Moon was Created

[dad]

Yeah, we get it. You demand science live up to a higher standard than you demand of your own claims.

Science deals with the physical. That demands different evidences.

(BTW, I'm going to keep reminding you of the words of your lord and savior as long as it takes. Even if you get really tired of hearing them. He is, after all, important to you, isn't he?)

He does not mean that the PO is equal with the kingdom of heaven. Corruption, with incorruption, the world that will pass away, with Heaven. But post verses all you like!

You've been shown what the "opinions" of science are based on. Even we scientists acquiesce that we might be mistaken on some things. However you cannot ever say our "opinion" is based on nothing.

Yes, I can, watch this. Your opinions on the PO nature of the interior are based on nothing! Really. Bouncing a silly wave off God knows what can't tell us what it is. It means squat. Unless you know that the physical only material is all that really is down there. Why pretend you know, when you know not?

I will thank you to correct that statement.

OK, here it is, corrected!
Your opinion is based on nothing, and you refuse to face it.

Argumentum ad populum. And of course a bit of overcredulity on your part.

Spiritual things are evidenced by people. A lot of people. Deal with it. Science is not, that requires physical, observed and tested evidences. Be brave, step up to the plate, and provide them, or admit you can't! I would think many reading the thread would know you can't anyhow by now. Save a little face. Fess up.

Indeed it is. You are finally right on something.

Thank you.Your turn now..

 

[FishFace]

The fact that most believe in a spiritual of some kind is evidence.

No, it really isn't.

 

[FishFace]

What data? What room? You made it up. Focus.

You've never seen the outside of a room you've never been in? Doesn't matter, use something else. The inside of anything you've never seen. So let's have it again:

A physical interior to the earth is compatible with the data (S and P wave patterns.) So is a spiritual interior. So is a pixie dust interior.
A physical interior to a [locked room, cupboard you've never seen inside, locked safe] is compatible with the data (e.g. it sounds hollow.) So is a spiritual interior. So is a pixie dust interior.

In each case, what should we believe the interior is - spiritual, physical, or pixie dust?
In each case, why should I agree with you?

No other way, eh? We shall see. So? The concept has more weight with spiritual things, for science, you need a lot more.

It's not a question of science. The question is, "what is the inside of the earth made of?" and, "what is the inside of a locked room/locked cupboard/locked safe made of?"
In either case, what lots of people say is utterly irrelevant.

For spiritual things, the fact that most know about it is evidence. It doesn't swing both ways.

I see it now! Science has to provide evidence, you just have to convince a load of gullible people to agree with you. Pity that the truth doesn't work like that! Popularity has absolutely nothing to do with the truth of something. Not that you can muster a single person who agrees with you, so I guess by your own argument, you must be wrong.

Evidence of spiritual impacts are people affected by the impacts. It is not rocks or bones, or stars. Deal with it. Better for you, apparently not to venture out of the PO fishbowl with your concepts. All things are not equal. One size does not fit all when dealing with the spiritual and physical. Not in this man's universe!!!

Once again you provide no reason to believe your crack-pottery about the interior of the earth. Thus it remains. Provide evidence or quiet down.

 

[FishFace]

Science deals with the physical. That demands different evidences.

So tell me - what evidence do you have that the interior of a locked room, or a cupboard, or a safe, or anything else you can't go inside - is physical? By your own criteria, you have to have "different evidences" to make the claim that they're physical inside. So, what evidences do you have?

Your nuclear bomb to knowledge is useless. All I need to do is get a bunch of folks to agree with me on something and I'm suddenly right? Reality changes according to what people believe?
Rubbish.

 

[dad]

No, it really isn't.

For spiritual things, yes, it is evidence. It is a fallacy to try to use the same rules for physical natural things, as for things spiritual.

Your concept is only within the box. It does not apply to the things beyond the pitiful little natural only sphere. Period.

 

[dad]

You've never seen the outside of a room you've never been in?

I have never seen the outside of a room that no one was ever in!

