This conversation is closed.

Does everything have to come from something else?

The origin of life and the universe.

  • thumb
    Aug 3 2012: Even Higgs boson cannot make something massless into something having mass. "Nothing" is the absolute absence of any existing entity. Regression cannot be infinite. At some point while searching in the opposite direction of the Arrow of Time a final obstacle will be confronted, that obstacle must be an Uncaused Cause. Further regression is impossible. Yes! Everything must come from something else.
    • Aug 4 2012: Thank you for being clear and direct. I really respect that and now we can move forward. Though I’m sure you know where this is going. This initial mass you speak of must have the potential to progress into all that we are. Because you have affirmed that everything comes from something else, this would mean that this initial mass must have come from something else. The only ways I can see it is 1. This initial mass came from something else as you have said. 2. Everything except this initial mass comes from something else. Right, those are the only 2 reasonable options?
      • thumb
        Aug 4 2012: All the Standard Model eggs are in the Higgs basket. The "creative" power of the boson depends on pre-existing protons and electrons, so the search for the root, or uncaused, cause of everything must continue. The "initial mass" you mention is not the root, or uncaused, cause of Everything because some to-be-defined force caused it to exist. That force/being is the uncaused cause of Everything. Your #2 above suggests that the "initial mass" might be the uncaused cause of Everything. . . . . it is not. Thank you!
        • Aug 4 2012: I’m not a man of faith. I’m a man of reason but I do like where this is going. If I understand what you are the initial “uncaused cause” 1. Has no cause 2. Has no mass. This would mean that everything except for the catalyst comes from something else. Being a man of science we pride ourselves on logic. Though I believe your answer is correct where is the logic? Q.P. efficiently answers this question.
    • Aug 5 2012: If further regression were impossible then it would be false that everything has to come from something else. If you think that there is an uncaused cause (just one? why just one?), then you don't think that everything has to come from something else. Thus, I do not understand why you say these things that clearly contradict each other.
      • thumb

        E G

        • 0
        Aug 6 2012: Edward :

        Regression can be infinite , why do you say it can't ? And also infinite regression do not imply necessarily that there isn't an uncaused cause as you seem to think . Imagine that everything has came from something at the beginning and because the everything is infinite you can talk about infinite regression and an uncaused cause at the same time . Thus you can avoid the contradiction Gabo talked about above , just play a bit with the meaning of 'everything' .
        • thumb
          Aug 6 2012: Flexibility in word meaning is not my style. Everything means every thing. Feel free to play with word meanings, but I'll pass, thanks. Thomas Aquinas constructed the Cosmological Argument and I don't feel up to challenging his intellect with mine, or with yours. Thank you!
      • thumb

        E G

        • 0
        Aug 7 2012: I'm sure that Thomas Aquinas would agree with me ....... I didn't mean to be impolite , sorry .
  • thumb
    Aug 1 2012: Is nothing actually something?
    • thumb
      Aug 1 2012: Nothingness weighs more than something. Lawrence Krauss showed a video in one of his talks of people who measured the distribution of weight inside a proton and the shocking thing was that most of the mass existed between the quarks.
      • thumb
        Aug 2 2012: I got a lot out of the lk videos and something from nothing etc. great stuff.
  • thumb
    Aug 9 2012: Yes, it does have to come from something else!
    What we are talking about is what that original starting thing was.

    When talking about the newly-found quantum physics discoveries, Einstein said the famous words “God does not play dice” meaning that randomness was not a part of the universe (and physics) as he understood it.

    There is a physics theory put forth by professor Milo Wolff (Wave Structure of Matter) which attempts to explain quantum experiments without recourse to randomness and chance. If you like the approach at attempting to unite relativity with quantum physics (which HAS to be done one day somehow or other), then my version of the question would be this:

    What came first wave-like vibrations of space, or consciousness?

    Having studied Milo Wolff's theory and come to some quite significant conclusions it is becoming more certain to me that some form of consciousness can cause matter, but that matter cannot cause consciousness to appear (look up the dimensional analysis of consciousness of Alex Green).
  • thumb
    Aug 3 2012: Maybe not, maybe not...
  • Aug 1 2012: Chicken or the Egg ....

    I vote for the CHICKEN!!
    • Aug 1 2012: I vote for eggs by millions of years before the chicken. :)
      • Aug 5 2012: yes ... millions of millions of "eggs"
    • thumb
      Aug 1 2012: I vote for the third option, the ancestor of the chicken.
      • Aug 2 2012: Gabo Moreno is talking about your third option in his witty comment.
      • Aug 5 2012: Ah .... so now we are back to "Which came first, the DINOSAUR or the egg?!! " :O)

        I vote for the (clucking) Dinosaur!!

