USA

While on the one hand, pointing out that the I AM is above, outside of, (or any similar positional depiction of same), all of space-time matter  and energy, is perfectly fine, I'm at odds with the idea that he/she  cannot also be within it. As a discreet being, sure, but his/her still small voice within is inside space-time.

Jesus' personalized Adjuster wasn't time limited, and yet had to await Jesus arriving at that place in time when he wanted a particular thing to happen, in order for it to be approved by his Adjuster. And that Adjuster was equally able to await other events happening before addressing those as well, like right after the crucifixion, telling the celestial hosts there was nothing they could do to facilitate his appearance in a morontia body.

Those are God within space-time.

RESPONSE FROM THE AUTHORS: We agree with you, however, the adjusters being within space-time is a bit different from Deity Absolute being within it. We don’t believe the Being could be contained within space-time which is why the adjusters are sent. 

Bognor Regis, West Sussex, England (UK)
1. Did we get it wrong? Is our observation incorrect? If so, what part? Your observations seem to be logical and particularly the point about science and religion approaching Deity from two different perspectives. The idea that there was no space, just Deity and then he created space along with time, seems to accomodate the big bang theory as well.
2. Do you see that true science and true religion are on common ground? Science & religion are without realizing it definitely on common ground because they are essentially looking for the same First Cause from the same source.
3. What stands in the way of the religionist and the scientist from mutual respect and appreciation? The thing that stands in the way of religionists and scientists having mutual respect & appreciation is more to do with closed minds on both sides. Evolution theory is presented as fact and that shuts out the possibility of there being a Deity. Also an honest drive for the truth is lacking.

From Los Angeles, California USA
In keeping with your guidelines, I will try to keep this short. In general, your observations are correct, although there are some details contained within those observations we could discuss and work out. Unfortunately, immature humans have understood religion and science as warring dichotomies for far too long. On this level of relationship, both science and religion tend to be 'magical,' 'illogical,' and 'unreasonable.' The medium lacking to unite an 'authentic' science with a 'real' religion is 'true' philosophy, a philosophy which is based on a person's "logical acumen, moral discrimination, and spiritual insight." What retards the successful blending of religion and science are our "preconceived opinions, settled ideas, and long-standing prejudices." This type of behavior is reflective of our incomplete finite status. We will not see successful unification anytime soon as we are just taking the first baby steps necessary in that global endeavor. Evolution is indeed slow, but it is sure. What is required is our "patience" and "sincerity."

FROM THE AUTHORS: Thank you for your insight. We agree that the successful unification of science and religion may take time, but it will not occur without agitation. We hope by these experiments to agitate the scientific and religious communities by making them a bit uncomfortable in their corners, and provoking them to engage one another intelligently and fairly. So please stay tuned.

From the USA - AGREE
I have read this particular article several times. In my opinion you have identified two issues I feel are necessary to eliminate the divide between religion and science namely to abandon their personal agendas to prove the other wrong. It is encouraging that someone has the forethought to suggest that there could be a meeting of the minds. I believe that combining the best of what advanced religion and honest science has to offer could not help but improve human existence. The other issue you presented which I appreciate is that both religion and science have hit the same wall in attempting to understand origins. I have not encountered anyone who has attempted to go back farther than a first cause. Your unique portrayal of this event provides a much greater arena to expand the conversation. I praise you for taking on this challenging and explosive topic.

Parque del Plata, Uruguay - AGREE
[Translated to the best of our ability] We are pleased to continue with you. Trying to be short, and to paraphrase the writers of Genesis ... my theory is this: Deity is THE ALL AND THE WHOLE who created a spiritual dimension, empty, for the intangible universe that was created. AND ALL God created in His image and kept the spiritual dimension to be His dwelling place. Since then, there came into existence time, space and the measurable universe in the spiritual dimension. Through Him were created the gods [The Elohim; Mighty]. And so God created the material dimension. First He created the nothingness of the material dimension. Since it came into existence in it, time, space and the universe of the material dimension. Through him were created the stars, the moon and the earth and all life that exists in the material dimension. May our Father bless all your effort and love.

Fayetteville, Georgia USA - AGREE
1-Did you get it wrong? Your explanation seems like a good beginning to me. It certainly opened my mind to further consideration of the wonders of God.
2-Is science and religion on common ground? Even if they don't know it, they have to be. Reality is reality and has to come down to the facts. Just because science does not yet understand how God does it and just because Religion does not understand how God does it, makes neither entirely right or wrong. I have been in technology for over 40 years and every year the wonders of science become more and more clear to our understanding. And being that I am a student of Religion, this increase in technology makes my faith so much stronger. I am very much looking forward to when we as a race of beings, can jump forward to understand more of how God does it. We have such a wonderful experience ahead of us.
3-What stands in the way? Because of the difficulties of our lives we force our understanding to fit into our needs and we convince ourselves that our way is the right way. By doing this we allow ourselves to feel safe. Safe in our belief system and safe in our understanding.