Doesn't matter, use something else. The inside of anything you've never seen. So let's have it again:

I have never been to heaven, but I hear the girls are fine there.

A physical interior to the earth is compatible with the data (S and P wave patterns.) So is a spiritual interior.

Great, thanks for admitting that.

A physical interior to a [locked room, cupboard you've never seen inside, locked safe] is compatible with the data (e.g. it sounds hollow.) So is a spiritual interior.

An interior on the surface of the earth was made by man. Someone was there to build it. It also assumes that man's ground, or surface is the same as the foundations of an eternal planet, when we know that the surface of the earth, from the bible, will be burned up. Not so the eternal foundations. There is a difference. You simply charge on assuming all things are equal. You can't, without real proof.

In each case, what should we believe the interior is - spiritual, physical, or pixie dust?
In each case, why should I agree with you?

If no one was there, or knows, why agree? Just admit.

It's not a question of science. The question is, "what is the inside of the earth made of?" and, "what is the inside of a locked room/locked cupboard/locked safe made of?"
In either case, what lots of people say is utterly irrelevant.

No, because we know that rooms are built by man. We know several things that we can apply. The interior of the earth, in case you forgot, was not built by man!!!!!!

I see it now! Science has to provide evidence, you just have to convince a load of gullible people to agree with you. Pity that the truth doesn't work like that! Popularity has absolutely nothing to do with the truth of something. Not that you can muster a single person who agrees with you, so I guess by your own argument, you must be wrong.

There are lots that agree that spirits are real, and many that agree the bible is right that they are below the earth.
I don't need to convince anyone to believe in the spiritual, most already do. That should tell you something.

Once again you provide no reason to believe your crack-pottery about the interior of the earth. Thus it remains. Provide evidence or quiet down.

Since you do not know what is there, you have no way of knowing what is crack pottery, or fact. God does know, so I will believe Him. You simply need to admit you know nothing about it.

 

[The Bellman]

Newsflash: Science makes all sorts of claims, are you disagreeing with them, or just unable to defend them? Claims like talked about in this thread, say, about the moon, or earth center.

Do you have a reading disability? I have repeatedly stated I am making no claims, and am not discussing claims you allege are made by someone else. Take it up with them.

My claim about what??

Your repeated claim that something exists beyond the material. You never support it, just like you have failed to support it in this thread.

I generally support them as I go.

No, you don't. You very, very rarely support any of your claims.

You are talking silly talk.
Normally, I try to be patient, because some attempt to make a point, you offer just the pure fluff, and bell ringing.

And this is another of your tactics to avoid actually supporting your claims. 'Cute' little insults and asides. I assume you think it makes you look or sound clever or smart. It doesn't.

Support your claim.

 

[Wyzaard]

Your concept is only within the box. It does not apply to the things beyond the pitiful little natural only sphere.

Welcome to the useful, bounded world of science. Now question is... why should we appeal to anything else? If cohesive scientific models and consistent supporting data tell us that the center of the earth is made of a physical substance, what need do we have to add superfluous 'spiritual stuff' into the mix at all? What's the point?

 

[FishFace]

For spiritual things, yes, it is evidence. It is a fallacy to try to use the same rules for physical natural things, as for things spiritual.

Excuse me, dad, but you've got two things wrong. Firstly, you've not established whether anything is spiritual yet, so you can't say your different rules apply without using some other rules we all agree on to establish the spiritual
Secondly, how the hemorrhaged damnation does popularity mean something is true?

Come on, dad - it's a simple enough question. Why does "lots of people think it's true" mean it is true?
If it works for your flamin' spiritual, why only the spiritual? Popularity doesn't suddenly change meaning between these two realms you know - what's good for the goose is good for the gander.

 

[FishFace]

I have never seen the outside of a room that no one was ever in!

So how does that help you? Someone else has been inside - so what? You don't know them. Answer the question.

If no one was there, or knows, why agree? Just admit.

