Space was Warm.

[dad]

What? Do you have any idea what subjective and objective experiance is?
There is no way of verifying your claims. Thus, they are subjective. Your claims may be true, noone is disputing that, but there is no way of knowing conclusively.

OK.

What? The validity of the alleged claims of alleged witnesses in the Bible of Jesus' resurrection etc, can be verified by 'trying it', as the Bible says? Your above argument does not work for this point, mon ami.

Yes, they can. Because by getting saved, we access the spiritual power of heaven, that can bring the bible to life. We can know it is true.

You miss the point. If electromagnetic radiation is not emmited via electron cascade, then it is not light.

Not light as we know it. No one says the former light was. Our light is the light we know.

No! How are you failing to grasp this. ALL ARGUMENTS AUTOMATICALLY FAIL IF EMPIRICISM IS ASSUMED FALSE. Not just scientific claims. ALL claims.

I defined empiricism a few times, and nothing in that says what you say.

We are not talking about heaven, we are talking about the past and the future, but yes, I should think they could.

We are talking of the future, because what I am saying is that the merged universe was the original, and will be here again after this temporary state ends. The future, then is the key to the past! Not the present.

1) Yes.
2) Gabriel did not appear to Mary. Prove me wrong.
3) If Gabriel appeared to Mary, then Gabriel has to be able to interfere with the physical universe. If Gabriel can interfere with the physical universe, then Gabriel is of the physical universe,

We'll have to disagree. Visiting here does not make them PO.

by definition of the set of objects in the physical universe. If Gabirel is of the physical universe, then Gabriel must abide by the physical laws.
Thus, if Gabriel appear to Mary, then Gabriel must abide by the physical laws.

No. Angels don't have to abide by PO laws.

You miss the point of my sarcasm. You use the Bible to get your information, but you do not question the validity of the information. How do you know the Bible is true? How do you know it is not the cunning work of Satan?

I got saved. Now I know. I tried it, and like it says, we will know. It was right. Try it, you just might like it.

No. I will apply it to all things, as all logic should be.

All things you can.

The burden of proof is on you, not me. You challange my claim that logic pervades all things without stating why. Remember, lack of proof does not constitute disproof, and the simplist option is the default.

No. Some things are beyond the proof ability of carnal man. Your carnal logic cannot acsend into the jheavens. Sorry to disappoint you.

Are we talking morally better? Choose your words more carefully. This line of repartée has lasted 4 posts each.

Like this, - one can of soup is better than another. It tastes good.

I should think that you would know better than me. After all, it takes one to know one.

Why would I know apes, or communicate with them? That wasn't my claim?

So the split experianced a change in physical laws. Gotcha.

No the physical laws came to be when the physical only universe camee to be. Before that, before the split, there were merged laws, not physical only laws.

I beg to differ. How was I 'busted'? Did you catch me making a sneaky, atheistic, satanic, anti-Christian, pro-Evolution, lying, baby-eating, logical, rational, unBiblical... claim?

The posts are so long, I'd have to waft through too much to answer that. You were caught at something, I think.

Most children also believe in Santa.

Do they, really, though? I never.

There is no 'spiritual known quantity'. A lot of people believe in some form of spirituality, but this does not make it known.

Then how do you know it? It is well known! As for them, they feel they know the spiritual is real as well. I know it too. It's almost unanamous.

So how logical something is is dependant on how much it correlates with your particular belief system? Arrogant, and just plain wrong.

No, we don't want to toss out the bible. We like it. It's nice. If science has nothing against it, why toss it out?

According to you, we have no evidence.

No evidence of the state of the past. We do have evidence there was a past, and some things about it, if you remember. Like the fossil record, etc.

Counter-intuitiveness does not imply disproof.

If someone claims the universe fit in their belly button at one time, I don't need to disprove it. They need to prove it. They do! They say it was all much smaller than that even! It could have rested easily on one of the hairs in their nose! Think about it.

That was not my intention. I like living. It is fun. However, I do not enjoy the suffering of others or myself. Therefore, I will reject any god who could've, but didn't, stop this suffering and still claim the moral high ground.

So, you like it, it is great for you. But you reject God cause He made it, and it's so bad. Gotcha.

People reject the idea of a Christian heaven because there is no evidence of it. Why believe something that there is no evidence or rationale for?

We'll have to leave it there. Believe what you like.

So you would rather suffer and have to work to be happy, than simply be happy?

I don't regret the tings life has taught. I am happy that the next life will be easy, no pain, death, suffering, sickness, etc. No more evil men running things. No more curse.

It is great, but it is not good. I have seen my loved ones suffer, I have seen the people I care about perish alone and in agony. The world cries in pain, in famine, in disease, and in bloodshed. If this is the gift of free will, then we must bite the hand.

It is the wages of our choice of sin. Isn't it time we chose some other way?

Because a morality that allows exceptions is mutually exclusive with a morality that is absolute.

An example might be good. Too much wine is not good. But Jesus made water into wine.
The old law I think, had them stoning prostitutes. Jesus forgave Mary, and said go and sin no more. He made exceptions to all the old morality.
Eating the shewbread was not allowed. He and His deciples were hungry, and ate it!
Healing on the sabbath was called wrong. He healed on the sabbath, because love overrules the law!

You did nothing of the sort. The two things I raised still stand: the Biblical god demands that the son be punished for the sins of the father, and that logical contradictions exist in the Bible.

Well, I answered both of those, and rest my case.

My lists were listed in the order they appear in the Bible.

They were too big. Would you like the whole bible in a post?

Indeed. Every action produces an equal and opposite reaction, and this usually has analogies in human behaviour.

Spititual laws! We reap what we sow. What goes around comes around.

No, it does not, just as correlation does not imply causation, lack of proof does not imply disproof, and design does not imply a designer.

Laws imply a Lawgiver. Design does imply a Designer. You are wrong. Simple as that. I according to you, then must be right. Because it is simple.

That is unfortunate for the child, but divine wrath should not come down on the child. My argument is that a morally bad action will bear morally bad repurcussions that may, as your examples show, detrimentally affect the actor's children. However, you claim that extra punishment must come from your god, but you do not explain why.

I claim what? Extra punishment? Don't think so!

The scientific method is based on logic. Logic permeates beyond your 'in box' constraints.

No, that would take it into the future, and heaven, and the spiritual. Show us how your logic applies to the spiritual!

It is empiricism that is bound to the physical universe. However, since there is no evidence for your 'non-physical' universe, empiricism effectively works everywhere.

No, observation, and our senses do not work everywhere. They work here.

Indeed. The null set is a subset of the omega and universal sets, after all.

Great. So then I was right, you got nothin.

What, chilling? You would reject the truth just because you are unsettled by it?

No as doctrines of devils.

On the contrary, I have subjectively observed my memories of the past, and concluded that the past exists with constant physical laws. My dreams are irrelevant.

It did exist as long as you lived with physical laws. No revelation there.

I used the Law of Identity, A=A, as an example of this. A=A for all A. Since you have not shown me how the a non-physical universe would not have such a law, my claim holds.

Lets say A is a tree. We have a tree here, it is A. In heaven they have a tree, it grows fruit every month of the year, and a different fruit at that each month! Do you still say A here equals A there???

 

[WingsOfTheNeophyte]

reigned 900 years,..." ????? Give us a break!

Genesis 5:8

And all the days of Seth were nine hundred and twelve years: and he died.

912? You speak of accuracy of the Bible dating, when we can see its figures are no more extraordinary that those of the Assyrian king list

If you say the dates in the king list cannot be trusted, then neither can the Biblical dates, bot are so far fetched

Like a silly silly so called king list that claims reigns that span 1200 years!!!!!!??? And you want to use that for dating???

Look a silly silly so called holy book, claims Seth lived for over 900 years!!!!!!!???? And you want to use that for dating?????

This shows there was a flood, not that the Sumerian dates have the slightest validity.

The whole story was ripped off, down to the details, if we can prove one story was ripped, off, it shoots the Bibles credibility out of the sky, and into the ground

You have nothing to say about it!

I do, such a misuse of quotes, straight out of context, is able to prove any point, without a single clear verse in the Bible talking about the split, we must remove the bible from being called evidence for a split, show me one clear verse on the spiritual world splitting from the PO. (not the one in the pdf, that one is not clear, in any way, and says nothing about spiritual, physical, just a division)

Can't think of any data that opposes it.

I can




This is where I rest my case,

This is empirical proof that there were people on the planet around 3300 BC who had recorded the same PO universe as we do now





This is a star map from Nineveh

There are two separate parts on the map, where separate constellations were only aligned like that around 3300 BC

IF a fundamental change in the laws of physics occurred, the constellations on this map (their rotations in space) could not have been traced back to 3300BC,

If a fundamental change occurred (such as described in your pdf) then this map would not even be recognizable, it would have been discarded as a petty drawing, not a complex scientific presentation.

I have empirical evidence, what about you?

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Yes, they can. Because by getting saved, we access the spiritual power of heaven, that can bring the bible to life. We can know it is true.

Subjective claims that cannot be verified.

Not light as we know it.

No, not light by definition. It can be some other form of EM radiation, but it is not light.

I defined empiricism a few times, and nothing in that says what you say.

Your definitions:

1. philosophical doctrine that all knowledge is derived from experience.
2. The view that experience, especially of the senses, is the only source of knowledge.

From your definitions, it is implied that the senses are accurate. Since, without reliable physical laws, our senses are wide open to false information about the true nature of reality, empiricism fails. Observations become questionable, evidence is tantamount to subjective conjecture.

We are talking of the future, because what I am saying is that the merged universe was the original, and will be here again after this temporary state ends. The future, then is the key to the past! Not the present.

Your claim, while exceedingly far-fetched, is nonetheless possible. However, what I am saying, is that it is far more probable that your claim is false, that heaven is not going to incarnate in this physical plane, that the physical laws are not mutable, and that logic pervades all things.

No. Angels don't have to abide by PO laws.

By definition, all things that interfere with the physical universe are of the physical universe. It is not something open to logically deny, in the same way that you cannot logically deny that a bachelor is unmarried.

I got saved. Now I know. I tried it, and like it says, we will know. It was right. Try it, you just might like it.

I'll ask again: how do you know it is not the work of a great deciever?

All things you can.

Indeed. And I can apply it to all things anywhere, everywhere. Since you have yet to show me any limitations on the permeance of logic, I will continue to work under the trivially true fact that it has no limitations.

No. Some things are beyond the proof ability of carnal man. Your carnal logic cannot acsend into the jheavens. Sorry to disappoint you.

You have no explained why logic 'cannot ascend into the jheavens'. Please, elaborate.

Like this, - one can of soup is better than another. It tastes good.

So it is abstract. Now, I never claimed that 'simple' is 'good'. I merely claimed that the simpler option is the more probable.

Why would I know apes, or communicate with them? That wasn't my claim?

Because you are an ape.

No the physical laws came to be when the physical only universe camee to be. Before that, before the split, there were merged laws, not physical only laws.

You misunderstand the phrase 'physical law'. Two entities interact under certain laws. These laws are the physical laws. If, in your supposed 'pre-split' universe, entities were capable of interacting, then the laws that govern them would be the physical laws of that universe. Under this terminology you claim that the split caused a mutagen to the current physical laws from the old physical laws.

