Search FQXi


If you are aware of an interesting new academic paper (that has been published in a peer-reviewed journal or has appeared on the arXiv), a conference talk (at an official professional scientific meeting), an external blog post (by a professional scientist) or a news item (in the mainstream news media), which you think might make an interesting topic for an FQXi blog post, then please contact us at forums@fqxi.org with a link to the original source and a sentence about why you think that the work is worthy of discussion. Please note that we receive many such suggestions and while we endeavour to respond to them, we may not be able to reply to all suggestions.

Please also note that we do not accept unsolicited posts and we cannot review, or open new threads for, unsolicited articles or papers. Requests to review or post such materials will not be answered. If you have your own novel physics theory or model, which you would like to post for further discussion among then FQXi community, then please add them directly to the "Alternative Models of Reality" thread, or to the "Alternative Models of Cosmology" thread. Thank you.

Contests Home


Previous Contests

What Is “Fundamental”
October 28, 2017 to January 22, 2018
Sponsored by the Fetzer Franklin Fund and The Peter & Patricia Gruber Foundation
read/discusswinners

Wandering Towards a Goal
How can mindless mathematical laws give rise to aims and intention?
December 2, 2016 to March 3, 2017
Contest Partner: The Peter and Patricia Gruber Fund.
read/discusswinners

Trick or Truth: The Mysterious Connection Between Physics and Mathematics
Contest Partners: Nanotronics Imaging, The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation, and The John Templeton Foundation
Media Partner: Scientific American

read/discusswinners

How Should Humanity Steer the Future?
January 9, 2014 - August 31, 2014
Contest Partners: Jaan Tallinn, The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation, The John Templeton Foundation, and Scientific American
read/discusswinners

It From Bit or Bit From It
March 25 - June 28, 2013
Contest Partners: The Gruber Foundation, J. Templeton Foundation, and Scientific American
read/discusswinners

Questioning the Foundations
Which of Our Basic Physical Assumptions Are Wrong?
May 24 - August 31, 2012
Contest Partners: The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation, SubMeta, and Scientific American
read/discusswinners

Is Reality Digital or Analog?
November 2010 - February 2011
Contest Partners: The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation and Scientific American
read/discusswinners

What's Ultimately Possible in Physics?
May - October 2009
Contest Partners: Astrid and Bruce McWilliams
read/discusswinners

The Nature of Time
August - December 2008
read/discusswinners

Forum Home
Introduction
Terms of Use

Order posts by:
 chronological order
 most recent first

Posts by the author are highlighted in orange; posts by FQXi Members are highlighted in blue.

By using the FQXi Forum, you acknowledge reading and agree to abide by the Terms of Use

 RSS feed | RSS help
RECENT POSTS IN THIS TOPIC

Paul Butler: on 6/8/14 at 3:15am UTC, wrote Dear John, I can understand the editing. Although my replies can be long...

John Merryman: on 6/4/14 at 11:37am UTC, wrote Thanks Paul, Putting it both, so it hits your email; Paul, You do put...

Paul Butler: on 6/4/14 at 2:21am UTC, wrote Dear John, I am also putting my reply to your reply that you put in my box...

Paul Butler: on 6/4/14 at 2:11am UTC, wrote Dear Vladimir, In this world there are so many languages that it is not...

John Merryman: on 5/31/14 at 22:57pm UTC, wrote Paul, I thought I'd put this reply here, so it would go to your in box. ...

Paul Butler: on 5/31/14 at 0:53am UTC, wrote Dear Hoang, Thank you for your support. I read your paper and liked much...

Vladimir Rogozhin: on 5/29/14 at 11:13am UTC, wrote Thank you, Paul. You're right: «Only the one who wrote man's structure can...

Paul Butler: on 5/20/14 at 3:13am UTC, wrote Dear Aaron, I read your paper and found it interesting. Since we live in...


RECENT FORUM POSTS

Steve Agnew: "There are some questions that do not seem to have answers in the classical..." in Schrödinger’s Zombie:...

Steve Agnew: "Yes, there are two very different narratives. The classical narrative works..." in Schrödinger’s Zombie:...

Joe Fisher: "Today’s Closer To Truth Facebook page contained this peculiar piece of..." in First Things First: The...