        But seriously ... what an interesting topic!
        • thumb
          Aug 6 2012: Right, you go back to the first organism to lay an egg, then whatever organisms existed before it until you regress the whole way to complex chemistry, sorted :)
        • thumb
          Aug 6 2012: Surely that would require the whole egg system to 'evolve' in a single generation ?

        • thumb
          Aug 6 2012: Well most likely it's case of natural selection, like fish eggs, some organisms could have produced eggs with a tougher outer layer but couldn't hide them as well as fish can. Hence natural selection begins and only those with the strongest outer layer survives, genes get passed on, predators get better at breaking the shells, this continues until you've modern eggs. And of course a lot less likely is the idea that the gene for egg shell production is just a mutation and happened quickly.
        • thumb
          Aug 7 2012: Yes selection would do it, but only after the organism had gained the ability to produce eggs with tougher, & less tougher shells. This is the tricky part; giving selection something to chose from. This brings us back to mutations, which we agree is 'unlikely'.

        • thumb
          Aug 7 2012: It doesn't even need to be a mutation, it could be variation within species such as height. Some soft eggs may have just naturally contained more of hard substance A and eventually this hard substance could just increase in regards to the amount of it in eggs.
        • Aug 7 2012: Pete,

          No, that would not require the "entire egg system" to evolve within a single generation. The original eggs were the very same unicellular organisms that could mix with other cells, recombine (remix), and split. No, not even that. The very first eggs were any cells able to split after growing a bit. Thus, the most primitive cells were also the very first eggs. There was no difference.

          I think that if you knew a bit more of biology you would not make such exaggerated claims about what would or would not be required for the first eggs to evolve among other things.
        • thumb
          Aug 8 2012: Hi Gabo.
          This is the whole problem. In order to see evolution, one must be really smart & understand all the detail. This doesn't apply to anything else. We put men into space; I can read up on that & be totally convinced on the physics. Fusion power has many advantages over fission; I get it entirely. Theory of relativity; no problem. Aeroplanes; check. Submarines; check. Etc. etc.
          Evolution, makes no sense to me. It doesn't add up. I don't really need a Phd to 'get it'. If it made sense; I would get it.

        • Aug 9 2012: I am sorry Pete, but evolution adds up quite easily, and is much easier to understand than relativity. Only you have to check the facts rather than follow after creationist quackery. You do not need a PhD to get it. You need to read without those propagandist's glasses over your eyes. How difficult was for you to think of eggs as cells? Not much. But you think of eggs instead as chicken eggs and demand that for such thing to evolve the whole system would have to evolve at once without even thinking about what you are saying. Why would you do that? because you have been so trained by your reliance in creationist quackery (look at a system, the more complex the better, and do not even try to imagine how it could have evolved. Instead, just make the claim that it would have had to evolve complete in one go and feel good about believing instead on a magical being puffing them into existence because that "makes sense."). If you were only 1% as skeptical when it comes to Bible as you are to any scientific discipline that challenges your beliefs, you would not be a Christian. I don't think you would even believe your surrounding reality.

        • thumb
          Aug 9 2012: Hey Gabo.
          I'm sure I've told you this before. For the first 35 years of my life there was no God, no quacks; evolution was all I had. I wanted to 'get it' , & was disappointed that it could not be more conclusive. I gave the experts their due place, I believed what they taught, but I could not see how there could be any certainty in their conclusions. I regretted that I would eventually leave this place without answering the basic questions. I wanted the truth, always have.
          For me, there is no way such a complex universe could have come together without intelligent planning & execution. I agree that has to be faith, but to believe it happened without intelligence requires more faith, in my opinion. I think you are so immersed in the detail that you have lost perspective. We just have to differ....

  • thumb
    Aug 1 2012: Re: The origin of life and the universe.

    The origin of the life forms we see today is reasonably explained by evolution. Abiogensis is not so well understood, but I guess we went from amino acids to self replicating molecules to RNA to DNA to viruses to bacteria to multicellular life forms etc.

    The origin of the universe is an interesting question. What do you define as the universe? Does it have boundaries? Could there be multiple universes. If the big bang theory is correct in general what was before? Does time exist before the big bang? Is nothing actually something?

    I'm okay from the point where matter and energy as we know it exploded out and gradually formed stars etc.

