Comments on: How To Split An Atom Part 2 http://howtosplitanatom.com/news/how-to-split-an-atom-part-2/ Exploring The Intersections Of Technology and Society Thu, 24 May 2012 19:59:28 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1 By: commentor http://howtosplitanatom.com/news/how-to-split-an-atom-part-2/comment-page-1/#comment-22263 commentor Tue, 19 Jun 2007 05:12:32 +0000 http://howtosplitanatom.com/?p=167#comment-22263 Steve, thanks for the response. I appreciate your respectful tone and willingness to engage at an intellectual level on this, keeping emotions from affecting the conversation too much.<br>I agree that there may be truth in what Kaku says. In fact I would be surprised if there werent some truth in it.<br>I was just wondering... From your comment, it seems almost as though you believe that either there is no absolute truth or, if there is, that it is impossible for us to find it. My question, then, is: do you think that there is complete absolute truth? If not, then how can we justify science at all, or how can it be at all useful? Respectfully yours. Steve, thanks for the response. I appreciate your respectful tone and willingness to engage at an intellectual level on this, keeping emotions from affecting the conversation too much.
I agree that there may be truth in what Kaku says. In fact I would be surprised if there werent some truth in it.
I was just wondering… From your comment, it seems almost as though you believe that either there is no absolute truth or, if there is, that it is impossible for us to find it. My question, then, is: do you think that there is complete absolute truth? If not, then how can we justify science at all, or how can it be at all useful? Respectfully yours.

]]> By: commentor http://howtosplitanatom.com/news/how-to-split-an-atom-part-2/comment-page-1/#comment-1413 commentor Tue, 19 Jun 2007 00:12:32 +0000 http://howtosplitanatom.com/?p=167#comment-1413 Steve, thanks for the response. I appreciate your respectful tone and willingness to engage at an intellectual level on this, keeping emotions from affecting the conversation too much. I agree that there may be truth in what Kaku says. In fact I would be surprised if there werent some truth in it. I was just wondering... From your comment, it seems almost as though you believe that either there is no absolute truth or, if there is, that it is impossible for us to find it. My question, then, is: do you think that there is complete absolute truth? If not, then how can we justify science at all, or how can it be at all useful? Respectfully yours. Steve, thanks for the response. I appreciate your respectful tone and willingness to engage at an intellectual level on this, keeping emotions from affecting the conversation too much.
I agree that there may be truth in what Kaku says. In fact I would be surprised if there werent some truth in it.
I was just wondering… From your comment, it seems almost as though you believe that either there is no absolute truth or, if there is, that it is impossible for us to find it. My question, then, is: do you think that there is complete absolute truth? If not, then how can we justify science at all, or how can it be at all useful? Respectfully yours.

]]> By: Steve S http://howtosplitanatom.com/news/how-to-split-an-atom-part-2/comment-page-1/#comment-22262 Steve S Tue, 03 Apr 2007 20:54:28 +0000 http://howtosplitanatom.com/?p=167#comment-22262 I will neither argue Faith (with a capital 'F') or religion with you. What I will say is that seeking to make religion compatible with spirituality is a noble goal. If there is one Truth (with a capital 'T'), then we must admit to ourselves that this Truth may actually be a combination of quite of few aspects of various religious, mythological and scientific traditions. It is difficult, if not impossible to know for sure.<br><br>What Michio Kaku presents is one possible interpretation of the universe based on one direction that theoretical physics is currently heading. While he did not take the time to explain it here, M-Theory and String Theory which most of his "opinions" are based on have some substantial mathematical rigor behind them. Does that make them absolutely correct? No, any scientist worth his salt will tell you that.<br><br>My point, if I dare make one, is that I feel the best way to live is to keep an open mind. The universe is too apt to change on a whim to simply close yourself of to possibilities that do not align with your world-view. Take Mr. Kaku's words, but take them with a grain of salt and you might find yourself better for it.<br><br>Thanks for the comment! I will neither argue Faith (with a capital 'F') or religion with you. What I will say is that seeking to make religion compatible with spirituality is a noble goal. If there is one Truth (with a capital 'T'), then we must admit to ourselves that this Truth may actually be a combination of quite of few aspects of various religious, mythological and scientific traditions. It is difficult, if not impossible to know for sure.

