00:49
Faizan
English Version
Credo in Deum
(I Believe in God)
The mathematician looking at the world, perhaps the Universe, looks at it mathematically, perhaps geometrically.
Should he look at it any other way, it might surprise him.
A farmer perhaps looks at the world organically, into its nature and the fertilization process, along with its biological, and geographical natural surroundings; as well as the birds and the bees, and the way of the blossom.
The question may be: what is incomplete, and what is not? Is their view without hypocrisy? Or pretense! Is there a better view?
So, does the mathematician rely on what is already in place?
Yes, of course he does, or there'd be nothing to calculate.
Now for the farmer, must he not also rely on that which is already in place, beautiful, available to work with, and in blossom; so it would seem so?
In other words, without grass already grown, man would never be able to produce it; nor even its pigmentation.
In essence all that is grown, is what was and is available, it was already in place before the farmer got to it; he is just reproducing.
Now for a third thought on this equation.
This might be called 'Reason' if we want to use the word Philosophy, or 'Theology' if that word fits, or 'Logic' for common-sense, whatever:
The scientist will never discover anything by physics that is not already there for the finding.
Why? It would work against its nature!
That is to say: what has been already put in place, is in place to be found.
So what they discover has simply been undiscovered until now, ancient history for God.
Poetic Prose
No: 4488/ 7-25-2014
Versión en Español
Creo en Dios
El matemático mira al mundo, tal vez al universo, matemáticamente, o tal vez geométricamente.
Si él lo viera de otra forma, tal vez lo sorprendería.
Un agricultor tal vez mira al mundo orgánicamente, en su naturaleza y el proceso de fertilización, junto con sus biológicos y geográficos entornos naturales; como también a las aves y las abejas, y la forma del florecimiento.
La pregunta podría ser: ¿Qué está incompleto, y qué no lo está? ¿Su interpretación es sin hipocresía? O ¡farsa! ¿Hay una mejor interpretación?
Credo in Deum
(I Believe in God)
The mathematician looking at the world, perhaps the Universe, looks at it mathematically, perhaps geometrically.
Should he look at it any other way, it might surprise him.
A farmer perhaps looks at the world organically, into its nature and the fertilization process, along with its biological, and geographical natural surroundings; as well as the birds and the bees, and the way of the blossom.
The question may be: what is incomplete, and what is not? Is their view without hypocrisy? Or pretense! Is there a better view?
So, does the mathematician rely on what is already in place?
Yes, of course he does, or there'd be nothing to calculate.
Now for the farmer, must he not also rely on that which is already in place, beautiful, available to work with, and in blossom; so it would seem so?
In other words, without grass already grown, man would never be able to produce it; nor even its pigmentation.
In essence all that is grown, is what was and is available, it was already in place before the farmer got to it; he is just reproducing.
Now for a third thought on this equation.
This might be called 'Reason' if we want to use the word Philosophy, or 'Theology' if that word fits, or 'Logic' for common-sense, whatever:
The scientist will never discover anything by physics that is not already there for the finding.
Why? It would work against its nature!
That is to say: what has been already put in place, is in place to be found.
So what they discover has simply been undiscovered until now, ancient history for God.
Poetic Prose
No: 4488/ 7-25-2014
Versión en Español
Creo en Dios
El matemático mira al mundo, tal vez al universo, matemáticamente, o tal vez geométricamente.
Si él lo viera de otra forma, tal vez lo sorprendería.
Un agricultor tal vez mira al mundo orgánicamente, en su naturaleza y el proceso de fertilización, junto con sus biológicos y geográficos entornos naturales; como también a las aves y las abejas, y la forma del florecimiento.
La pregunta podría ser: ¿Qué está incompleto, y qué no lo está? ¿Su interpretación es sin hipocresía? O ¡farsa! ¿Hay una mejor interpretación?
Posted in: arts
