Which is more real - the physical or the spiritual?
When I give Creation Corner speeches, this one receives the most comments. I hope you like
it too.
We are physical beings living in a physical
world.
What seems real to us are only those things we can
see,
,
hear,
,
feel,
,
and
smell.
This
article is about the question, Which is more real, the physical or the spiritual? Or to put it another way, Which
is more real, what we can see - or what we cannot see?
There is a Being quoted in the Bible, who says he created all things,
not just things physical, but also things spiritual. Moreover, this being says his purpose is for man to
become spiritual. He actually claims that in the future man is to live in a spiritual world.
Even to Christians who believe this being in the Bible, the spiritual seems unreal and nebulous; hard to get
their mind around. How much more so for readers who are not Christians, readers who are investigating the creation
alternative!
My older son Craig when a teenager probably expressed it for
both groups when he remarked, "It's really hard to imagine being spirit and living forever". And he was certainly
right about that!
How real, how permanent, are physical objects?
When I give this article as a speech, I use the lectern to make a point. I emphasize to the audience that
the lectern I am standing behind is physical. It looks very real to us. And it is, it is not a mirage. It looks
solid and it feels solid. I then like to pound on the lectern to emphasize how solid it is.
Then I tell the audience, "Yet, I can take a match and some paper and destroy this lectern".
I further point out that even if not burned, in the simple course of time, the lectern is destined to decay and eventually
will disintegrate.
But....if I can burn it, I can destroy it....right?
Yet I can't destroy the atoms the lectern is made of!
The carbon, hydrogen, oxygen and other atoms that make up its wood - those I
cannot destroy.
What would you say then? Which is more
real, which is more permanent....the solid wood we can see and touch, or the atoms we cannot see?
So we physical beings have to concede that material things can be destroyed,
but we can't destroy the unseen atoms that make up physical materials
What is an atom?
We will spend a lot of time looking at atoms as we consider
the question of "Which is more real, the physical or the spiritual"?
Scientists
tell us an atom is the smallest part of something that can still have its own properties or characteristics.
For example, take a piece of charcoal. Divide it in half, that half in half, again and again, eventually you
will be down to the element called carbon, which is an atom consisting of a nucleus of neutrons and
6 protons encircled by 6 electrons. Once it reaches its atom or element state, it cannot be divided any further because it
would no longer be carbon.
So the chemical definition is that "The
atom is the smallest unit of matter that has the characteristic properties of one of the 109 known elements, such as iron
or hydrogen." (1) "This definition differentiates the atom from a molecule, which is a combination of atoms forming
a chemical compound, such as iron oxide or water."
All matter is made
up from 92 naturally occurring atoms or basic elements. The first 92 appear naturally. There are 17 (2) others that
can be made in the laboratory, making a total of 109 elements.
Everything
around us and everything in the universe is made up of atoms. So the first point I want to emphasize about
atoms is they are the building blocks of the universe.
The
interesting story about the Table of Elements
The Table of the 109 Elements is revealing of itself. The number
one element, or atom, is hydrogen that has a one-proton nucleus. Element number two on the Table has two protons.
Element number three has three protons. Each succeeding element then goes up one more proton - in
mathematical progression - until element number 109 which has, guess what?, 109 protons.
The 109 elements were
not all discovered at the same time, but were discovered piece meal. Over the years as the elements were being discovered,
scientists recognized the design, or mathematical pattern. For example, when the element with 10 protons was discovered, and
the one with 12, scientists were certain there was one with 11, even though number 11 was still undiscovered and
unnamed! This certainty in design, in mathematical progression, existed for years until all of the missing gaps in
the Table of Elements were finally discovered and named.
What is my point in the story of the elements? That the certainty
for design and order which was held for years by the scientific world is the opposite of random, accidental
evolution.
How big is an atom?
An atom is not very big at all. In fact, an atom
is incredibly tiny.
How tiny? Picture plucking a hair from your head. An atom is more than a million times smaller
than the thickness of a human hair! (3)
Let's imagine the size of an atom another way. Imagine a line one inch
long. How many atoms would it take to fill one inch? Depending on which element it is, it would take from "...5 to 24
million atoms to span one inch"! (3)
Our source adds, "The smallest speck of matter that can be seen under
an ordinary microscope contains 10 billion atoms.