    The early bits, the outside bits hurt my super ape brain.
    • Aug 1 2012: im not sure... are you saying everything does have to come from something else?
      • thumb
        Aug 2 2012: In everyday life on a human scale there is cause and effect. Energy and mass conservation.

        Life probably comes from something. Amino acids etc, then through evolution to the life we see today.

        When it comes to the universe, I can grasp the formation of stars and planets etc. they came from matter, gravity, fusion etc.

        What is outside the universe we can observe or theorise, what existed before the big bang, what happened during the big bang, even defining nothing or singularities, hurts my poor head. Dark matter and energy. The space between atoms or subatomic particles etc. Maybe what we call nothing is something. what goes on at a quantum level, I don't know.

        What I would say is saying god made it doesn't explain how and leaves you with the same sort of questions about god instead of the universe.
        • Aug 3 2012: I’m taking that response as your way of saying, I’m not sure. I believe that answer is yes, everything in the universe has to come from something else, including that which started it all. It is a paradox. Quantum philosophy explains this paradox in a very logical way. It is the simplest and only logical explanation that I can think of.
  • Aug 1 2012: Nope.
    • Aug 1 2012: please elaborate.
      • Aug 1 2012: Well, for one, all of our knowledge about causality depends on there being time. Einstein has shown that time is not a constant, thus causality does not operate, or at least not in our common usage concept of causality. Then, that we might have found that all or most of what we witness has come from something else does not necessarily mean everything has to. Then, if everything came from something else, then we have to think that either regression is infinite (which may or may not imply time, which, as we said, is not constant), or the whole thing goes in circles (which again may or may not imply time, which is not a constant). Thus, whatever our experience, we cannot know for sure if everything has to come from something else. It does not make sense for everything to come from something else, yet, we do not have the mind, concepts, and vocabulary to talk about timelessness at all. Thus, we can't conclude either way other than to say that it is not a necessary truth that everything has to come from something else. All we could say is that so far it looks that way (though some physicists might disagree), and that logic alone will not help us figure it out.
        • Aug 2 2012: If I understand you correctly you are basically explaining the idea of not being certain. Q.P. makes the concept of linear time useless and it has a profound answer for this paradox.
        • thumb
          Aug 2 2012: That is kind of what I was getting to. Understanding the limits of reality is pushing the limits of what our apish brains evolved to perceive and understand. What is time. Is nothing something. What is outside the universe. What existed before. How can matter pop into and out of existence.

          I suggest some things may seem to come from nothing but nothing is something.

          Or perhaps there has always been something. But something different to our current observable reality.

          Also something can come from nothing if offset. 0 = + 1 -1. Perhaps dark matter offsets light matter.
        • thumb

          E G

          • 0
          Aug 7 2012: Gabo :