The posts are so long, I'd have to waft through too much to answer that. You were caught at something, I think.

On the contrary, I located your two definitions of empiricism. The posts are not too long. We have the find function in our browsers, after all.

Do they, really, though? I never.

It was an analogy. And yes, I believe they do.

Then how do you know it?

Two answers:
1) I do not know it, I believe in it.
2) We can never know it.

It is well known! As for them, they feel they know the spiritual is real as well. I know it too. It's almost unanamous.

So your feelings now become objective proof?

No, we don't want to toss out the bible. We like it. It's nice. If science has nothing against it, why toss it out?

Because, as I have said countless times before, it is amoral, suppresive, sadistic, self-contradictory, archaic, incomplete, ...

No evidence of the state of the past. We do have evidence there was a past, and some things about it, if you remember. Like the fossil record, etc.

Ah, but how do you know there was not another split?

If someone claims the universe fit in their belly button at one time, I don't need to disprove it. They need to prove it. They do! They say it was all much smaller than that even! It could have rested easily on one of the hairs in their nose! Think about it.

Your analogies are bizarre. The universe had a radius of 0 (i.e., a singularity), and has since expanded to a radius of ~12 billion light years. All the evidence is there. But, of course, this rests on the assumption that the physical laws are not mutable. Therefore, we return to our debate at hand: are the physical laws mutable?

So, you like it, it is great for you. But you reject God cause He made it, and it's so bad. Gotcha.

No. I reject your god because he is an amoralistic deciever.

It is the wages of our choice of sin. Isn't it time we chose some other way?

If that is the consequences of choice, then I would rather not have free will.

An example might be good. Too much wine is not good. But Jesus made water into wine.
The old law I think, had them stoning prostitutes. Jesus forgave Mary, and said go and sin no more. He made exceptions to all the old morality.
Eating the shewbread was not allowed. He and His deciples were hungry, and ate it!
Healing on the sabbath was called wrong. He healed on the sabbath, because love overrules the law!

I.e., Jesus' morality was conditional, not absolute.

Well, I answered both of those, and rest my case.

You answered them, but then you ignored my rebuttals. I rest my case.

They were too big. Would you like the whole bible in a post?

Don't be absurd. We could do this via PM, if you like. Besides, each list had about 10 verses, max. Is this too much for you? We could even do it one by one, catagorically.

Spititual laws! We reap what we sow. What goes around comes around.

No, human approximations of predictable behaviour.

Laws imply a Lawgiver. Design does imply a Designer. You are wrong. Simple as that. I according to you, then must be right. Because it is simple.

Law does not imply a lawmaker. Noone made the physical laws, for example. They simply are. Design does not imply a designer, because design is an illusion created by our pattern-recognising brains. It is not simple, it is abstract.

I claim what? Extra punishment? Don't think so!

You give examples of the physical consequences that befall a child if the father is morally corrupt. Then you claim that 'the wages of sin' are death and suffering. I.e., extra spiritual punishment.

No, that would take it into the future, and heaven, and the spiritual. Show us how your logic applies to the spiritual!

Show me how it does not. Otherwise, the simpler option is to be preferred (i.e., that logic has no constraints).

No, observation, and our senses do not work everywhere. They work here.

Observation works everywhere. Prove me wrong.

Great. So then I was right, you got nothin.

You misunderstand. By 'nothing', I mean the philosophers nothing. I in no way implied that 'nothing' meant a lack of evidence.

No as doctrines of devils.

Please. You have no substantiation that the fact of Evolution is a 'doctrine of devils'. This is pure Christian ad hominem propaganda

It did exist as long as you lived with physical laws. No revelation there.

Indeed. Care to show me how the physical laws could possibly have been different? Otherwise, the simpler (constant physical laws) is to be preferred.

Lets say A is a tree. We have a tree here, it is A. In heaven they have a tree, it grows fruit every month of the year, and a different fruit at that each month! Do you still say A here equals A there???

Yes. A tree is a tree, no matter where you are or what sort of tree it is. In the same way, a bachelor is unmarried, no matter what system you set up.

 

[dad]

Genesis 5:8

There were long lifespans in the past, that is not in doubt. The fact that the flood and long lifespans were indicated in Sumerian writings relects that reality. However, they were not 1200 years, for the reign of a king. Also, we do not know if it was some ordered progression, or similtaneous, in some cases, apparently, etc, in the heathen texts. As the article said, they can't be trusted. I give some weight to them, in that they mention lifespans closer to reality that accident might allow, and also mention of the flood. But the details are obviously at odds with the sacre, meticulous, accurate records of the actual bible. No comparison.

912? You speak of accuracy of the Bible dating, when we can see its figures are no more extraordinary that those of the Assyrian king list

Seth's dad was listed as well, and his son. It isn't just a list with supposed reigns. It can be used for actual dates, and trusted.
But, are you suggesting here, up front, that you believe either the bible or Sumerian accounts of long lives in the past? Cause if you don't, then you can't use either! I do, so I can use the bible dates!

The whole story was ripped off, down to the details, if we can prove one story was ripped, off, it shoots the Bibles credibility out of the sky, and into the ground

No, that claim is based on BELIEVING the Sumerian dates, therefore reigns of kings of 1200 years! If you claim one, you get the other. Therfore it actually is nothing more than a post flood heathen record, that almost gets a few things right, but is of course useless in the extreme for any dating.

I do, such a misuse of quotes, straight out of context, is able to prove any point, without a single clear verse in the Bible talking about the split, we must remove the bible from being called evidence for a split, show me one clear verse on the spiritual world splitting from the PO.

You don't believe the bible, so why discuss the content itself with you? I already said that the bible from head to toe talks of a different past and futire. If you don't realize that much, study up, cause you are not yet informed enough to HAVE an opinion there!

(not the one in the pdf, that one is not clear, in any way, and says nothing about spiritual, physical, just a division)

So, you think you can tell us precisely what it means, and itemize exactly what was divided, so it could not include anything else??? I can tell you now, you can't. It has been a Christian issue for centuries. It is not packed in a box, some feel it includes one thing, others maybe something else, others, mabbe a few things, etc.
Like anything in the bible, you have to compare it with other passages, precepts, and books, etc. I can do that. I have a case. You do not.

I can

That's what you think.

This is where I rest my case,

This is empirical proof that there were people on the planet around 3300 BC who had recorded the same PO universe as we do now

This is where I put your case to rest!
" Although founded as early as 1700 B.C., the Assyrian Empire, with its capital at Nineveh,.."
http://www.keyway.ca/htm2002/ancassy.htm
The map is post split.

IF a fundamental change in the laws of physics occurred, the constellations on this map (their rotations in space) could not have been traced back to 3300BC,

They can't. Try it, if you think I am wrong.

I have empirical evidence, what about you?

You have nothing. I am starting to get a kick out of true old age believers having an awakening, that they are lost in space, and not anchored to anything, as the assumed.

 

[dad]

No, not light by definition. It can be some other form of EM radiation, but it is not light.

Not by present definition.

Your definitions:

1. philosophical doctrine that all knowledge is derived from experience.
2. The view that experience, especially of the senses, is the only source of knowledge.

From your definitions, it is implied that the senses are accurate. Since, without reliable physical laws, our senses are wide open to false information about the true nature of reality, empiricism fails. Observations become questionable, evidence is tantamount to subjective conjecture.

So, do you like or not like the answers.com stuff there?

Your claim, while exceedingly far-fetched, is nonetheless possible. However, what I am saying, is that it is far more probable that your claim is false, that heaven is not going to incarnate in this physical plane, that the physical laws are not mutable, and that logic pervades all things.

So where do you get off deciding how so called logical or probable heaven is? Upon what do you base it?

By definition, all things that interfere with the physical universe are of the physical universe. It is not something open to logically deny, in the same way that you cannot logically deny that a bachelor is unmarried.

Temporarily passing through is not "of". Like even Christians in the bible, are called, 'in the world, but not of the world'.
Certainly angels are not of the world. That is pretty elementary stuff.

I'll ask again: how do you know it is not the work of a great deciever?

We know the Author.

Indeed. And I can apply it to all things anywhere, everywhere. Since you have yet to show me any limitations on the permeance of logic, I will continue to work under the trivially true fact that it has no limitations.

Assume PO based logic goes to 'infinity, and beyond' if you like!

You have no explained why logic 'cannot ascend into the jheavens'. Please, elaborate.

Our logic is somewhat limited. Is it logical to time travel? There is likely will be, as an example.

So it is abstract. Now, I never claimed that 'simple' is 'good'. I merely claimed that the simpler option is the more probable.

I say it depends on what we are talking about. Simple is often very ggod. Other times is is ridiculous.

Because you are an ape.

Sticks and stones....

You misunderstand the phrase 'physical law'. Two entities interact under certain laws. These laws are the physical laws.

The two entities must be ophysical entities. Like the moon, and earth. Gravity is at work there. Are you suggesting that the moon would suck in a passing angel with it's gravity??? Try to be realistic.

If, in your supposed 'pre-split' universe, entities were capable of interacting, then the laws that govern them would be the physical laws of that universe.

Entities like an angel, and an earthgirl.

Under this terminology you claim that the split caused a mutagen to the current physical laws from the old physical laws.

Well, I don't see where anything mutated.
mu·ta·gen (myū'tə-jən, -jĕn')
n.
An agent, such as a chemical, ultraviolet light, or a radioactive element, that can induce or increase the frequency of mutation in an organism.

It was an analogy. And yes, I believe they do.

The percentage of children worldwide that actually really believe in Santa, under 6 years old, I would think is a small minority. For example, do you thin Chinees kids in China all really believe in Santa?

Two answers:
1) I do not know it, I believe in it.
2) We can never know it.

OK, and that is science?

So your feelings now become objective proof?

The post refers to more than my feelings. The people that feel they know have reasons. Not just feelings. The reasons vary, and many are pretty concrete.

Because, as I have said countless times before, it is amoral, suppresive, sadistic, self-contradictory, archaic, incomplete, ...

We aren't talking about you here. We were talking YECs, bible believers. Those who know better than to think God is some monster. Why would they toss out the bible, on a witches whim? If there is no scientific evidence of the past state as you admit that all so called science opposing the bible is based?

Ah, but how do you know there was not another split?

I don't remember any documented series of changes back and forth in the bible. There are none.

Your analogies are bizarre. The universe had a radius of 0 (i.e., a singularity), and has since expanded to a radius of ~12 billion light years. All the evidence is there. But, of course, this rests on the assumption that the physical laws are not mutable. Therefore, we return to our debate at hand: are the physical laws mutable?

Well, I know it is all a croc. But I am talking about the claim, not any reality! If the entire universe was in a little 0, as you call it, I have heard others say, about the size of a photon, and grew, or expanded, then, at one time, it was as big, they claim, as a molecule, later, as a tip of a nose hair, etc. Even as big as a whole belly button at one time. My, how it grew.

If that is the consequences of choice, then I would rather not have free will.

Well, thankfully, you can't give mine away.

I.e., Jesus' morality was conditional, not absolute.

Don't really know what that means. But He never sinned, if that helps.

You answered them, but then you ignored my rebuttals. I rest my case.

Your rebuttals I thought were whimpers of defeat. Guess you thought more highly of them. But I think we both made a case on the few verses in question, let the chips fall where they may.