Steve Dufourny: "lol no indeed it is not a lot,like I said I liked your general ideas.I have..." in The Demon in the Machine...

Steve Agnew: "There are three assumptions...is that a lot? The aether particle mass, the..." in The Demon in the Machine...

Steve Dufourny: "Joe,so lol you speak to God or it has send you this information lol ?..." in First Things First: The...


RECENT ARTICLES
click titles to read articles

First Things First: The Physics of Causality
Why do we remember the past and not the future? Untangling the connections between cause and effect, choice, and entropy.

Can Time Be Saved From Physics?
Philosophers, physicists and neuroscientists discuss how our sense of time’s flow might arise through our interactions with external stimuli—despite suggestions from Einstein's relativity that our perception of the passage of time is an illusion.

Thermo-Demonics
A devilish new framework of thermodynamics that focuses on how we observe information could help illuminate our understanding of probability and rewrite quantum theory.

Gravity's Residue
An unusual approach to unifying the laws of physics could solve Hawking's black-hole information paradox—and its predicted gravitational "memory effect" could be picked up by LIGO.

Could Mind Forge the Universe?
Objective reality, and the laws of physics themselves, emerge from our observations, according to a new framework that turns what we think of as fundamental on its head.


FQXi FORUM
October 13, 2019

CATEGORY: How Should Humanity Steer the Future? Essay Contest (2014) [back]
TOPIC: How Should Humanity Steer the Future? by Paul N Butler [refresh]
Bookmark and Share
Login or create account to post reply or comment.

Author Paul N Butler wrote on Apr. 14, 2014 @ 14:24 GMT
Essay Abstract

This paper looks at the following questions in the light of some expected future technology advancements. 1. Can man control his behavior in such a way that he will not destroy himself and this world as he advances technologically? 2. Is man alone in this endeavor or are there others that will share in or possibly even dominate in determining how the future is steered? Within the scope of the allowed size of this paper an attempt is made to explore some of the effects that technological advancements will likely have on life styles in the future generated by the progressive development of three key technologies.

Author Bio

The author has long studied how the world that we live in works and how we can best function in it. Part of our function is to plan wisely for the future existence and betterment of man and then to work to fulfill those plans in such a way that our labors continue to support and enrich the lives of all men now and continue to do so more and more as we work toward ultimate future goals. Because this is my intent in this world, I present this paper as a small step in that direction.

Download Essay PDF File

Bookmark and Share



John C Hodge wrote on Apr. 15, 2014 @ 15:18 GMT
“…has progressively deteriorated to a great degree in that respect from about the 1960’s to the present.”

What lead you to this observation? The 60s with Kennedy and Johnson (great society) have been thought of as having great progress in the social agenda of equality of outcome and other social issues.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Joe Fisher wrote on Apr. 15, 2014 @ 15:36 GMT
Dear Mr. Butler,

Even though I did not understand a word of your passionately written essay that dealt with technology, I am sure that the judges of this contest will grasp its significance, and score it appropriately.

Based only on my observation, I have concluded that all of the stars, all of the planets, all of the asteroids, all of the comets, all of the meteors, all of the specks of astral dust and all real things have one and only one thing in common. Each real thing has a material surface and an attached material sub-surface. All material surfaces must travel at the constant “speed” of light. All material sub-surfaces must travel at an inconsistent “speed” that is less than the “speed” of light. Einstein was completely wrong when it came to physical observation. It would be physically impossible for light to move as it does not have a surface or a sub-surface. Abstract theory cannot ever have unification. Only reality is unified because there is only one reality.

The interferometer that Michelson and Morley used in their solar wind experiment had a surface. The room in which the experiment was conducted had a surface. Michelson and Morley had surfaces. All surfaces travel at the “speed” of light. The only thing that did not have a surface was the light that the pair used. No wonder it performed unusually.

There is no need to build ships that could move close to the speed of light. Every ship’s surface, be it the Golden Hind, or the Monitor, or the Poseidon atomic submarine has always traveled at the constant “speed” of light. Every ship’s sub-surface has always traveled at an inconsistent speed that is less than the constant “speed” of light.