Another source illustrated atom size by telling us that each
of our fingertips contains a trillion atoms. (4)
So the next thing I would like to emphasize about
atoms is how incredibly tiny they are.
How solid is an atom?
Scientists
formerly explained an atom by saying it is like a miniature solar system. At the center is a nucleus, made up of
protons and neutrons. Circling the center are electrons. The comparison was the nucleus was much like our sun and the electrons
that circled around the nucleus were like the planets that circle our sun.
Scientists now know the electrons are not
really like planets, but more like waves. They have found even tinier parts to the atom they have named "quarks".
To keep things simple, we will keep to the old model, because for our purposes the difference are not all that great.
Now the scientific fact is this.......atoms are mostly space, empty space. They are not solid
at all. In fact, atoms are far, far from being solid. Almost all of the mass in an atom is in the nucleus, there is very little
mass in the electrons circling the nucleus.
How empty is the atom outside
of the nucleus? We are told (4) the nucleus, or "sun" part of our model, contains 99.995% of the atom's
mass!
So the rest of the atom is mostly empty space. Or as one author (4) put it, "The rest is a void."
How big is the nucleus, with nearly all of the mass, compared to the rest of the nearly empty atom?
In your mind's eye, picture one atom, a nucleus "sun" circled by
a few hazy, cloudlike electrons. Now in your mind expand the atom to a ball one mile in size. How big do you think
the nucleus would be in a ball one mile big?
Do you think it might be a quarter-mile across, maybe 500 feet, surely
at leasta 100 feet?
The answer is......... the nucleus would be a mere one half inch! (5) You could stand at
the edge of the atom, and not even be able to see the one half inch nucleus.
For football fans, our source
(4) puts it this way. "If a typical atom were the size of a football field, the nucleus would be a grain of salt
at midfield."
Now I would like to make an important point here. In my speech, I then say, "This
lectern, as solid as it is to us, is made up of atoms........that themselves are mainly empty space".
I
am made up of atoms.
Atoms that are almost all empty space.
As one author (3) wrote, "Although
you may feel solid, you are mostly emptiness."
As an article in the Charleston (WV) (9) explained it,
"...how much substance in a human? Virtually none. Too little to see with a microscope, We are almost entirely vacuum."
Another author (10) put it like this, ""...matter is 99.99999 percent
void - just an illusion of whirling electrical charges...how much matter is in a 200 pound person?...If the empty space were
squeezed out, there wouldn't be enough to see with a microscope. We think we have substance, but we're composed of
NOTHING!
To emphasize the point, when giving this article as a speech, I then look at my wife, Fay, and say, "See,
Fay, I'm not really fat. I'm mostly empty space!
"And, Fay, that is a scientific fact."
I then
like to tell the audience that the next time they drive in traffic and another driver cuts them off, instead of the usual
angry thoughts we so quickly get, they might want to consider saying to themselves something like this: "That's OK
buddy, you're nothing but empty space anyway".
So the third point I want you to remember is
that atoms is they are mostly empty space.
Why, then, do things physical - made
of empty atoms - appear so solid?
That is a pertinent and perplexing question.
Our source (3) explains
it this way: "The electrons whirl through the space of the atom, completing billions of trips around the nucleus each
millionth of a second. The fantastic speed of the electrons makes atoms behave as if they were solid, much as the fast-moving
blades of a fan prevent a pencil from being pushed through them."
I want to repeat that because
it is so hard for us to get our mind around it. We are told the electrons whirl through this space of the atom, completing
billions of trips each millionth of a second! Billions of trips each millionth of a second.
If you are a reader persuaded we have been created, that has to make you marvel all the more of what an awesome creator
we have.
A recent magazine article (4) added this: "The only reason you cannot reach right through
a wall is because negatively charged electrons in the atoms that make up your hand repel similar negatively charged electrons
in the atoms that make up the wall."
Another source (7) explains the empty space this way. The
question was asked, "If atoms are mostly empty space, why can't we see through walls." The answer: "The
reason is light interacts strongly with many materials. Even though a photon is small, it can still be absorbed by the electrons
in, say, a wall. Think of atoms as a bunch of frogs (electrons) bouncing around on bungee cords attached to central points
(nuclei); if a fly (electron) tries to go through a thick enough assembly like this, it's abut certain to be eaten by
a frog. Even if there's a lot of space between the frogs, sooner or later, a frog will get the fly."
So
there you have it. Why all that empty space looks and feels quite solid to us physical human beings.