Don't be absurd. We could do this via PM, if you like. Besides, each list had about 10 verses, max. Is this too much for you? We could even do it one by one, catagorically.

Well, as I say, I took out the first few, why play with doubts all day? Anyone should be able to see that nothing there was any challenge at all to the accuracy, and authority of the bible!

No, human approximations of predictable behaviour.

No, Because action have reactions out of the range of earth.

Law does not imply a lawmaker. Noone made the physical laws, for example. They simply are.

Says you. That makes about as much sense as 'I think, therefore I am'.

Design does not imply a designer, because design is an illusion created by our pattern-recognising brains. It is not simple, it is abstract.

No, things function in a well ordered way. The universe is like a precise clock, and a clock does not appear buy itself.

You give examples of the physical consequences that befall a child if the father is morally corrupt. Then you claim that 'the wages of sin' are death and suffering. I.e., extra spiritual punishment.

What is extra? There are concequences to actions.

Show me how it does not. Otherwise, the simpler option is to be preferred (i.e., that logic has no constraints).

Show me the spirit world, and I will show you why not. You are talking about this natural, and cannot talk of anything else. That is the limits of your logic, not infinity, and beyond.

Observation works everywhere. Prove me wrong.

Everyehere you can observe. No need to!

You misunderstand. By 'nothing', I mean the philosophers nothing. I in no way implied that 'nothing' meant a lack of evidence.

But that is precisely what you have for the past and future.

Please. You have no substantiation that the fact of Evolution is a 'doctrine of devils'. This is pure Christian ad hominem propaganda

Well, it was the chilling stuff I refered to.

Indeed. Care to show me how the physical laws could possibly have been different? Otherwise, the simpler (constant physical laws) is to be preferred.

If they did not exist how could they be different? The laws that did exist, of course must have been different.

Yes. A tree is a tree, no matter where you are or what sort of tree it is. In the same way, a bachelor is unmarried, no matter what system you set up.

And a body is a body then, according to you. If it lives forever, can dematerialize, fly, etc matters not, it is still a man. Well, in a way, yes, but the processes, and state is different, and the old rules do not apply.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Not by present definition.

Care to give me another definition of light, and explain why this one is more valid than mine?

So, do you like or not like the answers.com stuff there?

I said nothing of the sort. I summerised your definitions, and explained why my claim is valid. I'll repeat, since you are trying to move off this point:
Your definitions:

1. philosophical doctrine that all knowledge is derived from experience.
2. The view that experience, especially of the senses, is the only source of knowledge.

From your definitions, it is implied that the senses are accurate. Since, without reliable physical laws, our senses are wide open to false information about the true nature of reality, empiricism fails. Observations become questionable, evidence is tantamount to subjective conjecture.

So where do you get off deciding how so called logical or probable heaven is? Upon what do you base it?

I apply Occam's Razor to our dilemma. Simple, so to speak.

Temporarily passing through is not "of".

Yes, it is. You cannot move beyond your own physical universe. There may be other physical universes, and there may be other universes within your own physical universe, but you cannot move between.

Like even Christians in the bible, are called, 'in the world, but not of the world'.

The Christian Bible is self-contradictory nonsense. I'd demonstrate quite trivially why this is so, but you have twice ignored such attempts.

Certainly angels are not of the world. That is pretty elementary stuff.

Assuming:
1) You believe in angels
2) You believe what the Bible says without question or objection.

We know the Author.

No, you claim your experiances indicate that the author is your god. However, could a sufficiently powerful deciever not manipulate what you experiance? How do you know that, when you 'try the Bible', your experiances thereof are not manipulated?
Indeed, how do you know that the Bible is not the work of Satan, and the 'Devil' described in it is not the god you try to worship?

Assume PO based logic goes to 'infinity, and beyond' if you like!

I will continue to. Unless you can demonstrate that there is another form of logic that does not apply to our universe, or that our logic cannot be applied to some systems, then your claims are baseless conjecture.

Our logic is somewhat limited.

How so? Simply stating this does not make it so. Demonstrate your claims, or renounce them.

Is it logical to time travel? There is likely will be, as an example.

Your first statement is a non sequitur, and your second lacks understandable syntax. Please, rephrase.

I say it depends on what we are talking about. Simple is often very ggod. Other times is is ridiculous.

Indeed. However, simplicity and 'goodness' are not related. What is your point?

Sticks and stones....

I was not insulting you. I was merely stating your biological classification. Indeed, I too am an ape.

The two entities must be ophysical entities. Like the moon, and earth. Gravity is at work there. Are you suggesting that the moon would suck in a passing angel with it's gravity???

Yes. An angel, if it has mass, will feel the effects of gravitation, as all objects do.

Try to be realistic.

A case of the pot calling the kettle black, if ever there was one.

Entities like an angel, and an earthgirl.

If you like.

Well, I don't see where anything mutated.
mu·ta·gen (myū'tə-jən, -jĕn')
n.
An agent, such as a chemical, ultraviolet light, or a radioactive element, that can induce or increase the frequency of mutation in an organism.

My apologies, my choice of words was inaccurate. I meant:
Under this terminology you claim that the split caused a change to the current physical laws from the old physical laws.
I must admire how you can switch from touting colloquial definitions (in our 'definition of Evolution' discussion) to scientific definitions (here).

The percentage of children worldwide that actually really believe in Santa, under 6 years old, I would think is a small minority. For example, do you thin Chinees kids in China all really believe in Santa?

I doubt all Chinese children believe in Santa. However, my analogy was just that: an analogy. If all children believed in Santa, would this change the validity of Santa's existance? Likewise, if all peoples believed in a spirituality, would this change the logical possibility of said spirituality existing?

OK, and that is science?

No, it was a response to your question. We do not know it.

The post refers to more than my feelings. The people that feel they know have reasons. Not just feelings. The reasons vary, and many are pretty concrete.

Care to give an example of these 'pretty concrete reasons'?

We aren't talking about you here.

Neither am I. I am merely giving reasons to 'toss out the Bible', as you asked.

Why would they toss out the bible, on a witches whim?

Neither my religion, nor my whims, have anything to do with my claim. I am willing to demonstrate my claim, but you ignore such attempts, claiming that 'the first in a list is a good indicator of the rest of a list'.

If there is no scientific evidence of the past state as you admit that all so called science opposing the bible is based?

No. Criticism of the Bible can come from studying the Bible itself. That is where I base my claims, since I know you reject empirical history.

I don't remember any documented series of changes back and forth in the bible. There are none.

Just because the Bible did not document a change, does not mean there was not one. Indeed, the OT morality seems to be absolute, but the NT morality seems to be conditional. Is this not a significant change in the morality of the universe?
Just for the record, I have not questioned why you believe in this 'split'. Where in the Bible does it point to a change in the physical nature of the whole universe? I believe this happened at the time of the Flood, yes? Was it not just a flood, albiet one of epic proportions?

Well, I know it is all a croc.

You know nothing of the sort.

If the entire universe was in a little 0, as you call it, I have heard others say, about the size of a photon, and grew, or expanded, then, at one time, it was as big, they claim, as a molecule, later, as a tip of a nose hair, etc. Even as big as a whole belly button at one time. My, how it grew.

I do not doubt that it was once the size of certain modern biological features. You are attempting to attack the theory of cosmology with arguments from ridicule. Do not forget that this only works when there is more than one opponent.

Well, thankfully, you can't give mine away.

Shame, really. You would have all us sinners stoned and burnt.

Don't really know what that means. But He never sinned, if that helps.

No, it does not.
A conditional morality is one where the morality of a situation depends on the circumstances and conditions. For example, taking human life can be permitted in some circumstances (abortion, euthanasia, suicide) but not others (murder, genocide). Note that my examples are just examples, don't infer more than it there.
An absolute morality is one where the morality of a situation is governed by non-changing rules. For example, taking human life is always forbidden, be it to end suffering or commit genocide.

My claim: Jesus' morality seems to be conditional.

Your rebuttals I thought were whimpers of defeat.

Nonsense. Your ad hominem's do not work here.

Guess you thought more highly of them.

On the contrary, you ignored them. We can review them, if you wish.

But I think we both made a case on the few verses in question, let the chips fall where they may.

Soulless drivel. If you do not want to debate rationally, then do not debate at all.

Well, as I say, I took out the first few, why play with doubts all day? Anyone should be able to see that nothing there was any challenge at all to the accuracy, and authority of the bible!

Unfortunately, your claims can be trivially disproven by simply reviewing our posts.

No, Because action have reactions out of the range of earth.

I was referring to the human analogies of 'bad father, bad child', not the physical tendency for causality.

Says you. That makes about as much sense as 'I think, therefore I am'.

'I think, therefore I am' is a profound statement. The only thing an observer can truely, unequivocably, know is that the observer exists. That is all. I know I exist, and you likely know that you exist. However, I do not know that you exist, and you do not know that I exist. We believe most vhemently that the other exists, but we do not know conclusively. It is always possible that all our sensory input is manipulated, or otherwise false. Because of this possiblity, all we know is that we recieve sensory input, and that we are the reciever. I think, therefore I am.

No, things function in a well ordered way.

On the contrary, the entire physical universe rests on probabilities.

The universe is like a precise clock, and a clock does not appear buy itself.

Creation ex nihilo would argue differently.

What is extra? There are concequences to actions.

Indeed there are. But you have not yet given me a reason for spiritual punishment to befall a child with morally bad parents. Physical deterimental consequences may exist as a causal result of said parent's actions, but why must your god also punish the child?

Show me the spirit world, and I will show you why not.

I do not believe the spirit world, as you define it, to exist. So no, I will not show it to you. You must show it to me.

Everyehere you can observe. No need to!

An irrelevant tautology that dodges the point. I will conclude this line of inquiry with the peace of mind that you cannot demonstrate why observation does not work universally.

But that is precisely what you have for the past and future.

Once again, you misunderstand. I specifically stated: I in no way implied that 'nothing' meant a lack of evidence.
You are taking my words out of context. Cease this, or I will end this line of inquiry.

Well, it was the chilling stuff I refered to.

Perhaps it was. But you have not demonstrated that Evolution is either 'chilling' or the 'doctrines of devils'.

If they did not exist how could they be different? The laws that did exist, of course must have been different.

Very well. Show me what makes you think that a different set of physical laws existed before your 'split'.

And a body is a body then, according to you.

Yes. You keep reciting various incarnations of the Law of Identity. What is your point?

If it lives forever, can dematerialize, fly, etc matters not, it is still a man.

So long as an object fits the definition of a man, then that object is a man. A=A.

 

[WingsOfTheNeophyte]

Ubaid period 5300-3900 BC
Uruk period

• Uruk IV period 3900-3200 BC

1. Jemdet Nasr period 3200-2900 BC = Uruk III period

Early Dynastic period

• Early Dynastic I period 2900-2800 BC
• Early Dynastic II period 2800-2600 BC (Gilgamesh)
• Early Dynastic IIIa period 2600-2500 BC
• Early Dynastic IIIb period 2500-2334 BC

Lagash dynasty period 2550-2380 BC
Akkad Dynasty period 2450-2250 BC (Sargon)
Gutian period 2250-2150 BC
Ur III period 2150-2000 BC

This is what archaeological data, has for the civilization of Sumer (Ubaid and Uruk are click able, notice the data rests on factual finds, not king lists)

This Assyrian star map (commonly referred to as a "planisphere") was recovered from the library of King Assurbanipal in Nineveh and is dated to circa 800 BCE

Ok lets think about this logically

The star map was found in a library (that is important)

The star map is dated a late date (dating of the actual map)

The star map shows constellations alignment of 3300BC

What conclusion can we draw from this?