So you admit that you don't know that the inside of a room is physical unless you go inside?

No, because we know that rooms are built by man.

How can you tell that just by looking at the outside? It's a simple enough question. By looking at the data we have - seismic waves, or the exterior of a room, what can you tell me about the inside. Can you tell me whether it's spiritual, physical or pixie dust? Just by looking at the outside.

There are lots that agree that spirits are real, and many that agree the bible is right that they are below the earth.

Show me all these people who agree with you that they are below the earth, please.

Since you do not know what is there, you have no way of knowing what is crack pottery, or fact. God does know, so I will believe Him. You simply need to admit you know nothing about it.

Oh but I do know. I know the inside of the earth is physical. I know that the inside of a safe is physical, even if I haven't looked inside. I know that the other side of the moon is physical, I know that the planets are physical. In fact, every single thing I know exists, I know is entirely physical.
I will continue to know that they are physical, because I know that no-one will ever be able to bring any evidence that they are anything but physical. It's a case of having a reason and apparently, you are never going to give one.

 

[thaumaturgy]

It is a fallacy to try to use the same rules for physical natural things, as for things spiritual.

Says who?

 

[MoonLancer]

For spiritual things, yes, it is evidence. It is a fallacy to try to use the same rules for physical natural things, as for things spiritual.

Your concept is only within the box. It does not apply to the things beyond the pitiful little natural only sphere. Period.

only one problem. Their are no rules for the spiritual or you would only be putting it in another box but a box non the less.

also its not a fallacy.

all this time you applying perfume and lace to a pile of bs, you could be learning.

without a concrete methodology to discover truth, your just turning your hopes wishs and dreams of how you want the world to work into a lie.

 

[dad]

Do you have a reading disability? I have repeatedly stated I am making no claims, and am not discussing claims you allege are made by someone else. Take it up with them.

OK, so, really, then, what is your basic point here?

Your repeated claim that something exists beyond the material. You never support it, just like you have failed to support it in this thread.

No need to. It is well known. Not an issue. Unreasonable denial is not worth addressing.

No, you don't. You very, very rarely support any of your claims.

Nonsense, you just maybe don't like spiritual support, like the bible. But since you got nothin, and offer nothin, we all do the best we can with what we do have.

And this is another of your tactics to avoid actually supporting your claims. 'Cute' little insults and asides. I assume you think it makes you look or sound clever or smart. It doesn't.

Support your claim.

It's a done deal. Deal with it. If you think you can prove most on earth have always been nuts, and there are no spirits, do so. We can use a laugh. If not, well accept the word, and experience of man through all history.

 

[dad]

Welcome to the useful, bounded world of science.

Thanks for admitting it. Some poor souls get too big for their little science britches.

Now question is... why should we appeal to anything else?

Some may not like the tiny bounds of the puny natural only???

If cohesive scientific models and consistent supporting data tell us that the center of the earth is made of a physical substance, what need do we have to add superfluous 'spiritual stuff' into the mix at all? What's the point?

If they did, we would not be talking. A wave wiggle bouncing off heaven knows what is not what you claim here. Really. Get off your cloud, and get down to the nitty gritty, of putting the hard science where you mouth is.

 

[dad]

Excuse me, dad, but you've got two things wrong. Firstly, you've not established whether anything is spiritual yet,

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

so you can't say your different rules apply without using some other rules we all agree on to establish the spiritual

True, I cannot say that it is S/P in the interior of the moon, or earth. That is simply an educated guess. So, you are not left with anything here, cause science sure falls flat on the issue.

Secondly, how the hemorrhaged damnation does popularity mean something is true?

Not popularity, but multiple tests. Billions of human test tubes bear out the results, which have been published for thousands of years now.

Come on, dad - it's a simple enough question. Why does "lots of people think it's true" mean it is true?

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

If it works for your flamin' spiritual, why only the spiritual?

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.

Popularity doesn't suddenly change meaning between these two realms you know - what's good for the goose is good for the gander.