With the utmost regards,

Joe Fisher

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Author Paul N Butler wrote on Apr. 17, 2014 @ 03:12 GMT
Dear John,

It is true that some laws were enacted with the supposed purpose of creating racial and other equality outcomes in the country in the 1960’s, but one only has to look at the actual outcomes generated to see that full social and economic equality has not yet resulted from those and other later laws and various court decisions, etc. Not only have blacks and women not achieved...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share



Author Paul N Butler wrote on Apr. 17, 2014 @ 17:49 GMT
Dear Joe,

I am sorry that you did not understand a word of my paper, but then I did not expect many to fully understand all of it because much of it goes well beyond man’s current level of development unless my previous papers have been read and understood and some of it covers concepts in more depth that I had not previously mentioned or had only been mentioned without as much detail. ...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share


Joe Fisher replied on Apr. 18, 2014 @ 15:28 GMT
I made a mistake with the visible - invisible comment. Surfaces move because they have a surface. Light does not move because it does not have a surface. A surface can be internal or external. For instance: The exterior surface of the cyclotron and the interior surface of the cyclotron can only travel at the constant "speed" of light. The sub-atomic particles that are sent through the sub-surface of the cyclotron move at an inconsistent speed that is less than the constant "speed" of light. When the sub-atomic particles collide, they must create a tiny surface that then causes a spark. This tiny surface then is able to briefly travel at the constant "speed" of light. Once the tiny surface fails to maintain the constant "speed" of light, the light disappears.

I hope this answers your question.

Joe

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Joe Fisher replied on Apr. 18, 2014 @ 18:22 GMT
The constant 'speed" of light cannot be exceeded, and that is why a surface cannot move away from an attached sub-surface. I only use the term "speed" of light because I do not want to enter the abstract maze that Newton entered into and have to try explaining inertia and acceleration. An object is never at rest. Whether an object is microscopic or macroscopic, its surface must only be able to travel at the "speed" of light because that is the only speed that cannot be exceeded. The fact that the sub-surface below your skin is moving at an inconsistent speed less than the constant "speed" of light and the sub-surface of a crocodile obviously differs from yours only means that your mode of movement is different, but not the "speed" of light that you are both moving at.

Joe

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Georgina Woodward wrote on Apr. 18, 2014 @ 12:15 GMT
Hi Paul,

a very surprising read. I found the first section very Christianity focused which I was not expecting and I felt the length and depth of the discussion was somehow not quite appropriate. More like a sermon than a science essay. You express some strong, maybe controversial, views. But I guess there is no harm in that. The Revelation of Saint John did not get a mention though. That is surprising. I would guess, from what I read, that you are Christian, and not just to please the neighbors, and so foresee Christian prophesy being fulfilled in the future.

The technology section was complex. I have read your replies to others that explain that you are talking about very advanced technology of the future.I have mixed feelings about tapping into the brains of other living creatures. On the one hand, as you explain, it could help us have a better comprehension of them. We could develop an "Avatar (movie)" like synergy with other lifeforms. However on the other hand it does not feel right to me. It could be misused which would be animal abuse.

An interesting journey through your diverse thoughts, thank you.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Author Paul N Butler wrote on Apr. 20, 2014 @ 23:48 GMT
Dear Joe,

In your first comment of the last 2 comments, once the tiny surface was created and began to travel at the speed of light wouldn’t it continue to travel at the speed of light and thus continue to exist as long as it was illuminated by external light? Do you believe that matter (sub-atomic) particles possess a surface all the time or only that one is generated by a collision, but they don’t normally possess a surface? If they don’t have a surface normally, what is actually colliding?

In your last comment, it would seem to me that if your skin is moving in some direction at the speed of light and the inside of your body (the sub-surface) is moving in the same direction, but at a speed that is less than the speed of light either your skin would increase the speed of your insides to equal the speed of light so that your insides would stay inside of you (if it is strong enough to do so) or your skin would break and continue to travel at the speed of light away from your slower moving insides. If that is not the case, please tell me how the slower moving insides can remain inside the faster moving outside.

Sincerely,

Paul B.