My own reaction to the emptiness of atoms might be helpful. Sometimes as I drive
down an expressway I think about the concrete my car is driving on and about the long stretch of concrete I see ahead of me.
Now concrete is certainly one of the hardest, most solid and long-lasting materials we encounter in our daily life, isn't
it?
I find it thought provoking to meditate on the scientific fact that
the solid-looking, incredibly hard-feeling, concrete is made of atoms, atoms that are mostly empty space.
So the third point to remember about atoms is the apparent solidness to a mass of
atoms is due to electrical charges.
This section of how empty
atoms make such solid-looking matter is probably best summed up by the author who wrote, "Solidity is an optical illusion."
(6)
How much actual matter is in the mostly empty atom?
The
next thing I would like to emphasize is how little is left if the emptiness is taken out of an atom.
For example, consider a human body like yours or mine. How much actual physical matter would be left if all
the emptiness was removed from the trillions of atoms that make up my human body? How big would I be? What would be left?
A grain of sand! So reports our source (5).
Christian readers may be interested to look up Isa 40:15. Scientists after studying atoms
as the building blocks of physical matter, now realize those building blocks are mostly empty space. Just as they say my body
contains as much actual material as a speck of dust, guess what one scientist said the whole earth could be reduced to?
A
bucket of dust. (5)
Another source (8) puts it like this, "Scientists
describe the black hole as a single point in space that is infinitely dense. That is hard to grasp, but think about the head
of a pin. Now imagine everything on the Earth, the trees, the houses, the beaches, the oceans, everything fitting into the
head of that pin. The point in space where a black hole exists is infinitely smaller than the head of that pin, yet anything
can be compressed and fit in it."
This matter of taking away the atom's
empty space and little actual substance would be left was the subject of a recent article (4) in Discover magazine.
The title reinforced my point because it was "Much ado about Nothing."
I also liked
the sub-title which was...."Time to let go of matter - emptiness is what rules the universe".
The author then concluded his article by pointing out that if the emptiness could be taken out of all the
atoms in the universe - remember there are billions of galaxies, each containing billions of stars - the
entire universe would fit into....a ball smaller than Mar's orbit around the sun!
Our
source (9) explains it like this, "Even packed neutrons aren't solid. If a supernova's remains are three times
greater than our sun, gravity's pull is too strong to stop at the neutron star level. The collapse continues past the
point of no-return -- the Schwarzchild radius -- and a black hole occurs. Everything is compressed into an invisible part
of infinity."
"If earth were squeezed to its Schwarzchild radius,
it would be the size of a pearl - and a black hole only begins at that point."
So the fourth point I would like you to remember about atoms and matter
is that there is actually comparatively little of actual matter. Certainly a lot less than seems to us looking at
physical objects.
An interesting side note
Picture
a big building, several acres in size. There are such buildings with one purpose - to study one atom. Such a huge
building to study an atom, which is one tenth of a million of an inch in size!
The
DESY atom research facility in Hamburg, Germany has a four-mile circular tunnel, which is 30 to 80 feet below
the surface. The facility took six years to build and has a staff of 1,390 people. What for? To study one tiny, tiny,
atom.
Congress stopped the US from building a planned Superconductor Super
Collider. The facility would have included a tunnel 54 miles long! Imagine that - a tunnel 54 miles long to study an
atom one millionth the size of a hair on your head!
An atom summarized
Let's
review the five points made about atoms:
Atoms are the building blocks of everything physical in the universe.
Atoms
are incredibly tiny, a trillion are in a fingertip.
Atoms are mostly empty space.
Electrical
charges give us the illusion of solidness to what is basically empty space.
Atoms have very
little of actual matter, for example, our human body condensed is......a speck of dust.
Is this Bible verse more scientific than we might have thought?
As an interesting
aside, let me bring in a Bible verse. In Matt 3:9 Christ said "Of these stones my father is able to raise up children
to Abraham".
How do you react to that verse?
Is Christ talking magic, something far-fetched, was it perhaps exaggeration for effect? Or, was it scientifically
a true statement?
Maybe if you were the creator who made those stones out
of atoms, maybe you would see those stones for what they really are......billions of atom nucleuses.....circled by whirling
electrons..... but mostly space.
Scientifically all you have
to do is re-arrange the atom's protons to have completely different elements of matter.
all you have to do is
re-arrange the atom's protons to have completely different elements of matter.