You find a map in a library, a copy of a much older map, if the star map, was drawn from astronomical observations, in 1700-800BC then the constellations would show what the sky was like then, however this is not the case

In libraries, even in the ancient world, scribes made copies of much older writings and maps,

My case is still rested, there is a star map which shows constellations of 3300BC, we know full well cities existed back then, so civilization was advancing, it was around then, Egypt was unified

 

[dad]

This is what archaeological data, has for the civilization of Sumer (Ubaid and Uruk are click able, notice the data rests on factual finds, not king lists)

I was afraid of that! So, all I found pertaining to dates there, was this
"The Ubaid period as a whole, based upon the analysis of grave goods, .."
In other words, the grave diggers carbon dated thing! Now, since there was no decay in the different past, of course the dates are wrong.
Your arguement rests on radioactive dating. That rests on a same past you can't prove, and have tried to prove here using said sating. That puts your case to rest.
The ACTUAL facts are that they were post flood, as they admit. And you have nothing, and these grave diggers have nothing to show otherwise in any way that involves anything but same past assumptions!
Check, and mate.

Ok lets think about this logically

The star map was found in a library (that is important)

Right, like Dr Seus is found in one.

The star map is dated a late date (dating of the actual map)

No, a same past is assumed, and dating efforts based solely on that are made.

The star map shows constellations alignment of 3300BC

No, it is post flood, post split. And, that is, according to the site I looked at, the oldest thing available on stars! Your dates are PO past assumptions. Not evidenced in any way.

What conclusion can we draw from this?

That in this world exists nothing that could contradict the split, in the form of actual evidence! Thanks for pointing that out.

You find a map in a library, a copy of a much older map, if the star map, was drawn from astronomical observations, in 1700-800BC then the constellations would show what the sky was like then, however this is not the case

The case is that they are from the last 4400 years, and your dating is pure religion.

In libraries, even in the ancient world, scribes made copies of much older writings and maps,

They did a lot of things. In this case you simply speculate that they represent pre flood. But everyone was wiped out that was not God's people. And we have a record from God's people. A real record.

My case is still rested, there is a star map which shows constellations of 3300BC, we know full well cities existed back then, so civilization was advancing, it was around then, Egypt was unified

Egypt is a similar case, both these were after the flood, and notice they picture writing as the icing on the cake here in both instances! The evidence mounts.

 

[WingsOfTheNeophyte]

That in this world exists nothing that could contradict the split, in the form of actual evidence! Thanks for pointing that out.

This is as impossible to contradict as the Flying Spaghetti Monster

If you claim scientific evidence, logical evaluation, archaeological finds, are wrong , then I am trying to battle real life against a fairy world

No matter what evidence I bring you will just say, that the very fundamental laws in the world were distorted, that physics changed, and laws from fairy land were in place

I give up, seriously, after giving you empirical evidence against, no matter how we disagree on its credibility, you give me no empirical evidence for the split, how can I hold a contrary position, to yours, if you have no evidence for the existence of your position?

So do you posses, empirical evidence to back up your position?

 

[WingsOfTheNeophyte]

Right, like Dr Seus is found in one.

Dr Seuss is a story, many stories were found in the library, not many mathematically, astronomically accurate star maps

Your dates are PO past assumptions.

So you will say, the stars in the sky, moved in different orbits relative to us? (prior to your split)

your dating is pure religion.

Dating, is done by scientists, and is pure fact

They did a lot of things. In this case you simply speculate that they represent pre flood. But everyone was wiped out that was not God's people. And we have a record from God's people. A real record.

Are you in the possession, of evidence to show that a flood occurred in Sumer? (empirical evidence, all evidence should be empirical)

 

[dad]

Care to give me another definition of light, and explain why this one is more valid than mine?

There is only one definition of light that concerns us, it is the one we know now. No point in defining former universe light. We relate everything to our state, and really can't think logically of some other one, in a real way. These are our limitations.

From your definitions, it is implied that the senses are accurate. Since, without reliable physical laws, our senses are wide open to false information about the true nature of reality, empiricism fails. Observations become questionable, evidence is tantamount to subjective conjecture.

Don't really know what you are talking about. It was an online dictionary definition, not mine. I asked if it was bad or good in your opinion. This is your reply. I still don't know if you like it. I suspect you prefer some other dictionary.

I apply Occam's Razor to our dilemma. Simple, so to speak.

Fine with me, if that is your weapon of last resort. Might as well let you keep a little dignity.

Yes, it is. You cannot move beyond your own physical universe. There may be other physical universes, and there may be other universes within your own physical universe, but you cannot move between.

I never said in this life, I could move beyond the universe. Focus. Angels can visit here. They are from a seperate universe, or, as commonly called, dimension.

The Christian Bible is self-contradictory nonsense. I'd demonstrate quite trivially why this is so, but you have twice ignored such attempts.

I soundly defeated the doubts raised, and you may cling to them if you wish, but not with reason on your side.

Assuming:
1) You believe in angels
2) You believe what the Bible says without question or objection.

I do. No one can prove itherwise, why not? I would need a reason to call God a liar.

No, you claim your experiances indicate that the author is your god. However, could a sufficiently powerful deciever not manipulate what you experiance?

You speak from afar off, in theory, and what ifs. We speak, a lot of us, from tried and true proven and repeated experiences, and observations in our lives.

How do you know that, when you 'try the Bible', your experiances thereof are not manipulated?

I meant try Jesus, or get saved.

Indeed, how do you know that the Bible is not the work of Satan, and the 'Devil' described in it is not the god you try to worship?

How do you know your pet rat is not the mayor of McCheeseville, and New York? We just know.

I will continue to. Unless you can demonstrate that there is another form of logic that does not apply to our universe, or that our logic cannot be applied to some systems, then your claims are baseless conjecture.

Well our logic is earthly. It can sometimes be applied to eternity, and sometimes it can't. It is that different.

How so? Simply stating this does not make it so. Demonstrate your claims, or renounce them.

It is well known to believers that many receive all kinds of gifts from God, and miracles, in a million ways, some you might consider small, some big.

Your first statement is a non sequitur, and your second lacks understandable syntax. Please, rephrase.

Time travel is possible in heaven. It is not here. Is it logical in both places?

Indeed. However, simplicity and 'goodness' are not related. What is your point?

They are often intimate.

I was not insulting you. I was merely stating your biological classification. Indeed, I too am an ape.

Speak for yourself. I am not, despite the claims, and grouping of the spiritually undiscerned.

Yes. An angel, if it has mass, will feel the effects of gravitation, as all objects do.

No. Not unless the mass was PO mass! It is not the same mass. One is decaying, and flesh, and material only, the other is eternal, and spiritual, and non material only. Whatever form it may chose to take.


A case of the pot calling the kettle black, if ever there was one.

If you like.

It was a plea, not an insult.

My apologies, my choice of words was inaccurate. I meant:
Under this terminology you claim that the split caused a change to the current physical laws from the old physical laws.
I must admire how you can switch from touting colloquial definitions (in our 'definition of Evolution' discussion) to scientific definitions (here).

That is because evolution as commonly understood, and taught, is in no way science! Yes the former universe was seperated, leaving us in a temporary physical only state.

I doubt all Chinese children believe in Santa. However, my analogy was just that: an analogy.

Fine, I simply applied logic to your claim, and exposed it as coming up short. I do use logic you know.

If all children believed in Santa, would this change the validity of Santa's existance? Likewise, if all peoples believed in a spirituality, would this change the logical possibility of said spirituality existing?

Well, they don't, so why second guess reality? If all people believed something in earnest, I would assume that there would be some very good reasons, and it had some value, in the evidence pile.

No, it was a response to your question. We do not know it.

But so much of what is called science depends on it, and you say we daon't know it. You are right.

Care to give an example of these 'pretty concrete reasons'?

The mayor of I think it was Denver, some years ago, had some concrete reasons to believe. His wife (or was it daughter, anyhow a relative) got healed in one of the big meetings of Aimee Semple McPherson.

Neither am I. I am merely giving reasons to 'toss out the Bible', as you asked.

They are opinions of an unsaved man, they are not reasons.

Neither my religion, nor my whims, have anything to do with my claim. I am willing to demonstrate my claim, but you ignore such attempts, claiming that 'the first in a list is a good indicator of the rest of a list'.

I found it generally is, in this forum.

No. Criticism of the Bible can come from studying the Bible itself. That is where I base my claims, since I know you reject empirical history.

Apparent contradictions, represent a common problem, especially from non believers. That is that they really can't understand the bible. They take it all at what they think is face value, and don't have the spirit of the letter, but the dead letter.

Just because the Bible did not document a change, does not mean there was not one. Indeed, the OT morality seems to be absolute, but the NT morality seems to be conditional. Is this not a significant change in the morality of the universe?

It is a step forward for His people. It is not a universal change in the state of the universe.

Just for the record, I have not questioned why you believe in this 'split'. Where in the Bible does it point to a change in the physical nature of the whole universe? I believe this happened at the time of the Flood, yes? Was it not just a flood, albiet one of epic proportions?

No. In the days of Peleg, when the earth was divided! Right at the time of the tower of Babel, coincedentally.

You know nothing of the sort.

You think you know that I don't know.

I do not doubt that it was once the size of certain modern biological features. You are attempting to attack the theory of cosmology with arguments from ridicule. Do not forget that this only works when there is more than one opponent.

People are not my opponent. The principalities behind the 'lie' is my opponent.

Shame, really. You would have all us sinners stoned and burnt.

Jesus stopped sinners from being stoned.

No, it does not.
A conditional morality is one where the morality of a situation depends on the circumstances and conditions. For example, taking human life can be permitted in some circumstances (abortion, euthanasia, suicide) but not others (murder, genocide).

That is right!

Note that my examples are just examples, don't infer more than it there.
An absolute morality is one where the morality of a situation is governed by non-changing rules. For example, taking human life is always forbidden, be it to end suffering or commit genocide.

That is wrong.

My claim: Jesus' morality seems to be conditional.

Sort of like a conditional pardon.

Nonsense. Your ad hominem's do not work here.

I wasn't kidding. I won the debate there.

On the contrary, you ignored them. We can review them, if you wish.

If you feel a need, go back, and see what happened. I remember a victory pretty well.

Unfortunately, your claims can be trivially disproven by simply reviewing our posts.

Well, I'm satisfied that the doubts rasied were dealt with.

I was referring to the human analogies of 'bad father, bad child', not the physical tendency for causality.

Parents affect their kids, yes. To a certain degree.

'I think, therefore I am' is a profound statement. The only thing an observer can truely, unequivocably, know is that the observer exists. That is all.

Well, let's say I am the observer. I observe a desk. I can know it also exists! I can rap my knuckles on it, if I have any doubts.

I know I exist, and you likely know that you exist. However, I do not know that you exist, and you do not know that I exist.

Well, Someone must be tapping the keys. But say, those I meet, like, say, a mother, I know that they represent reality. To doubt that is insanity.