Bookmark and Share


Joe Fisher replied on Apr. 21, 2014 @ 14:32 GMT
Dear Paul B,

Obviously, the sub-surface of your insides must be traveling at a slower rate of speed than your surface skin is traveling at. Your surface skin must be traveling at a speed that cannot be exceeded, therefore it cannot peel away. A layer of sub-surface insides are attached to your surface skin. Then comes the surfaces of your arteries and veins which have to be traveling at the maximum speed allowed. Those surfaces are attached to sub-surfaces that have to be moving at a rate of speed less than that of a surface. Blood has to be pumped around your system in order to increase its speed closer to the maximum speed of the surface allowed, but not to exceed it.

As for the speed of a colliding sub-atomic particle in a cyclotron, I do not think an actual collision takes place. I think that a surface and a subsurface are formed. I do not believe that only two sub-atomic particles are involved. I think that there may be as many as several billion sub-atomic particles that are brought together and form the same sort of surface that is formed naturally and exposed to exist by flashlight, spotlight, and searchlights operating in the dark.

Thank you for posing such intriguing questions.

With the highest of regards,

Joe Fisher

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Joe Fisher replied on Apr. 21, 2014 @ 17:47 GMT
Eureka! The surface can travel in any direction. The sub-surface can only attempt to travel inwardly!

Thank you Mr. Butler and God Bless you for your terrific questioning.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Joe Fisher replied on Apr. 22, 2014 @ 13:09 GMT
Eureka correction. The sub-surface can only move inwardly or outwardly. Only the sub-surface can expand or contract. There must be trillions of naturally formed sub-atomic particles everywhere. A considerable number of them must be smaller than the Higgs-Bosun. A fabricated vacuum only gets rid of air, the natural sub-atomic particles remain. As each particle has a tiny surface and sub-surface all of them travel at the "speed" of light. When the opposing bursts of energy are fired through a cyclotron, they must cause the sub-atomic particles to start to congregate closer together. They form a tiny critical mass that then causes a spark. The spark does not have a surface and the surface the spark adheres to promptly collapses and the cloud of naturally formed sub-atomic particles disperses and the spark goes out.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Author Paul N Butler wrote on Apr. 21, 2014 @ 19:00 GMT
Dear Georgina,

I thought it useful to go into adequate detail to transfer to the reader that might not be familiar with the structure of the Christian church the particular members that I was referring to. I have found that the word sermon is usually used today in one of two ways. Those in the church think of it as a discourse given by a respected higher level or more advanced member of...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share


Georgina Woodward replied on Apr. 22, 2014 @ 05:44 GMT
Paul, I only meant what I said drawing on my own experience of listening to sermons, no offense intended. Thank you for putting your essay in context by explaining how you have put together the many ideas over the years. Georgina

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Author Paul N Butler wrote on Apr. 23, 2014 @ 03:19 GMT
Dear Joe,

I was not thinking that the skin would travel faster than the speed of light, but that the slower moving insides would not be able to keep up with the skin and would, therefore, fall behind the skin. I thought that you were saying that surfaces only travel at the speed of light if they are illuminated. Internal arteries would not be illuminated would they? If not, could they...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share


Anonymous replied on Apr. 25, 2014 @ 13:20 GMT
Paul,

The real Universe must consist only of real light and real matter. Real light does not have a surface; therefore, real light must always be stationary. Real matter does have a surface and a sub-surface. Because real matter has a surface, it must always be in motion. That motion can only be of an absolute constant speed. I used the term “speed” of light to make it easier for me to explain. Now I will simply state: all real matter moves at a real constant speed. Material surface can only speed through inert light. Material sub-surface must only speed at an inconsistent speed. The real Universe is infinite. This means that there must be an infinite amount of real stationary light in the real Universe. This also means that there must be an infinite amount of real matter in the real Universe. The real Universe exists here and now

In your postulated abstract universe, you only have an abstract amount of finite space. You also only have an abstract finite amount of matter. You have tried your best to measure the immeasurable. You have your abstract speed of light, and your abstract sub-atomic particles. You have your abstract commencement of your abstract universe and your abstract guess about its abstract future.

Does this help?