20 protons = calcium....
26 protons = iron...
6 protons = carbon.
So Christ's
statement maybe is more accurate and makes more sense than we might have thought.
What are atoms composed of?
After that side note, back to the subject. As scientists
study atoms and try to break them down finer than their parts of protons, neutrons, electrons, and now quarks....what do they
seem to be left with?
Some say the final source of all atoms and thus all matter may be.....pure energy!
Source
(12) tells us this. "Quarks cannot be seen, not just because they are too small, but also because they do not seem to
be quite "all there". Quarks may better be described as swirls of dynamic energy. Anything you hold in
your hand and which seems solid, is really a quivering, shimmering, lacy lattice of energy, pulsating millions of
times every second as billions of fundamental particles gyrate and spin in an eternal dance."
"At its most
fundamental level, everything is energy held together by forces of incredible power."
Didn't the writer
give us an especially well-worded and graphic description? You may want to read his description again in order to fully absorb
its impact.
Author (15) puts it this way , "Modern physics has turned
to somewhat more tangible alternatives, such as invisible matter called "virtual" particles, as well as energy
fields. Einstein's famous equation E=mc squared proved that matter can be transformed into energy.
Another
author (16) adds this, "...but in fact all these leptons and quarks aren't real at all, they're nothing but ghostly
energy fields. This means that every "real" object in our world is what most of us would call nothing
- a collection of infinitely small, invisible energy fields."
This writer has no problem
with the ultimate source of matter being pure energy because Heb 12:29 says that our God is a consuming fire. (Isn't
"consuming fire" a good description of pure energy?)
The book
of Revelation says in four places that lightning's shoot out from God's throne. (Don't "lightning's
seem like a description of energy bursts?)
Source (22) draws a
graphic picture. "If it were possible to observe the composition of an actual atom with a microscope, what would we see?
Imagine a swirling dust devil cutting across a desert's floor. Now remove the sand and dirt from the funnel cloud. What
you have left is an invisible, tornado-like vortex. A number of infinitesimally small, dust devil-like energy vortices
called quarks and protons collectively make up the structure of an atom."
"From
far away, the atom would likely appear as a blurry sphere. As the structure came nearer to focus, the atom would become less
and less distinct. As the surface of the atom drew near, it would disappear. You would see nothing. In fact,
as you focused through the entire structure of the atom, all you would observe is a physical void."
If not energy, matter could be this.....
One of
the new ideas in science is that, smaller than atoms and quarks, the actual "building blocks" of matter may be.....vibrations.
Author (10) explains, "No one can confidently say what builds a quark,
but it is certainly not a piece of matter in solid form - the quark is already outside the limit that anyone can "see"
or "touch", even using scientific instruments to extend our senses; its building block may very well be a vibration
that has the potential to turn into matter."
Another author (10)
I read just recently adds support to the vibration alternative. He wrote about the four particles now thought to make up atoms.
, "But what are they? Maybe they aren't particles at all - only waves. And the new superstring theory says
they're all the same thing: tiny loops of string, vibrating in different ways. In truth, nobody knows
what the subatomic particles are. One physicist called them "the dreams of which stuff is made."
What happens when words are spoken? They make vibrations don't they? In fact, aren't vibrations
resounding on our ear drums the very method by which our hearing mechanism operates?
I
remember visiting the Children's Museum in Charlotte, NC. One exhibit illustrated the power of sound waves, or vibrations.
When the waves reached a certain pitch, a water glass across the room shattered. What a vivid demonstration
that sound waves, or vibrations, although invisible, are a force, they are energy.
So another interesting speculation is this: If vibrations are the source of matter, aren't we told in
John 1:1-3 that all things were created by the Word? Could this be describing a creation where matter
was created by speaking words - words that caused vibrations?"
One more option
There is one more option as we examine what may make up matter as it explored
further and further into its tiniest, most basic level. Writer (14) says, "The more we learn about it, the more the physical
universe begins to look like a great cosmos made of........thought stuff." Wow! This writer can't make up
references as good as that.
Imagine that, it may all come down to thought stuff. Not that is dangerously close
to an intelligent mind, is it not?
So no matter if the final source of sub-atomic
particles should be energy or if it should be vibrations, or if it should even be "thought stuff",
Christians and creation supporters have all three covered.
