Moon was Created

[dad]

Says who?

Jesus. Why?


Joh 3:6 - That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.

 

[dad]

Evidence, of course. Don't you know what the word means?

No, tell us. Why is a world of human experiences not evidence?

I don't have to have anything on offer.

I'll say.

I'm not making a claim. You are. You're the one who needs the evidence, not me. And that's what you never have - evidence.

You seem to somehow prefer to deny, rather than accept the well known obvious. You think someone is going to hammer it into you?

 

[rydog32]

the moon was a fluke along with earth. or "science" as some may call

 

[dad]

the moon was a fluke along with earth. or "science" as some may call

I see. Well, since they think it all is basically a fluke, I guess that is in keeping with science.

 

[lemmings]

I see. Well, since they think it all is basically a fluke, I guess that is in keeping with science.

That doesn't mean you can't be happy when you're delt a royal flush.

 

[dad]

That doesn't mean you can't be happy when you're delt a royal flush.

I suppose you could be, as foreign a concept as that may be to me. Why, I suppose some creatures might be happy running off a cliff, to drown in water. Happy is nice.

I ought to know, I hold more than PO cards, and actually try to play with all the cards in the deck.

 

[rydog32]

i love how this is so cutthroat over nothing at all. i mean "oh look the moon" its time to take off our clothes and run around like we did once before. Throw in a few cannibals and nuclear warheads and we have a party people.

Who really cares who or what the moon is, created or destroyed. Its there, it affects us in tiny yet uninsurmountable ways and we better not mess with it or we'll be messed with by some *cough "forces unknown."

 

[dad]

i love how this is so cutthroat over nothing at all. i mean "oh look the moon" its time to take off our clothes and run around like we did once before. Throw in a few cannibals and nuclear warheads and we have a party people.

Who really cares who or what the moon is, created or destroyed. Its there, it affects us in tiny yet uninsurmountable ways and we better not mess with it or we'll be messed with by some *cough "forces unknown."

You think this is cutthroat!? Hec we are just playin around, cause the poor old agers lost their case.

Who really cares what the moon is?? Well, the issue really is what the claims of science are. Do you care about those?

 

[pikatore]

No, tell us. Why is a world of human experiences not evidence?

Because it isn't reliable, objective, or clinical. And if you want to accept something as a fact, then you require evidence of the claim that meets the three above criteria.

If human experiance = evidence, then the world would be a crazier place. And conditions such as schizophrenia wouldn't have a name, they'd just be different 'perspectives'.

I don't know about you, but I'd prefer to utilise scientific method to make sense of the world around me.

As for the 'spiritual' aspect of the moon, referring to the OP? At the end of the day, all you see for sure is a big ball of rock and dust in the sky. Making all these ridiculous connections to it, and granting it (or attempting to anyway) some mystical quality by throwing out rhetoric and providing the dodgiest links I've ever clicked on, does NOT support ANYTHING.

The best way is to look at something, and use logic to guess it's nature and even origins. NOT religion.

 

[The Bellman]

No, tell us.

If you don't know what the word 'evidence' means, then you need to consult a dictionary.

Why is a world of human experiences not evidence?

You don't have a world of human experiences, so the question is moot.

You seem to somehow prefer to deny, rather than accept the well known obvious. You think someone is going to hammer it into you?

I think that someone who claims something should be able to evidence it. You repeatedly claim something exists beyond the material, yet you never provide the slightest bit of evidence to support that claim. When challenged, you do what you've been doing for the last few pages with me - evade, avoid, make smart alec remarks that you presumably think are funny, claim you don't need to present evidence, claim you've already presented evidence, claim I need to present evidence (even when I've made no claim to evidence), congratulate yourself for your imagined victories - in short, anything but actually provide evidence to support your claims.

 

[thaumaturgy]

Jesus. Why?


Joh 3:6 - That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.

OK. Fair enough.

 

[FishFace]

Yes, man has crossed that bridge. It is written in stone. Like the ten commandments were.

What have you established to be spiritual? When I ask the question, "Is this thing spiritual or physical" you can't use the rules of the spiritual yet, because you don't know whether it is or not. That's like saying, "Is this a duck" and me replying, "Well, since it's a duck, it has webbed feet, a beak and feathers, therefore it's a duck."

True, I cannot say that it is S/P in the interior of the moon, or earth. That is simply an educated guess.

Where's your education? Where's your evidence? Clearly science has a majority on this one. Nearly everyone except you believes the inside of the earth is non-spiritual. By your own argument, and since we're dealing with spirituality here, that must imply that it probably isn't.

It doesn't. But most men on earth all through history is another matter. That goes toward showing there could be something to it!

Why. How. Lots of people believe it, or believed it... so what? So it's true? No. So it's probably true? No. So it's possible true? Well, we already know it's possible so that's no good!

Because there is spiritual, and there is physical, and they don't work the same. Slap a ghost in the face sometime,. and see what I mean.

That has nothing to do with logical fallacies. Logic is not spiritual or physical or anythingal. Logic is outside all of that. Argumentum ad Populum is a logical fallacy, so it does not establish the truth of anything.

 

[FishFace]

Who has been inside the moon??

Who cares. I told you to answer the question - you see a thing, which you've not seen inside. Or which you've not seen the other side of. Is that unseen part physical or spiritual or pixie dust?

Not if it is out of man's little realm.