Joe Fisher

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Joe Fisher replied on Apr. 25, 2014 @ 16:06 GMT
Paul,

You must also take into account that as there is only matter, although matter seems to be separated into bits and pieces, in an infinity, all of the seeming separate surfaces of the sub-sub-microscopic, the sub-microscopic, the microscopic, the general, the macroscopic and the hyper macroscopic might be interlinked. After all, you have to be touching something at all times. Your surface and the surface of whatever you are touching have to be traveling at the same constant speed. Your sub-surface and the sub-surface of whatever you are touching has to be traveling at an inconsistent speed in order for you and whatever you are touching to be observed as being apparently different.

Joe

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Author Paul N Butler wrote on Apr. 23, 2014 @ 04:35 GMT
Dear Georgina,

You are welcome. I have found that giving adequate information can often eliminate or at least minimize misunderstandings. No offense taken. What has your experience been listening to sermons. If it was bad, I hope mine were different. I tried to not make it any longer than necessary to show the flow of my progression of thought over time. As an example, I stopped with the production of light in Genesis: 1 and didn’t cover the next part where God describes the production of matter and the different structural sublevels even though I think that is really interesting because man on this planet does not currently know of their existence. I hope you noticed that the earth is not just this planet, but it includes everything that man currently considers to be the complete universe plus all the structural sublevels that can be reached by control of the fifth vector motion, etc. The world is constructed like a cage within a cage within a cage, etc. You are locked in one cage until you have been made ready to proceed and then the key is given to open it up to the next larger cage, which contains more things to learn before you are given the key to open it up to the next larger cage, etc. It is very hierarchical in structure. There, that is a very short sermon for you.

Sincerely,

Paul B.

Bookmark and Share



Vladimir Rogozhin wrote on Apr. 26, 2014 @ 20:04 GMT
Dear Paul,

Great essay with deep socio-philosophical, scientific and technological analysis of the current state of the world, original ideas. Current state of the world and fundamental science requires, more than ever, the deepest of Cartesian doubt.

Thank FQXi that brings together people for "brainstorming" on very important topics of modern Humanity!

I wish you good luck!

All the Best,

Vladimir

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Author Paul N Butler wrote on Apr. 27, 2014 @ 00:42 GMT
Dear Joe,

It appears to me that you make many assumptions and treat them as facts without giving any logical reason for them. Of course, you may have valid reasons for them and have just not given them yet, so I will point out a few and you can give me your basis for them.

1. “The real Universe must consist only of real light and real matter”. It seems to me that other things...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share


Joe Fisher replied on Apr. 28, 2014 @ 12:38 GMT
Paul,

Do you have a real surface? Do you think that you are the only real thing that has a surface? Is your real surface older, younger or the same age as any other surface? At what point does your real surface commence? At what point does it end? Every star, every planet, every asteroid, every meteor, every spec of dust has a real surface does it not? Every particle has a real surface. Do you really think that a microscope could unerringly display the "smallest" piece of matter? There is no "smallest" in an infinity.

Joe

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Author Paul N Butler wrote on Apr. 28, 2014 @ 03:43 GMT
Dear Valdimir,

Thank you for your analysis of my paper. I have (after much study of the structure of man’s abilities and limitations) come to the conclusion that man has no hope of both accomplishing great advancements in technical structural knowledge and at the same time not use that knowledge to destroy himself without outside help. After an analysis of the outside help possibly...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share


Vladimir Rogozhin replied on May. 29, 2014 @ 11:13 GMT
Thank you, Paul. You're right: «Only the one who wrote man's structure can overcome man's faults.» As well said Gregory Gutner: "Event held in grasping structure means understanding" (G.Gutner Ontology mathematical discourse).

This also applies to a person, and to nature. But need another dream, a Great Dream and "Common Cause". We need a "Great Common Cause" to save Peace, Nature and Humanity. Great Dream always go alond with Freedom without fear, Hope, Love, Justice. It's time. We start the path. The New Era and a New Generation demanded action.

Sincerely,

Vladimir

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Author Paul N Butler wrote on Apr. 28, 2014 @ 23:17 GMT
Dear Joe,

For your argument to work, you first need to show me your evidence that the universe is infinite.

Sincerely,

Paul B.

Bookmark and Share



Peter Jackson wrote on May. 6, 2014 @ 11:34 GMT
Paul,

So many think God is inappropriate in science, but like you I disagree. There are unknowns, and there's morality, so plenty of use for beliefs. What I disagree with is the common use of beliefs in science, where anything outside present doctrine is rejected a priori. That's common and kills advancement in understanding. You treat the subject well and in a very balanced way.