We believe most vhemently that the other exists, but we do not know conclusively. It is always possible that all our sensory input is manipulated, or otherwise false.

No, not in knowing people we meet are real. That is called sanity. Now, if you want to say, look, you mey a man in disguise once, or something, fine. WE can be fooled. But not to the extent that all life is a dreamsical farce of maddness!

On the contrary, the entire physical universe rests on probabilities.

No. Sorry. Nope. Uhh uhh.

Creation ex nihilo would argue differently.

That little nipper is in your head, though. It can't overrule the heavens that scream out they were created.

Indeed there are. But you have not yet given me a reason for spiritual punishment to befall a child with morally bad parents. Physical deterimental consequences may exist as a causal result of said parent's actions, but why must your god also punish the child?

Where is it God punishing? I think it is mostly a noting of fact that children suffer if their parents are wicked. They can't really come to know God, or Jesus too easy.

I do not believe the spirit world, as you define it, to exist. So no, I will not show it to you. You must show it to me.

Then you can't expect to tell us much about it, or it's laws, now can you?

An irrelevant tautology that dodges the point. I will conclude this line of inquiry with the peace of mind that you cannot demonstrate why observation does not work universally.

It only works on things we can observe.

Once again, you misunderstand. I specifically stated: I in no way implied that 'nothing' meant a lack of evidence.

Well, what does it mean, lots of evidence? Sure sounds like nothing to me.

Perhaps it was. But you have not demonstrated that Evolution is either 'chilling' or the 'doctrines of devils'.

Well, if you remember that was in response to this claim of yours. Not evolutionary biology.
"There is nothing significant about us, the Earth, our solar system, etc. "

Very well. Show me what makes you think that a different set of physical laws existed before your 'split'.

I don't! They were not physical only laws. If you mean a different set of laws, well, if the universe was different, it needed different laws! Just like heaven needs different laws. And hell.

Yes. You keep reciting various incarnations of the Law of Identity. What is your point?

Bodies are different now, than ih heaven, so we need more than now logic.

So long as an object fits the definition of a man, then that object is a man. A=A.

Is it logical, then to say that man cannot die, even if hit by a speeding train, and travels unaided by a ship in space for hours? That sounds illogical to me, yet is is logical for heaven.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

There is only one definition of light that concerns us, it is the one we know now. No point in defining former universe light. We relate everything to our state, and really can't think logically of some other one, in a real way. These are our limitations.

I'll take that as a 'no'.

Don't really know what you are talking about. It was an online dictionary definition, not mine. I asked if it was bad or good in your opinion. This is your reply. I still don't know if you like it. I suspect you prefer some other dictionary.

Ah, I thought you were being fesicious. Yes, answers.com gives a satisfactory answer.

Fine with me, if that is your weapon of last resort. Might as well let you keep a little dignity.

This debate is hardly a matter of keeping face. Since you have yet to demonstrate how Occam's Razor is inapplicable to this debate, I will continue to use it in the knowledge that you accept it (or, at least, have not rationally rejected it).

I never said in this life,

Neither did I.

I could move beyond the universe.

Perhaps. But you cannot exceed the physical laws you currently abide by.

Angels can visit here. They are from a seperate universe, or, as commonly called, dimension.

Prove it.

I soundly defeated the doubts raised, and you may cling to them if you wish, but not with reason on your side.

We could keep doing this, 'I defeated your doubts', 'No you didn't', 'Yes I did', ad infinitum et nausiem.
So, onto the two 'doubts' that you deemed fit to answer:
Contradictory dates as to when the Temple was burnt. Your answer: the Temple burned during both dates. My rebuttal: the verses do not say the Temple was burning, but that it was burnt. Past tense. Your counterargument: Pending.
Biblical condonation of punishing the child for the sins of the father, as per Leviticus 26:39. Your answer: bad things happen to the children of bad parents. My rebuttal: this does not mean that your god must exact spiritual punishment as well. Your counterargument: Pending.

There. I sifted through those 'long posts' for you.

I do. No one can prove itherwise, why not? I would need a reason to call God a liar.

My point is that there is no rational reason to assume these things. You directly invoke angels and Biblical innerrancy. Such claims violate Occam's Razor until they can be substantiated.

You speak from afar off, in theory, and what ifs. We speak, a lot of us, from tried and true proven and repeated experiences, and observations in our lives.

How does that answer my question? The Great Deceiver is more than capable of Deceiving you and your subjective experiances. You claim it is your god, I claim it is your devil. Even Occam's Razor cannot differentiate our claims.

I meant try Jesus, or get saved.

Very well. How do you know that, when you get 'saved', the experiances you feel do not come from the Devil?

How do you know your pet rat is not the mayor of McCheeseville, and New York? We just know.

You do not 'just know'. You subjectively believe.

Well our logic is earthly. It can sometimes be applied to eternity, and sometimes it can't. It is that different.

You make the conclusion, but still have not demonstrated it. I'll repeat: demonstrate to me that logic is not universal.

It is well known to believers that many receive all kinds of gifts from God, and miracles, in a million ways, some you might consider small, some big.

It is not well know, otherwise everyone would become a believer to recieve these gifts. Show me where it is 'known'.

Time travel is possible in heaven. It is not here. Is it logical in both places?

The possibility of time travel is not relavent to the permeance of logic. Time travel may be possible in heaven, and it may be impossible outside of heaven. How is this relavent?

They are often intimate.

No, they are not. They are unrelated until you can demonstrate otherwise.

Speak for yourself. I am not, despite the claims, and grouping of the spiritually undiscerned.

Apes: members of the Hominoidea superfamily of primates, and are distinguished from other members by

1. the number of cusps on their molars (apes have five—the "Y-5" molar pattern, Old World monkeys have only four in a "bilophodont" pattern).
2. more mobile shoulder joints and arms, ribcages that are flatter front-to-back, and a shorter, less mobile spine compared to Old World monkeys
3. All living members of the Hylobatidae and Hominidae are tailless (and humans can therefore accurately be referred to as bipedal apes)

Since we fit the biological and genetic definitions of 'Great Ape', we are Apes as biologically defined.

No. Not unless the mass was PO mass! It is not the same mass. One is decaying, and flesh, and material only, the other is eternal, and spiritual, and non material only. Whatever form it may chose to take.

You have no justification for invoking this 'non-PO' mass that, presumably, is unaffected by things in the 'PO'. It is pure ad hoc.

It was a plea, not an insult.

I did not take it as such. You gave a rather odd example, and it was correct.

That is because evolution as commonly understood, and taught, is in no way science!

1) We are not discussing how evolution is commonly understood and taught
2) I vhemently disagree that a non-scientific version of evolution is taught, at least outside the US

Fine, I simply applied logic to your claim, and exposed it as coming up short. I do use logic you know.

What logic? My claim (the existance of a spiritual tradition in all human cultures does not verify any or all spiritual traditions) has not been refuted. A widespread belief does not become fact just because a lot of people believe it.

Well, they don't, so why second guess reality?

It is a hypothetical situation, a thought experiment designed to highlight the fallicies in your logic.

If all people believed something in earnest, I would assume that there would be some very good reasons, and it had some value, in the evidence pile.

Not necessarily. It is equally, if not more, likely that it points to a common neurological consequence. For example, it is known that humans are social animals, and loneliness is is not desired. Thus, when faced with the aching, empty expanse of philosophy and science, humans create mystical beings to fill the void. Unfortunately, some humans take this too far and think they actually exist.

But so much of what is called science depends on it, and you say we daon't know it. You are right.

As I mentioned in the 'I think, therefore I am' point, we only know of our own existance. But logic implies empiricism, and empiricism has it's own form of knowledge that we must accept if we are to progress beyond the isolated well of 'only my existance'.

The mayor of I think it was Denver, some years ago, had some concrete reasons to believe. His wife (or was it daughter, anyhow a relative) got healed in one of the big meetings of Aimee Semple McPherson.

No, she did not. First, you cannot even get your story straight. Second, you provide no reason for me to accept that it was the sole act of your god. For example, my own faith posits that, with sufficient belief, remote healing is possible. This is, naturally, an applicable alternative to this situation.

They are opinions of an unsaved man, they are not reasons.

Show me that these opinions are false. If you cannot, then they remain reasons.

I found it generally is, in this forum.

Perhaps. But do not have the audacity to not even look at a persons claims, and then pronounce them as 'KO'd' simply because you believe to have refuted only the first.

Apparent contradictions, represent a common problem, especially from non believers. That is that they really can't understand the bible. They take it all at what they think is face value, and don't have the spirit of the letter, but the dead letter.

What, you think the words change once one is saved? Please, give me the true scripture. I'm sure the world would love to hear these 'New Old' and 'New New' Testaments.

No. In the days of Peleg, when the earth was divided! Right at the time of the tower of Babel, coincedentally.

Peleg and Babel are Biblical myths, nothing more. Prove me wrong.

You think you know that I don't know.

If you know that '[cosmology / the big bang hypothesis] is croc', then please, demonstrate this knowledge.

People are not my opponent. The principalities behind the 'lie' is my opponent.

A principality is a region under the jurisdiction of a Prince.

Jesus stopped sinners from being stoned.

And yet he proclaims that all those who do not hate their mother and their father cannot be with him.

That is right!

What, that conditional morality exists (in your view), or that my explination of what a conditional morality is is right?

That is wrong.

What, that absolute morality does not exists (in your view), or that my explination of what a conditional morality is is wrong?

Sort of like a conditional pardon.

Err... not quite.

I wasn't kidding. I won the debate there.

Neither am I. I reposted our 'debate' above.

If you feel a need, go back, and see what happened. I remember a victory pretty well.

I did. See above.

Well, I'm satisfied that the doubts rasied were dealt with.

Then you are easily satisfied by unverified and subjective eye-witness accounts.

Parents affect their kids, yes. To a certain degree.

Your point? You are attempting to equate the Trend of Causality to the trend that a child's morality reflects their parents.

Well, let's say I am the observer. I observe a desk. I can know it also exists! I can rap my knuckles on it, if I have any doubts.

My counterargument: you are not actually observing that the desk exists. Your sensory input is being manipulated in such a way that you are under the illusion that a dest exists. In reality, it does not.

Well, Someone must be tapping the keys.

Keys?

But say, those I meet, like, say, a mother, I know that they represent reality.

No, you do not. You only think that you have met a mother. Indeed, you do not really know if she is really a mother at all.

To doubt that is insanity.

Perhaps. But the possibility of insanity must not sway us from the quest for truth.

But not to the extent that all life is a dreamsical farce of maddness!

Why on Earth not? Just because something is unlikely does not mean it is impossible.

No. Sorry. Nope. Uhh uhh.

Ah, you once again demonstrate the extent of your logic. Perhaps you would like to close your eyes and stick your fingers in your ears? You could shout 'LA LA LA GOD LOVES ME LA LA LA NO MORE DOUBTS LA LA LA', if you like.
Oh, and I sincerely doubt you have trumped all of quantum & statistical theory.

That little nipper is in your head, though.

No. It has been logically predicted and, later, empirically observed. It is not in my head, it is an observed fact.

It can't overrule the heavens that scream out they were created.

The heavens do no such thing. Demonstrate to me that they were created.

Where is it God punishing? I think it is mostly a noting of fact that children suffer if their parents are wicked. They can't really come to know God, or Jesus too easy.

