:07:53 -0000 > > " praybob " <gnuteller > > God's scientist receives supreme award > > > > > > P: He failed to see, or say, that the complexity > and vastness of the universe, is the best > refutation for the existence of an omnipotent > creator, because if He were omnipotent what > need could be for such delicate, perishable > bodies to sustain consciousness? Could not an > omnipotent creator have designed a consciousness > which didn't need perishable messy bodies? > > That's where all idealist theories of a universal, eternal > Consciousness come crashing down, if that were so, > why does it need fleshy bodies? > > NNB > > > > > Richest grant goes to cosmologist who says religion best explains laws > > of universe > > > > MICHAEL VALPY > > > > From Thursday's Globe and Mail > > http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/ > > RTGAM.20060316.wxtheory16/BNStory/International/home > > > > > > Cambridge University cosmologist and mathematician John Barrow was > > awarded $1.6-million yesterday to do research into whether God is > > sitting at the control panel behind the Theory of Everything about the > > universe. > > > > He won the 2006 Templeton Prize for Progress Toward Research or > > Discoveries about Spiritual Realities, the world's richest individual > > scholarly research grant. Its initiator, mutual-fund investor Sir John > > Templeton, specified that it be worth more than the Nobel Prize (which > > is worth about $1.5-million) so the media would take it seriously. > > > > Dr. Barrow, 53, author of 17 books and one play (about infinity), > > believes that monotheistic religious thought about God and creation > > offers a better explanation than anything else, including most > > science, of how the universe works. > > > > > > He is one of the leading proponents of the anthropic principle of the > > universe, the dials-set-right idea -- the notion that the universe is, > > in Goldilocks's words, " just right " for life on Earth. Because if it > > were a little bigger or smaller, a little colder or warmer, a little > > younger or older, then life wouldn't exist. > > > > His ideas and research fit to a T many theologians' underlying notions > > of the new cosmology, the idea that, because the universe did not > > create itself, it must have a cause separate from itself. Or as one of > > them, reading Dr. Barrow's acceptance speech for his award, said > > admiringly: " I wish I'd said that. " > > > > Dr. Barrow is director of Cambridge's Millennium Mathematics Project > > and Gresham professor of astronomy at London's Gresham College, the > > world's oldest science professorship, founded in 1596. > > > > He has been a popular writer in Britain since the publication of his > > 1986 book, The Anthropic Cosmological Principle, co-authored with > > mathematician Frank Tipler, and has lectured on cosmology at the > > Venice Film Festival, 10 Downing St., Windsor Castle and the Vatican. > > > > His most recent book is The Infinite Book: A Short Guide to the > > Boundless, Timeless and Endless. His 2002 play, Infinities, was a > > smash hit for the two seasons it ran at Milan's La Scala. > > > > Dr. Barrow said in an interview yesterday he is not sure yet how he > > will use the money. He also said he doesn't think the U.S.-based John > > Templeton Foundation, which oversees selection of the award's annual > > winner, had any particular expectations of what research he would do. > > > > The essence of his research, as he put it, is the quest for the simple > > laws -- " perhaps just one law " -- that lie behind all the complexities > > of the universe, " like the laws of nature that are so impressively, > > beautifully symmetrical, but can have such highly irregular, > > asymmetrical outcomes. " > > > > What has attracted the Templeton Foundation is his engagement with the > > structure of the universe and its laws that make life possible, as > > well as the multidisciplinary perspectives he has developed on the > > limits of scientific explanation and the mysteries of nothingness and > > infinity. > > > > " Over the past 75 years, " he says, " astronomers have illuminated the > > vault of the heavens in a completely unexpected way. " > > > > They have found, he says, a universe not only bigger than was once > > thought, but getting bigger. They have found that life on Earth > > comprises complicated atoms of carbon, nitrogen and oxygen whose > > nuclei took almost 10 billion years to be formed by " stellar alchemy " > > before being blasted through the universe by the explosions of dying > > stars. > > > > " So you begin to understand why it is no surprise that the universe > > seems so big and so old. It takes nearly 10 billion years to make the > > building blocks of living complexity in the stars and, because the > > universe is expanding, it must be at least 10 billion light years in > > size. We could not exist in a universe that was significantly smaller. > > > > " The vastness of the universe is often cited as evidence for the > > extreme likelihood of life elsewhere. [but] while there may be life, > > even conscious life, elsewhere, sheer size is not compelling. The > > universe needs to be billions of light years in size just to support > > one lonely outpost of life. " > > > > Dr. Barrow says that astronomy's revelations -- that a big, old, dark, > > cold universe with its planets and stars and galaxies separated by > > vast distances is necessary for the creation and existence of > > pinpricks of life -- have " transformed the simple- minded, > > life-averse, meaningless universe of the skeptical philosophers. > > > > " It breathes new life into so many religious questions of ultimate > > concern and never-ending fascination. Many of the deepest and most > > engaging questions that we grapple with still about the nature of the > > universe have their