I was pleased to also find resonance with you views on particle dynamics, indeed I apply something similar, to a point, to good effect in my essay via '4-vectors' in a sphere. I'm intrigued by the possibilities of what you describe as 5 vectors. I've derived something perhaps slightly equivalent as the quasar jet based galaxy (and cosmic) recycling process, but (luckily!) not in any way controllable by man (If you'd like to look after the contest publication is imminent).

But I hope you'll read my essay first. It shows an understandable classical dynamic behind QM, and even has a touch of romance! Despite 5-vectors I suspect you agree causal free will. I fear it'll be swamped by theorising, but we must try! Thanks for a wide ranging well balanced viewpoint and valuable interesting and novel ideas.

Best wishes

Peter

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Hoang cao Hai wrote on May. 14, 2014 @ 02:49 GMT
Dear Paul N Butler

Very breakthroughs and interesting - 10 points to cheer for your passion.

Hải.CaoHoàng

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Author Paul N Butler wrote on May. 17, 2014 @ 23:26 GMT
Dear Peter,

Thank you for your comment about treating the subject well and in a balanced way. I have found that many tend to think that belief in God only applies to areas where man lacks knowledge and, therefore, falls back on a belief in God to explain the unknowns, but I have found that the scriptures contain much valuable scientific information that has been presented to man even...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share



Author Paul N Butler wrote on May. 20, 2014 @ 03:13 GMT
Dear Aaron,

I read your paper and found it interesting. Since we live in a universe that is composed of motions that together form a motion continuum, it is not possible to go back in time because the complete set of all the conditions of all motions (their motion amplitudes, directions of motion, and positions of the motions in space) that were current conditions, but are no longer the...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share



Author Paul N Butler wrote on May. 31, 2014 @ 00:53 GMT
Dear Hoang,

Thank you for your support. I read your paper and liked much of it. It is true that there are several points on which all people will agree that could be common objectives. You could find that implementing those objectives could be very difficult unless you also allow for individual preferences, however. As an example, you could probably get everyone to agree that a diet of...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share



John Brodix Merryman wrote on May. 31, 2014 @ 22:57 GMT
Paul,

I thought I'd put this reply here, so it would go to your in box.

Paul,

You really are making a genuine and sincere effort to understand my point of view and for that I commend you. Yet the reason you don't fully understand or accept it is part of what I'm trying to explain. Since it doesn't relate to the frame you are working from, it is as though I'm simply speaking...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Author Paul N Butler wrote on Jun. 4, 2014 @ 02:11 GMT
Dear Vladimir,

In this world there are so many languages that it is not practical for me to communicate in them all. I, therefore, restrict all communication to the English language as it is at this time the most widely used in general around the world. It is difficult enough to decipher the intended meanings of words in just one language because each word can usually represent many...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share



Author Paul N Butler wrote on Jun. 4, 2014 @ 02:21 GMT
Dear John,

I am also putting my reply to your reply that you put in my box here, so that you can reply to it here also if you desire to do that rather than reply to it in your box. Of course, you can reply to it in both places or just in yours also if you wish.

Dear John,

Thank you for your more detailed description of your beliefs concerning God. I think that you somewhat...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share


John Brodix Merryman replied on Jun. 4, 2014 @ 11:37 GMT
Thanks Paul,

Putting it both, so it hits your email;

Paul,

You do put an awesome amount of effort into these replies and I certainly wish I had enough time to reply in kind. I do edit much of what I would say, for time considerations.

Yes, by about a thousand years ago, the cloistered priesthood had determined the trinity stood for the spirit, the soul and the body,...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Author Paul N Butler wrote on Jun. 8, 2014 @ 03:15 GMT
Dear John,

I can understand the editing. Although my replies can be long they would be much longer if I tried to cover in detail every possible response that I consider to all of the points that you mention. You made this reply shorter than some others, so I will try to do the same to make it easier for you to respond adequately.

You mention that “but the fact remains that Jesus...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share



Login or create account to post reply or comment.

Please enter your e-mail address:
Note: Joining the FQXi mailing list does not give you a login account or constitute membership in the organization.