What Michio Kaku presents is one possible interpretation of the universe based on one direction that theoretical physics is currently heading. While he did not take the time to explain it here, M-Theory and String Theory which most of his “opinions” are based on have some substantial mathematical rigor behind them. Does that make them absolutely correct? No, any scientist worth his salt will tell you that.

My point, if I dare make one, is that I feel the best way to live is to keep an open mind. The universe is too apt to change on a whim to simply close yourself of to possibilities that do not align with your world-view. Take Mr. Kaku's words, but take them with a grain of salt and you might find yourself better for it.

Thanks for the comment!

]]> By: Steve S http://howtosplitanatom.com/news/how-to-split-an-atom-part-2/comment-page-1/#comment-579 Steve S Tue, 03 Apr 2007 15:54:28 +0000 http://howtosplitanatom.com/?p=167#comment-579 I will neither argue Faith (with a capital 'F') or religion with you. What I will say is that seeking to make religion compatible with spirituality is a noble goal. If there is one Truth (with a capital 'T'), then we must admit to ourselves that this Truth may actually be a combination of quite of few aspects of various religious, mythological and scientific traditions. It is difficult, if not impossible to know for sure. What Michio Kaku presents is one possible interpretation of the universe based on one direction that theoretical physics is currently heading. While he did not take the time to explain it here, M-Theory and String Theory which most of his "opinions" are based on have some substantial mathematical rigor behind them. Does that make them absolutely correct? No, any scientist worth his salt will tell you that. My point, if I dare make one, is that I feel the best way to live is to keep an open mind. The universe is too apt to change on a whim to simply close yourself of to possibilities that do not align with your world-view. Take Mr. Kaku's words, but take them with a grain of salt and you might find yourself better for it. Thanks for the comment! I will neither argue Faith (with a capital ‘F’) or religion with you. What I will say is that seeking to make religion compatible with spirituality is a noble goal. If there is one Truth (with a capital ‘T’), then we must admit to ourselves that this Truth may actually be a combination of quite of few aspects of various religious, mythological and scientific traditions. It is difficult, if not impossible to know for sure.

What Michio Kaku presents is one possible interpretation of the universe based on one direction that theoretical physics is currently heading. While he did not take the time to explain it here, M-Theory and String Theory which most of his “opinions” are based on have some substantial mathematical rigor behind them. Does that make them absolutely correct? No, any scientist worth his salt will tell you that.

My point, if I dare make one, is that I feel the best way to live is to keep an open mind. The universe is too apt to change on a whim to simply close yourself of to possibilities that do not align with your world-view. Take Mr. Kaku’s words, but take them with a grain of salt and you might find yourself better for it.

Thanks for the comment!

]]> By: commentor http://howtosplitanatom.com/news/how-to-split-an-atom-part-2/comment-page-1/#comment-22261 commentor Sat, 31 Mar 2007 03:53:56 +0000 http://howtosplitanatom.com/?p=167#comment-22261 As for this YouTube video with Kako (was that his name? I'm not trying to be disrespectful, I just can't remember)... What about the theory that all things are constantly decaying? Is that just totally ignored? You gotta love how ecumenical this guy is. As if Buddhism and Christianity could ever mix! It's one or the other--it is impossible that it would be some combination. They are essentially and diametrically opposed. Don't let his big words and rather amazing amount of intelligence impress you to the point of thinking he is omnicient. He never actually proves anything he says. He is only explaining what he believes. Much of what he says is perfect heresy. It is too easy to believe the things he says because we want to believe them--they sound just phenominal, and are exciting to the adventurous among us. However, this doesn't make them true. Here is something to think about: parts of what he is saying are not compatable with the Bible. The Bible was written by around 40 different human authors over a period of 1500 years, it deals with the deepest spiritual, theological, anthropological, and philosophical questions man seeks to understand, and it is completely and thoroughly internally consistent. To add to this, no part of it, rightly interpreted, has ever been proven wrong. If this is not the hand of God, what is? And if this man is, in some points, disagreeing with God, Who is by definition Truth and Being, and the ultimate existence of those things, then we cannot allow ourselves to be entranced by his fascinating but mislead theories, and thus led into a cultish belief in impossibilities. As for this YouTube video with Kako (was that his name? I'm not trying to be disrespectful, I just can't remember)… What about the theory that all things are constantly decaying? Is that just totally ignored? You gotta love how ecumenical this guy is. As if Buddhism and Christianity could ever mix! It's one or the other–it is impossible that it would be some combination. They are essentially and diametrically opposed. Don't let his big words and rather amazing amount of intelligence impress you to the point of thinking he is omnicient. He never actually proves anything he says. He is only explaining what he believes. Much of what he says is perfect heresy. It is too easy to believe the things he says because we want to believe them–they sound just phenominal, and are exciting to the adventurous among us. However, this doesn't make them true. Here is something to think about: parts of what he is saying are not compatable with the Bible. The Bible was written by around 40 different human authors over a period of 1500 years, it deals with the deepest spiritual, theological, anthropological, and philosophical questions man seeks to understand, and it is completely and thoroughly internally consistent. To add to this, no part of it, rightly interpreted, has ever been proven wrong. If this is not the hand of God, what is? And if this man is, in some points, disagreeing with God, Who is by definition Truth and Being, and the ultimate existence of those things, then we cannot allow ourselves to be entranced by his fascinating but mislead theories, and thus led into a cultish belief in impossibilities.