origins in our purely religious quest for meaning. > > > > " We see now how it is possible for a universe that displays unending > > complexity and exquisite structure to be governed by a few simple laws > > that are symmetrical and intelligible, laws which govern the most > > remarkable things in our universe -- populations of elementary > > 'particles' that are everywhere perfectly identical. > > > > " There are some who say that just because we use our minds to > > appreciate the order and complexity of the universe around us, there > > is nothing more to that order than what is imposed by the human mind. > > That is a serious misjudgment. " > > > > > > > > > > > > ** > > If you do not wish to receive individual emails, to change your subscription, sign in with your ID and go to Edit My Groups: > > /mygroups?edit=1 > > Under the Message Delivery option, choose " No Email " for the Nisargadatta group and click on Save Changes. > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 16, 2006 Report Share Posted March 16, 2006 damn good question! Werner Woehr <wwoehr wrote: Aha, and what's your choice ? Werner Nisargadatta , Antwan Penn <esiasemanuel wrote: > > the bodies r only fleshy and messy , if we (u) choose it to be as such! > > Pete S <pedsie5 wrote: > On Mar 16, 2006, at 8:15 AM, GuruRatings wrote: > > > Message: 11 > > Thu, 16 Mar 2006 16:07:53 -0000 > > " praybob " <gnuteller > > God's scientist receives supreme award > > > > > > P: He failed to see, or say, that the complexity > and vastness of the universe, is the best > refutation for the existence of an omnipotent > creator, because if He were omnipotent what > need could be for such delicate, perishable > bodies to sustain consciousness? Could not an > omnipotent creator have designed a consciousness > which didn't need perishable messy bodies? > > That's where all idealist theories of a universal, eternal > Consciousness come crashing down, if that were so, > why does it need fleshy bodies? > > NNB > > > > > Richest grant goes to cosmologist who says religion best explains laws > > of universe > > > > MICHAEL VALPY > > > > From Thursday's Globe and Mail > > http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/ > > RTGAM.20060316.wxtheory16/BNStory/International/home > > > > > > Cambridge University cosmologist and mathematician John Barrow was > > awarded $1.6-million yesterday to do research into whether God is > > sitting at the control panel behind the Theory of Everything about the > > universe. > > > > He won the 2006 Templeton Prize for Progress Toward Research or > > Discoveries about Spiritual Realities, the world's richest individual > > scholarly research grant. Its initiator, mutual-fund investor Sir John > > Templeton, specified that it be worth more than the Nobel Prize (which > > is worth about $1.5-million) so the media would take it seriously. > > > > Dr. Barrow, 53, author of 17 books and one play (about infinity), > > believes that monotheistic religious thought about God and creation > > offers a better explanation than anything else, including most > > science, of how the universe works. > > > > > > He is one of the leading proponents of the anthropic principle of the > > universe, the dials-set-right idea -- the notion that the universe is, > > in Goldilocks's words, " just right " for life on Earth. Because if it > > were a little bigger or smaller, a little colder or warmer, a little > > younger or older, then life wouldn't exist. > > > > His ideas and research fit to a T many theologians' underlying notions > > of the new cosmology, the idea that, because the universe did not > > create itself, it must have a cause separate from itself. Or as one of > > them, reading Dr. Barrow's acceptance speech for his award, said > > admiringly: " I wish I'd said that. " > > > > Dr. Barrow is director of Cambridge's Millennium Mathematics Project > > and Gresham professor of astronomy at London's Gresham College, the > > world's oldest science professorship, founded in 1596. > > > > He has been a popular writer in Britain since the publication of his > > 1986 book, The Anthropic Cosmological Principle, co-authored with > > mathematician Frank Tipler, and has lectured on cosmology at the > > Venice Film Festival, 10 Downing St., Windsor Castle and the Vatican. > > > > His most recent book is The Infinite Book: A Short Guide to the > > Boundless, Timeless and Endless. His 2002 play, Infinities, was a > > smash hit for the two seasons it ran at Milan's La Scala. > > > > Dr. Barrow said in an interview yesterday he is not sure yet how he > > will use the money. He also said he doesn't think the U.S.-based John > > Templeton Foundation, which oversees selection of the award's annual > > winner, had any particular expectations of what research he would do. > > > > The essence of his research, as he put it, is the quest for the simple > > laws -- " perhaps just one law " -- that lie behind all the complexities > > of the universe, " like the laws of nature that are so impressively, > > beautifully symmetrical, but can have such highly irregular, > > asymmetrical outcomes. " > > > > What has attracted the Templeton Foundation is his engagement with the > > structure of the universe and its laws that make life possible, as > > well as the multidisciplinary perspectives he has developed on the > > limits of scientific explanation and the mysteries of nothingness and > > infinity. > > > > " Over the past 75 years, " he says, " astronomers have illuminated the > > vault of the heavens in a completely unexpected way. " > > > > They have found, he says, a universe not only bigger than was once > > thought, but getting bigger. They have found that life on Earth > > comprises complicated atoms of carbon, nitrogen and oxygen whose > > nuclei took almost 10 billion years to be formed by " stellar alchemy " > > before being blasted through the universe by the explosions of dying > > stars. > > > > " So you begin to understand why it is no surprise that the universe > > seems so big and so old. It takes nearly 10 billion years to make the > > building blocks of living complexity in the stars and, because the > > universe is expanding, it must be at least 10 billion light years in > > size. We could not exist in a universe that was significantly smaller. > > > > " The vastness of the universe is often cited as evidence for the > > extreme likelihood of life elsewhere. [but] while there may be life, > > even conscious life, elsewhere, sheer size is not compelling. The > > universe needs to be billions of light years in size just to support > > one lonely outpost of life. " > > > > Dr. Barrow says that astronomy's revelations -- that a big, old, dark, > > cold universe with its planets and stars and galaxies separated by > > vast distances is necessary for the creation and existence of > > pinpricks of life -- have " transformed the simple- minded, > > life-averse, meaningless universe of the skeptical philosophers. > > > > " It breathes new life into so many religious questions of ultimate > > concern and never-ending fascination. Many of the deepest and most > > engaging questions that we grapple with still about the nature of the > > universe have their origins in our purely religious quest for meaning. > > > > " We see now how it is possible for a universe that displays unending > > complexity and exquisite structure to be governed by a few simple laws > > that are symmetrical and intelligible, laws which govern the most > > remarkable things in our universe -- populations of elementary > > 'particles' that are everywhere perfectly identical. > > > > " There are some who say that just because we use our minds to > > appreciate the order and complexity of the universe around us, there > > is nothing more to that order than what is imposed by the human mind. > > That is a serious misjudgment. " > > > > > > > > > > > > ** > > If you do not wish to receive individual emails, to change your subscription, sign in with your ID and go to Edit My Groups: > > /mygroups?edit=1 > > Under the Message Delivery option, choose " No Email " for the Nisargadatta group and click on Save Changes. > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 16, 2006 Report Share Posted March 16, 2006 Nisargadatta , Pete S <pedsie5 wrote: > > > On Mar 16, 2006, at 8:15 AM, GuruRatings wrote: > > > Message: 11 > > Thu, 16 Mar 2006 16:07:53 -0000 > > " praybob " <gnuteller > > God's scientist receives supreme award > > > > > > P: He failed to see, or say, that the complexity > and vastness of the universe, is the best > refutation for the existence of an omnipotent > creator, because if He were omnipotent what > need could be for such delicate, perishable > bodies to sustain consciousness? Could not an > omnipotent creator have designed a consciousness > which didn't need perishable messy bodies? > > That's where all idealist theories of a universal, eternal > Consciousness come crashing down, if that were so, > why does it need fleshy bodies? > > NNB > Everythings gotta eat. ) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 16, 2006 Report Share Posted March 16, 2006 Nisargadatta , Antwan Penn <esiasemanuel wrote: > > damn good question! > > Werner Woehr <wwoehr wrote: Aha, and what's your choice ? > > Werner > In all matters spiritual.......there is no such thing as 'a damn good question'. toombaru Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 16, 2006 Report Share Posted March 16, 2006 lol, that was funny! is there anything funny in all matters spiritual, or does that depend on the activity toombaru2006 <lastrain wrote: Nisargadatta , Antwan Penn <esiasemanuel wrote: > > damn good question! > > Werner Woehr <wwoehr wrote: Aha, and what's your choice ? > > Werner > In all matters spiritual.......there is no such thing as 'a damn good question'. toombaru ** If you do not wish to receive individual emails, to change your subscription, sign in with your ID and go to Edit My Groups: /mygroups?edit=1 Under the Message Delivery option, choose " No Email " for the Nisargadatta group and click on Save Changes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 16, 2006 Report Share Posted March 16, 2006 Nisargadatta , Antwan Penn <esiasemanuel wrote: > > lol, that was funny! is there anything funny in all matters spiritual, or does that depend on the activity All matters spiritual are made up in the frontal cortex of the human brain. The brain cells invent stories to help explain the origin of their imaginary phantom named 'Me " . toombaru Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 16, 2006 Report Share Posted March 16, 2006 huum, awake-- a lie to oneself within the unity of a single consciousness. Through bad faith a person seeks to escape the responsible freedom of being-for-it-self. Bad faith rests on a vacillation between transcendence and facticity which refuses to recognize either one for what it really is or to synthesize them. Pete S <pedsie5 wrote: ha, and what's your choice ? Werner P: Isn't that obvious? Fantasy labeled as idealism. Non- acceptance of flesh, separates the Annas and the Antwans from those who are awake. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 16, 2006 Report Share Posted March 16, 2006 Nisargadatta , Antwan Penn <esiasemanuel wrote: > > huum, > awake-- > a lie to oneself within the unity of a single consciousness. Through bad faith a person seeks to escape the responsible freedom of being-for-it-self. Bad faith rests on a vacillation between transcendence and facticity which refuses to recognize either one for what it really is or to synthesize them. > > paaaainnting shadows on the wall.............. ) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.