Your god explicitly states that the child must bear the sins of the forefather. This is unnecessarily cruel.

Then you can't expect to tell us much about it, or it's laws, now can you?

No, I cannot. You see, I am not the one claiming to know how it works, or why it is different, or that it exists.

Well, what does it mean, lots of evidence? Sure sounds like nothing to me.

Then you are a subborn idiot. I mentioned nothing about evidence. NO-THING. Gettit?

Well, if you remember that was in response to this claim of yours. Not evolutionary biology.
"There is nothing significant about us, the Earth, our solar system, etc. "

And I stand by my claim. Show me that it is 'chilling', and therefore rejectable, to claim that we are insignificant.

I don't! They were not physical only laws. If you mean a different set of laws, well, if the universe was different, it needed different laws! Just like heaven needs different laws. And hell.

Then show me why there was a different universe at all.

Bodies are different now, than ih heaven, so we need more than now logic.

This is not what the Law of Identity is for. It tells us that something is identicle to itself. If that thing changes over time, then it is no longer the original thing. It may be called the same thing, from an abstract point of view, but, technically, it is not the same thing.

Is it logical, then to say that man cannot die, even if hit by a speeding train, and travels unaided by a ship in space for hours? That sounds illogical to me, yet is is logical for heaven.

It is not illogical. How does it violate the rules of logic? Once you've demonstrated this, how is it more logical for it to occur in heaven?

 

[dad]

Perhaps. But you cannot exceed the physical laws you currently abide by.

Spirits can.

Prove it.

They fly, and are spirits, according to the bible. That does it.

Contradictory dates as to when the Temple was burnt.

No, burning a temple loaded with the greatest treasure in the world takes time. The difference is some 53 hours or such. that is very very within reason. In fact it would nbe unbelievable for them to have destroyed the compound, without taking the unimaginable riches.

Your answer: the Temple burned during both dates. My rebuttal: the verses do not say the Temple was burning, but that it was burnt. Past tense. Your counterargument: Pending.

Considering the context, your take is impossible! Because look at all he did here.
13 He burned the house of the LORD, the king's house and all the houses of Jerusalem; even every large house he burned with fire. 14 So all the army of the Chaldeans who were with the captain of the guard broke down all the walls around Jerusalem.

...carried away into exile some of the poorest of the people,

..Now the bronze pillars which belonged to the house of the LORD and the stands and the bronze sea, which were in the house of the LORD, the Chaldeans broke in pieces and carried all their bronze to Babylon [notice here they did a number on the temple, it was huge, and that takes time, as does getting to Babylon!]
....
18 They also took away the pots, the shovels, the snuffers, the basins, the pans and all the bronze vessels which were used in temple service. 19 The captain of the guard also took away the bowls, the firepans, the basins, the pots, the lampstands, the pans and the drink offering bowls, what was fine gold and what was fine silver. 20 The two pillars, the one sea, and the twelve bronze bulls that were under the sea, and the stands, which King Solomon had made for the house of the LORD--the bronze of all these vessels was beyond weight

To do all that simply takes more than 5 minutes, sorry! This tells us the bible is real! Not just some story where they did all that in no time.

Biblical condonation of punishing the child for the sins of the father, as per Leviticus 26:39. Your answer: bad things happen to the children of bad parents. My rebuttal: this does not mean that your god must exact spiritual punishment as well. Your counterargument: Pending.

Lev 26:39 - and others of you will waste away in sorrow as the result of your sins and the sins of your ancestors. The result of your sins, and theirs. No God sneaking in and clobbering kids, and meteing out extras at all. Cut the strange claims.

How does that answer my question? The Great Deceiver is more than capable of Deceiving you and your subjective experiances. You claim it is your god, I claim it is your devil. Even Occam's Razor cannot differentiate our claims.

No, someone told you wrong, no man or devil can pluck us out of His hand.

Very well. How do you know that, when you get 'saved', the experiances you feel do not come from the Devil?

If I could explain that, why get saved? You have to try it to know.

It is not well know, otherwise everyone would become a believer to recieve these gifts. Show me where it is 'known'.

Untold millions did try it. It is known to them. That is pretty well known.

No, they are not. They are unrelated until you can demonstrate otherwise.

Well, who really cares that much anyhow about the relatioship of simplicity?

Apes: members of the Hominoidea superfamily of primates, and are distinguished from other members by...

Nope. That is just a grouping some one was monkeying with. Some physical similarities of little value.

Since we fit the biological and genetic definitions of 'Great Ape', we are Apes as biologically defined.

As a creature, we all know, an ape is an ape. Some evos have a classification by the same name, they like to include man in. Whopee doo. I am not an ape.

You have no justification for invoking this 'non-PO' mass that, presumably, is unaffected by things in the 'PO'. It is pure ad hoc.

False we have the documentation of the bible. Example, Jesus after rising from the dead. He could pass through solid doors, and such. This means His mass was different. Simple.

2) I vhemently disagree that a non-scientific version of evolution is taught, at least outside the US

No evolution that mentions a common single ancestor is scientific, in that it is imagination only. In any country. You can't take the created trait of evolving back to Granny, -just to the ark.

What logic? My claim (the existance of a spiritual tradition in all human cultures does not verify any or all spiritual traditions) has not been refuted. A widespread belief does not become fact just because a lot of people believe it.

In this case, it is evicence, whether or not it is fact in all cases. It is evidence somrthing is going on outside the box.

It is a hypothetical situation, a thought experiment designed to highlight the fallicies in your logic.

Assuming your mother isn't real highlights your errors, not mine!

Not necessarily. It is equally, if not more, likely that it points to a common neurological consequence. For example, it is known that humans are social animals, and loneliness is is not desired. Thus, when faced with the aching, empty expanse of philosophy and science, humans create mystical beings to fill the void. Unfortunately, some humans take this too far and think they actually exist.

Silly. You forget the evidence of reality again. Try to keep an eye on that, in all your mind excercises, will you? The simple and real actual fact of the matter is that we believed in spirit, and the spiritual, a long long long long long, long long long long time before science ever appeared on the scene. Your point is moot.

As I mentioned in the 'I think, therefore I am' point, we only know of our own existance. But logic implies empiricism, and empiricism has it's own form of knowledge that we must accept if we are to progress beyond the isolated well of 'only my existance'.

I never was in that isolated place. I never doubted my parents, teachers, and friends were actually real. If I had of, I am not sure how far I would have gotten in the logic travels department.

No, she did not. First, you cannot even get your story straight. Second, you provide no reason for me to accept that it was the sole act of your god. For example, my own faith posits that, with sufficient belief, remote healing is possible. This is, naturally, an applicable alternative to this situation.

The mayor was a man. Aimee lived long ago. Don't presume I do not know what I am talking about.
" Mayor Bailey proclaimed officially that the hour between noon and one p.m. be observed that day, asking that all bells in the city be rung at noon and that traffic and activity stop. ...

That same evening Mayor Bailey's wife presented herself for prayer for a foot condition which for three years had caused great pain. She vowed faith that she would receive deliverance. A few days later she told reporter Frances Wayne, "My foot is fine. Saturday night was the first time in three years that I have had any rest with my foot. For months and months I have had to get up and rub my foot before I could go to sleep. Now that is past. The trouble grew out of a broken arch, and an ex-ray taken a short time ago showed inflammation had set in. I have always believed in the potency of prayer, backed by faith, and I am sure Mrs. McPherson's prayers, added to my faith, have resulted in a cure."
Numerous other public officials of city, county, state, and federal agencies also testified to receiving salvation and healing. Alva Swain reported that Colorado's governor "brought a deaf and dumb boy to the building, and he was made to hear and talk."
As the campaign wound down to the final service business men recognized an amazing impact even on Denver's commercial life. While I have found no reports of people who sneaked on street cars inundating the trolley company with payments for stolen rides as happened in Wichita, for example, nevertheless, reports abounded of bills being paid on which creditors had given up hope of being able to collect. Hundreds of converts made restitution for past wrongs. And this was spontaneous. The evangelist did not demand this of the suppliants. She believed the Lord himself would direct the converts. http://www.geocities.com/ruinum/denver.htm

What, you think the words change once one is saved? Please, give me the true scripture. I'm sure the world would love to hear these 'New Old' and 'New New' Testaments.

The words come alive only as God gives His spirit to our understanding of them. Otherwise, it is all a pretty shallow thing.

Peleg and Babel are Biblical myths, nothing more. Prove me wrong.

Don't have to. The bible has enough respect and clout as it is. All I am concerned about is that it agrees with my case. Whether you agree or not is quite secondary.

If you know that '[cosmology / the big bang hypothesis] is croc', then please, demonstrate this knowledge.

Sure, come on back to the beginning, and let's observe it, shall we, then?
All I need to show is that you can't back up the fairy tales with evidence.

A principality is a region under the jurisdiction of a Prince.

Spiritual, or physical. The lie comes from the spiritual. It is just piped in via the physical agents, who usually don't even know what they are mouthing.

And yet he proclaims that all those who do not hate their mother and their father cannot be with him.

You misunderstand what He meant. I see no need to get into it too deep either here.

What, that conditional morality exists (in your view), or that my explination of what a conditional morality is is right?

You know, the whole wording, and concept of what you are saying is pretty vague, as I see it. Right now, the general golden rule is love. If it is done in love, then it is a pretty safe bet that it is the right thing to do. Just apply that to any question along these lines you might have.

Err... not quite.

Yes, Jesus paid the price, and gave us the pardon from our sins.

Neither am I. I reposted our 'debate' above.

I noticed.

Then you are easily satisfied by unverified and subjective eye-witness accounts.

When we have billions of them, and a lot of agreement as well, and over great time, and accompanied by various proofs (not talking of science, that matters little), then we can admit it on the pile of evidences we have.

Your point? You are attempting to equate the Trend of Causality to the trend that a child's morality reflects their parents.

It was self evident. Parents affect their kids.

My counterargument: you are not actually observing that the desk exists. Your sensory input is being manipulated in such a way that you are under the illusion that a dest exists. In reality, it does not.

Right, as I said, insanity. Don't worry about it, no one is manipulating my desk. Probably not even yours.

Keys?

Keyboard.

No, you do not. You only think that you have met a mother. Indeed, you do not really know if she is really a mother at all.

Sorry your grasp on reality seems somewhat fickle.

Perhaps. But the possibility of insanity must not sway us from the quest for truth.

I suggest you put sanity first, and worry about the quest for truth later.

Why on Earth not? Just because something is unlikely does not mean it is impossible.

Chasing shadows, much?

Oh, and I sincerely doubt you have trumped all of quantum & statistical theory.

Hey, you name it, I tame it.

No. It has been logically predicted and, later, empirically observed. It is not in my head, it is an observed fact.

What was a fact here again, in your mind?

The heavens do no such thing. Demonstrate to me that they were created.

Guess we have a difference of opinion there then.

Your god explicitly states that the child must bear the sins of the forefather. This is unnecessarily cruel.

The facts of life, I am afraid. The bible also states that we can be forgiven sins, forebearer or otherwise, by simply asking Jesus. So why sweat it?

No, I cannot. You see, I am not the one claiming to know how it works, or why it is different, or that it exists.

Right, your expertise in in box. The coming heavens is spiritual, so, if you want to learn about things eternal, forget the in box science. Look to God, and the bible, or remain with what you have.