          Maybe it's true that whatever our experience we can't say if causality occurs or not for certain but the reason you gave for it do not proves it because it doesn't matter if time is relative to the process or constant in order for causality to appear , what matters is there to be time . Einstein never said there isn't time or a succession of events .
      • Aug 4 2012: Yes, you've got it. I doubt that something like QP, which looks so much like new-age religious pseudoscience, would have anything to offer to solve any paradoxes. Horoscopes can't answer serious questions.
      • Aug 4 2012: You can claim as you wish Yet, despite you seem quite sincere about what you are saying, it is convoluted and confused even in your own mind. Such philosophy so detached from reality, as imaginative as you might perceive it, does not solve anything. Imagining that you solved something does not mean you solved it. Reading about the perplexing interpretations of quantum mechanics, imagining that you understood them and that they really reflect what's going on, mixing all of that with new age religiosity, and then jumping on it to build such convoluted philosophy is no conductive to reasonable conclusions.
        • Aug 4 2012: Though you have assured me that you are a man of many assumptions which I see as being counterproductive in deductive reasoning I’m sure once you actually get into the theory even you would agree with it. I say this because the philosophy is designed to be universal.
        • thumb
          Aug 6 2012: RE: "For one you can't claim. . . "
          I, too, would rather that you not continue. No shock Gabo that you disagree with my logic, that is a dead horse we need not continue beating. If you honestly cannot see how an uncaused cause cannot be a natural reality then I must confess I am stark blind to your rationale, and believe you are so to mine. Our exchanges have been many and have all led nowhere Gabo. I wish you the best, but I prefer not to continue contesting your opinions and observations. Allow for faith my friend. Be well.-Edward
        • thumb
          Aug 8 2012: I'm delighted to see my less-that-hospitable remark did not cause any grief Gabo. We are on the threshhold of the boundary between natural and supernatural. The language I speak regarding the latter is foreign to you. You assess it as "horoscopes; detached from reality; not conducive to reasonable conclusions; total failure from the beginning; etc." My belief in the Biblical account is an essential part of who I am. I know you view it as snake oil, I did also. My reluctance to defend the idea of a Necessary Being as the Uncaused Cause of Everything is not spurious. We have butted heads too long on this matter. We both defend what we believe, and you do a very good job, I admire your intellect, education, and decency in debate. But I "know" I will never convince you to allow for faith, and you will never convince me to abandon mine. Let me resign from further contests with you about such matters. I look forward to less contentious dialogs with you. Thanks Gabo.
      • thumb
        Aug 5 2012: RE: "I agree with you. . . "
        Perhaps formally stating my argument is in order here to make you see the logic of my conclusion that everything finite (natural) comes from (is caused by) some other natural (finite) thing:
        1) Nothing can satisfy the concept of the Uncaused Cause but a necessary being.
        2) So if the Uncaused Cause is so much as possible, a being is necessary.
        3) It is surely possible for a necessary being to exist—theism is not incoherent after all.
        4) So an Uncaused Cause in the form of a Being exists necessarily.
        5) So an Uncaused Cause in the form of a Being exists actually.
        • Aug 5 2012: I completely agree in your logic. Your basis for this conclusion is the fact that “infinite regression” is impossible which would mean the catalyst for existence would necessarily be an “uncaused cause.” You are also saying “God” as a being that is an “uncaused cause” exists because it is necessary. This is logical. I’m sure this “Uncaused Cause Concept” can be easily represented as a true statement mathematically. My issue here is that the concept is highly philosophical those who are not already inclined will most likely not relate to it. The uncaused cause it a great starting point. My book Quantum Philosophy does profoundly add to this idea.
        • Aug 5 2012: Meh,

          For one, you can't claim with certainty that anything natural is finite, nor that everything natural has to come from something else. Logical failure failure from the beginning. If we still went for your next stuff:

          1. Why couldn't an uncaused cause be a property of natural reality, rather than a "being", let alone a "necessary" one?

          See, total failure from the beginning. Total failure at the very next step after the first total failure, and I rather not continue.

          Completely disagree with your faulty logic.
        • thumb

          E G

          • 0
          Aug 6 2012: Edward :

          I could agree that the idea of 'uncaused cause' implies its necessity but it doesn't mean (as Gabo said) that the uncaused cause is a being , you need to give more reasons for it in order to prove you claim. Anyway , it could be a being , so let's make from it a reasons to believe , a reason which suggest an uncaused cause=being (God) exist . Isn't it enough for theism ? I think it is .
          Anyway it is at least as good as any atheistic reason which suggest for some minds that God do not exist .

          What Gabo is wrong about is that he thinks there is no reason to believe , perhaps he said it to you too .
        • Aug 8 2012: Sorry Edward, but I sincerely cannot see why an uncaused cause cannot be one or many natural realities. The only way to be convinced about such a thing, please try and follow regardless of our differences, would be if we were able to test and understand each and every bit of natural reality and know for sure that no natural thing(s) could be an uncaused cause. Even then, there would still be the open question about whether the unnatural uncaused cause had to be a being, or else just some unnatural cause(s), that started the whole natural part, but is not a being. For that, only to start, we would need some kind of way of distinguishing where the unnatural starts, which should be quite the problem.

          So you see? There is nothing clearly logical about what you said. Only a bunch of unfounded assumptions. Or else, assumptions on top of other unfounded assumptions. I can honestly say that I do not know if there is an uncaused cause, or else if we cannot talk about cause/effects at some points within nature just because our experiences and cause/effect relationships come from a reality where time is a given, while scientific understanding includes realities, far from those experiences, which are timeless. So, not knowing is fine by me. Claiming to know with unfounded premises, that I can't admit.