An unknown force in the universe
Scientists very recently say they are puzzled by an unknown force that seems to be in the universe.
Why? It seems when they calculate the gravitational pull exerted by all the stars
and galaxies in the universe - it is only 6% or so of what should be there! Exactly what, or where, is the other 94%?
For those who might want more information, a previous Creation Corner article
(11) goes into more detail.
Scientific American magazine (17) reports
the dilemma scientists find themselves in as it says, "The universe around us is not what it appears to be. The stars
make up less than 1% of its mass; all the loose gas and other forms of ordinary matter, less than 5%."
magazine
(17) reports the dilemma scientists find themselves in as it says, "The universe around us is not what it appears to
be. The stars make up less than 1% of its mass; all the loose gas and other forms of ordinary matter, less than 5%."
"The motions of this visible material reveal that it is mere flotsam
on an unseen sea of unknown material. We know little about that sea. The terms we use to describe its components - dark
matter and dark energy -, serve mainly as expressions of our ignorance."
Discover magazine
summed it up when a recent article said this, "Every measure tells astronomers that most of the universe is invisible."
magazine
summed it up when a recent article said this, "Every measure tells astronomers that most of the universe is
invisible."
Notice key words from those quotes, "not what it appears to be",
an unseen sea", of unknown material", "expressions of our ignorance", "most of the universe is invisible".
Could
this unidentified - invisible - 94% of the universe be spiritual? Could a spiritual world be closer than we
might think? What an interesting speculation! One that - horrors - may even have the latest scientific backing.
A pause to consider our question
So which is more real - the physical or the spiritual?
What we can see or what we cannot see?
Is
the answer is starting to develop? Are you starting to doubt this physical world a little, starting to see
it is not as solid, as obvious, as real, as we thought it was? Are you perhaps even beginning to put a little more trust in
the spiritual, in what can't be seen?
Other real forces
that are invisible to us
We can't see the wind, but does anyone say it's the wind is
not a real force? We can't see electricity, yet we use it continually. Does anyone say electricity is not a real force?
Accidentally stick a wet finger in a wall socket and you will quickly and violently feel the force of unseen electricity!
Are radio waves real? We can't see any, we can't touch or smell
them. But if you had a radio receiver and plugged it into a source of electricity, you would know that radio sound waves are
very real indeed.
Any colors that are invisible to us?
We are told humans see only a fraction of the entire electromagnetic spectrum. As one scientist (20) reports,
"The visible light region is the only range of energies that human eyes can detect. "
Source (21) adds, "The visible spectrum is only a small part of the electromagnetic spectrum."
We know some animals and insects are able to see parts of the spectrum humans
cannot see. Moreover we know about soldiers who, when equipped with night goggles or other specialized devices, can see things
that are invisible to humans not using them.
One author (3) illustrates
the small part humans can see by imagining a line one mile long representing all of the colors in the spectrum. How much of
that line are we actually able to see, what's your guess?
One foot!
That's right, one foot out of 5,280 feet (4) The other 5,279 of spectrum are real, they are all around us. Yet
those other 5,279 feet of spectrum are not real to us, are they?
So
it turns out we see only a tiny, tiny part of the real color spectrum, 99.5% are invisible to humans.
A concluding statement about atoms
A previous
Creation Corner article (11) had information that fits this article about what is seen and unseen so well that I
will repeat it here, with some paraphrasing.
"In the large world
friction causes everything to run down. Even the planets are gradually losing energy, slowing down, and spiraling toward the
sun.
However, within the miniature sun and planet like world of the atom,
another set of laws seem to rule. One would imagine that the electrons, circling the nucleus like tiny planets,
would also lose energy and spiral downward.
Not only was this not
happening, but as the electrons jump from one orbit to another, they actually gain energy and their jumping of their
orbits can go on forever. There was no eventual running down.
What
are atoms? - that operate under different laws - a perpetual motion machine."
Let's review some of the key words used in this reference: "another set of laws seem to rule",
they actually gain energy", "can go on forever", "no eventual running down", perpetual motion".
Do you find all that as amazing as I do?
A concept I had wrong for
many years
This segment is mainly for Christians, although others will find the main point
of interest. I had a scripture wrong for many years. Ezek 1:10 says Ezekiel saw a chariot from heaven that
had four creatures within it. The creatures each had four faces - on one side that like a man, on another side that
like a lion, then an ox, and on the fourth side a face like an eagle. The soles of their feet were
like the soles of calves' feet.