Then you are a subborn idiot. I mentioned nothing about evidence. NO-THING. Gettit?

Not really? Whay are you going on about nothing?

And I stand by my claim. Show me that it is 'chilling', and therefore rejectable, to claim that we are insignificant.

Because we are it. We are the reason the stars shine, and the universe is in the state it is in now, and etc. It all revolves around us, so to speak. God is moving right here to earth forever. We are significance incarnate! Suggesting we are insignificant is a doctrine of devils.

Then show me why there was a different universe at all.

Well, why will there be a different universe soon? Because we no longer need this temporary prison PO state. (PO state pen!)
So, we get back to the future, or the eternal state.

This is not what the Law of Identity is for. It tells us that something is identicle to itself. quote]
And this matters, or relates, ...how?

It is not illogical. How does it violate the rules of logic? Once you've demonstrated this, how is it more logical for it to occur in heaven?

Well, you say it is logical for a man to travel in space for hours, with no suit, or ship? Is it also logical for an ice cream cone to drive you to work? Doesn't sound all that logical to me. It is ridiculous. Can you not tell logic from the ridiculous?

 

[WingsOfTheNeophyte]

dad

Where is your empirical evidence hiding?

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Spirits can.

No, they cannot. Prove me wrong.

They fly, and are spirits, according to the bible. That does it.

This is not proof. This is conjecture from the Bible. Unless you can verify the relevant verses (or, more usefully, the Bible itself), it will remain as conjecture.

No, burning a temple loaded with the greatest treasure in the world takes time.

A building does not take more time to burn just because there is more or greater treasure. What, you think the flames gave the burners time to loot?

Considering the context, your take is impossible! Because look at all he did here.
13 He burned the house of the LORD, the king's house and all the houses of Jerusalem; even every large house he burned with fire. 14 So all the army of the Chaldeans who were with the captain of the guard broke down all the walls around Jerusalem.

...carried away into exile some of the poorest of the people,

..Now the bronze pillars which belonged to the house of the LORD and the stands and the bronze sea, which were in the house of the LORD, the Chaldeans broke in pieces and carried all their bronze to Babylon [notice here they did a number on the temple, it was huge, and that takes time, as does getting to Babylon!]
....
18 They also took away the pots, the shovels, the snuffers, the basins, the pans and all the bronze vessels which were used in temple service. 19 The captain of the guard also took away the bowls, the firepans, the basins, the pots, the lampstands, the pans and the drink offering bowls, what was fine gold and what was fine silver. 20 The two pillars, the one sea, and the twelve bronze bulls that were under the sea, and the stands, which King Solomon had made for the house of the LORD--the bronze of all these vessels was beyond weight

To do all that simply takes more than 5 minutes, sorry! This tells us the bible is real! Not just some story where they did all that in no time.

One thing: how on Earth does this tell us the Bible is true (I'll assume you did not mean real, since I have a copy behind me).

A building, even one of the 'magnitude' of Solomon's Temple, would not take over 2 days to burn.

Lev 26:39 - and others of you will waste away in sorrow as the result of your sins and the sins of your ancestors. The result of your sins, and theirs. No God sneaking in and clobbering kids, and meteing out extras at all. Cut the strange claims.

Correction, I meant 26:28-29: Then I will walk contrary unto you also in fury; and I, even I, will chastise you seven times for your sins.And ye shall eat the flesh of your sons, and the flesh of your daughters shall ye eat.

No, someone told you wrong, no man or devil can pluck us out of His hand.

Why not? If you are under an illusion, you cannot rightly claim that your god is in total control. What if this is another form of illusion? The point is that you cannot trust a source as nebulous as 'we experiance being saved, and we know it to be true'.

If I could explain that, why get saved? You have to try it to know.

I'd rather not, thanks. Any mysticism that forces me to unfailingly believe the alleged word of a sadistic murderer, is not a practice for me.

Untold millions did try it. It is known to them. That is pretty well known.

Once again, it is not 'known' to them. They simply share an experiance that may or may not be spiritually incited.

Well, who really cares that much anyhow about the relatioship of simplicity?

It was you who kept raising the subject of simplicity and goodness being related. I answer what I'm asked, that is all.

Nope. That is just a grouping some one was monkeying with. Some physical similarities of little value.

Well, yes. This is a biological definition that is only changed by the definition by either a biological contradiction, or a change in the biological consensus. Your ideas and thoughts on the nature of spirituality are irrelevant.
On a side note: what does it matter if humans are endowed with the spirit of the Judaeo-Christian god? Biological definitions deal with the biology of organisms, nothing more.

As a creature, we all know, an ape is an ape.

Yet another example of A=A.

Some evos have a classification by the same name, they like to include man in.

Actually, it is the whole of the scientific community, and most of the developed world, that accepts that humans are as similar to the Great Apes as they are to each other. Thus, we are one of them. That is how taxonomy works.

Whopee doo. I am not an ape.

Not by your definition. But then, what is your definition of an ape?

False we have the documentation of the bible.

The Bible is unverified conjecture. Demonstrate that we can use the Bible reliably.

No evolution that mentions a common single ancestor is scientific, in that it is imagination only.

Imagination? On the contrary, common ancestry has been demonstrated in the lab, it is a trivial consequence of long-term evolution, and it is well within the realms of scientific inquiry.

In any country. You can't take the created trait of evolving back to Granny, -just to the ark.

My friend, it is the ark that is imaginary, in any country. It is just a retelling of the same old flood myth.

In this case, it is evicence, whether or not it is fact in all cases. It is evidence somrthing is going on outside the box.

Or something common going on with the neurology of our brains.

Assuming your mother isn't real highlights your errors, not mine!

I never assumed that my mother is not real. I am merely pointing out that I cannot conclusively know that she is real. I assume she is real, since the alternative is grossly improbable, but the point is that it is nonetheless possible.

Silly. You forget the evidence of reality again.

Yes, I'm glad one of us has a grip on reality

The simple and real actual fact of the matter is that we believed in spirit, and the spiritual, a long long long long long, long long long long time before science ever appeared on the scene. Your point is moot.

How on Earth does this negate my point? If anything, it supports it! You admit that humanities preoccupation with the spiritual began in prehistory, when the only explination was mystical entities. In any case, my statement stands. I'm actually quite baffled here; how have you made anything moot?

I never was in that isolated place.

That is because you never doubted the reality of reality, so to speak. It is an assumption so ingrained into human experiance that most never question it.

The mayor was a man. Aimee lived long ago. Don't presume I do not know what I am talking about.

I presume you do not know because:
The mayor of I think it was Denver, some years ago, had some concrete reasons to believe. His wife (or was it daughter, anyhow a relative) got healed in one of the big meetings of Aimee Semple McPherson.
Could you possibly have been more vague?

http://www.geocities.com/ruinum/denver.htm

So you have a story. Any verification of this?
Also, would you care to explain why this one woman, the wife of a US mayor, who suffered from nothing more than footache, should recieve divine healing, when millions the world over go unheard?

The words come alive only as God gives His spirit to our understanding of them. Otherwise, it is all a pretty shallow thing.

I'll take that as a 'no, the words don't actually change, we just like to believe we have some sort of insider knowledge that I can't possibly share with you because you are not a True Christian™'.

Don't have to.

If you are going to refute the whole of empiricism, then you might want to back up your claims.

All I am concerned about is that it agrees with my case.

Naturally. How true the Bible is is totally irrelevant. So long as some old man way back when wrote something that can be retranslated to resemble something approximating your claim, then that's alright.

Sure, come on back to the beginning, and let's observe it, shall we, then?
All I need to show is that you can't back up the fairy tales with evidence.

Very well then, demonstrate this. Stop beating about the bush. We have already established that all claims have a possibility of being de re false.
Besides, any argument that, by refuting empiricism, disproves my claims, automatically disproves yours.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Spiritual, or physical. The lie comes from the spiritual. It is just piped in via the physical agents, who usually don't even know what they a re mouthing.

Nonsense. Do you have any rationale to justify such absurdities?

You misunderstand what He meant. I see no need to get into it too deep either here.

Try me. If your messiah demands that one hates ones one parents, then your messiah is no better than Hitler.

You know, the whole wording, and concept of what you are saying is pretty vague, as I see it.

If you cannot comprehend these concepts, just say so. You may put a lot of emphasis on appearances, but I do not. All I care about is the truth, not how well it makes the presenter out to be.

Right now, the general golden rule is love. If it is done in love, then it is a pretty safe bet that it is the right thing to do. Just apply that to any question along these lines you might have.

I love to kill people. Is this morally good? I love to blaspheme against the Christian god. Is this morally good? I love to kiss and sleep with my own sex. Is this morally good? I love to have premarital sex. Is this morally good? I love to kick children and puppies. Is this morally good?

Yes, Jesus paid the price, and gave us the pardon from our sins.

Jesus paid the price that he set up in the first place.

When we have billions of them, and a lot of agreement as well, and over great time, and accompanied by various proofs (not talking of science, that matters little), then we can admit it on the pile of evidences we have.

1) You do not have billions of eye-witness accounts.
2) There is little agreement of said accounts outside of strict traditions (Christians rarely see eye-to-eye with Wiccan spirituality, for example).
3) All proofs are scientific.
4) Science is the only thing that matters when one desires the objective truth.
5) Supporting evidence is not conclusive evidence.

Right, as I said, insanity. Don't worry about it, no one is manipulating my desk. Probably not even yours.

And how, pray tell, do you know that your desk exists? Let us go through this step by step, yes?
1) You claim to visually observe your desk. How do you know that this sensory input is not fed to you via electrodes on your occular nerve?
2) You claim to tactially observe your desk. How do you know that this sensory input is not fed to you via electrodes on your pressure receptors?

Keyboard.

Ah. Well, not necessarily. It could all be a virtual reality, an illusion. The Matrix triology is a perfect example of this kind of scenario.

Sorry your grasp on reality seems somewhat fickle.

I merely accept the possibility that the reality we observe is not the true reality. Any observation can be manipulated, so therefore all observations have the smallest possibility of being falsely fabriated.

I suggest you put sanity first, and worry about the quest for truth later.

Perhaps. Ignorance is bliss, after all. But I stand by my claims: observations are inherently open to being fabricated.

Chasing shadows, much?

I do not believe that our reality is fabricated. I am merely highlighting some of the consequences of absolute knoweldge.

Hey, you name it, I tame it.

Very well. Heisenbergs Uncertainty Principle posits that you cannot preciesly know both a particle's velocity v and it's position x at a given time t.

What was a fact here again, in your mind?

A fact: something which is empirially known to be true without exception.

Guess we have a difference of opinion there then.

I'll take that as a 'I can't'.

The facts of life, I am afraid. The bible also states that we can be forgiven sins, forebearer or otherwise, by simply asking Jesus. So why sweat it?

Because you follow a god that falsely claims to be moral.

Right, your expertise in in box. The coming heavens is spiritual, so, if you want to learn about things eternal, forget the in box science. Look to God, and the bible, or remain with what you have.

The Bible is unverifiable, and your god is self-contradictory. Try again.

Not really? Whay are you going on about nothing?

In all fairness, you lost the plot of this point some time ago. Let sleeping dogs lie, yes?