          I know we wil not agree before I even comment. I expect though to be able to give you a sense of why your logic fails. You gratuitously accept faulty premises mixed with faulty logic. I don't. Even if that means that I end with no answers.
        • thumb

          E G

          • 0
          Aug 8 2012: Gabo :

          What about this :

          I agreed that the 'uncaused cause' is not necessarily a being , part of a different reality than ours , all I'm saying is that it could be a being. It's true that I can't prove if the 'uncaused cause' is unnatural but I have reasons to think it could be more than natural , example :
          - the limits the science has reached to , physics for example has reached at some very tiny particles and we still don't have the all answers ....;
          - some metaphysical questions and paradoxes ;
          - the concept of infinite nobody has entirely understood so far;
          - the existence of more dimensional spaces like 1D , 2D , 3D , 4D ..... about this we are sure but what guarantees me there aren't more ? ; if you think at the relations between this spaces , the way everyone bigger includes the others and if you continue to imagine something more than 4D you can reach at something 'unnatural' very easy.

          I agree that what Edward said rest mainly on assumptions but I don't agree that this assumptions are unfounded , they are some reasonable assumptions because I provide reasons for them. I don't try to prove something, I don't claim I know something . Let's say Edward want to go beyond limits with a reasonable imagination . Does this logic fails ? I don't think so . So what Edward said is still worth to think about .
        • Aug 8 2012: My sentiments exactly E.G, there is too much truth in the universe to be content with simply not knowing, however I do find fulfillment while searching.
        • Aug 9 2012: No problems ever Edward. Be well.
  • thumb
    Jul 31 2012: No, in a vacuum particles start to appear and then annihilate themselves relatively quickly, this phenomena is attributed to quantum flux i.e a change in the quantum state of empty space.
    • Aug 1 2012: Yeah they say electrons vibrate in and out of existence too but let me ask you this, are you saying that vacuum particles come from nowhere and nothing and goes nowhere and back to nothingness?
      • thumb
        Aug 1 2012: Pretty much, I think the odd time particles have remained in existence for a while or at least lasted longer than the normal time
        Also after the particles collide in CERN do the quarks not just fizzle out of existence?
        • Aug 1 2012: I believe that energy can only be altered in state and not destroyed furthermore all things that can exist is a state of energy, when a thing takes form it is simply a brief state of energy. The properties may change but its essence is eternal. It fizzles in from one state and out in another. We just need to learn how to measure the transference. The book Quantum Philosophy has found a method.
      • thumb
        Aug 5 2012: Re: "I'm not a man of faith. I'm a man of reason. . . "
        regarding your #1) : My answer to the question before us is "Yes". I do not consent to your subtitution of the word "catalyst" for my phrase "uncaused cause."
        Regarding your #2): You are correct in saying the uncaused cause has no mass. Everything EXCEPT the Uncaused Cause comes from something else. The logic lies in the idea that infinite regression is impossible. You are in fact a man of faith because you accept QP's explanation by faith. It is a young, immature theory at best with years of experimentation yet to be done. By the way, efficiently answering a question does not necessarily correctly answer the question. Thank you!
        • Aug 5 2012: I agree with you. I didn’t mean to substitute your words. I know how substituting words can sometimes be a relegation. I can see how regression being impossible is a logical conclusion but unfortunately I do have to say I cannot see the logic within your conclusion. One wrong does not make a right. You’re right again about faith, accepting knowledge can be considered an act of faith but that is really just a way of substituting the word logical. My goal is to explain a logical way of reaching your conclusion.
  • thumb
    Jul 31 2012: There are lots off discussions here from different angles ......lots of comments, thoughts, ideas are available here already.
  • thumb
    Jul 31 2012: The universe we live in is governed by the rules of causality imo. My reasoning was that a world without a cause can have no effect. In our universe, there MUST be a cause and an effect, and everything is a cause/effect in some way.

    However, I've also came to a weird conclusion that we also live in a world full of paradoxes. There have been paradoxes in many theories out there, but they still are useful and help us out for some odd reason. Like 0=0 but 0=/=0 at the same time. Makes absolutely no sense lol.

    If we're trying to make sense of something illogical like a paradox, and some how we found a logic to paradoxes, then the illogical wouldn't be illogical anymore, it'll be logical. And that in itself is kind of a paradox.

    I really don't know what to think about paradoxes to be honest
    • Aug 1 2012: I like you concept of cause and effect because it moves me to my next point, which is before time was time, didn’t cause and effect need a catalyst. I mean it too must come from something. Quantum Philosophy defines these rules like cause and effect as God’s Laws. They are part of the paradigm not above the paradigm.
      • thumb
        Aug 1 2012: If there was an initial catalyst for Cause and Effect, wouldn't there be an initial catalyst for that initial catalyst?
      • Aug 2 2012: William,

        Then I think you have bought into some creationist propaganda. You have bought from a snake-oil salesman. Now I know that reading about quantum philosophy would be a waste of time. Like reading horoscopes or new age bullfeces.
        • Aug 2 2012: Those are passionate words. I see you have standards.