When reading that verse,
I used to think to myself, "Look at that,!, some things in heaven were copied from things on the earth."
What was wrong? I think I had it backwards. What do I mean by
that? Job 38:4-7 tells us "when the cornerstone of the earth was laid that all the sons of God [angels]
shouted for joy". So the spiritual creation came first, before this physical one.
Furthermore we know from other scriptures that we are made in the image of God, we are copies of
our father; our spiritual father is the original.
The first chapter
of Revelation describes Christ as having feet, head and hair, a chest, eyes, mouth, a right hand, and a voice.
Thus it seems the spiritual Christ looks much like us, the physical copies.
So
a further point in considering the question, "Which is more real, the physical or the spiritual?" is this: Rather
than the spiritual having been copied from this physical world, it is the other way around. Much of what is physical
is the copy. This matter of getting it reversed is part of our problem as humans - to us the physical is first,
is real, the spiritual is second, and seems unreal.
In
review
We have looked at seventeen major points in considering the question, Which is more
real - the physical or the spiritual?
We can burn up or destroy physical things,
but not the unseen atoms they are composed from
92 natural atoms are the building blocks of
all matter. As one scientist (12) poetically put it, "Atoms are the alphabet out of which the language of the universe
was composed".
Atoms are incredibly tiny.
Atoms are mostly empty
space, 99.995% of its matter is in the nucleus.
Take away the empty spaces, and matter collapses
into a very small amount.
"Solid" matter is not really solid.
Matter
seems solid to us because of electric charges and because of the incredible speed of electrons.
The
Bible was proven right - the matter that makes up nations are like a drop in a bucket.
Before
all 109 elements were discovered, scientists had absolute confidence in the mathematical progression of their numbers.
By re-arranging the protons in the atom's nucleus, stones could be turned into flesh and blood.
Matter may finally turn out to be pure energy
Or it may be vibrations.
One expert speculates it may even be "thought stuff".
Wind, electricity,
and radio waves are all forces we can't see, but they are real.
Could the 94% of the universe
scientists say is an unknown force be spiritual?
We see only a tiny speck of the real
color spectrum.
One author sees atoms as operating under another set of rules, able to last forever.
We can burn up or destroy physical things,
but not the unseen atoms they are composed from
92 natural atoms are the building blocks of
all matter. As one scientist (12) poetically put it, "Atoms are the alphabet out of which the language of the universe
was composed".
Atoms are incredibly tiny.
Atoms are mostly empty
space, 99.995% of its matter is in the nucleus.
Take away the empty spaces, and matter collapses
into a very small amount.
"Solid" matter is not really solid.
Matter
seems solid to us because of electric charges and because of the incredible speed of electrons.
The
Bible was proven right - the matter that makes up nations are like a drop in a bucket.
Before
all 109 elements were discovered, scientists had absolute confidence in the mathematical progression of their numbers.
By re-arranging the protons in the atom's nucleus, stones could be turned into flesh and blood.
Matter may finally turn out to be pure energy
Or it may be vibrations.
One expert speculates it may even be "thought stuff".
Wind, electricity,
and radio waves are all forces we can't see, but they are real.
Could the 94% of the universe
scientists say is an unknown force be spiritual?
We see only a tiny speck of the real
color spectrum.
One author sees atoms as operating under another set of rules, able to last forever.
We can burn up or destroy physical things, but not
the unseen atoms they are composed from
92 natural atoms are the building blocks of all matter. As
one scientist (12) poetically put it, "Atoms are the alphabet out of which the language of the universe was composed".
Atoms are incredibly tiny.
Atoms are mostly empty space, 99.995%
of its matter is in the nucleus.
Take away the empty spaces, and matter collapses into a very small
amount.
"Solid" matter is not really solid.
Matter seems solid to us
because of electric charges and because of the incredible speed of electrons.
The Bible was proven right
- the matter that makes up nations are like a drop in a bucket.
Before all 109 elements were
discovered, scientists had absolute confidence in the mathematical progression of their numbers.
By
re-arranging the protons in the atom's nucleus, stones could be turned into flesh and blood.
Matter
may finally turn out to be pure energy
Or it may be vibrations.
One
expert speculates it may even be "thought stuff".
Wind, electricity, and radio waves
are all forces we can't see, but they are real.
