Corpus evidence — top 10 passages

Most-relevant passages from the entire indexed corpus (67,286 paragraph chunks across YouTube transcripts, PubMed, arXiv, archive.org, Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, OpenAlex, and more) ranked by semantic similarity (bge-small-en-v1.5).

1. 01 · _intake0.951

   > suddenly appeared and they've never changed since um that's the standard scientific assumption as my friend Terence McKenna used to say the modern Science is based on the principle give us one free miracle and we'll explain the rest and this is the one free Miracle all the matter and energy in the universe suddenly appears from nowhere um and all the laws that govern it and uh and the constants the speed of light the charge on the electron uh the fine structure constant the

   _intake/claims-allbranch/curated-low/speed-of-light/002-suddenly-appeared-and-they-ve-never-changed-since-um-that-s-.md

2. 02 · yt0.769

   What we call miracles are simply changes in this vibratory field directed by divine intent. Yet humanity bound by the illusion of Maya perceives only the surface of creation. Maya hypnotizes us, making us believe that water is fluid, stone is solid, and fire is heat. But these forms are not fixed. They are temporary expressions of vibrating energy. Like waves on the ocean, all matter rises and falls, appearing and dissolving back into its source. The wave may disappear, but the ocean remains. Similarly, the forms of matter change, but the divine intelligence behind them is eternal. For most, t…

   yt/pblHiu0BNTM-the-apocalypse-of-jesus-full-movie/transcript.txt

3. 03 · _intake0.765

   Feynman made that statement about the space shuttle disaster 30 years ago, but it fits better today with our infatuation with non-native EMF from technology gadgets. Nature cannot be fooled, but we certainly can be. In fact, we are the easiest people to be fooled by ourselves. Moreover, some professions are fooled everyday they go to work and never realize it. ***Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence!** *This is why in science, words and publications can often be meaningless, especially when they are used in such a way that no sharp conclusions can be drawn.

   _intake/kruse-blog-corpus/articles/energy-epigenetics-11-force.md

4. 04 · yt0.759

   Thanks Pat, thanks to the Royal Institution for having me back This is one of my favourite places to come visit and I thought that I would in the tradition of Michael Faraday and Humphrey Davy, and all the greats. Who've stood more or less in this place Begin the lecture by doing an experiment Now I'm a theoretical physicist. I'm not an experimenter, so don't get your hopes up too high But I would like to do an experiment that illuminates the fundamental nature of motion Ok so you see here. We have an object It's a book you can buy it and the finest book stores everywhere And we're going to ob…

   yt/2JsKwyRFiYY-the-big-picture-from-the-big-bang-to-the-meaning-of-life-wit/transcript.txt

5. 05 · yt0.758

   Davies explains, "The coming into being of the universe, as discussed in "modern science, is not just a matter of imposing some "sort of organization upon a previous incoherent state "but literally the coming into being of "all physical things from nothing." Now, this puts the atheist in a very awkward position. As Anthony Kenny of Oxford University urges, "A proponent of the Big Bang theory, "at least if he is an atheist, "must believe that the universe came "from nothing and by nothing." But surely that doesn't make sense. Out of nothing, nothing comes. So why does the universe exist, instea…

   yt/0tYm41hb48o-does-god-exist-william-lane-craig-vs-christopher-hitchens-fu/transcript.txt

6. 06 · blog0.758

   He refutes arguments purporting to show the actual sempiternity of the world, but not arguments adduced to show that such sempiternity is possible , while he characterizes traditional would-be proofs of a temporal beginning as invalid (“sophistic”). The central piece of the work is a demonstration that no branch of philosophy can prove the “newness” of the world. The natural scientist cannot, because that would require relying on an assumption that is not included in the principles of his science and would make them an inconsistent set if included. The natural scientist can explain how somethi…

   blog/plato-stanford-edu/boethius-of-dacia.md

7. 07 · blog0.758

   One important sign of this progress was exhibited at an early 1939 joint meeting between the Royal Astronomical Society and the Physical Society of London, The meeting had as its goal a thorough review of the situation in cosmology. McVittie was chosen to present the observational situation; his report was soon published (McVittie, 1939). Reviewing the theoretical situation was George Temple, one of the most highly respected mathematicians of the time. Temple’s report saw print almost immediately (Temple 1939). Within a short time, Temple’s paper took on the role of successor to Robertson’s de…

   blog/plato-stanford-edu/cosmology-methodological-debates-in-the-1930s-and-1940s.md

8. 08 · yt0.757

   once in a while and long Centuri periods some vast new knowledge comes to the slowly unfolding race of man through cosmically inspired geniuses or men of supervision who have an awareness of the reality which lies beyond this universe the volution this new knowledge is of such a revolutionary nature in its time of coming that whole systems of thought even on two entire cosmic journeys a rendered obsolete when each cosmic messenger gives such new inspired knowledge to the world the whole human race rises one step higher on that long ladder of unfolding which reaches from the jungle of man's beg…

   yt/YRX_fMDkxTo-a-new-concept-of-the-universe-part-1-walter-russell-more-in-/transcript.txt

9. 09 · _intake0.756

   In physics, they have spent 500 years trying to come up with fundamental laws of nature that explain every aspect of “our reality”. So far, reality has really stumped them. In fact, I bet it is stumping you as well.

   _intake/kruse-blog-corpus/articles/quantum-biology-11-is-their-reality-your-reality.md

10. 10 · blog0.756

    For not only was what existed the last moment, no active cause, but wholly a passive thing; but this also is to be considered, that no cause can produce effects in a time and place on which itself is not . ‘Tis plain, nothing can exert itself, or operate, when and where it is not existing. But the moon’s past existence was neither where nor when its present existence is. (1758, 400) Later Edwards adds that the same reasoning shows that no part of the effect is due to the antecedent existence of the substance in question ( ibid ., 402). He concludes, “God’s preserving created things in being is…

    blog/plato-stanford-edu/creation-and-conservation.md