          Quantum Philosophy is a “model of existence” in the event that God did create the universe. In this model, Q.P. has found a huge missing element in current physics. It has nothing to do with religious beliefs. It does not try to prove the existence of God. Q.P. does not take faith into consideration. However from this viewpoint Q.P. has found a true paradigm-shifter for the concepts in physics especially pertaining to time, space, and consciousness.

          You can read the first chapter of the book by googling “look inside Quantum Philosophy meanings answers and promises” or we can continue to chat and I’ll explain it bit by bit.
        • thumb
          Aug 2 2012: Oh dear. Here comes the god of the gaps.

          Seriously there is no evidence for any gods or goddesses. Just speculative guesses to try fill gaps in our understanding. Usually based on logical fallacies or to reinforce some cultural religious tradition.

          God made it. But god is made by an even greater god and so on until you get to the point where you realise we just don't know and there is no evidence for gods. Just a nifty little trick to plonk in something defined as eternal and outside time to fill a gap.
        • Aug 3 2012: I don’t believe in “God” that you speak of. I prefer to look at the universe through the lenses of logic not magic. You guys please try to stay focused. Don’t get your panties in a bunch just because you associate the title Gods Laws with faith based or religious beliefs. The Quantum world is a miraculous place for those with an open mind. No one tries to burn you at the stake for mentioning the God particle.
        • thumb
          Aug 3 2012: Hi William. The God label for a Bosun was a poor choice. It's linked something natural with something supernatural.

          Logic has its place but can lead you down all sorts of rabbit holes especially if your premise are bogus. If you are going to suppose a God is real some evidence would be more compelling that coming up with some logic musings.

          Quantum Philosophy is a “model of existence” in the event that God did create the universe. Sounds like you start of by assuming there is something called God that this created the universe and then play games with science.

          Why assume a god. Why assume one. Why not a whole team. And while you are at it why not assume a daddy and mummy god and goddess made the universe creator bunch of gods.

          Why do you assume I where panties and that they are in a twist. Sexist language doesn't help your argument.

          Resigned. Sighing rather than upset here.

          You don't need to mention panties just because the whole concept is built on bogus assumptions and works back from the answer you arbitrarily select when there are infinite other variations that you could play the same games with.

          Logic games like this do not prove anything. Have fun anyway.

          You seem like a smart guy. Are you just playing around with this or do you actually believe there is a creator god, just one, and that this is some profound understanding rather than metaphysical navel gazing? If so I'm curious why?
        • Aug 4 2012: I apologize for mentioning panties I thought it would get your attention because we were getting off track. It was offensive.

          I read God of the Gap. Q. P. talks about it and says they are morons. listen to what I am saying and disassociate other concepts I’m sure reason will prevail. Q.P. used a scientific logic to identify what is.

          These thought of God or many Gods, I never much took an interest in. was it one mass that started the big bang or many. I never really cared. I’m sure there is a reason to spend energy in finding the answer but that is not my purpose.

          The logic is clear and easily understandable by anyone who has no strong pre-concepts or strong mental associations. I would actually like to get into the meat of it. I promise no spiritual foolishness.
      • Aug 4 2012: Hi William,

        I went, searched, read a bit, and came back just as convinced that QP is new age snake-oil. Just as I expected from your words.

        Sorry and be well anyway.
        (Hum, had not checked the authorship. I stand by my evaluation nonetheless. Sorry again.)
        • Aug 4 2012: Being that I wrote the book I can assure you that it is not a snake oil. There is no deceptive essence or underlined intent. It is written in a way that man of faith can relate but I assure you it is pure the philosophy is logical from a scientific stand. If we actually focused on the concepts and not whatever it is we are currently talking about I’m sure you would agree with what it is that I am saying. There is way too much tension between science and religion. Once again, I am not into faith or religion my battlefield is logic. Let’s head to my arena.
      • Aug 4 2012: Agreed that snake-oil might not be the right word. I think you are sincere. Yet, I found no better words. Yours would be the kind of snake-oil people get to buy into, like those myths about rhinoceros horns being good for whatever ills. Sold by true believers even though it is a myth. In other words, you are not selling snake-oil as a quack, but quite convinced that it is good for your health.
        • Aug 4 2012: I take no offence to that last comment especially because you have not seen the logic in the philosophy. I do thank you for those semi kind words and I’m not being facetious.

          One stranger to another