Physical creatures do share a lot of things similar. But a spiritual goose is the one that lays the golden egg.

 

[The Bellman]

OK, so, really, then, what is your basic point here?

My only point is to get you to support your claims. You can't. You never do.

No need to. It is well known. Not an issue. Unreasonable denial is not worth addressing.

Nonsense, you just maybe don't like spiritual support, like the bible. But since you got nothin, and offer nothin, we all do the best we can with what we do have.

It's a done deal. Deal with it. If you think you can prove most on earth have always been nuts, and there are no spirits, do so. We can use a laugh. If not, well accept the word, and experience of man through all history.

And here's the standard excuses for not providing any support.

So, we're left with the same position. You postulate something beyond the material and provide zero evidence to support it...which makes your assertion worthless. Thanks for playing.

 

[dad]

So how does that help you? Someone else has been inside - so what? You don't know them. Answer the question.

Who has been inside the moon??

So you admit that you don't know that the inside of a room is physical unless you go inside?

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

How can you tell that just by looking at the outside? It's a simple enough question. By looking at the data we have - seismic waves, or the exterior of a room, what can you tell me about the inside. Can you tell me whether it's spiritual, physical or pixie dust? Just by looking at the outside.

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

Show me all these people who agree with you that they are below the earth, please.

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

Rulers of the Underworld

(Note: this includes guardian-type creatures, ghosts, and spirits such as demons, veli, and Cerberus)
(strictly only the gatekeeper), Lunda mythology Aboriginal mythology Baiame (Kamilaroi), Eingana Akkadian mythology Allu, Anu, Anunnaku, Ereshkigal, Etemmu, Gallu, Humbaba, Mamitu, Nergal, Utnapishtim Albanian mythology E Bukura e Dheut Armenian mythology Spandaramat Aztec mythologyMictlantecuhtli, Mictecacihuatl, Chalmecacihuilt, ChalmecatlBabylonian mythology Erra, Nergal, Ninlil, Sursunabu, Ur-shanabi, Utnapishtim Balinese mythology Batara Kala, Setesuyara Bon mythology gNyan Buddhist mythology Yama, Emma-O-, YanluoCanaanite mythology Mot Celtic mythology Arawn, Bean Sidhe, Cernunnos, Cwn Annwn, Gwyn ap Nudd, Latiaran, Manannan mac Lir, Midir, Morrigan, Niamh, Pwyll, Sluagh, Tethra Chinese mythology Gu(i, Yanluo Christian mythology Angels, Demons, Devil, God, Michael, Saint Peter, Satan Egyptian mythology Aken, AkerAm-heh, Amunet, Ammit, Andjety, Anubis, Apep, Apis, Astennu, Ha, Imiut (if the Imiut was ever considered a god), Isis, Mehen, Naunet, Nehebkau, Nephthys, Nun, Nut, Osiris, Ptah, Seker, Thoth Elamite mythology Jabru Etruscan mythology Charun, Culsu, Februus, Mania, Mantus, Nethuns, Tuchulcha, Vanth Finnish mythology Kalma, Kipu-Tyttö, Kivutar, Lovitar, Surma, Tuonen akka, Tuonetar, Tuoni, Vammatar Greek mythology Cerberus, Charon, Hades, Keres, Persephone, Styx, Thanatos, Tartaros Georgian mythology sasuleti Haida mythologyTa'xet, Tia Hinduism asuras, Bali, Chitragupta, devas, Durga, Naga (mythology), Rudra, Soma, Varuna, Vivasvat, Vritra, Yama Hopi mythology Kachina Ibo mythology Ala Incan mythology Supay, Vichama Indonesian mythology Dewi Shri, Ndara Inuit mythologyPana, Sedna Islamic mythology Hafaza, Huri, Iblis/Shaitan, Ifrit, Jinn, Mala'ikah, Peri Japanese mythology Hisa-Me, Hotoke, Ika-Zuchi-no-Kami, Jikininki, Shiko-Me, [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse]i Dama, Shi-Ryo, YamaKassite mythology Dur Khmer mythology Preas Eyssaur Latvian mythology Veli, Velu mate, Zemes mate Levantine mythology MotKalunga Maya mythology Xibalba Melanesian mythology (includes Fijian mythology) Degei, Ratumaibulu, Samulayo Narragansett mythology Chepi Navaho mythologyEstanatelhi Niquiran mythology Mictanteot Norse mythology Garm, Hel, Ran Orokolo mythology Kiavari Persian mythology Angra Mainyu, Azhi Dahaka, Peri Philippine mythology DemonyoPhoenician mythology Horon Phrygian mythology Men Polynesian mythology Hikuleo, Hina, Hine-nui-te-Po, Kanaloa, Kiho, Makea Tutara, Mahiuki, Mahu-ike, Marama, Mauri, Merau, Milu, Miru, Rimu, Rohe (mythology), Whiro Prussian mythology Picullus Pueblo mythology Iyatiku Roma (Gypsy) mythology
Roman mythology Cerberus, Dea Tacita, Dis Pater, Egestes, Fames, Inferi Dii, Larenta, Letum, Libitina, Mors, Pluto, Proserpina, ViduusRussian mythology Baba Yaga, Koshchei Saami mythologyYambe-akka Salish mythology Amotken Siberian mythologyChebeldei, Kul Slavic mythology Crnobog, Flins, Marzana, NyiaSumerian mythology Edimmu, Ekimmu, Endukugga, Enmesarra, Ereshkigal, Gidim, Gula, Irkalla, Kur, Namtar, Nergal, Neti, Nindukugga, Ninlil, Urshanabi, Ziusudra Syrian mythology ReshepTamil mythology Cur Thracian mythology Heros Vodou Baron Cimetière, Baron La Croix, Baron Samedi, Ghede, Maman Brigitte, Marassa Jumeaux Wagawaga mythology Tumudurere Yoruba mythology Oya Yurak mythology Nga Zuni mythologyUheponohttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Underworld