Taos, New Mexico, USA - AGREE
1. Did we get it wrong? Is our observation incorrect? If so, what part? I agree
2. Do you see that true science and true religion are on common ground? I see them as 2 sides of the same coin.
3. What stands in the way of the religionist and the scientist from mutual respect and appreciation? There is pride of course. We've discussed the problems religion has and I view science as it is practiced today as a kind of religion. It has infallible doctrines, "high priests" like Hawking, and is also stuck in a mental box of scientific materialism. The scientific establishment belittles anyone who doesn't agree with it's beliefs some of which must be accepted on blind faith just like religion. Science as a method of inquiry is very good however the scientific establishment is very different from true science. Science at least as practiced today can not nor will ever be able to answer the really big questions. Religion as mostly practiced today has been perverted and can also not answer the really big questions. We have a mechanism within us to recognize truth. A kind of intuition that will lead us to truth if we open our minds and stop resisting it.

Tasmania, Australia - AGREE
Experiment 4 has been an enlightening topic that we have discussed long after reading. The links were excellent and we have also printed and passed out copies to associates for them to experience an open minded approach to Science and Religion. But we did discover that they found it difficult to understand, God willing they will pursue further and not allow their own inabilities to find out the deeper things of the universe.
1. We found the statement 'misunderstood and divergent agendas' as true because they are the same study yet they via different roads with continual disagreement. 2. They are on a common ground but they don't realise it because of their own prejudice and ignorance which drives them apart. 3. What stands in their way, RELIGION has so much baggage of past accumulation of doctrine and dogma that it finds it very difficult see the plain open teachings of Jesus and the realization of our Universe. SCIENTISTS have the problem of seeing the Universe and its complexities but they don't observe the Deity around them because what they see with religion is confusion and hypocrisy. So if each could cut through all the barriers then they would have a clear view of what lays ahead for every individual on the face of the earth and beyond. When man goes in partnership with God, great things may, and do, happen. We are on the edge of our seat waiting for the next Experiment. Thank you.

Mount Shasta, California USA - AGREE
We see again how you have wrote on a subject with such deep thoughts and yet put things in such a clear understanding way in sharing such truths.
2. Do you see that true science and true religion are on common ground? Yes they are but it is just looking at the same subject from a different mind set and because of not really knowing this they feel that they are at odds with each other.
3. What stands in the way of the religionist and the scientist from mutual respect and appreciation? I feel that it is because of their dogma and thinking that only one can be right and they don't see the different manifestation, but think it can only be one way. They are not expanding their mind to encompass the fullness of God. I think his children will never see it all even in eternity of time.

Mount Shasta, California USA - AGREE
I have great admiration for science and its magnificent accomplishments. However, when it comes to science declaring that there is no God, I say, "When you can understand consciousness, which you have to admit exists, when you understand it completely, then I will consider what you have to say regarding the existence of God. Until then, you are an adolescent pontificating.”

RESPONSE FROM THE AUTHORS: While we understand your stand, we want to share a thought. The religionist who believes in God should not refuse to come to the table. Rather he should sit at the table and invite the scientist to join him. The scientist may admit to the existence of consciousness, but he may not understand the connection between consciousness and Deity before he arrives at the table. But your inviting attitude might allow him to join you in a conversation and open his mind to consider that idea. Someone has to make the first move in imitation of God who makes it rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. (Matthew 5:45)

Boston, Massachusetts, USA - AGREE
This article was deeply moving. The link to the observable universe video profoundly affected my response to your questions. At long last there is provided an intelligent meeting ground for the religionist and the scientist to meet. This commentary has shown the limitations of both ideologies as well as the points of agreement. In the absence of acrimony between these two ideologies you have shown the possibilities of a new beginning of dialog that may prove to be a sum of something significant than is greater than the parts. I anxiously await the next installment. Kind regards, and the best to you all.

USA - AGREE
Greetings friends, you never cease to amaze with the spectrum of information you so brilliantly present, this subject has been stuck, stuck in the craw of many a persons in and outside the Organization because of recent scientific discoveries whether fossil or carbon dating and the like, to re-examine what was once held as fact concerning so many creative works. So this Experiment to some may not be easy to comprehend, I believe it's a necessary discussion and I look forward to your development of this crucial topic.