Dear Oliver,

>>The knowledge of science and the knowledge of religion.<<
Yes, there is an obvious difference between what science and what religion can say about reality, and also the criteria for “truth” are different. Nevertheless, there are some methodological similarities, see my above comments about models, or the seminal work of Ian Barbour, Myths, Models and Paradigms, SCM 1974.

>>mathematics … is embedded into the physical universe<<
There is a difference between informal (naive) and formal mathematics. Perhaps the former is embedded.

>>God entering a temporal (finite) realm sets a limit some aspect of the divine entity. <<
Returning to my metaphor, you can also say that the corpuscular character of an elementary particle sets a limit on its wave-like aspect, and vice-versa, but I do not know what that would mean. Nevertheless let me repeat, what is called Divine Action, i.e. God’s involvement in the physical world, is one that occupied Christian philosophers’ and theologians’ minds for centuries. Speculations based on recent insights from science, like chaos theory or some aspects of QM (John Polkinghorne) might be interesting but are still just that, speculative attempts at resolving the transcendent-immanent enigma.

>>Jesus dying on the Cross is at the opposite pole to my having (hypothetically) an immortal humand blood cell that will out survive space-time<<
I don’t understand the relevance of this. The “supernatural” part about Jesus is His Resurrection, not the way he died. On the other hand, I never heard you had an “immortal blood cell that will out-survive space-time“. In the religious (Christian) language (or model of Ultimate Reality) it is your soul that is immortal, whatever interpretations, comprehensible to a 21st century educated person, one might try to give these concepts.

Dear George,

Thanks.

Addressing some of your points out-of-order:

The idea of Jesus dying is to make an aspect of god human and mortal. Morality is nor anattribute of God. A part of me (a blood cell) cannot be immortal because I am human. Your point about an immortal soul is understood but didn't enter my reasoning ystrday.

Roger Penrose has raised the issue of mathematics in discribing the early universe, wherein he noted that boundary conditions do lend themselves to dynamical equations (which he associates with differential calculus). Regarding naive mathematics some of the curiousities are fairly straitforeward, ratios, commonalities of masses and inverse functions.

I agree that there is much spectulation in cosmological physics and they all can't be correct. However, particle physics has been reasonably effective conforming its predictions.

Thanks for the Barfour cite

Correction:

"Roger Penrose has raised the issue of mathematics in discribing the early universe, wherein he noted that boundary conditions do *NOT*lend themselves to dynamical equations (which he associates with differential calculus). Regarding naive mathematics some of the curiousities are fairly straitforeward, ratios, commonalities of masses and inverse functions.

Sorry my fingers are too slow and my proof reading poor.

OUG! I thought you weren't going to blow a fuse? smile. ( The chicken or the egg )

* Isn't it both? Because the chicken would have to teach the chick how to do stuff and the egg to reproduce the chickens.

* The chickens most recent ancestor laid the egg. Think of it this way: along the slow and steady evolution from single celled organisms to full fledged modern chickens, at some point, if you could observe every animal in that evolutionary line, you would have to say, "well, this one's not a chicken, but the next one is." The line simply must be drawn somewhere. So whatever egg that the first chicken hatched from would have come first!

* There is no final answer but the most reasonable conclusion is that a certain breed of dinosaur laid an egg, then a period of extremely cold weather preserved the egg. Whilst that occurred the egg genetic form was rearranged into a creature similar to the chicken. At first the animal could have been very different from the chicken we know today but over time it changed into the chicken form we are so familiar with today.

* Neither the chicken, nor the egg came first. It was the rooster that came first.

* The egg and the chicken came at the same time. The chicken and the egg are just two different names for the same process or being. It's like water on its way to becoming ice is still water, and vice versa.
* Chicken. Read your Question again you will come to know why.
* Darwin's theory; the chicken egg came from a different species.

* There is no answer. Since the question is a paradox, there is no answer. If the chicken came first, it came from the egg. If the egg came first, then it came from a chicken, and so forth.


TT

OUG.

* Evolution suggests that both chickens and eggs evolved from creatures and "egg-things" you would not recognize to be part of the lineage. (Similar to how, in the very distant past, some molecule[s] that was [were] not what we would call "life" became "life".) That was the beginning.
* There is no correct answer that can be proven. It's all theory.

The real answer is simple.

Two different species and I'll just ashume that they were birds, and just simply crossed the species barrier. And no, nothing has to teach anything because the fact of instinct leads most living creatures in the world including the non parental care policy that most reptiles adopted as even seen today.

And presto, you have a new transitional creature that evolution will test run before calling it a defined species. In this process, some will adapted and some wont.

Survival of the fittest will always dictate all living life on this planet and the biggest Question is, will religion survive in this world of mathematicals? one can only watch as everything else moves on. Smile.

TTm

http://www.scottklarr.com/topic/165/9th-foundation-falsehood-of-creationism---transitional-species/

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20081101072653AA0wqkS

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional/part1b.html

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2009/02/photogalleries/darwin-birthday-evolution/

http://www.ukqna.com/science/1347-1-science-ukqna.html

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M5Ddsg6kHMg

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FBuPHbuI9WM&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0puoduvfBxA&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OQPHJQpmLtA&feature=related

OUG? Why does not the bible from your own high morals of order, say things more on whats need in the 21 century rather than read a cover to cover on some book that end somewhere in the twilight-zone.

A wise man once said, A book shall only take you so far and the imagination will do the rest.

OUG! Time to change the record. lol.

TTM