]]> By: commentor http://howtosplitanatom.com/news/how-to-split-an-atom-part-2/comment-page-1/#comment-559 commentor Fri, 30 Mar 2007 22:53:56 +0000 http://howtosplitanatom.com/?p=167#comment-559 As for this YouTube video with Kako (was that his name? I'm not trying to be disrespectful, I just can't remember)... What about the theory that all things are constantly decaying? Is that just totally ignored? You gotta love how ecumenical this guy is. As if Buddhism and Christianity could ever mix! It's one or the other--it is impossible that it would be some combination. They are essentially and diametrically opposed. Don't let his big words and rather amazing amount of intelligence impress you to the point of thinking he is omnicient. He never actually proves anything he says. He is only explaining what he believes. Much of what he says is perfect heresy. It is too easy to believe the things he says because we want to believe them--they sound just phenominal, and are exciting to the adventurous among us. However, this doesn't make them true. Here is something to think about: parts of what he is saying are not compatable with the Bible. The Bible was written by around 40 different human authors over a period of 1500 years, it deals with the deepest spiritual, theological, anthropological, and philosophical questions man seeks to understand, and it is completely and thoroughly internally consistent. To add to this, no part of it, rightly interpreted, has ever been proven wrong. If this is not the hand of God, what is? And if this man is, in some points, disagreeing with God, Who is by definition Truth and Being, and the ultimate existence of those things, then we cannot allow ourselves to be entranced by his fascinating but mislead theories, and thus led into a cultish belief in impossibilities. As for this YouTube video with Kako (was that his name? I’m not trying to be disrespectful, I just can’t remember)… What about the theory that all things are constantly decaying? Is that just totally ignored? You gotta love how ecumenical this guy is. As if Buddhism and Christianity could ever mix! It’s one or the other–it is impossible that it would be some combination. They are essentially and diametrically opposed. Don’t let his big words and rather amazing amount of intelligence impress you to the point of thinking he is omnicient. He never actually proves anything he says. He is only explaining what he believes. Much of what he says is perfect heresy. It is too easy to believe the things he says because we want to believe them–they sound just phenominal, and are exciting to the adventurous among us. However, this doesn’t make them true. Here is something to think about: parts of what he is saying are not compatable with the Bible. The Bible was written by around 40 different human authors over a period of 1500 years, it deals with the deepest spiritual, theological, anthropological, and philosophical questions man seeks to understand, and it is completely and thoroughly internally consistent. To add to this, no part of it, rightly interpreted, has ever been proven wrong. If this is not the hand of God, what is? And if this man is, in some points, disagreeing with God, Who is by definition Truth and Being, and the ultimate existence of those things, then we cannot allow ourselves to be entranced by his fascinating but mislead theories, and thus led into a cultish belief in impossibilities.

]]> By: How To Split An Atom | How To Split An Atom http://howtosplitanatom.com/news/how-to-split-an-atom-part-2/comment-page-1/#comment-502 How To Split An Atom | How To Split An Atom Wed, 21 Mar 2007 17:22:24 +0000 http://howtosplitanatom.com/?p=167#comment-502 [...] « How To See The Future | Home | How To Split An Atom Part 2 » [...] [...] « How To See The Future | Home | How To Split An Atom Part 2 » [...]

]]>