Answer the question. Do you or don't you know that the inside of a room is physical, if all you've seen is the outside?

I think I can come close. If it is ON the moon, or on the earth, it is physical. So?

How do you know?

OK. Of course we have the bible. Other folks have an underworld as well.

SO? They might have an underworld, but they don't agree with you. Do you think that Cerberus, Kipu-Tyttö and Sedna all exist inside the earth?

Be honest.

I am being. I know the inside of the earth is physical. You know nothing, by your own confession.

How about the inside of the moon?

Yep, that too. I know all of these things. You don't know anything about them, as you've demonstrated by not providing any reason, evidence or proof at all.

 

[Nitron]

Dad is a troll. Don't attack Dad because he's awesome.

 

[rydog32]

You think this is cutthroat!? Hec we are just playin around, cause the poor old agers lost their case.

Who really cares what the moon is?? Well, the issue really is what the claims of science are. Do you care about those?

well, the cutthroat part was just a pun. what i mean is because i cant see no emotion coming from a computer screen or the emphasis in words created by bits and bytes of an unknown language, i have no clue on whether this is in-depth and serious. or just brainstorming.
And answering your question, yes i do care about claims to science. I mean without science and its advancements, what would this forum be?
Pretty much a group of people who sit around a fire and share their opinions.

 

[dad]

That doesn't mean you can't be happy when you're delt a royal flush.

So, the big whack is a royal flush of coincidences. I see. I'd take any money you win with that hand to the bank, before trying to spend it. If you just said, flush, you would have been closer.

 

[dad]

If you don't know what the word 'evidence' means, then you need to consult a dictionary.

Evidence for spirits is beyond science. The evidence presented in human test tubes, you ignore.

You don't have a world of human experiences, so the question is moot.

Yes, we do, where you been? Most believe in spirits for reasons. All over the world people have had experiences of a supernatural nature.

I think that someone who claims something should be able to evidence it. You repeatedly claim something exists beyond the material, yet you never provide the slightest bit of evidence to support that claim.

I presented the miracles Christians recorded in the bible. Also, evidence that mankind all over the world believe in some form of spiritual.

All you offer is attitude. Work on that.

 

[dad]

What have you established to be spiritual? When I ask the question, "Is this thing spiritual or physical" you can't use the rules of the spiritual yet, because you don't know whether it is or not. That's like saying, "Is this a duck" and me replying, "Well, since it's a duck, it has webbed feet, a beak and feathers, therefore it's a duck."

Neither can you shoot a duck in the core of the earth, with a PO pop gun!!

Where's your education? Where's your evidence? Clearly science has a majority on this one. Nearly everyone except you believes the inside of the earth is non-spiritual. By your own argument, and since we're dealing with spirituality here, that must imply that it probably isn't.

Appeal to popularity. I don't care what they believe, unless they know what they are talking about. Like folks that believe in a spiritual know what they are talking about, many of them. Like me.

Why. How. Lots of people believe it, or believed it... so what? So it's true? No. So it's probably true? No. So it's possible true? Well, we already know it's possible so that's no good!

Sounds like what you should be saying about claims of the center of the earth. I am not here to convince you there is gravity, or spirits. Those things are well known. The interior of the moon is not. At least not by science.

That has nothing to do with logical fallacies. Logic is not spiritual or physical or anythingal. Logic is outside all of that. Argumentum ad Populum is a logical fallacy, so it does not establish the truth of anything.

False, there is fishbowl logic, and there is spiritual logic. ne'er the twain on this PO earth shall meet. You have fishbowl logic, and try to insist it applies outside. No.

 

[dad]

Who cares. I told you to answer the question - you see a thing, which you've not seen inside. Or which you've not seen the other side of. Is that unseen part physical or spiritual or pixie dust?

It is either known, partially know, or unknown. Most things on the earth surface we know. You cannot take that to infinity and beyond. Each tub has got to stand on it's own legs.

Answer the question. Do you or don't you know that the inside of a room is physical, if all you've seen is the outside?

No, what if there is a ghost in there? Doesn't that count?

How do you know?

Man has been there!

SO? They might have an underworld, but they don't agree with you. Do you think that Cerberus, Kipu-Tyttö and Sedna all exist inside the earth?

Maybe. Spirits that were alive thousands of years ago are still alive. Like that moon god watcher guy. You are being watched.

I am being. I know the inside of the earth is physical. You know nothing, by your own confession.

No, I confessed you don't know. You should be so honest as well.

Yep, that too. I know all of these things. You don't know anything about them, as you've demonstrated by not providing any reason, evidence or proof at all.

The bible, and most cultures that think there is an underworld is evidence. Now, if you want science evidence, you cannot give any for your case, so you can expect none against it.

 

[dad]

well, the cutthroat part was just a pun. what i mean is because i cant see no emotion coming from a computer screen or the emphasis in words created by bits and bytes of an unknown language, i have no clue on whether this is in-depth and serious. or just brainstorming.

Oh. OK. If I knew you had no clue, I may have went a little easier on you.

And answering your question, yes i do care about claims to science. I mean without science and its advancements, what would this forum be?

Good, so you like science.

Pretty much a group of people who sit around a fire and share their opinions.

OK, pass the guitar around, throw a few logs on the fire, chug a cup of brew down, get out your story stick, and share your blanket with the chilly chick on the log next to you.

How cutthroat is that?