Could the 94% of the universe scientists
say is an unknown force be spiritual?
We see only a tiny speck of the real color spectrum.
One author sees atoms as operating under another set of rules, able to last forever.
In summary
So what do you think? Which is more real, the physical or
the spiritual? Which is more real - what we can see, or what we cannot see?
This writer has tried to convince you that the permanent world, the world that existed before this
physical and will exist forever, is the spiritual one. That is the world we want to be in.
So as we live out this physical life, let's realize it for what it is and focus more and more on the real
world, which is spiritual. This writer's prayer is that the spiritual will seem more and more real to
you, and indeed to all of us.
C. Frazier Spencer
References and footnotes.
Encyclopedia Americana 2002 edition, article "Atoms".
To be technically accurate, small amounts of plutonium (element #94) occur naturally, according to source
(3). Other sources did not mention this difference.
World Book Encyclopedia, 2004 edition, article "Atoms".
"Discover" magazine, columnist Bob Berman in his column "Sky Lights".
I
really read this item somewhere, but it was before I started writing down sources.
Article in Charleston, WV Sunday
Gazette-Mail, Jan 10, 1993.
"Discovery" magazine, February, 2002, page 38.
On the web-newton.dep.anl.gov/askasci/article
"Empty Space of Atoms".
This writer thinks it is circular reasoning to use the Bible to prove God. That is
why scientific facts about nature are used by the writer. See my article, "Scientific discoveries that prove the Bible"
for more outside evidence.
"Physics and Reality" talk for Charleston Unitarian Fellowship, July 2,
2002, by James A. Naught.
See my article, "What do clocks and counting time have to do with creation?". original
quote from "Time's Pendulum", by Jo Ellen Barnett, published 1998 by Barnett Press, NY.
From the web site
islamananswers.net/science/atomic/htm.
From the Bible, Rom 1:20.
From the web site northline.seed.ctc.edu/phi298/lectures
"Lecture on Quantum Physics".
"Quantum Healing" by Deepak Chopra published 1989 by Bantam Books,
NY.
Web site atl-perimeter.hiexpress.com/pages/II "The Cosmic Energy Web".
"Scientific American"
magazine March, 2003, page 52.
"Discovery" magazine February, 2002, page 38.
Atoms are unseen by most
of us. Scientists, of course, "see" them with powerful equipment.
One the web acept.la.asu.edu by Steve Beeson,
Arizona State University.
World Book Encyclopedia" 2004 edition, article "Color".
"Biology
of Life" by Bruce Lipton.
Encyclopedia Americana 2002 edition, article "Atoms".
To be technically accurate,
small amounts of plutonium (element #94) occur naturally, according to source (3). Other sources did not mention this difference.
World Book Encyclopedia, 2004 edition, article "Atoms".
"Discover"
magazine, columnist Bob Berman in his column "Sky Lights".
I really read this item somewhere,
but it was before I started writing down sources.
Article in Charleston, WV Sunday Gazette-Mail, Jan 10, 1993.
"Discovery"
magazine, February, 2002, page 38.
On the web-newton.dep.anl.gov/askasci/article "Empty Space of Atoms".
This
writer thinks it is circular reasoning to use the Bible to prove God. That is why scientific facts about nature are used by
the writer. See my article, "Scientific discoveries that prove the Bible" for more outside evidence.
"Physics
and Reality" talk for Charleston Unitarian Fellowship, July 2, 2002, by James A. Naught.
See my article, "What
do clocks and counting time have to do with creation?". original quote from "Time's Pendulum", by Jo Ellen
Barnett, published 1998 by Barnett Press, NY.
From the web site islamananswers.net/science/atomic/htm.
From the
Bible, Rom 1:20.
From the web site northline.seed.ctc.edu/phi298/lectures "Lecture on Quantum Physics".
"Quantum
Healing" by Deepak Chopra published 1989 by Bantam Books, NY.
Web site atl-perimeter.hiexpress.com/pages/II "The
Cosmic Energy Web".
"Scientific American" magazine March, 2003, page 52.
"Discovery"
magazine February, 2002, page 38.
Atoms are unseen by most of us. Scientists, of course, "see" them with powerful
equipment.
One the web acept.la.asu.edu by Steve Beeson, Arizona State University.
World Book Encyclopedia"
2004 edition, article "Color".
"Biology of Life" by Bruce Lipton.