Thought I make this stuff up??

Oh but I do know. I know the inside of the earth is physical.

Be honest.

I know that the inside of a safe is physical, even if I haven't looked inside. I know that the other side of the moon is physical, ...

How about the inside of the moon?

 

[dad]

My only point is to get you to support your claims. You can't. You never do.

Well, look at the last post, for example. I listed a bunch of folks that believe in an underworld for fishface. I do try to have a real bible case. Does that count? What are you looking for?

So, we're left with the same position. You postulate something beyond the material and provide zero evidence to support it...which makes your assertion worthless. Thanks for playing.

[/QUOTE]
What kind of evidence do you want for something beyond the physical, precisely? Science? Bible? Other cultures? History? I have it all, and then some! What have you on offer? A whole lot of nothin. Well, that ain't plenty for me.

 

[dad]

only one problem. Their are no rules for the spiritual or you would only be putting it in another box but a box non the less.

Well, there is more than one box, that is the point. I do deal in reality that is greater than just the PO box, yes. Why wouldn't I??

also its not a fallacy.

It is a fallacy that natural only rules apply to the supernatural. Get serious.

all this time you applying perfume and lace to a pile of bs, you could be learning.

Give us a small little teensy taste of the sort of things I could be learning???

without a concrete methodology to discover truth, your just turning your hopes wishs and dreams of how you want the world to work into a lie.

Concrete is over rated. I like transparent gold, and rubies, and sapphires, diamonds, topaz, etc etc. Why settle for husks?

 

[The Bellman]

Well, look at the last post, for example. I listed a bunch of folks that believe in an underworld for fishface. I do try to have a real bible case. Does that count? What are you looking for?

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

What kind of evidence do you want for something beyond the physical, precisely? Science? Bible? Other cultures? History? I have it all, and then some! What have you on offer? A whole lot of nothin. Well, that ain't plenty for me.

I don't have to have anything on offer. 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.