Because we are it. We are the reason the stars shine, and the universe is in the state it is in now, and etc. It all revolves around us, so to speak. God is moving right here to earth forever. We are significance incarnate! Suggesting we are insignificant is a doctrine of devils.

Stars shine because of delayed photon emmision, and the universe is in it's current state because of it's initial conditions. Humanity has nothing to do with it. We are one species, bound to the landmass of one planet orbiting one star among billions in one galaxy among countless trillions in a universe of unknown size. How are we more significant than, say, an orangutan? Simply repeating the statement 'We are significant! We are significant!' does not make it so.

Well, why will there be a different universe soon? Because we no longer need this temporary prison PO state. (PO state pen!)
So, we get back to the future, or the eternal state.

No, that is not what I asked.
I'll repeat: how me why there was a different universe at all.

And this matters, or relates, ...how?

Because I am trying to demonstrate to you that the Law of Identity is an example of how logic permeates all things, including your 'non-PO' universe.

Well, you say it is logical for a man to travel in space for hours, with no suit, or ship? Is it also logical for an ice cream cone to drive you to work? Doesn't sound all that logical to me. It is ridiculous. Can you not tell logic from the ridiculous?

I think you need basic courses in logic.
A statement can be logically coherant if it's inferrances from it's assumptions (or axioms) is logically consistent. It may not be true, but it can be logical.
For example:
1) Premise: all animals can fly
2) Observation: pigs are animals
3) Conclusion: pigs can fly
Naturally, the conclusion is false. It is valid, but it is not sound.
Do not confuse the two, mon ami. That seems to be your downfall here.

 

[dad]

Nonsense. Do you have any rationale to justify such absurdities?

Eph 6:12 - For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places.

Try me. If your messiah demands that one hates ones one parents, then your messiah is no better than Hitler.

Briefly, what it was saying is that, in comparison to our love for God, the love for our parents should be like hate. We are commanded to love our parents, and Jesus loved His! When it comes to following Him, however, we can't let parental love overrule all. Simple.

If you cannot comprehend these concepts, just say so. You may put a lot of emphasis on appearances, but I do not. All I care about is the truth, not how well it makes the presenter out to be.

Be clear, it is simple.

I love to kill people. Is this morally good? I love to blaspheme against the Christian god. Is this morally good? I love to kiss and sleep with my own sex. Is this morally good? I love to have premarital sex. Is this morally good? I love to kick children and puppies. Is this morally good?

Nice guy.

Jesus paid the price that he set up in the first place.

You really don't have a clue how it was set up.

1) You do not have billions of eye-witness accounts.
2) There is little agreement of said accounts outside of strict traditions (Christians rarely see eye-to-eye with Wiccan spirituality, for example).
3) All proofs are scientific.
4) Science is the only thing that matters when one desires the objective truth.
5) Supporting evidence is not conclusive evidence.

1- We have accounts of things in our lives. 2- Plenty of agreement on many basics. 3-False 4-False. 5- It helps.

And how, pray tell, do you know that your desk exists? Let us go through this step by step, yes?
1) You claim to visually observe your desk. How do you know that this sensory input is not fed to you via electrodes on your occular nerve?
2) You claim to tactially observe your desk. How do you know that this sensory input is not fed to you via electrodes on your pressure receptors?

Must be tough, the struggle with reality. My desk is here.

Ah. Well, not necessarily. It could all be a virtual reality, an illusion. The Matrix triology is a perfect example of this kind of scenario.

Ease up on movies, if you take them that seriously.

I merely accept the possibility that the reality we observe is not the true reality. Any observation can be manipulated, so therefore all observations have the smallest possibility of being falsely fabriated.

It may not be the only reality, or eternal reality, but it is our present reality. It'll do.

Perhaps. Ignorance is bliss, after all. But I stand by my claims: observations are inherently open to being fabricated.

Within reason. No need to toss aside sanity for that.

I do not believe that our reality is fabricated. I am merely highlighting some of the consequences of absolute knoweldge.

What would we know of absolute knowledge? We are but men.

Very well. Heisenbergs Uncertainty Principle posits that you cannot preciesly know both a particle's velocity v and it's position x at a given time t.

OK. And why would that affect anything I might be concerned about? God can know! And, who says we won't know when the true state comes? Now, things are out of whack, so it is natural we can't tell where everything is going, and why.

A fact: something which is empirially known to be true without exception.

I suppose you think that is a fact. But I think I may have been asking not what a fact itself is, but what was the fact you were bringing up as a fact.

I'll take that as a 'I can't'.

I can have a difference of opinion, that's a fact. Anyone reading this can observe that fact.

The Bible is unverifiable, and your god is self-contradictory. Try again.

We verify it all the time. I think you mean science is unable, and unwilling to verify the bible.

In all fairness, you lost the plot of this point some time ago. Let sleeping dogs lie, yes?

OK, guess it was nothing anyhow.

Stars shine because of delayed photon emmision, and the universe is in it's current state because of it's initial conditions. Humanity has nothing to do with it.

Stars shone because God made them in our sky for signs and things for us. The present state of the stars is not in question. We are what it is all about.

We are one species, bound to the landmass of one planet orbiting one star among billions in one galaxy among countless trillions in a universe of unknown size.

He did make a lot for us, yes. Be happy.

How are we more significant than, say, an orangutan? Simply repeating the statement 'We are significant! We are significant!' does not make it so.

Orangutans will not judge angels, and rule earth forever. They don't have our free will. They were not given rule over all creatures here.

No, that is not what I asked.
I'll repeat: how me why there was a different universe at all.

Show me why there is a spiritual? Show me why there can be nothing but the material? Science can't do that. You don't want God, or the bible. You cannot know.

Because I am trying to demonstrate to you that the Law of Identity is an example of how logic permeates all things, including your 'non-PO' universe.

If you can't identify the spiritual, how can you impose PO bylaws on it?


I think you need basic courses in logic.
A statement can be logically coherant if it's inferrances from it's assumptions (or axioms) is logically consistent. It may not be true, but it can be logical.
For example:
1) Premise: all animals can fly
2) Observation: pigs are animals
3) Conclusion: pigs can fly
Naturally, the conclusion is false. It is valid, but it is not sound.
Do not confuse the two, mon ami. That seems to be your downfall here.[/quote]
Who thought flying pigs was valid?

 

[dad]

No, they cannot. Prove me wrong.

Science deals with the natural.

This is not proof. This is conjecture from the Bible. Unless you can verify the relevant verses (or, more usefully, the Bible itself), it will remain as conjecture.

To you, yes.

A building does not take more time to burn just because there is more or greater treasure. What, you think the flames gave the burners time to loot?

It was a compound. Remember that it was also every house in the town that was burned as well. The temple compound had a lot of buildings. Treasure was everywhere. They likely torched areas after they were cleaned out.

One thing: how on Earth does this tell us the Bible is true (I'll assume you did not mean real, since I have a copy behind me).

It takes time to do all the things there.
Not just the burning, but getting the gold off the walls, etc.
"In 1860, during the Second Opium War, the British and French expeditionary forces looted the Old Summer Palace. Then on October 18, 1860, in order to "punish" the imperial court, which had refused to allow Western embassies inside Beijing, the British general Lord Elgin- with protestations from the French - purposely ordered the torching of this massive complex which burned to the ground. It took 3500 British troops to set the entire place ablaze and took three whole days to burn"


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_Palaces
Now, do you admit defeat???

A building, even one of the 'magnitude' of Solomon's Temple, would not take over 2 days to burn.

Oh, really??

Correction, I meant 26:28-29: Then I will walk contrary unto you also in fury; and I, even I, will chastise you seven times for your sins.And ye shall eat the flesh of your sons, and the flesh of your daughters shall ye eat.

They would get in such a bad state from their rebellions, and sin, that they would resort to this. So? Man in sin is wicked.

Why not? If you are under an illusion, you cannot rightly claim that your god is in total control. What if this is another form of illusion? The point is that you cannot trust a source as nebulous as 'we experiance being saved, and we know it to be true'.

Sorry, I just don't have a problem with reality. Hope it clears up.

I'd rather not, thanks. Any mysticism that forces me to unfailingly believe the alleged word of a sadistic murderer, is not a practice for me.

No one forced me, or anyone. But it does open the doors of perception to heaven, and the spiritual.

Once again, it is not 'known' to them. They simply share an experiance that may or may not be spiritually incited.

Are you claiming you know what they know, and that they don't know it?

On a side note: what does it matter if humans are endowed with the spirit of the Judaeo-Christian god? Biological definitions deal with the biology of organisms, nothing more.

And that is all they are good for. In fact, since they omit God in their knowledge, the grouping criteria is deeply flawed, and reflects their belief system.

Not by your definition. But then, what is your definition of an ape?

A big monkey! Ha. Well, I don't much care about apes, I must admit. I suppose they are creatures like anything else. Baby apes are cute. King Kong was a nice ape. They kinda look a bit like man.

The Bible is unverified conjecture. Demonstrate that we can use the Bible reliably.

It is well verified fact, as is the fact that science is unable to confirm or deny it.

Imagination? On the contrary, common ancestry has been demonstrated in the lab, it is a trivial consequence of long-term evolution, and it is well within the realms of scientific inquiry.

False. What are you talking about!?

My friend, it is the ark that is imaginary, in any country. It is just a retelling of the same old flood myth.

Objection, Opinion.

Or something common going on with the neurology of our brains.

PO based viewpont. Conjecture.

I never assumed that my mother is not real. I am merely pointing out that I cannot conclusively know that she is real.

Not sure if your own mother exists, yet you seem sure that the universe was in a speck, and we are rock crack scum. Interesting.

I assume she is real, since the alternative is grossly improbable, but the point is that it is nonetheless possible.

I see.

Yes, I'm glad one of us has a grip on reality

Good.

That is because you never doubted the reality of reality, so to speak. It is an assumption so ingrained into human experiance that most never question it.

Mothers are real.

So you have a story. Any verification of this?
Also, would you care to explain why this one woman, the wife of a US mayor, who suffered from nothing more than footache, should recieve divine healing, when millions the world over go unheard?

She was one on thousands. They used to line up for blocks to get in to meetings. Some just to touch the outside of the building she was talking in.

I'll take that as a 'no, the words don't actually change, we just like to believe we have some sort of insider knowledge that I can't possibly share with you because you are not a True Christian™'.

Guess you won't know, unless you try getting saved.



Very well then, demonstrate this. Stop beating about the bush. We have already established that all claims have a possibility of being de re false.
Besides, any argument that, by refuting empiricism, disproves my claims, automatically disproves yours.[/quote]
Point was you can't observe it, it never happened.

 

[dad]

dad

Where is your empirical evidence hiding?

Funny I haven't heard from you since I showed that your old star claims and dates were strictly assumption based, on a same past. Grave tales indeed.

That means you have no empirical evidence. All we observe are your assumptions. You can observe mine as well.

 

[WingsOfTheNeophyte]

Funny I haven't heard from you since I showed that your old star claims and dates were strictly assumption based, on a same past. Grave tales indeed.

That means you have no empirical evidence. All we observe are your assumptions. You can observe mine as well.

Funny I haven't heard from you since I asked you for empirical evidence,

I showed you mine, we disagreed on its validity, and although I can bring forth some more arguments, I wait for you to catch up, and bring some empirical evidence of your own,

Until then our argument is not on an equal basis, so please, some empirical evidence of your own